[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> L and C (Placement Application- parents not attending hearing) [2015] EWFC B49 (12 May 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B49.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B49

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT SHEFFIELD
IN THE MATTER OF [THE CHILDREN ACT 1989]
AND IN THE MATTER OF L (d.o.b. 13.11.14) and C (d.o.b. 13.11 14)

		12th May 2015

INTRODUCTION

1. I am concerned with twin girls L and C born on the 13^th of November 2014 and now therefore now 6 months of age.
2. Their mother is RG and their father is SB.
3. The Local Authority key social worker is Tom Bratton is and the Cafcass Guardian is Janet Burrows.
4. This is the Local Authority's application for care orders. The Local Authority's plan is that L and C be placed for adoption together and accordingly there are also linked applications for placement orders.
5. The parents have not actively opposed the applications but I have assumed that neither do they consent to them being made. They have not attended court for the final hearing on the 11^th and 12^th of May 2015. Their legal representatives have been unable to contact them. The parents did attend at the Issues Resolution Hearing on the 27^th of April but I am told they have failed to attend any contact over the past week on the 4^th, 6^th and 8^th of May. Several attempts were made on the first day of this hearing the 11^th of May by the parent's representatives to contact them. Phone calls were not answered. A letter was hand delivered to their home address on the evening of the 11^th of May by father's solicitor setting out the likely outcome if he failed to attend court on the 12^th of May. I adjourned this case on the 11^th of May in order to give the parents a chance to attend on the 12^th of May. They appear to have chosen not to attend. This has no doubt been a painful decision for them to come to.
6. The Local authority contends that there are no other family members who are realistic potential carers for L and C.
7. The Guardian supports the making of care and placement orders.
8. I have read the lever arch file of evidence filed. Given the parents have not attended there has been no challenge to the Local Authority evidence. Nevertheless I have still had to scrutinise the Local Authority plans and conduct the balancing exercise in deciding whether to grant the applications. I give this judgment so that the parents and others (including the children themselves in due course) may know why I have come to the decision that I have.

BACKGROUND

9. Mother has five older children. SB is not the father of any of those children. The 2 eldest live with their paternal grandmother, the other 3 have been adopted.
10. The Local Authority's case is that the parents are both young vulnerable people. Mother has a degree of learning difficulty and father's intellectual ability straddles the borderline and low average ranges. Both have experienced poor or neglectful parenting as a child and they have been assessed as being unable to provide a child with good enough, safe and consistent care.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

11. The burden lies on the Local Authority to prove the allegations which it makes. The appropriate standard of proof is the civil standard of the simple balance of probabilities. I have reminded myself of Re B (Children)[2008] UKHL 35 and particularly the speech of Baroness Hale.
12. If I find that the Threshold Criteria are met then the central issue I have to decide in relation to L and C's future is whether I should approve the Local Authority's care plan for them to be placed for adoption or whether there is any realistic route by which they might safely be placed in the care of a member of their family. In determining that issue, I bear firmly in mind that L and C's welfare is my paramount concern. I have reminded myself of the provisions of the welfare checklist at section 1(3) of the Children Act and also what is known as the "no delay principle" set out at section 1(2).
13. I approach the Local Authority's applications on the basis that the best place for any child is within his or her family of origin unless there are clear welfare grounds to prefer an alternative. In other words nature, law and common sense require that it be recognised that the best place for a child to live is with her natural family unless, exceptionally, proven and proportionate necessity otherwise demands.
14. My task is to consider whether L and C could be cared for by a member of their family to a satisfactory standard within an appropriate timescale, not whether they might be "better off" being adopted.
15. I must balance the pros and cons of each of the options being presented to me together with any other options which seem worthy of consideration.
16. If I were to approve the Local Authority's care plan for L and C, I would then be obliged to consider whether it would accord with their welfare, throughout their life, to be made the subject of placement orders. In that exercise I am guided by the welfare checklist at section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
17. If I conclude that a placement order accords with L and C's welfare, I will then have to decide whether their welfare requires me to dispense with the consent of their parents to the making of such an order. In addressing that issue I have reminded myself of the guidance set out in Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent)[2008] EWCA Civ 535.
18. It is trite law that I must be satisfied that any orders I make are a lawful, necessary, proportionate and reasonable response to the children's sad predicament. The granting of a care order, let alone endorsing a plan for adoption in L and C's case, would represent a drastic curtailment of the rights of these parents, and the children themselves under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms which can only be justified by pressing concerns for her welfare.
19. However in construing both the Convention and also domestic law I now have the assistance of the Supreme Court in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 followed by the decisions of the Court of Appeal particularly in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 but also Re P (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 963 and Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965. All of those cases firmly re-emphasise that a placement for adoption is a "very extreme thing" and a last resort" to be approved only when "nothing else will do." I have also taken into account the helpful clarification of the test to be applied in the Judgment of the Court of Appeal and the President in Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625. As the President of the Family Division said 'I wish to emphasise, with as much force as possible, that Re B-S was not intended to change and has not changed the law. Where adoption is in the child's best interests, local authorities must not shy away from seeking, nor courts from making, care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders. The fact is that there are occasions when nothing but adoption will do, and it is essential in such cases that a child's welfare should not be compromised by keeping them within their family at all costs.'




