England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LEEDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF J [A CHILD]

		2.12.15

Introduction

1. In these proceedings I am concerned for J, dob 11.6.15 and so aged five months old. She is the child of M and F, both of whom have parental responsibility for her. J has four older siblings, none of whom live with their parents, as well as adult half-siblings who are the children of F.
2. J is in foster care and has been since she was discharged from hospital after birth. There has been an interim care order in place since the first hearing on 1 July 2015. The parents have regular contact with J and have been very dedicated at attending, the mother never having missed one and the father only missing those when he has been ill or has had to attend an appointment.
3. The local authority issued an application for a care order the day after J's birth. More recently it has issued an application for a placement order. I shall come back to the reasons for the local authority beginning court proceedings later in this judgement. The parents have been able to accept that the threshold over which the local authority has to pass if the court is to make a care order has been met, which means I have in this judgement been able to concentrate on what plans are right for J. The threshold which the parties have agreed is set out at the end of this judgment.

Background

4. There were care proceedings regarding the parents' four older children which ended in August 2014. The decision in those proceedings was that none of the children could return to the care of their parents and the plan for the two younger children was adoption. The reason the Court made that decision is set out in the threshold document agreed in those proceedings which is incorporated into the threshold document for this matter. It was noted that the father had two adult sons who had been involved in care proceedings for very similar reasons and removed from his care. In respect of the four children of these parents, it was noted there had been numerous incidents of domestic violence between them whilst the children were present in the house and on at least two occasions were directly witnessed by one of the children. The parents also misused alcohol to the detriment of their parenting. The eldest girl had suffered verbal and physical aggression from her father on numerous occasions, many of which had occurred when the father was drunk, the other children having been present on many of these occasions. The abuse she suffered caused the girl to abscond often from the family home and her school attendance was incredibly low. She also found herself taking on a significant caring and parenting role for the other children. Home conditions were also extremely poor. The parents failed to accept responsibility for the deficits in their parenting and for the significant harm suffered by the children.
5. J was conceived weeks after that hearing concluded and so when the local authority became aware of that it carried out a pre-birth assessment of the parents' ability to meet J's needs. That assessment showed no change in the ability of the parents and so the local authority decided to begin court proceedings when J was born.

The Court Proceedings

6. This matter first came before the court on 1 July of this year. The parents asked for a psychological assessment of them by a consultant psychologist, who had assessed the mother in the previous proceedings, and the court approved that. The court also approved alcohol testing in respect of the father. The case was then timetabled through to this final hearing. Since then there have been some more administrative hearings, including the court approving an update in respect of the father's alcohol use. After the expert's report was received, the court approved the local authority not carrying out a full parenting assessment given his conclusions.

