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: [2010] EWMC 2 (FPC)
In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court
Before:
District Judge (Magistrates Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
|
X Local Authority |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Miss N |
1st Respondent |
|
Mr P |
2nd Respondent |
|
(a child) |
3rd Respondent |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re T (a child)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Miss G for the Applicant
Miss H for the 1st Respondent
Miss J for the 2nd Respondent
Miss K for the 3rd Respondent
Hearing date: 14th January 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Justices’ Reasons
|
|
1. |
This is an application by the Council for care and placement orders in respect of T a male child, five months old. His mother is N who is not present at court but is legally represented. The mother does not consent to the applications but neither does she actively oppose them. T's father is P who is presently in custody but has been produced at court for this hearing. P does not have parental responsibility for T but has been joined as a party to these proceedings. He is also legally represented. T himself is represented through the Children's Guardian, who supports both applications.
|
2. |
The mother has two older children, S and R, who were the subject of public law proceedings in 2007 and have now been adopted. Both the mother and the father have a history of drug misuse and T was born with neonatal abstinence syndrome and treated for withdrawal from opiates. As a result of this and the disorganised lifestyle which the parents were leading, care proceedings were commenced and T was made the subject of an interim care order. This order has remained in force throughout and T continues to reside with foster carers.
|
3. |
At the beginning of these proceedings the mother was living with her sister but was subsequently asked to leave when drug paraphernalia was found at the house. Since then, the mother has been living in hostel accommodation. The Council carried out a pre-birth assessment of the mother (C1-6) but concluded that she had been unable to make any substantial changes to her life since the care proceedings in respect of her two older children. An assessment was also carried out by Z a substance misuse worker, and his report can be found at pages C16-32 of the bundle. Z is of the view that mother is in a particularly high risk category of drug users and that she has failed to show any real insight into the potential impact of her drug use on her parenting capacity. Furthermore, she has only limited motivation to change as a result of which Z concluded that mother poses the same risks to T as was previously considered to be the case out with her two older children. I accept this assessment.
|
4. |
Mother has not attended contact since T was 2 months old and has not responded to the social worker's telephone calls. It is clear from the report of Z that mother is not fully engaging with her treatment programme at The Addiction Unit and appears to be using a dangerous combination of street drugs on occasion.
|
5. |
Father is currently in custody. He has been a drug user for a number of years and has a long history of offending associated with this. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment for burglary in 2006 and was released, but since then he has been recalled on two occasions and his current sentence expiry date is later this year, although he hopes that he may be released earlier. Father has undergone a period of detoxification whilst in prison and is currently believed to be drug free. He has expressed a wish to stay free of drugs and gain employment on his release but he has detoxified on previous occasions only to return to drug use in the community. Father has been in custody throughout T's life and has never had contact to him.
|
6. |
It was father's initial wish that T be cared for by his parents and they were the subject of a viability assessment which can be found at pages C33-36 of the bundle. Unfortunately, that assessment was negative and since it was completed Mr P senior, the paternal grandfather, has passed away. Mrs P, the paternal grandmother has also informed the Council that she is not a position to care for T on her own. The father’s stated position in court today is that he would like these proceedings adjourning until after his release from custody so that he can then be assessed as a sole carer for his son.
|
7. |
The threshold criteria can be found at pages 3 to 5 of the bundle. Father has filed a response to these at pages 6 to 8 of the bundle in which he disputes some of the findings. Mother has not filed such a document but her solicitor, Ms H, has indicated to the court today that whilst not accepting all of the findings sought, mother accepts most of them. The stated position of both parents today is that whilst not accepting each and every finding sought by the local authority in the threshold document, they do not offer any active opposition to the schedule. I am therefore satisfied on the material before me that the threshold criteria are met in accordance with the schedule at pages 3 to 5 of the bundle and I make findings of fact accordingly. It therefore follows that at the time protective action was taken T was suffering and was likely to suffer significant harm in the form of emotional harm and neglect and that such harm was attributable to the care given to him or likely to be given to him by his parents if an order were not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.
|
8. |
I must now consider what order, if any, to make having regard to the welfare principles set out in section1 of the Children Act 1989 and reminding myself that it is T's welfare which is my paramount consideration. T is five months old and has been in foster care throughout his life. In view of his age he is clearly dependent on others for all his basic needs. Although he was born with neonatal abstinence syndrome he is no longer receiving medication but he will continue to receive paediatric oversight of the foreseeable future. Emotionally, T needs security and stability from adults capable of meeting his long-term needs as well as opportunities for play and stimulation. He is a white British child and there are no cultural issues arising in this case.
|
9. |
Mother has not attended at court today and has not provided her solicitor with any instruction for some time. Furthermore, she has not seen T since he was 2 months old. When the Children's Guardian interviewed the mother, she seemed resigned to losing T (C 43). In any event, I am satisfied from the pre-birth assessment and the report from Z, together with the historical concerns in respect of S and R that mother is not able to care for T either now or in the foreseeable future. With regard to father, he is currently in custody and is not due for release until later this year. He asks that I adjourn these proceedings to await his release but if I accede to this request T will be more than 12 months old by then. Furthermore, father has never seen T let alone had the care of him. His parenting skills are therefore unknown and would have to be assessed. He will also be returning to the community where in the past he has had great difficulty in remaining abstinent from drugs. In my judgment, therefore, there would have to be a prolonged period of time to monitor his continued abstinence from drugs before it could be deemed safe to place T in his care. Unfortunately, the clock will not stop for T. He has been with his present foster carers since birth and has formed attachments to him. These attachments can only grow stronger the longer he remains there and it will become increasingly difficult for him to form new attachments whether it be to father or to any adoptive carers if father is deemed unable to care for T himself. Unfortunately, T simply cannot wait for father to be released from custody and to demonstrate that he has the capacity not only to care for T throughout his childhood but also to remain drug free. In my judgment, decisions need to be made now about T's future care and he needs to be placed with his long-term carers as quickly as possible so that he can begin to form attachments to them.
|
10. |
Unfortunately, there are no other family members who are able to care for T and therefore the only order I can make is a care order to the Council which I now do.
|
11. |
I must now consider the placement application. As T is only 5 months old he requires a permanent, stable and loving home where all his needs can be met throughout his childhood and into adolescence. In my judgment this can only be achieved through adoption. T has already been considered by the council’s Adoption Panel as suitable for adoption and the council have informed me that there is a match with a potential family with whom he could be placed. T has already formed strong attachments to his current foster carers but it is believed that he can make the transition to alternative, permanent carers without detriment to his well being. However, the sooner this change of placement occurs, the easier it will be for him to begin to form new attachments. N does not consent to a placement order being made and I can only proceed to make such an order if I dispense with her consent which I am asked to do on the grounds that T’s welfare requires that parental agreement be dispensed with. This, of course, mirrors the test which I must apply in considering the application generally, namely that the paramount consideration must be T’s welfare throughout his life. For the reasons I have already given, and applying the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, I am satisfied that T’s welfare dictates that a placement order should be made so as to safeguard his future care, and that for the same reasons the consent of N should be dispensed with.
|
12. |
In arriving at this decision I am aware that T will not be brought up in his birth family and will have only limited contact with his birth parents through the council’s letter box scheme, but I am satisfied that these arrangements are the best that can be made in the circumstances and will help meet T’s need for information about his biological family as he grows older.
|
13. |
I therefore dispense with the consent of N and make a placement order in favour of the Council in respect of T. In doing, so I approve the care plan.
|
14. |
District Judge
|