British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family) >>
D (A Child) [2010] EWMC 66 (FPC) (2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWMC/FPC/2010/66.html
Cite as:
[2010] EWMC 66 (FPC)
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
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.
WRITTEN REASONS
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 66 (FPC)
In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court
Before:
A Lay Bench
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
Between:
|
A Local Authority
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
Ms B
|
1st Respondent
|
|
Mr S
|
2nd Respondent
|
|
Child D through his
Guardian
|
3rd Respondent
|
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Ms W
|
for
the
|
Applicant
|
Ms A
|
for the
|
1st
Respondent
|
Mr D
|
for the
|
2nd
Respondent
|
Ms W
|
for the
|
3rd
Respondent
|
Hearing dates: 20th May 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Justices’ Reasons
- This is an application for an
interim care order made by the Local Authority in respect of Child D, who
is now approaching 18 months old. His mother is in attendance and
represented, his father is not in attendance due to recently imposed bail
conditions, but was represented. We have been referred to Section 31 and
Section 38 of the Children Act 1989. In order to grant the application, we
have to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that
the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to him,
or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it
would be reasonable to expect a parent to give, pursuant to Section 31(2)
of the Children Act 1989. The point at which the threshold criteria must
be met is the date on which the Local Authority first intervened on a
statutory basis to protect the child. In this case that date is the 18 th of May 2010.
- It is not disputed that Care Orders
were made for 3 of this mother’s older children, who have since been
placed under Special Guardianship Orders. Neither is it disputed that
Child D has been in the care of his mother since he was born prematurely
and has not been on the Child Protection Register between the beginning of
August 2009 and the 22nd of January 2010. It is also accepted
by all parties that Child D is thriving in his mothers care.
- It is not disputed that the
child’s father wishes that the child remains in his mothers care provided
that this is a safe environment for him.
- When dealing with an
application for an interim care order, the court must look at the evidence
and determine whether there is potentially credible evidence and whether
it gives the court grounds for believing that the threshold criteria under
Section 31(2) exists. If there are such reasonable grounds, the court must
then consider the welfare principle set out in Section 1(3) so that it may
exercise it’s discretion as to the order to be made.
- We heard from the Social Worker
involved with Child D, the child’s mother and the child’s Guardian.
- The Social Worker provided
evidence in the form of 2 written statements dated the 18th and
19th of May 2010 and also gave evidence to the court. She told
us that she had been in her current position for the last 2 years, but the
family were known to Social Services since 1997.
- We have heard a lot of evidence
about the family situation since the beginning of 2010 as well as evidence
preceding that date. We heard that the Social Worker outline her concerns
relating to the care of the child. She said that she had concerns over:
- the written agreements that
were not always adhered to,
- mothers recent presentation,
particularly whilst under the influence of a substance,
- fathers presence at the home
with mother and child,
- mother leaving the child with
inappropriate people,
- mother’s mental health
- We heard that the first written
agreement from January 2010 asked for full engagement with Social Services
and child protection plans; engagement with NSPCC relationship work;
attending meetings and accommodating visits when required; to refrain from
drug use. We heard evidence that although Mother refused to sign the
agreement she did so 3 days later. We heard that initially there were
daily visits for the first month, which were reduced to three visits each
week. We heard from the Social Worker that the Local Authority had
concerns about Mother’s compliance with this agreement due to her lack of
engagement with Social Services by failing to attend 2 Child Protection
Conferences. We heard that bereavement counselling had been arranged for
Mother but this was turned down by Mother. There was a further agreement
between the Local Authority and Mother signed on the 7th of May 2010. After the agreement was signed, we heard that there was some
discussion expanding on the content of the agreement. The evidence that
has been presented to us is that the Local Authority wish to rely on the
content of the agreement as it is written. The Social Worker’s evidence is
that this agreement has also not been complied with particularly due to
the Child having been left with inappropriate people. We were told that
within the last 2 weeks, there have been several visits to Mothers home by
the Social Worker and there has been no response. Some of these visits we
were told were arranged visits, and some were unannounced. The lack of
response to these visits culminated in the Police attending at Social
Services request on the 17th of May to check on the Child’s
safety. We were told that the child was observed to be clean and tidy and
that there were no concerns following that visit.
- With regard to Mother’s drug
use we heard from the Social Worker that she was concerned about mothers
drug use in light of Mother’s presentation at a visit on the 7th of May 2010. During this visit we heard that mother was giggling
inappropriately and continuously and that her concept of time appeared
confused. The Social Worker gave evidence that in her opinion Mother was
under the influence of a substance. The Social Worker gave evidence that
no request was made for drug testing as a result of this incident because
of earlier tests from January and February 2010 proving inconclusive due
to mothers prescribed medication. We heard evidence that the Social Worker
discussed more sophisticated drug testing with mother but mother refused
to agree to this. The Social Worker told us that this behaviour was
directly contrary to the behaviour expected under the written agreements.