THE EVIDENCE AND MY FINDINGS

20. The evidence in this case has not been challenged. Mother's 2 eldest children live with their paternal grandmother after social care involvement and a negative parenting assessment of mother. During care proceedings relating to one of mother's other older children in 2010 mother was psychologically assessed by Professor Beal who concluded that she would need extensive and intensive support to assist her in meeting a child's very basic needs. He described mother as a vulnerable woman who has a significant learning disability. Professor Beal was of the view that her son would be at risk if he was placed in mother's care due to her poor parenting capacity and her lack of understanding of her son's immediate and long term needs. Following an assessment by an Independent Social Worker concluding that mother did not have the capacity to consistently meet her son's needs he was made the subject of Care and Placement orders.
21. Mother gave birth to twin boys in January 2011. A further parenting assessment was undertaken which concluded that mother had a poor understanding of a child's needs and development and there were concerns regarding mother's ability to form meaningful attachments to her children and her lack of emotional warmth and empathy towards them. They too were subsequently made the subject of Care and Placement Orders.
22. Although the Local Authority attempted to complete a pre-birth assessment when it was known that mother was pregnant with twins again in June 2014 and confirmed her partner, SB was the father, the parents did not co-operate. A very brief parenting assessment was completed on father which raised serious concerns regarding his parenting capacity and his history of being at risk of sexual abuse and neglect during his childhood. One example of his complete lack of understanding of children's needs was his belief that a new born baby should only be given water to drink for the first 2 to 3 weeks of life.
23. Following the birth of L and C care proceedings were immediately issued. The twins were discharged from hospital into foster care subject to Interim Care Orders.
24. The parents have an extensive history of social care involvement during their childhoods due to safeguarding concerns and neglect. Neither appears to have experienced safe and nurturing care during their formative years and the neglect they experienced is highly likely to have had a detrimental impact on their own parenting capacity and ability to recognise and respond to their children's needs.
25. Due to concerns about the parents Ms Victoria Robinson an Independent Social Worker was instructed to complete a PAMS parenting assessment, which is an assessment for parents who have a diagnosis of learning disability or where there are concerns regarding a parents functioning and low cognitive ability.
26. The parents have presented throughout the proceedings as a polite and compliant couple. They have cooperated with the proceedings and until last week consistently attended supervised contact and completed the PAMS assessment process.
27. Ms Robinson's assessment was negative. She had concerns about the parent's relationship and father's apparent controlling behaviour towards mother. Mother has, she found, extremely limited insight into the reasons why all of her children have been removed from her care. Father also lacks insight into why mother's children were removed from her care and the current concerns. Ms Robinson has significant concern in relation to the parent's overall parenting capacity. Both parents, she found, have a very poor understanding of their children's basic care needs and neither has the ability to pick up on non verbal cues. She felt neither parent has the ability to meet the children's emotional and developmental needs either together or separately. She believes the parents difficulties span the domains of the assessment framework and had significant concerns regarding the lack of practical and family support, their inappropriate housing and poor financial situation. She said the level of support needed to keep the children safe would be unachievable and unrealistic. She concludes thus: 'When considering all these factors and risks, including the couple's personal histories and their own poor experiences of being parented, I must conclude that they are highly unlikely to be able to make the required changes in a timescale that would meet their daughter's needs for permanence.'
28. The Local Authority say mother's history shows a poor understanding of child development, a lack of emotional warmth towards the children, poor ability to manage finances and day to day arrangements and an inability to meet her children's needs as they grew up. Social care hold extensive records in respect of father as he grew up including chronic neglect, deteriorating home conditions, the parent's inability to meet the children's emotional, educational and safety needs, their inability to provide a stable home, consistent care and to protect from danger, poor supervision, lack of boundaries, poor school attendance and an inability to place the children's needs above their own. There have been allegations of sexual assault of children in the family although the police have taken no further action. It is of great concern that mother and father are living with paternal grandparents and propose that L and C also live there.
29. In summary the Local Authority say the assessment of the parents shows their basic care is poor, emotional responsiveness to the children is not good and their ability to provide play and stimulation is poor. They struggle to manage their own lives and finances. Each has a sad history which impacts upon their own ability to parent. They are unlikely to be able to meet their children's developmental needs. They are unlikely to work with professionals openly and honestly – mother attempted to mislead professionals, and indeed father, about the existence of 3 of her sons and father completely failed to acknowledge the extensive social services involvement in his own childhood during the assessment. They both lack insight into the very substantial concerns that surround their ability to parent their children.
30. The parents maintain in their statements to the court that they have the capacity to offer the children good enough care and wish the court to consider an application for a residential assessment.
31. An assessment of paternal grandparents conducted by the Local Authority was also negative. Concerns were around their own history of involvement with safeguarding agencies due to their inadequate parenting capacity, poor home conditions and their ability to provide safe and nurturing care.
32. The Guardian, Janet Burrows supports the Local Authority's application for a placement order. She notes in her report that having scrutinized all matters and considered the information available to the court she is of the firm view that mother and father do not have the ability to adequately recognise and respond to their children's needs. She adds that in her opinion if the children were to be placed in their parents' care they would be at significant risk of emotional harm and physical neglect. The deficits in their parenting skills, she concludes, are wide ranging and extensive. A Residential Assessment would not provide the court with any additional information to the extensive PAMS assessment already carried out. The level of support necessary to keep the children safe if they were returned to their parents would, she agrees, be unachievable and unrealistic.
33. Having considered all the evidence in this case I have no hesitation in finding that the Threshold Criteria are met in the terms drafted by the Local Authority and which should be annexed to this judgment.
34. Having found the Threshold Criteria are met I turn to the welfare checklist and this being an application for placement I use the checklist at section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002

