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 81 (FPC)
In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
B E T W E E N:-
X CITY COUNCIL
Applicant
and
R L
1st Respondent
and
C1, C2 AND C3
(CHILDREN ACTING THROUGH CHILDREN’S GUARDIAN)
2nd/4th Respondents
____________________________________
FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 27th SEPTEMBER 2010
____________________________________
Parties: The mother is represented by Ms. L-D; the children are represented by Mr. SH and the Guardian is MD.
Background
In brief the Local Authority have been involved with the family for ten years, initially due to the older child A’s behaviour which was putting him and his siblings at risk. A was accommodated under Section 20 on 31.10.07 for respite so RL could address her alcohol misuse, spend some time with the other children, and make some improvements to the house conditions. A was returned in January 2008, after RL had made improvements and A’s behaviour had been stabilised. However, A’s behaviour quickly returned to being unsafe and so mother arranged placement with maternal grandmother in May 2008, after further assistance was given to RL to try and manage A’s behaviour.
A and the two older children in these proceedings have been on the Child Protection Register between June 2004 and September 2004 due to domestic violence, between RL and the children’s father. The family continued to be supported with a Child In Need plan until the case closed in March 2006.
The family became subject to Child in Need planning in January 2007 after concerns regarding RL’s drinking and her ex-partner attending the property and being aggressive and RL’s inability to install guidance and boundaries.
Intensive support has been offered to RL including addiction services, counselling, weekly outreach sessions with the Freedom project twice, support from FAST, Foster Care Respite, however problems still remained. The children the subject of these proceedings were placed on the child protection register in September 2008 under the category of neglect and a PLO meeting was held in the beginning of October and reviewed in November 2008, where it was found RL had not made any of the changes identified. On the 8th December 2008 RL agreed for all three children to be placed in voluntary accommodation.
Since the children have been accommodated RL has completed a detoxification programme, however there continues to be concerns regarding her own considerable emotional needs and the impact they have upon her ability to meet her children’s needs and protect them from harm. RL has been unable to make the necessary changes even with a high level of support. Maternal grandmother has been providing considerable support to RL, both financially and practically, however she is requiring more support which grandmother is unable to provide. Grandmother is unable to take over the care of all four children, as A requires additional care and her partner is disabled.
It is felt that RL will be unable to address these concerns in a time frame suitable for the children. Core assessments in relation to the three children dated 3 July 2009 conclude that “RL’s own needs prevent her from affording her children with the care and stability that they need. It is not felt that she is stable enough to offer the children good enough parenting”.
Care Plans
C1
The care plan was presented to the Fostering Panel meeting in March 2010; where the Panel went on to recommend that the care plan should be one of long term fostering. C1 has been in the care of foster carers since December 2008. She has formed positive attachments with both carers. The placement is considered to meet all of her needs and she has expressed her wish to continue to live with them on a long term basis.
C2
The care plan for long term fostering was presented to the fostering panel meeting on 12 July 2010. C2 has been in the care of foster carers since December 2008. She has consistently requested to continue to reside with her current carers until she reaches adulthood. Her carers will undergo further assessment in order to approve them as long term carers for her.
C3
From December 2008 until July 2010 C3 was placed with foster carers, who unfortunately then decided to withdraw from foster caring completely, and she had to move to her current foster placement, but has adapted well to her new surroundings. Due to her age, the Local Authority’s plan for C3 for adoption was presented to the adoption panel meeting on 8 July 2010. The allocated home finder has indicated that she was notified of 6 potential adoptive placements which have been identified from the adoption register on 14 September 2010. She reports that she has also requested Form F assessment reports to be sent to her. On 15 September 2010 she was in receipt of one Form F which she indicated was generally a good match, but she needed to check that the family were still available.
The Local Authority are optimistic that a suitable adoptive placement will be identified for C3 within a reasonable timescale. This is evidenced by the fact that in the initial home finding activity, one prospective family has already been identified, who met mother’s preferred religious belief, and who may be amenable to open contact between C3 and her sisters. Planning will be reviewed in December and if necessary the case will be returned to the Adoption Panel in January 2011.
.
Report of Doctor
As a result of concerns raised by the children’s guardian as to the possibility of the children suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome, given mother’s previous alcohol abuse, a report was commissioned from a relevant expert. The report concludes that the children do not suffer from foetal alcohol syndrome. However the doctor recommends that the children would benefit from a child psychiatrist with an interest in foetal alcohol syndrome. In addition he recommends chromosome testing for the children.
Contact
The children currently attend contact with their mother at a Family Centre for 1¼ hours duration. The girls have had separate sibling contact which has been activity based and planned and organised between the foster carers.
The proposals for contact following the making of final orders: C1 and C2 to have contact with their brother A and their grandmother 3 times per year. This would be activity based during the Christmas, Easter and Summer holiday breaks. The contact will be for 2 hours duration and be supervised by the Local Authority.
If Care orders are made, contact between the girls and their mother will be weekly for the first four weeks, and then fortnightly for the next six weeks and then there will be one contact session with all three children, and then the older two children will have contact three times per year. The contact will be activity based and supervised by the Local Authority for 2 hours during the Christmas, Easter and Summer holiday breaks from school. If a placement order is made for C3, the proposal is only for indirect contact with her mother twice a year once the direct contact sessions have come to an end.
The Local Authority have also proposed direct contact between C1, C2 and C3 3 times per year, during the Christmas, Easter and Summer holiday breaks. The contact will be activity based and supervised by the Local Authority or carers for approximately 2 hours duration. The Local Authority will endeavour to identify adoptive carers who will facilitate direct contact between C3 and her sisters.