The Issues and the Evidence

7. In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter. The parents decided not to oppose actively the orders as sought by the local authority, namely care and placement orders, and so I did not hear any live evidence. I did hear submissions from all the solicitors for each party.
8. The position of the local authority is supported entirely by the guardian and I am therefore going to deal with their case together. The local authority says that the concerns surrounding this family are longstanding, and a huge amount of support and assistance has been offered to the family in relation to their other children, all of whom were removed from their care in the proceedings which ended last summer. The parents were extensively assessed by the local authority in those proceedings and the specialist PAMS assessment raised a number of concerns regarding their parenting capacity, recommending a large amount of teaching. The parents failed to accept the concerns of the local authority or work with and take on advice from the professionals.
9. The consultant psychologist was instructed to complete a full psychological report on both mother and father, having prepared reports within previous proceedings in relation to the mother. Having assessed the parents fully and in the light of his previous assessment of the mother, he was unable to support J being placed in their care. He noted that the father's functioning was actually slightly poorer than the mother's and therefore he was unable to make up for her deficits. He said : "M and F continue to struggle to accept and take on board the past concerns about their parenting. They continue to attribute blame to others including their children" [E112]. He went on : "The parents lack basic knowledge and skills concerning the day to day physical, social and emotional care of a child. They would need to address the deficits identified in the previous PAMS assessment. I concluded previously that this was difficult for M to achieve and have to now state the same for F. Thus they would need ongoing support and supervision if J was returned to their care to ensure she is safe" [E113]. As to whether the parents would be able to take advice and accept support, he noted that they said they would but this was difficult to reconcile given their contradictory positions.
10. The psychologist was asked to comment upon the proposed assessment of the parents by the local authority. His view was that a PAMS assessment would be the most appropriate approach but he did not see any benefit in repeating this in view of how they presented in his assessment. The court therefore approved the local authority carrying out no further assessment.
11. As there had not been any further social work assessment, the social worker in her final statement pulled together all the information available to her when considering what would be the best outcome for J. That included her looking at the report of the psychologist as well as papers from the previous court proceedings and the pre-birth assessment, considering the notes of contact, and taking into account discussions she had had with the parents.
12. The social worker's conclusion was that the concerns the local authority had in relation to the elder children were still in existence and so the care J would receive if she were returned to the care of her parents would be the same. She noted there had been a short time only between the removal of the previous children and the mother becoming pregnant with J, giving them a limited opportunity to make significant changes needed and sustain them. The social worker was of the view that the previous PAMS assessment and the past and current assessment by the psychologist demonstrated that things had not changed and would not in the future.
13. The social worker said that, although the parents have been very committed to attending contact, there had been real difficulties with the parents not accepting guidance as to J's routine, which had caused extreme distress to J.
14. The local authority acknowledges that the father's alcohol tests during the proceedings have been negative but, given his lengthy history of alcohol misuse and the fact that he has had one relapse when under stress, says the risk of future relapses cannot be ruled out. The psychologist confirmed this, saying his long-term abuse in the past would predict that the possibility of relapse cannot be ruled out. The local authority also relies on the evidence of a social worker who knows the parents well who filed a statement saying that on 12 August 2015 she saw the mother outside a pub and the father coming out of the pub, although the parents denied this.
15. It was clear to the social worker that the parents would need extensive support and teaching if they were to have any prospect of success in meeting J's needs. She set out in her final statement the extensive areas where this would be needed. Given the assessment by the psychologist, the social worker did not believe either parent would be able to take on the learning required. She noted the psychologist had highlighted the inability of the parents to recognise the perspectives of other people which she felt would impact on their ability to engage in the necessary learning. Given the extensive support which had been offered previously when the older children were in the care of the parents, the social worker could not identify support which could be put in place which would keep J safe.
16. The social worker in her final statement looked at all the options for J before concluding that only the making of a placement order would enable all of J's needs to be met.
17. The social worker's position was very much endorsed by the guardian. She felt the parents had adopted a simplistic view of what caring for a child consists of, both thinking that it would be easier if they only had one child and that things would be alright. She too looked at the past and the current assessment by the psychologist as well as all the other evidence, concluding : "The evidence is overwhelming in suggesting that M and F are parents with a number of difficulties which impact on their ability to afford J with the care she will require if she is to reach her maximum potential." [E142]
18. In the same way the social worker did, the guardian looked at all the possible outcomes for J. Given that she concluded J could not be brought up by her parents and there was no other family member able to give J a long-term home, she agreed that adoption would be the most viable way of securing permanence given J's young age. She therefore supported the court making care and placement orders in respect of J.
19. The parents when they filed their final evidence accepted that threshold was met such that the court could make care orders, but they asked that the local authority's plans should not be approved by the Court. They wanted the opportunity to care for J at home, even if that had to be under a care order. However after the final review hearing two weeks ago, the parents spoke again with their solicitors and made the incredibly difficult decision not to offer active opposition to the making of care and placement orders, although they could not give their consent.
20. Both parents filed position statements which I have read carefully. In those statements, the parents spoke of how hard it had been to decide not to oppose the plans for J. The mother said that it was with a huge degree of personal sadness that she had come to see that, in spite of the positives she saw in the case and the desire of her and her partner to care for their daughter, she was not likely to be able to persuade the court to place J in her care. The father too said he had not reached his decision lightly, given that he would have wanted if at all possible J to be placed in their care. The parents pointed out they had worked with all the professionals during the court case and had gone to all contact sessions. The mother said that after it had been explained to her that contact needed to reduce because of the upset it was causing J, the parents had been able to listen to advice resulting in contact being able to increase again. They pointed out how everybody saw how much they loved J and how that could be seen in contact.
21. The decision not to oppose the plans the mother said had not been reached without a huge degree of thought and distress, as she wanted only what was best for her daughter, and she hoped very much J would understand one day that she had made this decision with J's best interests at heart. Her solicitor also pointed out she had very bravely been able to come to court, despite knowing the orders that would be made and without the support of her partner, because she wanted to have been involved from the beginning to the end in planning for her daughter.

