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.
The written reasons are being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report, no person may be identified by name or location (Other than a person identified by name in the reasons themselves) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWMC 3 (FPC)
In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court
Before:
District Judge
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
|
X Local Authority |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Mother, J |
1st Respondent |
|
Father, T |
2nd Respondent |
|
M ( a child) |
3rd Respondent |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re M
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Miss A for the Applicant
Miss G for the 1st & 2nd Respondents
Mrs A For the 3rd Respondent
Hearing date: 18th November 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Justices’ Reasons
|
|
1. |
I am dealing with an application made by X Local Authority, originally for a Care Order in relation to M, a female child, born on [a date]. X Local Authority, in its care plan, asks the court to make Special Guardianship Orders to maternal aunt and uncle and a Supervision Order for a period of one year.
|
2. |
M’s parents both attended court today and are represented.
|
3. |
The concerns of X Local Authority are contained in the documents filed within the court bundle and in particular the agreed Schedule of Findings attached hereto. I approve the Schedule and make findings of fact accordingly.
|
4. |
X Local Authority has had involvement with mother since 2001 regarding her care of her children. Care proceedings were instigated in May 2007 in respect of M’s three older half siblings. Following the conclusion of care proceedings in December 2007, two of those half siblings were made the subject of Special Guardianship Orders in favour of maternal aunt and uncle. The other half sibling resides with another maternal aunt and uncle who were granted a Special Guardianship Order in December 2008 coupled with a twelve month Supervision Order.
|
5. |
X Local Authority commenced care proceedings in respect of M because of the harm that may have been caused by mother taking heroin during her pregnancy. M was placed in the neonatal unit after her birth as she was displaying symptoms associated with heroin withdrawal and was treated with oromorph, a form of morphine. Following M’s discharge from hospital she was placed with local authority foster carers whilst assessments of her parents were undertaken.
|
6. |
A parenting and risk assessment by A Family Centre, dated 17th December 2008, recommended that M is not returned to her parents’ care and that she be found a permanent alternative placement. An assessment of the couple’s substance misuse was undertaken and the report dated 28th November 2008 was of the view that the risk of lapse/relapse remains relatively high and that any return to drug use is likely to have a detrimental impact upon their parenting capacity.
|
7. |
Following the negative assessments of the parents X Local Authority undertook a viability assessment of maternal aunt and uncle who live out of the area and care for one of M’s half siblings. M was placed with them on 27th March 2009 and has continued to remain in placement.
|
8. |
I have read all the documents file in the care proceedings including the Care Plan dated 25th February 2009, revised care plan dated 15th July 2009 following M’s move out of the area, Special Guardianship Report and the reports of the Children’s Guardian.
|
10. |
I note the Children’s Guardian supports the Local Authority in its application for Special Guardianship Orders to maternal aunt and uncle and a Supervision Order for a period of one year.
|
11. |
Both parents have indicated that they agree to M’s placement with her maternal aunt and uncle out of the area and do not oppose the orders sought by X Local Authority.
|
12. |
I now consider the form of order, if any, which I should make in these proceedings. In reaching my decision I have considered the welfare checklist as I am so required by the Children Act 1989. In my considerations I have studied the reports of the Children’s Guardian and her observations on the checklist. I adopt the same in its entirety.
|
13. |
Having considered all the evidence in the case and all the documents and applied the welfare principle, I therefore make Special Guardianship Orders to maternal aunt and uncle, both of whom attend today. I also make a Supervision Order for a period of one year. In making these orders I endorse the care plan for M, which has been amended to take into account issues such as the funding of parents’ travel costs and special guardians’ legal costs.
|
14. |
In reaching my decision I confirm that I have considered the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am aware that the orders I have made engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to family life. However I do consider the interventions and applications of X Local Authority, appropriate, legitimate and proportionate in promoting the welfare of M.
|
15. |
I approve the care plan as amended.
|
16. |
Before a District Judge 18th November 2009 |
17. |
AGREED SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS Dated 18th May 2009 |
18. |
The Local Authority contends that at the time proceedings were issued, they believed the child is likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to her not being what it would be reasonable for a parent to give a child in satisfaction of the threshold criteria pursuant to Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. That harm consists of emotional harm and neglect.
|
19. |
(1) In May 2007, care proceedings were commenced in respect of M’s three half siblings. S (a female child), M’s half sibling resides with her maternal aunt and uncle. C (a male child), and X (a female child) reside with another maternal aunt and uncle. Care proceedings were commenced due to the following concerns: 1.1 Mother’s drug misuse over a number of years, including heroin. Mother accepts this adversely affected the children 1.2 Mother has spent several periods in prison for driving offences and for handling stolen goods, the last occasion being May 2007. This resulted in the children being placed with alternative carers and an unsettled lifestyle. 1.3 The children were left unsupervised with inappropriate carers and different carers leading to instability in their upbringing. 1.4 The children were found at times in a “dirty and unkempt condition”. 1.5 The home conditions of the children had at times been chaotic, untidy and dirty. 1.6 Mother has been unwilling to engage with the support offered by Social Care.
|
20 |
(2) Since the conclusion of the care proceedings in respect of M’s three half siblings in December 2007, the parents’ drug misuse remains a significant concern. 2.1 Throughout the pre-birth assessment Mother stated she was drug-free. However, when M was born three weeks premature and was found at birth to have medical problems, Mother disclosed that she had smoked heroin on five consecutive days during the latter stages of her pregnancy. 2.2 Father continued to use illicit drugs on top of his methadone. He tested positive for opiates and cocaine up until July 2008. |