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 60 (FPC)
In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court
Before:
Magistrates
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
|
X Local Authority |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
A |
1st Respondent |
|
C (a child) |
2nd Respondent |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re (a child)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs X |
||
Miss Y |
for the |
1st Respondent |
Miss Z |
for the |
2nd Respondent |
Hearing date: 31 August 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Justices’ Reasons
|
These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by all parties save for the 1st respondent, who does not oppose nor consent to them, such Facts and Reasons being adopted by the Court and the Court is satisfied the proposed Order is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. |
1. |
This is an application by X Local Authority (“the Council”) for a Care Order and a Placement Order in respect of C, born December 2009. C’s mother is A, and C’s father is B. The parents are not married but B does have parental responsibility for C as he is named on C’s birth certificate. |
2. |
The background for this case is fully set out in the documents submitted, and in particular, the Local Authority’s Case Summary at CS1-CS3 of the Court Bundle. C was made the subject of an Interim Care Order by this court on 11 February 2010 because of the risk of significant harm based upon the history of this matter. |
3. |
There have been previous proceedings involving C’s half sibling, D. The concerns with regard to D were that both parents have difficulty caring for themselves and had poor personal hygiene and unclean home conditions. Both parents have learning difficulties which impacted on the care that they were able to give to D. D was the subject of care proceedings and was made the subject of a Care Order and Placement Order on 27 July 2004 by a County Court. |
4. |
The current situation came to light when an anonymous referral was made to Social Care that Miss A was once again pregnant. A and B were assessed by a Family Centre, his report being read which can be found in the court Bundle at pages CH-C41. Unfortunately, the Family Centre was unable to recommend that C could remain in the care of A, and/or B. The report highlighted a number of concerns about A and B relationship, management of their finances, concerns that they had problems meeting their own care needs, let alone that of a child. There were significant concerns around A and B ability to meet a child’s basic care needs. Family Centre concluded “that there is clear evidence that this couple are unable to meet C’s needs”. |
5. |
During the course of the proceedings, A was assessed by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist confirmed that A does not suffer or show any evidence of mental illness at present. However, the psychiatrist did state in relation to A’s parenting skills that “from a mental health perspective, it is unlikely that changes in her mental health will that would then lead to a significant change in parenting skills”. |
6. |
During the course of this court case, both A and B made an application for an independent assessment of both of them. This application was heard by this court on 15 June 2010. The application for a further assessment was dismissed by this court. We have read the Justices reasons in respect of that hearing, which are contained in the Court Bundle at pages 72-74. |
7. |
For their part, since that hearing on 15 June 2010, both A and B have indicated that although they cannot agree to the applications that are currently before the court, they do not actively oppose the applications. |
8. |
We have considered whether the threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 are met. The threshold criteria and the Local Authority’s Schedule of Findings are to be found at pages 6-8 of the Bundle. Having read the documents filed in this matter and having heard the submissions of the parties, we believe that the threshold criterion has been met. The parents have not sought to file any evidence in support of their case, or contrary to the matters the Local Authority seeks to rely on. We therefore approve the Schedule of Findings and make the Findings of Fact accordingly. We attach a copy of the approved Schedule of findings to these reasons. We are therefore satisfied that at the time protective action was taken, C was likely to suffer significant emotional harm and neglect attributable to the care likely to be given to her not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. |
9. |
We must now consider what order, if any, to make having regard to the welfare principles in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and reminding ourselves above all that C’s welfare must be our paramount consideration. We are satisfied from the evidence of the assessment of Family Centre, statements of the social workers, together with the report of the psychiatrist, whose reports and evidence we fully accept, that neither A nor B are in a position for care for C. No other family members are able to care for C and therefore the only order which is appropriate for us to make is a Care Order to X Local Authority, which we do. |
10. |
We now go on to consider the application for the Placement Order. C is only eight months old, and she therefore requires a permanent stable and loving home where all her needs can be met throughout her childhood and into adolescence. It is our view that this can only be achieved through adoption. C has already been considered by the Council’s Adoption Panel as suitable for adoption, and the decision of the Adoption Panel has been ratified by the Agency decision maker. X Local Authority have confirmed that there should not be any difficulties in finding a prospective adoptive family for C. |
11. |
Neither A nor B consent to a Placement Order being made, and we can only proceed to make such an Order if we dispense with their consent, which we are asked to do on the grounds that C’s welfare requires that parental agreement be dispensed with. In considering the application generally we note that our paramount consideration must be C’s welfare throughout her life. |
12. |
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 C’s welfare dictates that a Placement Order should be made so as to safeguard her future care and therefore for the same reasons, the consent of A and B should be dispensed with |
13. |
We have considered the Local Authority’s arrangements for contact between C and her parents which is to be indirect contact via the Council’s letterbox scheme, but note of course that this will be dependent on the views of any prospective adopters. The Local Authority have also indicated that they will consider the issue of contact between C and her half sister, D, if deemed appropriate. We are satisfied that the arrangements for contact are the best that can be made in the circumstances, and will help C’s need for information about her biological family as she grows older. We therefore dispense with the consent of A and B, and make a Placement Order in favour of X Local Authority in respect of C, in doing so we approve the Care Plan. |