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 4 (FPC)
In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court
Before:
Lay Magistrates
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
|
X Local Authority |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Ms H the Mother |
1st Respondent |
|
T a child represented by his Children’s Guardian |
2nd Respondent |
|
|
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms K for the Applicant
Mr D for the 1st Respondent
Mr G for the 2nd Respondent
Hearing dates: 17.2.10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
|
1. |
We are considering an application by The Council for a Care Order and a Placement Order in respect of a child T who is 8 months old. T is the second child of Ms H, her first child is K who is just over 6 years old and who was made the subject of a Care Order and a Freeing Order on 14th April 2004. It was believed that T’s father was Mr H but DNA testing established that he is not T’s father. Ms H informed the Local Authority that a person called Mr M D may be T’s father; attempts have been made to locate him to give him notice of these proceedings. These attempts have not been successful and his current whereabouts are not known. In all the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed today without Mr M D having notice of them and formally dispense with this requirement.
|
2. |
Ms H has attended court today and contests the Local Authority’s applications. Ms H wants T returned to her care so that she with the assistance of her support network can demonstrate an ability to care properly for him. Ms. H had identified her uncle Mr J, his partner Ms S H and her partner Mr H as people who would support her in caring for T. Ms H’s position today quite simply is that this court does not have the full information about this support network and therefore is unable to make a fair decision. Mr D submitted on behalf of Ms H that she had had an appalling upbringing, having experienced both sexual and physical abuse and a chaotic lifestyle and this impacted upon her ability to parent a child without considerable support. Ms H’s case is that she concedes that the threshold criteria are met but asks this court not to make final orders today. Ms H would like the court to make a further interim order to allow further assessments to be carried out.
|
3. |
T himself is represented through the Children’s Guardian, Ms M who supports the Local Authority’s application. |
4. |
We have considered all the documents filed in this case which include the relevant papers from the proceedings relating to K. We have heard evidence from Ms W the co-author of the parenting and risk assessment report which can be found at pages C 41 – C 81 of the court bundle. We have also heard evidence from Ms H and the Children’s Guardian. We have also considered the parties’ submissions.
|
5. |
As stated above at the commencement of this hearing the parties presented the court with an amended document in respect of the threshold criteria. This document is annexed to these reasons and has been signed by all parties as an agreed schedule of findings. Having considered all the evidence before us like the parties we are satisfied that the threshold criteria contained in S31 of the Children Act are met in that at the time protective measures were taken T was likely to suffer significant harm and the likelihood of harm that is attributable to the care given to him or likely to be given to him not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give a child namely that T was and is likely to be at risk of suffering emotional harm and neglect. We approve the agreed schedule and make the specific findings sought.
|
6. |
We now turn to the need for an order. The background to these proceedings and detailed recordings in respect of the Local Authority’s concerns relating to T are clearly set out within the Court Bundle. The chronology for T is at pages 4 – 6c, T was made the subject of an interim care order by this court on 28.5.09 because of the risk of significant harm to him based upon the history of Ms H’s involvement with Social Care. The findings made in the proceedings relating to K were of concern to the Local Authority and when it became known that Ms H was pregnant with T attempts were made to undertake a pre-birth assessment with her. This was not possible because of Ms H’s frequent changes of address and therefore an assessment of Ms H and her partner Mr H was commenced after T was born. |
7. |
The parenting and risk assessment was terminated before it was completed due to a lack of commitment or engagement by Ms H. We heard evidence that there were three occasions in September 2009 when Ms H missed appointments, on one of these the assessor’s were contacted and informed that she was attending her doctor to undergo the DNA testing, another session was missed because Ms H was ill but no medical evidence was provided in support of this illness. We were told that had Ms H shown commitment and the assessment proceeded to a full assessment then any support networks identified by Ms H would have been explored. The author of the assessment concluded that whilst it was a partial assessment, they had gathered sufficient information to present a recommendation to the court in respect of the future care of T. In her evidence to the court the co-author of the assessment did not depart from this recommendation.