Position of the Parties
The Local Authority seeks the final care order and final placement order in respect of C3, and final care orders in respect of C1 and C2.
The children’s guardian supports the Local Authority’s care plans. The children’s solicitor seeks leave to disclose to the Independent Reviewing Officer the Guardian’s report for future planning.
RL’s position is that she is in agreement with the care plan for long term fostering for C1 and C2. RL is not in agreement with the Local Authority’s care plan for adoption in respect of C3, and opposes the same.
All parties agree today that the threshold criteria for the making of care orders are met.
ORDERS:
We are satisfied that it is necessary to make orders in this case, and that all three children would be likely to suffer significant harm if this court does not today make the care orders that are requested by the Local Authority in respect of all three girls.
REASONS:
In reaching all of our decisions today, the welfare of each of the children is our paramount consideration. We have considered the welfare checklist in respect of each child and we are also satisfied that in making these care orders we have balanced the need to safeguard their future with the rights of the parent and children to a family life in accordance with Article 8.
We are very conscious that this family has been known to the Local Authority for ten years, and that there has been an inordinate amount of support and intervention before these care proceedings were actually instigated. We are also aware of the fact that all three children have been voluntarily accommodated for nearly two years, and it is vital that some final decisions are made to secure some stability and permanence for the girls.
RL has conceded the threshold criteria are met, and does not oppose the making of care orders, and does not today offer herself as a potential carer for any of the children. No other family members have been found to be suitable as carers for the children.
The Guardian supports the making of care orders in each case. The Guardian points out that RL has shared that she understands and accepts the Local Authority’s concerns, but has been unable to gain the inner strength to address these issues and make and sustain positive changes. Whilst RL clearly loves her children, she is unable to protect them and meet their needs, as her own needs and addiction are overwhelming.
C1
We read that C1 presents as a ‘very mature, polite, articulate, bright and pleasant young person’ who is very well settled in her long term foster home where she has made significant progress emotionally, socially and academically over the last 21 months. C1 in her letter to the Magistrates is very clear about her wishes and feelings, and given her age and maturity, we cannot ignore them. We are satisfied with the arrangements made for contact between her, her siblings and her mother, and wish her well in her long term foster placement.
C2
We read that C2 presents as a ‘happy, fun loving, polite, cheeky, humorous and pleasant child’. She too has made significant progress emotionally, socially and academically in her foster placement, but she still clearly presents as a vulnerable child with behavioural issues which stem from her past care, and which still require therapeutic input. In her letter to the Magistrates she says that if she cannot reside with her mother, she would wish to stay with her current carers. We are satisfied with the arrangements made for contact between her, her siblings, and her mother, and wish her well in her long term foster placement.
C3
We read that C3 presents as a ‘chatty, bright, cheerful, polite and playful young child.’ She has attended preschool nursery whilst in foster care from which she has benefited greatly. She has made great progress in her speech development, interaction with others, and now enjoys a stable routine. In her letter to the Magistrates she says that she is happy living with her current family, and would like to live with her mummy when her mummy is better.
In C3’s case we are now asked to consider making a placement order.
Positions of the parties:
RL opposed the making of a placement order and we have listened to submissions from all parties on this single issue. Her advocate reminds us that this is a decision that cannot be undertaken lightly, and it requires serious consideration. It is an extreme interference in family life and therefore a breach of mother’s human rights. In making a decision to place a child for adoption, the court has to consider the content of Section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and in particular:
· The likely effect on the child [throughout its life] of having ceased to be a member of the original family, and becoming an adopted person;
· The relationship the child has with other family members.
C3 is nearly 5 and has been having twice weekly contact with her mother, although that is now reduced to once a week, and saw her mother only last week. She knows who her mother is and will always remember her. She cannot possibly conceptualise the effects of adoption She does not know what it is like never to see her mother again. Also her relationship with her siblings is very important, and contact with them at the level of three times a year is not sufficient. Long term fostering is an alternative as with the other two girls, and should be considered.
The Local Authority ask the court to dispense with RL’s consent on the basis that adoption is now the best option for C3 given her age and her mothers inability to care for her permanently. They assert that C3’s welfare demands that the court make this order to facilitate the adoption process, and that the court has no other course of action. They would say that this breach of mother’s human rights is justified and proportionate in order to protect C3 from further risk of harm and ensure her well being.
The Guardian also supports the making of a placement order, and is pleased to hear the details of the prospective adoptive family.
Order :
We do make a placement order in C3’s case and dispense with RL’s consent, on the grounds that it is in C3’s best interests for this order to be made.
Reasons:
We make this order to ensure C3’s future wellbeing and continued stability, to enable her to continue to develop within a loving family in the way she has done so far in foster care. She is of an age which requires the court to consider the need to secure permanence for her future, and long term fostering does not necessarily achieve this outcome, as it can break down, which in itself could have an adverse effect.
Whilst she has some particular needs, C3 has not been as exposed to the same degree or for the same length of time, to the chaotic lifestyle and harm suffered by her siblings, and her memories of the past are limited. Initially separation from her mother will be distressing, but she will be in a supportive and loving placement throughout this painful process Equally she is at an age where she will be able to adapt more easily than the older children might to an adoptive placement.
We do treat this decision with utmost care and acknowledge how permanent its effect will be on the family as a whole. However our duty to ensure C3’ s welfare in the long term must be paramount. It is pleasing to note that initial enquiries have revealed a possible placement that will embrace continued contact with both siblings as we do accept that contact with her sisters would be ideal and beneficial to her emotional development.
We fully appreciate the magnitude of this issue and how difficult it must be for RL to consent to such a decision, and we make no judgment on her whatsoever.