The Law

22. I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of J. 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".
23. I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (above) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the options for J, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer.
24. In reaching my decision I have taken into account that J's welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I have to consider the Article 8 rights of J and of her parents as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. I am very conscious that any orders I go on to make must be in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of the children's rights and be proportionate.
25. A placement order is sought by the local authority in respect of J. The court cannot make a placement order unless the parent has consented or the court is satisfied that the parents' consent should be dispensed with. A court cannot dispense with a parent's consent unless either the parent cannot be found, or lacks capacity to give consent, or the welfare of the child "requires" consent to be dispensed with. In that context I am conscious that "requires" means what is demanded rather than what is merely optional.

Decision

26. I have to ask myself whether J can live with her parents or whether she should be adopted and I have to balance the pros and cons of each of those options. McFarlane LJ in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 said "What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options."
27. In addressing this task 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 evidence in the light of those factors.
28. If I look at the two options I have, the first is of placing J in the care of her parents. In considering that option I need to be conscious of J's needs. J is of course a very young baby with all the obvious needs of a child of her age. She needs safe, stable and consistent care, love and affection, stimulation, and protection from potential harm.
29. It is also very important to look at any harm she would be at risk of suffering and linked to that how capable her parents are of meeting her needs. Very sadly I am satisfied, given the overwhelming evidence, that J would not be safe were she to be placed with her parents. Given the evidence in particular from the psychologist, it is clear that the parents have not been able to make significant change since their older children were removed from their care and there is no prospect of them doing so in timescales appropriate for J. I say this acknowledging that the father has managed to start addressing his misuse of alcohol, it being too soon to know if he will be able to keep to this. They are in this situation not least because of their own learning difficulties which are not their fault. The parents sadly cannot see what the past problems were and would not be able to work with any kind of support package put in place to enable them to address those issues. That was very evident in the last proceedings and nothing has changed.
30. The alternative plan is for J is for her to be adopted. J is fortunate in that she has been placed with carers who are her foster carers but have already indicated a willingness to adopt her if she cannot be placed with her parents. If therefore I were to decide that she should not be in the care of her parents, there will be no change in her circumstances. It is also evident from the care she has had to date that J's needs would be well met in her current placement.
31. Obviously there are issues of real loss to J if she is placed for adoption. She will no longer be part of her birth family and will not have a meaningful relationship with her parents or with her eldest sister who remains in long-term foster care. She has had regular contact with her parents during these proceedings and also monthly contact with her sister. It is intended that contact with all of them would be gradually reduced if the plan for J was one of adoption, thereafter being replaced by indirect contact with the letter box scheme. J has not yet met any of her other siblings. The two younger children are placed for adoption and the plan is that there will hopefully be some direct contact once all the children have settled into their adoptive placements, with at least letterbox contact thereafter. It may be however that direct contact can continue, which I note is what the mother hopes will happen. J's oldest brother has significant difficulties and it seems unlikely, whether J were to live with her parents or the adopters, any contact with him now would be felt to be in the interests of either child.
32. I cannot disregard the loss of these relationships to J when I consider what is best for her in the future. I have seen how clear the love of the parents is for J during contact. The reality though is that direct contact is not likely to be in J's best interests if she is adopted, to avoid the risk of her placement being undermined. I do not think that the value of contact continuing should outweigh the value to J of being part of a permanent "forever" family which can only happen through adoption. I remind myself of the views of Black LJ in Re V [2013] EWCA Civ 913 where she 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 a child as young as J I accept the perceived wisdom that she should not be placed in long-term foster care and that her need for a permanent secure home would best be met by an adoptive placement if she cannot live with her parents.
33. In this case, having carried out the balancing exercise that I must, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of J being returned safely to her parents' care, and that her 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 J is a proportionate interference in her family life and (in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002) in her best welfare interests. I therefore make a care order, approving the local authority's plans including in relation to contact. Further, having concluded that J's welfare requires me to dispense with the parents' consent to placing her for adoption, the word "require" here again having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, "the connotation of the imperative", I make a placement order authorising the local authority to place J for adoption.
34. 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 and heard in court, 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 J up. I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment must be released by the Local Authority to J's adopters so that it is available to her in future life; that release however is on the basis that it should not be disclosed beyond them or any medical or therapeutic staff working with the child or family. It is very important therefore that the judgment is passed on to the Adoption Team to give to them. I have written this not for the benefit of the adults but for the children and wish to be sure it reaches them.
35. Finally I also make orders reserving any future applications in relation to J to myself and for public funding assessment for all the respondents in this matter. I hope that my reasons as given are sufficient but if the advocates require any further detail to be given I would ask them to let me know.
THRESHOLD

