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 84 (FPC)
BEFORE:
__________________
RE S
____________________
X City Council
And
GB [First Respondent]
DF [Second Respondent]
Re: A, B and C
_____________________
JUDGMENT
(Approved)
This is an application by X City Council for care proceedings in respect of three children, A, B and C. Their parents are GB and DF. The case has been listed for a two day contested hearing. The Local Authority is represented by Mr. L. The social worker is AD. The parents are represented by Miss H. The Children are represented by Mr. B. The Guardian is MD.
The justices have read a bundle of documents filed by the local authority together with final statements from the parents filed on the morning of the first day, and an up to date report from Dr S. It has also been shown colour photographs of the state of the property from which the children were removed.
The court has heard oral evidence from:
AD, GB, DF, MD and JS-B, Chartered Forensic Psychologist.
The Local Authority Position:
The Local Authority asks the Court to make findings in respect of the threshold criteria as set out in the document dated 17th August 2009, and subject to some agreed amendments made today.
They assert that the children have suffered significant harm whilst in the care of their parents. They assert that home conditions resulted in poor standards of hygiene and lack of safety due to clutter and filth; that their mother has been suffering from emotional problems which have prevented her from caring adequately; that parents have failed to engage and co-operate with professionals at times and not understood the concerns of child protection professionals; and as a direct result the children have failed to thrive and have all suffered substantial global developmental delay. They also say that the parents have shown little evidence of improvement in their parenting skills despite the considerable input into the family prior to the removal of the children, successful completion of the nurturing programme, the input of the contact supervisor and the advice of the social worker, and that in fact, their ability to manage contact sessions was so poor, that the number of sessions had to be reduced. They say that the children cannot wait any longer for these parents to make changes and need finality.
The Local Authority then goes on to ask the court to make final care orders in relation to all three children, as their care plan is for long term care by adoption and placement applications are also before the court. They ask that the Court dispense with the parents consent to placement. They propose annual two ways letter box contact for parents, and plan to place all three children in the same adoptive placement.
The Parents Position:
The parents began by saying they do not concede the threshold criteria. However, as the evidence has been heard it is now conceded that the majority of the document of findings on threshold is agreed, subject to some minor amendments which the parents cannot concede.
They present as a couple who wish to be considered as long term carers for all three children. They do not accept they are wholly responsible for the children’s condition on removal, and believe they have not been properly supported nor offered sufficient opportunity to learn and make changes. They want the court to give them more time to complete further parenting programmes and further sessions to learn coping strategies. They believe the children should wait whilst they make further efforts to change. It is unclear what orders they would ask the court to make at this stage, other than to refuse to make final orders, and to come back in about three months time to see if they are able to demonstrate positive change, after such input has taken place. They rely to a certain extent upon the recommendations made by the expert, JS-B and effectively are asking the Court to reject the Guardian’s view.
The Guardian:
Fully supports the Local Authority Care plan and applications for placements. She is satisfied that the parents have been given ample support and guidance by the local authority, and opportunity to change. She believes that the parents lack the necessary insight to understand the extent of harm caused to the children by their lack of care. She believes that they have neither the capacity nor the motivation to make the necessary changes within an acceptable timetable for the children.
Chronology of these proceedings:
The case was first listed on the 14th July 2009, when the children had been placed in foster care [C with one foster carer and A and B together with another] for about a week with the consent of the parents. They then withdrew their consent and the proceedings were issued. The Court has made interim care orders throughout the proceedings and there has never been a contested hearing other than this one. Fortunately the children have remained in the same foster placements throughout. Sadly the case has been re-timetabled on four occasions and it is important that the court sets out the history of the timetabling.
After the initial hearing the parties quickly identified that a forensic psychologist should be instructed in September 2009 but her report in respect of both parents was not filed until the end of December 2009. The Guardian was not allocated by CAFCASS until 2nd February 2010. The case was initially timetabled to final hearing in March 2010, but this had to be vacated due to the late allocation of a Guardian and the need for a Cognitive Assessment Report of GB dated 2nd April 2010. The next final hearing was timetabled for June 2010, but this again was vacated due to a problem with the Adoption medicals which were not ready for the panel in May. The next final hearing was timetabled for August 2010, but this was vacated as the Adoption Panel took the view that there should be further investigation of extended family members. There was a positive viability assessment of the father’s brother and his wife, but unfortunately they then withdrew, and the final hearing in October had to be further vacated until today to enable the Local Authority to return to the Adoption Panel. Hence the final hearing is not listed until the 73rd week of proceedings. To the credit of the Local Authority the same social worker has been allocated throughout the proceedings as indeed has the same contact supervisor.
Our Findings:
Threshold:
We find as facts upon which to base our decision the document as now amended at paras 5[b], 5[c] and 8[g]. We accept the parent’s arguments about attending appointments but later and an alternative venue. There is no medical evidence to controvert the medical evidence filed and so we do not accept the parent’s points at 6[c] and [e]. As to the condition of the children when they were removed, we accept the evidence of the social worker, and we take the view that the photographic evidence of the toilet demonstrates that it was in a disgusting condition and could not have been in that state for a short period of time, and so do not accept that the parents were simply waiting for a plumber. We therefore are saying that the majority of allegations set out in this document are proved to our satisfaction and the threshold criteria are clearly made out.
Orders: We do make final care orders in respect of each of the three children today.