We also heard from the Social Worker that until the 18th of May
the Child had presented well. He had kept all his neo natal appointments
and health appointments. She said that until recently there had been good
engagement with Social Services. We heard evidence that until recently
there were no concerns about the Childs needs. The Social Worker gave
evidence that the Local Authority concerns regarding presentation also
related to matters raised by the childminder provided for the child. We
heard that on the10th of May the child was not ready for collection when
the childminder called. The concern was that the child was not in the
routine that he had been used to. We heard that a further concern had been
expressed by the childminder that she could not make contact on one
occasion when she called following the 10th of May. The Social
Worker gave evidence that prior to this, there had been no concerns over
the care that had been afforded to the child.
- We heard evidence that the
Local Authority were concerned about the presence of the Child’s father in
the home. The Social Worker told us that they had been told by Mother that
Father had left on the 4th of January and that Mother would not
let him return. We heard that Social Services wanted to work with Father
before he was allowed back into the home. We heard that the Social Worker
was recently informed by Father that he had been living at the home until
2 weeks ago. He heard that this information was given to the Local
Authority on the 10th of May. The Social Worker told us that
prior to this the Local Authority didn’t know of Father’s living
arrangements. We also heard that the Social Worker was told that Mother
had told her Doctor that Father had been living in the home until
February. The Social Worker also told us that since January, when
initially there were daily visits, and since February when there have been
visits 3 times each week, there has been no sign of Father at the home. He
has not been seen there and there has been no trace of him being present.
- The Social Worker told us that
there were also concerns that the Child was being left with inappropriate
people. This was an issue that was particularly raised in the written
agreement from the 7th of May. We have heard from the Social
Worker that since that date the Child had been left overnight with a
person named in the agreement that was deemed to be inappropriate so that
she could have a night out. The Social Worker was not aware that the Child
would be cared for by that person overnight. We were also told that Mother
and Child were found in the home of the specified inappropriate person on
a separate occasion.
- The Social Worker also expressed
concerns over Mother’s mental health. This was in February when Mother had
told the Social Worker that she’d told her GP that she had been having
suicidal thoughts and was advised to attend the local hospital. We heard
that Mother informed the Social Worker that she felt better and wouldn’t
attend the hospital.
- Mother did not provide any
written evidence but gave her evidence in court. In response to the
concerns expressed by the Social Worker, Mother was very clear in her
views.
- Mother told us very clearly
that she had kept to the written agreements as she was supposed to,
although she did accept that she had breached it twice this week by
failing to answer the door when the Social Worker visited. Mother told us
that she didn’t realise that everyone who attended her home had to have a
police check as part of the agreement. We hear evidence from Mother that
she had fully co-operated with everything Social Services had asked of her
within the agreements, and had been open and honest with professionals. Mother
explained that she failed to answer the door on one occasion this week
because she was asleep. She told us that the Child had been awake all
night with diarrhoea and that she too was suffering with the same
symptoms. Mother also gave evidence that later that day when the Social
Worker attended she was on the beach with the Child as if was a lovely
day. The illness we were told was a 24 hour bug. Mother told us that when
the police called looking for herself and the child she opened the door to
them and they were content with the situation. Mother told us that she
feels burdened by Social Services as they are constantly at her home.
Mother also told us that she would do as much as Social Services wanted
her to do in order to keep her son with her. Mother told us in evidence
that she was prepared to undertake any testing but did not want to undergo
drug testing where the hair would be taken from the top of the head as it
would be unsightly as it grew back. Mother did tell us that she was
prepared to undergo drug testing by a blood sample. Mother also told us
that she did not need parenting work and that she wouldn’t undertake the
NSPCC work because she was no longer a couple. Mother told us that she and
the Father were going to do that work together originally but it was
unnecessary now.
- Mother gave evidence that her
prescription medication was the only drugs that she was taking and that
these had reduced to 4 or 5 each day. We were told that on the day the
child was late and not ready for the child minder, he’d had his bottle at 6am and was not due another bottle until 10am. This was the usual routine and we were told
that he didn’t have breakfast as a rule. We were also told that due to the
lighter evenings, the child went to bed later and so woke up later. Mother
told us in evidence that she used to take drugs but no longer does so. She
told us that on the 7th of May when she was giggling in the
presence of the Social Worker, she was simply happy. She is always happy
since Father has left. She also told us that her giggling depends on
whether she is winning or losing.
- Mother accepted that she
couldn’t remember the exact date that Father left; it was either the 4th
or the 10th of January. She told us that Father had not visited
the home since that date but that she had met him whilst not in the
child’s presence. Mother told us that she had spoken wither Doctor about
Father leaving but was clear that if he has noted this to have happened in
February then he had made a mistake. Mother told us that the Guardian had
caught the Father at her house once, but that was some time ago. Mother
also gave evidence that her friend who was deemed to be inappropriate, had
told her earlier this week the Father had made threats against Mother in
breach of his bail conditions. Mother told us that she had phoned the
Police about this and they were now looking for Father. Mother told us
that she hadn’t told the Social Worker this because she knew she was in
trouble with the Social Worker for failing to answer the door, so it completely
went out of her head. Mother emphasised to us that this contact from the
Father was made to her friend, and that she has no contact with him.