(a) the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision (considered in the light of the child's age and understanding),

L and C are too young to express their wishes and feelings. I am sure they would wish to be brought up by their parents if it was safe for them to be so.

(b) the child's particular needs,

L and C's overwhelming need is for safety, stability, security, love and consistency with a permanent carer.

(c) the likely effect on the child (throughout her life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person,

L and C would, of course, cease to be a member of their birth family if they were to be adopted. I note that, quite rightly given the girls are twins, it is the Local Authority's intention to seek placement for them together. Life story work and an ongoing relationship with each other would be vital to assist their understanding of their situation.

(d) the child's age, sex, background and any of the child's characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant,

L and C are 6 month old twin baby girls.

(e) any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering,

L and C are at substantial risk of suffering emotional harm and neglect in the future as a result of their parents' inability to meet their physical and emotional needs.

(f) the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including—

(i) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so,

(ii) the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the child's needs,

(iii) the wishes and feelings of any of the child's relatives, or of any such person, regarding the child.

Both father and mother love L and C. Unfortunately neither of their parents can provide them with a secure environment in which they can be safe, can develop and where their needs can fully be met. There are no other family members who can offer them the care that they need.

THE BALANCING EXERCISE IN RESPECT OF THE ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS OPEN TO THE COURT

35. In balancing the options for L and C, placement with parents, placement with paternal grandparents, residential assessment with parents, long term foster care or placement for adoption I attach weight to the professional opinions of the social worker, the Independent Social Worker and the Guardian. None of them have approached their respective recommendations lightly. Each has approached their task in a thoughtful, sensitive and child focused way. I am entirely satisfied that they have had L and C's welfare at the very heart of their considerations.
36. What are the advantages and disadvantages of placement with parents? The advantage would be that the children would be brought up in their family of origin by their birth parents. However the disadvantages are this would not provide L and C with the safe, nurturing, consistent, secure home they need. It would expose them to the very substantial risks that I have identified.
37. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a placement with paternal grandparents? The advantage would be that the children would be brought up in their family of origin. Again as in a placement with parents however the disadvantages are this would not provide L and C with the safe, nurturing, consistent, secure home they need and it would expose them to the very substantial risks that I have identified.
38. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Residential Assessment with parents? The advantage would be that the children would be with their parents and their parents care could be observed. The disadvantages are this would not provide L and C with the safe, nurturing, consistent, secure home they need and it would expose them to the very substantial risks that I have identified. It would be disruptive and add nothing to the already extensive PAMS assessment and would delay the decision making for L and C.
39. What are the advantages and disadvantages of long term foster care? The advantage would be that there might more readily be contact with parents under such an arrangement. However the disadvantages are this would not provide L and C with the secure home they quite obviously need. It carries with it uncertainty and a potential lack of permanence.
40. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a placement for adoption? The advantage would be a permanent caring home, safety, security, stability, a sense of continuity and belonging whilst still retaining knowledge of a birth family. The disadvantages for L and C are of course that adoption would to some extent sever the links with their birth family. I, of course, accept that adoption is no panacea. However I endorse the Local Authority's plan that, of course, being twins who have always been together, a placement should be found for L and C together and from everything I have read and heard about it I share the Local Authority's very real optimism that a placement, and indeed a very suitable placement that meets their needs, will be found for them.

Conclusions

41. Having considered all of the above factors, I find that L and C require a stable, secure, consistent environment together allowing them to thrive throughout their lives. They need attachment to a primary carer who can consistently meet their needs. L and C need permanence as soon as possible. I have no doubts at all that their parents love them and desperately wanted a chance to be able to care for them but L and C's welfare is my paramount consideration and having carried out a balancing exercise as I must that is abundantly best served by the making of care and placement orders.
42. In summary, I just cannot envisage the parents being in a position to offer a level of care which might come close to meeting L and C's needs as I have found them to be and to ensure they are safe and secure, even if I were to factor in intensive support from the Local Authority. I am satisfied that the prospects of a successful and enduring adoptive placement are likely to be good and that adoption offers the best way of meeting L and C's pressing needs for permanence and security. I accept the evidence of the Local authority and the Guardian that this is genuinely a case where "nothing else will do" for L and C.
43. Indeed I am satisfied that the position really is so clear that L and C's welfare demands that I dispense with the parents' consent to the making of placement orders.

Consequential Issues

44. I intend to publish this judgment on BAILLI suitably anonymised in the absence of any submissions to the contrary.

ORDERS

45. I make a care order in respect of L
46. I make a care order in respect of C
47. In relation to L and C I make placement orders and dispense with the parents consent to the making of such orders.

ANNEXE

THRESHOLD CRITERIA

The Court finds that the children - L and C

a] are likely to suffer significant harm in the form of physical and emotional harm and neglect of their physical and emotional needs; and

b] the likelihood of harm is attributable to the care likely to be given to the children if an order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them, in that:

48. Mother is a vulnerable young woman who has a degree of learning difficulty. She has experienced poor parenting as a child and as such has a poor model upon which to base her own parenting.
49. Mother has five older children:

A number of previous assessments have concluded that mother is unable to provide a child with good enough, safe and consistent care. As a result of mother 's limited parenting abilities, (The 2 older children) live with their paternal grandmother pursuant to a special guardianship order, and (the 3 other children) have been adopted.

50. Father is a vulnerable young man whose intellectual ability straddles the extremely low and borderline ranges. He has experienced neglectful parenting as a child and as such has a poor model upon which to base his own parenting.
51. Mother and Father failed to engage fully with the pre-birth assessment.
52. Mother failed to work openly and honestly with social care, midwifery and the health visiting service during the pre-birth period. She repeatedly failed to inform professionals about the births and subsequent adoption of her three youngest children.
53. Mother and Father live with the paternal grandparents. They do not understand the concerns held about how the grandparents cared for their own children
54. Home conditions are poor and not appropriate for infants to live in.
55. Father has a limited understanding of the needs of a child.