England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

Miss O, the mother

1^st Respondent

Mr G, the father

2^nd Respondent

J and JL, children represented through their Children’s Guardian

3^rd Respondents

Miss G

for the

  Applicant

Mrs G

for the

 First Respondent

Mr M-S

For the

Second Respondent

Miss S

For the

Third Respondents

1.

This is an application by X Council (the Council) for care and placement orders in respect of two children, J who is now four years old and J-L who is 18 months old.  The mother of both children is Miss O (the mother) who is present at court today and the father is Mr G (the father) who is also present at court.  The father shares parental responsibility for both children with the mother.  Neither parent consents to the applications before the court but equally they do not actively oppose them.  In arriving at this decision I have been informed that the parents are bitterly disappointed at the way things have worked out but they recognise the strength of evidence against them today. The children are represented through the Children's Guardian, Miss H, who supports both applications.

2.

On 3 June 2010 I made care orders to the Council in respect of J and J-L’s siblings, D, C-L and K and approved care plans for them to be placed in long-term foster care. D and C-L are placed together and K is in a separate foster placement due to his individual needs.  Prior to that K had been living with J and J-L in the same foster home and it was hoped that those carers would be able to care for all three children on a long-term basis, possibly under a special guardianship order.  However, in February 2010 it became apparent that this placement was not meeting K’s long-term needs and that he needed to be in a placement where he was the youngest child.  Consequently, K moved to a new placement on 21 May 2010 and although J and J-L remained with the same carers it emerged that their carers were not able to apply for a special guardianship order in respect of them alone due to the financial implications of this and the impact this would have on their own children.  Consequently, the Council concluded that in order to secure long-term security and stability for J and J-L it would be in their best interests to apply for placement orders with a view to eventual adoption.  Both J and J- L were approved by the Council's adoption panel as suitable for adoption at a meeting on 30 July 2010.

3.

At the hearing on 3 June 2010 I found the threshold criteria satisfied in respect of all five children, the schedule of findings having been agreed by the parties and signed by their legal representatives on 3 December 2009.  However, I was unable to conclude the proceedings for J and J- L at that time as their cases had not been considered by the Council's adoption panel.  Nevertheless, my analysis of the welfare considerations in respect of the three oldest children is equally applicable to J and

J- L. It is not disputed that the parents dearly love all their children but they are simply unable to care for them whether individually or together either now or in the foreseeable future.  This is also that the view of the Children's Guardian (C 304 and 305).  Furthermore, there are no extended family members who are able to care for the children.

4.

J is four years old and J-L18 months old.  They are both white British and have not been introduced to any particular faith.  They both appear to be happy and settled children who share a warm relationship with each other.  Neither child has any special needs save that they both suffer from asthma which is controlled by medication. They have both been attending nursery although J will start a reception class at school in September 2010.  The children's needs are currently being met by their foster carers and the Guardian believes that their future needs require a placement within a similarly warm and nurturing family (C 303). The Guardian also feels that the next move for both J and J-L should be to a permanent family placement which can meet their needs until adulthood.  The Guardian also believes that this move should take place with the minimum of delay (C 304).  I agree.  As the parents are sadly unable to provide this level of care to either J or J-L the only order I can make is a care order to the Council which I now do.

5.

I must now consider the placement applications. As J is only 4 years old and J-L 18 months old they require a permanent, stable and loving home where all their needs can be met throughout their childhood and into adolescence. In my judgment this can only be achieved through adoption. As I have said, both children have already been considered by the Council’s adoption panel as suitable for adoption and the council have informed me that they hope to be able to place the children with an adoptive family within six months. Both children have already formed strong attachments to their current foster carers but it is hoped that this will assist them in forming equally strong attachments to their adoptive parents. However, the sooner this change of placement occurs, the easier it will be for the children to begin to form their new attachments.

6.

Neither the mother nor the father consent to placement orders being made and I can only proceed to make such an order if I dispense with their consent which I am asked to do on the grounds that the welfare of both children requires that parental agreement be dispensed with. This, of course, mirrors the test which I must apply in considering the applications generally, namely that the paramount consideration must be the welfare of J and J-L throughout their lives.

7.

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 the welfare of both children dictates that placement orders should be made so as to safeguard their future care, and that for the same reasons the consent of mother and father should be dispensed with.

8.

With regard to contact, neither J nor J-L has had contact with either of their parents since October 2009 when it was suspended due to attachment difficulties being exhibited by K.  At that time, all three children were living together and it was felt to be inappropriate for the parents to maintain direct contact to J and J-L but not to K. Even though K moved to a different foster home in May 2010 contact between the parents and J and J-L has not resumed.  The Council therefore propose that there should be a separate goodbye contact for each of the parents to J and J-L and that thereafter there should be annual indirect contact via the letterbox scheme.  To this end, paragraph 7 .1 of the care plan for J-L (CP 102) has been amended to correspond with the care plan for J (CP 108).  It is also proposed that both J and J-L will have a final goodbye contact with D and C-L and that thereafter there will be annual letterbox contact with them.  The situation with K is rather different.  Since his move to a separate foster placement in May 2010 there has been one direct contact between all three children and further such contacts are planned, hopefully on a fortnightly basis, until such time as J and J-L are placed with an adoptive family.  Thereafter, it is proposed that there will be annual letterbox contact between all three children although the Council have not ruled out the possibility of trying to find adoptive parents for J and J- L who will promote direct contact between all the siblings at some time in the future.  However, the Council believe that to try and find a family who will promote direct sibling contact now will limit the pool of potential families.

9.

I am satisfied, as is the Children's Guardian, that these arrangements are the best that can be made in the circumstances and will help meet the needs of J and J-L for information about their biological family as they grow older.

10.

I therefore dispense with the consent of mother and father and make placement orders in favour of the Council in respect of J and J-L. In doing, so I approve the care plans.

11.

Before A District Judge, Tuesday 24^th August 2010