Reasons:
We are satisfied that these children have suffered significant harm whilst in their parents care, and that it is necessary for the court to make orders today, as without such orders, the children could simply be returned to their parents care.
The children’s welfare is our paramount consideration.
We have been asked to delay making final care orders today in order to give the parents more time to complete further programmes and learn more skills, and we have decided not to do so. The reasons for that are as follows:
· This family was known to social services in another area back in 2006 as raising concerns as to the care of A.
· After moving to this area, after B and C were born, further concerns were raised by the health visitor, and the family were again offered advice and support.
· In May 2009 the local childrens centre raised concerns about the children failing to thrive.
· On 12th June 2009 the children were made subject to a child protection plan under the category of neglect.
· The parents successfully completed both a parenting assessment and a nurturing programme once the children were removed in July 2009
· The same social worker has remained throughout this case and given the parents advice and support.
· The parents have regularly attended all contact sessions, yet these sessions have had to be reduced due to their inability to manage the children’s behaviour or take on board the same advice repeatedly given by the contact supervisor who has been the same person throughout, and was fully aware of GB’s specific need for clear and repeated explanation.
Despite all of this input we have found no evidence that the parents have demonstrated any improvement in their ability to care for the children in the one and a half hour contact sessions each week.
Even though we accept that GB has borderline intellectual ability, and has made efforts to deal with her psychological and emotional trauma by completing cognitive behaviour therapy, she has been unable to put into practice when she is with the children the skills she has learned.
DF does have average intellectual ability, but shows a lack of motivation in his ability to parent the children and support GB in her learning process.
We have listened to the expert evidence of JS-B, but note that throughout she reinforced the point that any further work with these parents could take at least a further three to six months and even then that would only be an indicator of the parents ability to effect change, and that in the long term assuming rehabilitation takes place they would need a significant amount of support. She did say she would have expected to see some evidence of change before now and she was surprised to learn of the evidence given by DF about the children’s routine, which seemed to contradict her belief that in December 2009 he had accepted responsibility for conditions the children were found in, and was at a stage where he was prepared to take action and make changes.
The Guardian in this case supports the local authority care plan. She is of the belief that these parents have been provided ample opportunity to make changes starting off with family support, then through child protection and into these proceedings. She highlights the lack of insight shown by both parents in respect of the harm they have caused these three children in their early lives. She commends GB for the work she has done personally to address her own emotional issues. She has observed contact, which JS-B has not done. The Guardian has witnessed how the contact supervisor has worked. The supervisor developed a good relationship with the parents and the children, and explained using the modelling technique ways of trying to address their parenting role, but was as recently as the end of November having to repeat the information in exactly the same way after all this time.
We can find no cogent reasons to ignore the guidance of the Guardian in this case. The expert evidence of JS-B is only valid if the court can be satisfied that these parents are in fact at the contemplation stage, yet even as recently as yesterday, the evidence given seemed to continue to minimise the impact their failure as parents has had on the children’s development. Furthermore, her timescales for these parents to demonstrate capacity to change are totally unacceptable for these children.
Welfare Checklist:
Wishes and Feelings: All three children are too young for us to place much reliance upon any ascertainable wishes and feelings. They have not been overtly distressed by the reduction in contact with their parents.
Capacity of Parents;
Both experts are satisfied that these parents are still only equipped at a very basic level to parent, despite the considerable input so far since 2006, and whilst the Guardian is of the view that they lack the capacity to change, the expert JS-B takes the view that they would need considerable further long term input in order to indicate whether they can change.
Physical, emotional and educational needs:
All three children on being removed from their parents care were suffering from chronic global developmental delay, yet in their foster placements they have flourished to the point where they are thriving and are fully integrated in school and nursery respectively, as a result of a stable, nurturing environment. They have all passed their adoption medicals.
Age, sex, background and characteristics:
Three children under six are always going to pose a challenge to any parent.
Likely effect of change:
The children have spent the last eighteen months in foster care and have settled very well. However, they need now to move on to a long term placement so that a secure and stable family environment can support and maintain the development that has already taken place since July 2009. There would seem to be little evidence of distress in the children at the end of contact with their parents, and they are always eager to return to their foster carers.
Any harm suffered:
Given what we have said above, if they were to return at this point or indeed, in the next six months to their parents care, we are satisfied they would be at risk of further significant harm.
In reaching this decision we have balanced the right of the family to a private life under Article 8 with the duty of the Court to protect and safeguard the welfare of the children, and we are satisfied that these orders are both proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.
Placement:
Having made care orders, we must now move on to consider the applications for placement. The Local Authority plan is for adoption, and all three children have been approved by panel and home finding work has already commenced. A potential adoptive family has already been identified, and should everything go to plan, this move could take place in February of the New Year. In order to make placement orders we must be satisfied that is the only viable option, given that all other avenues, including placement within the extended family have been investigated.
Obviously the parents are unable to consent, and so we must find reasons to dispense with their consent to this order, and we rely upon the reasons given above in making the care orders. Whilst we do acknowledge that GB and DF love their children, they sadly do not have the capacity to provide the level of care and supervision to adequately safeguard their long term welfare. In order to promote the welfare of the children we are required to dispense with their consent and grant the applications for placement for all three children. We note that the plan for post adoption contact is for indirect two way letter box contact via letters and photographs on an annual basis.
Before a Lay Bench with Legal Adviser.
Dated: 9th and 10th December 2010.