|
8. |
At page C 79 in the court bundle the assessment report at paragraph 6.2.11 concluded that there were significant concerns regarding the couple’s ability to meet T’s needs even within the limited period of a one and half hour contact session. The assessment concluded that no amount of services or support could adequately protect T if he were returned to the couples care. We are aware that Ms H made an application for an independent social work assessment which was considered on the 27.11.09 and refused by the court. The court that heard that application determined that there was sufficient evidence before the court upon which to reach a final decision. We are satisfied that whilst the report filed in respect of the parenting and risk assessment is termed a partial report it is an extensive piece of work and together with the other evidence before us we are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before us on which to make a final decision about T’s future. We accept the findings and recommendation of this assessment.
|
9. |
In this case there has also been a full psychological assessment carried out by Mr P, Consultant Clinical Psychologist. His report can be found at pages C82 – C 111 of the court bundle. This evidence was not challenged today. Mr P concluded that Mr H had not engaged appropriately and that although Ms H co-operated with the assessment he could not recommend that T be returned to the care of Ms H and Mr H. Mr P stated that there was no evidence of Ms H having been able to demonstrate fundamental and sustainable changes in her life as compared with the circumstances obtained at the time of the viability assessment or the assessments in respect of K. Mr P had no confidence in Mr H’s capacity to support Ms H in caring for T.
|
10. |
Ms M the Children’s Guardian is sadly of the same opinion as all the other professionals in this case. In her evidence Ms M confirmed that she was satisfied that both the parenting and risk assessors and the Social Worker had done all they could to encourage Ms H to commit to the assessment process and also to attending regular contact with T. Ms M could not find any fault with Social Care’s approach to this case. Having listened to the evidence given at court today her recommendation remains the same. Ms M has addressed the relevant welfare criteria in her final analysis and recommendations report. Having considered her assessment in this regard we agree with her findings and adopt them in our reasons.
|
11. |
We listened carefully to Ms H’s evidence today. What is clear to us as it is to all the professionals in this case is that she dearly loves her son T. Ms H clearly wishes T to be returned to her care and she tried to explain to us why she had not felt able to recently attend contact with T on a regular basis. It is understandable to us how upsetting she must find it to leave T after each contact session. Whilst understanding this it does demonstrate further to us the difficulty Ms H has in understanding and prioritising T’s needs above her own distress. We acknowledge the appalling circumstances surrounding Ms H’s own upbringing and how this has inevitably impacted upon her ability to parent T or any child. However, our paramount concern must be for T’s welfare now and throughout his childhood. In reaching our decision we have considered the no order principle and find that an order is necessary to safeguard and promote T’s welfare. As set out above, we are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before us on which to make a final order today. We agree with the evidence of all the professionals in this case that Ms H is unable to safely parent T. Having considered the Local Authority’s care plan we are prepared to approve this and accordingly we make a Care Order to Leeds City Council in respect of T.
|
12. |
We must now consider the placement application. As T is only 8 months old he requires a permanent stable and loving home where all his needs can be met throughout his childhood and into adolescence. In our judgment this can only be achieved by adoption. T appears to have global development delay, which manifests itself in having stiff limbs and being unable to reach for things. Investigations are ongoing as to whether there is a causal link with the developmental delay which his half-sister also experiences. Despite these health needs T has been approved as suitable for adoption by the council’s adoption panel but a suitable match may take slightly longer than normal to identify. T has already formed attachments to his current foster carers but it is believed that these can be transferred to his new carers. However, the sooner this change of placement occurs the easier it will be for him to begin to form new attachments. Ms H does not consent to the placement order being made and we can only proceed to make such an order if we dispense with her consent, which we are asked to do on the grounds that T’s welfare requires the parental agreement be dispensed with. This of course mirrors the test which we must apply in considering the application generally namely that the paramount consideration must be T’s welfare throughout his life.
|
13. |
For the reasons we have already given and applying the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 we are 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 Ms H should be dispensed with. In arriving at this decision we are aware that T will not be brought up in his birth family and will have only limited contact with them through the Council’s letter-box scheme but we are satisfied that these arrangements are the best that can be made in the circumstances and will help meet T’s needs for information about his biological family as he grows older. The Local Authority also intends to promote contact between T and K if at all possible and this will aid T with his identity as he gets older. We therefore dispense with the consent of Ms H and make a Placement Order in favour of Leeds City Council in respect of T, in doing so we approve the care plan and make no order in respect of contact.
|
14. |
In reaching our decision we have had regard to the Human Rights Act and its implications. We are satisfied that these orders are necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances of this case.
|
15. |
Heard Before Lay Magistrates on the 17.2.10. |