- With regard to concerns over
inappropriate people calling at the home, Mother told us that she was
aware that people who stayed overnight had the have police checks, but
those who were just calling did not. Mother stated that it was only her 2
sisters who stayed overnight. Mother told us that she entered into an
agreement that certain named people were not allowed in the property. She
told us that she had taken her child to that named person’s house on the
way to the park as they live on the same street. Mother told us that when
the child was left in the care of another whilst she went out drinking,
the person deemed inappropriate was there, but the friend with care for
the Child wasn’t inappropriate and had no criminal convictions at all.
Mother told us that she believed this person would protect the child
whilst he was in her care.
- Mother confirmed that there had
been concerns over her mental health. She particularly told us about the
death of her son in August last year and how she has had to deal with
this. She told us that she felt she had dealt with this traumatic time
very well. Mother told us that her medication since this incident has
reduced significantly.
- The child’s Guardian gave
evidence in court as to her opinion in this case. She was involved with
the Care Proceeding for this child’s 3 siblings but hasn’t had any
involvement with the family between July 2008 and October 2009, when the
Special Guardianship Order application was issued. The Guardian told us
that she had only met Mother and Father at court during the last
proceedings and had not interviewed them. She confirmed to us that there
were concerns over Mothers openness and honesty but told us that the Child
thrives in his mother’s care. The Guardian told us that she had no
evidence to counter what was said by any witness regarding the use of
drugs and alcohol or about anger and violence.
- The Guardian gave evidence that
the information she had indicated that the care for this child was no
indicative of the care that was given to the other 3 children. The
Guardian reminded us that the statements say that the child is thriving in
his mother’s care until the 18th of May. We were told that the
Guardian accepts the concerns of the Social Worker, but there is
attachment between mother and child and this child particularly would have
needed a level of care over and above that which is good parenting. We
were told that there is a good attachment and that the child will suffer
if that attachment is severed in the way proposed by the Local Authority.
The Guardian told us on balance that her preferred option is to look at
what Mother can do and that something more constructive can be put in
place to safeguard the child. The Guardian told us that whilst she
accepted the concerns expressed, in her opinion, they were no sufficient
to reach threshold and did not go far enough to justify removing the child
from his mother.
- The Guardian did make it clear
to us that she was concerned by the evidence Mother had given relating to
Father making indirect threats earlier this week. She told us that she had
concerns about the violence that has been previously evidenced within this
family. The Guardian told us that in light of the recent threats of
violence made, her view is that Mother and Child should be placed in a
refuge in order to be safe from Father.
- The Guardian also told us that
she held the view that a large degree of involvement with mother by way of
education would be a beneficial way forward. We heard that NSPCC courses
relating to the effect domestic violence has on children and parenting
would be preferred. The Guardian also suggested drug and alcohol testing.
The Guardian also told us that she would prefer to see support being given
to Mother by a family member to ensure that this child is not brought up
in the same way as his older siblings.
- In turn we will address each of
the concerns of the Social Worker and those of the Guardian.
- With regard to Mothers
adherence to the written agreements, we accept mother’s evidence that she
had fully complied. We not the Social Workers statement of the 18th
of May that up until the 18th of May, mother did fully engage
with Social Services. With regards to the NSPCC relationship work we
accept that it was reasonable for mother not to engage with this as she
was no longer in a relationship.
- With regard to mother’s
presentation, particularly being under the influence of substances, we
note the Social Workers evidence that in her opinion on the 7th
of May mother presented as being under the influence of a substance.
However, no steps were taken to verify that she was under the influence of
any substance. We also note that Mother was spoken to by the Social Worker
in the presence of others which could have led to the inappropriate
giggling. There was no expression of concern regarding the care for the
child at this point.
- The Social Workers concern over
Fathers presence at the home is based on what she has been told by father.
We are of the view that Father is not reliable. We have heard evidence
that there was never any sign of Father or his belongings at the home
during any of the visits – prearranged or unannounced.
- Concerns were expressed that
Mother was leaving the child with inappropriate people. We accept mother’s
evidence that the child was only left with a person who the local
authority have accepted was appropriate, although an inappropriate person
was accepted to be present.
- With regards to Mother’s mental
health, we have heard and accept the evidence of mother that the
medication has reduced from 6 different tablets to 1 of which she takes 5
each day. She is seen by her GP every 4 weeks who clearly monitors Mothers
health. The medication would not have been reduced had Mothers mental
health been deteriorating.
- The Guardian’s concerns
particularly related to the recent breach of bail and that as a result
stated that a refuge would be most appropriate for the mother and child.
We have heard evidence from mother that there is a police marker on the
house which means that should a 999 cal be made from that property there
would be an immediate response to it. We are of the view that this makes
the house sufficiently safe for the child. The mother phoned the police
earlier this week when her she was told that the father had made threats
against her. We are satisfied that mother would do the same if Father
attended the home. We are also of the view that going to a refuge would be
very distressing for the child and that this would risk mother losing her
home and her family support. We are of the opinion that mother has
protected this child since his birth in spite of difficulties and that she
has moved on from her difficult relationship with the Father.
- For these reasons we are of the
opinion that the threshold criteria for both a care and supervision order
has not been satisfied therefore we are not able to make any order under
Section 31 or Section 38 of the Children Act 1989.