There are reasonable grounds for believing that J is at risk of suffering significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care likely to be given to her by M and F not being what would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

This is evidenced by the following findings :

36. In July 2014 the parents agreed and the Court found the following facts in respect of the proceedings in relation to the parents' elder children

a. F has two older children, now adults, who were the subject of care proceedings and child protection plans.

b. There have been numerous incidents of domestic violence between the parents (involving frequent very heated verbal arguments, pushing and shoving between the parents and physical violence on at least one occasion). These incidents occurred whilst the children were present in the house and on at least two occasions were directly witnessed by the oldest girl.

c. The parents misused alcohol to the detriment of their parenting.

d. The oldest girl has suffered verbal and physical aggression from the father on numerous occasions, many of which have occurred whilst the father has been in drink. The other children have been present on many of these occasions.

e. The parents failed to accept responsibility for the deficits in their parenting and for the significant harm suffered by the children. The father has, on at least two occasions, told the oldest girl that the family would be better off if she were placed in care.

f. The oldest girl often absconds from the family home. She has reported to the Local Authority that the reason she absconds is because she cannot tolerate the verbal abuse she is subjected to.

g. The oldest girl's school attendance since September 2013 has been only 15-20%.

h. The younger two children are under stimulated within the home.

i. The oldest girl has had to take on a significant caring and parenting role for the younger children and also for her elder half brother.

j. The home conditions have been extremely poor; any improvements have not been sustained.

The parents' three children were subsequently made the subject of care orders, the younger children also being made subject to placement orders.

37. The parents have little insight or understanding into the concerns of the local authority.
38. The parents' attitudes and opinions regarding their parenting, and any deficits, remain unchanged since the previous proceedings, although the parents assert that they are good enough.
39. The parents continue to place blame upon others as to the reason why their children are not in their care, particularly their oldest daughter.
40. The mother's reasoning abilities are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future and are unlikely to respond to training. The father's functioning is slightly lower than the mother's and he is unable to bridge any gaps in her parenting.
41. The father has suffered with episodes of excessive drinking for the last twenty years.