This decision is part of the Family Courts Information Pilot - please tell us how useful you found the information by participating in this brief survey.
Family Proceedings Court
B e f o r e :
Lay Justices
____________________
X Local Authority |
Applicant |
|
and |
||
T |
1st Respondent |
|
C (A child) |
2nd Respondent |
____________________
Re C____________________
Mrs A for the Respondent
Mr H for the Child
Hearing date: 16th November 2009
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
1. | The Court is concerned with an Application by X Local Authority for an Interim Care Order in respect of C aged twelve years. |
2. | The Local Authority is represented by Miss K. The mother of C, T, has been present in Court throughout these proceedings and is represented by Mrs A. |
3. | The Duty Children's Guardian was present in Court along with the Solicitor for C, Mr H. |
4. | We have been informed that C's father S is residing abroad and is aware of these proceedings. S has stated that he is unable to engage in these proceedings at this stage. |
5. | The Application for an Interim Care Order is supported by the Duty Children's Guardian. The mother is opposed to the making of such an Order. |
6. | The background to this Application is set out in considerable detail in the documents contained within the Court bundle. We do not intend to repeat the information contained in these documents at the outset of our reasons, but confirm that we have read them all prior to this hearing. The Local Authority also provided the Court with an updated chronology and a copy of the report of Dr K, Consultant Paediatrician dated 2nd November 2009. We were also provided with a further statement from C's Social Worker dated 13th November 2009. |
7. | We have also had the benefit of hearing oral testimony from C's Social Worker Mr L, Educational Psychologist Dr H, the mother and the Duty Guardian. |
8. | The Social Worker confirmed the contents of his statement which is at B1 in the Court bundle. His involvement in this matter started when he became the Social Worker for C in May 2009. He stated that he had received a referral from mother's former partner regarding the care and education provided to C. Several attempts were made to visit T at her home without success and it was at this stage that the Local Authority made Application to the Court for a Child Assessment Order which was granted on the 16th October 2009. The mother was served with notice of this Application but chose not to attend Court. The Local Authority served mother with a copy of this Order but she did not comply with the requirements. |
9. | The Social Worker attended at mother's home on 21st October 2009 with the Police and mother and C were not at home. He found that the flat was untidy, smelly and cluttered. He informed us that there was no furniture in the living room and he saw dog urine and faeces in various places. The Social Worker told us that the flat had only one bedroom and one double bed. He did not see any obvious evidence of educational materials. |
10. | On 28th October 2009 the Local Authority made Application for an Interim Care Order and again mother did not attend at Court. Consequently, an Interim Care Order was made along with a Recovery Order. The Social Worker was present on this date when C was removed from his home and placed in foster care. |
11. | We also heard from Dr H, Senior Educational Psychologist. Dr H assessed C's reading, spelling, mathematical reasoning and numerical operations. Although she accepted that her assessment was a snap-shot based on a short session with C, she found that there was a serious discrepancy between his age and his attainment level. It was accepted that C had special educational needs when he was removed from mainstream schooling, but his maths and spelling profile had deteriorated. Dr H stated that, in her opinion, C will require a high level of input from specifically trained adults. |
12. | We did not hear oral testimony from Dr K, Consultant Paediatrician, but we note that his conclusion is that C has suffered emotional neglect as a result of his Mother's lifestyle and inappropriate parenting style. He states that C would benefit from a full psychological as well as an educational psychology assessment. |
13. | We heard evidence from mother regarding the circumstances which resulted in her decision to educate C at home. We were informed that he had special educational needs from a young age and had problems with his immune system. Mother had also been concerned that C was being bullied. Despite her previous engagement with the Local Education Authority she felt unable to engage recently due to her pregnancy and intention to move house. In fact, this was the explanation she provided for her lack of cooperation with Social Services during these proceedings. Mother accepted that she had received all the Court papers but had chosen to ignore them as she intended to move from the area and did not fully understand the implications of her lack of compliance. |
14. | C's mother was keen to point out that C was not socially isolated and that he did have friends of his own age. She informed us that he has enjoyed a full and happy social life which had only stopped due to her recent change in circumstances. Miss T stated that C had a healthy diet and was not overweight. We note that we were informed C and his mother had not been registered with a GP until recently. Mother is of the opinion that C is not academic but creative, and she has tried to work on building up his confidence. |
15. | Miss T can see no reason for C not being returned to her care and requests that we consider making an Interim Supervision Order today. We are informed that the bond between them is very strong and she feels that C is suffering whilst in foster care. |
16. | We heard from the Children's Guardian that she had visited C in his foster placement and was impressed with the care provided. The Children's Guardian fully supports the Local Authority application and indicated that a staged approach to education was necessary for C. The Children's Guardian noted that, although mother had attended Court today, she had not engaged with the Local Authority or complied with Court Orders until C had been removed. The Children's Guardian is concerned that, until mother engages with the Local Authority, it will be difficult to form a full picture of C's home life. |
17. | We have considered the Welfare Checklist and we note that C wishes to return to the care of his mother. His physical, emotional and educational needs are yet to be assessed. He is currently placed with foster carers and we are told that he is not unhappy there. C is a twelve year old boy with special educational needs who was removed from mainstream schooling three years ago. |
18. | We are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that C is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to him or likely to be given to him if the order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. We think that C has suffered emotional neglect as pointed out by Dr K. |
19. | Due to her lack of engagement mother will need to undergo a period of assessment as to her ability to meet C's needs. We are urged to consider making an Interim Supervision Order but we are of the opinion that only an Interim Care Order would provide the degree of protection appropriate to C's circumstances. |
20. | We remind ourselves at the outset that the welfare of C must be our paramount consideration in determining any application for a Care Order, and that the less interventionist approach applies. We should only make an Order if it would be better than making no order at all. |
21. | We have had due regard to the Human Rights Act. With regard to Article 8 and the right to respect for private and family life, we are satisfied that the evidence produced at this hearing is sufficient for us to find that this Order is necessary and proportionate to safeguard the welfare of C. |
22. | We therefore make an Interim Care Order until 6pm 28th December 2009 |
23. | Before Lay Justices on 16th November 2009 |