England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

A Mother

and

A Father

and

Child M

Respondent

(Through the child’s Guardian)

The court is being asked to consider making a Care Order in relation to the child M. The Applicant in the case is X Local Authority and they are supported in their application by the child’s Guardian.

The 1^st respondent in the proceedings is the child’s mother. She does not accept that the Local Authority has established that the necessary Threshold Criteria has been met enabling the court to consider making a Care Order. Her position is that she does not want an order to be made but seeks in the alternative to persuade the court to adjourn the proceedings for a short period of time for her to undergo further assessments with a view to her securing the return of the child to her care.

The 2^nd respondent is the child’s father. He accepted the contents of the threshold document filed by the Local Authority and did not challenge it. However his initial position was that he was opposed to the making of a Care Order. His position altered on the 30 ^th October 2009 which was the 3^rd day within the final hearing when he stated that he no longer wished to oppose the Local Authority’s application.

In an application such as this the court must address its mind to the Threshold Criteria within s. 31 Children Act 1989. It must be satisfied that the child is likely to suffer significant harm and the harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to the child if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to a child. This criteria must be made out at the point at which the Local Authority first intervened on a statutory basis to protect the child, and in this case the relevant date is the 24 ^th March 2009.

The key issues in this case are whether the mother and father can prioritise the child’s needs and provide the child with a good, safe, consistent standard of care:

1. Can they abstain from using alcohol on a sustained basis?
2. Can they engage with the necessary authorities to maintain their abstinence from alcohol?
3. Can they work positively with the Local Authority in an open and constructive manner?
4. Are they able to provide suitable and permanent accommodation for a child to live in?
5. Are they able to provide the child with a home environment that is free from violence and aggression and can mother and father avoid police and ambulance call outs to their home?
6. Can they attend contact as offered?
7. What is the impact of mother’s propensity to self harm?
8. Ultimately, what is their level of commitment to the child and the child’s needs both now and in the future?

We have read all the papers filed by the parties in the proceedings and considered carefully their contents. In addition we have heard evidence in court over the course of 3 days.

To commence we heard the evidence of a worker from the Addictions Unit. She is a Key Worker for the Addictions Unit and she has confirmed the contents of her statement as being true and accurate. She tells the court that mother has not attended any appointments with her since before the 16^th April 2009 and that she offered her Antabuse to try and help with her craving for alcohol. Mother didn’t want to take Antabuse as she was not willing to change her deodorant to a non alcohol based product and she had heard that some people may experience a bad reaction to it. The witness tells us that father did not attend for appointments.

Secondly we heard from the Social Worker in the case. She filed statements dated 25^th March 2009, 31^st March 2009, 8^th May 2009 and the 21^st October 2009 and she is the author of the Core Assessment. She confirms that the Care Plan dated 17^th August 2009 proposed adoption for the child and that the Adoption Panel approved the plan and that the Local Authority’s Decision Maker ratified that conclusion.

In relation to the parent’s alcohol consumption she tells us that she is very concerned about their inability to abstain from drinking. Mother has a history of alcohol misuse spanning many years and that this was a significant feature in the previous care proceedings relating to her older children. The Social Worker confirms that mother has sought help and has been treated in Alcohol Treatment Units. She accepts that mother has tried to address her problem and that there are definitely periods of improvement. However, the key issue for the Local Authority is that mother cannot sustain her improvements and however far she makes progress there comes a point at which she relapses. The social worker informs us that as recently as the 8^th October 2009 there was an incident at the home of the parents where the police attend and record that both mother and father were intoxicated. This was an incident of domestic violence as father had grabbed mother by her throat. We have also seen evidence that as recently as the 29^th October 2009 the police are yet again called to the property and discover mother and father in a state of inebriation.

In relation to substance abuse testing we have heard evidence that mother and father failed to adhere to their agreement to commit to testing. On the 31^st March 2009 the Expectations as prepared at court and agreed by the parents were that they would abstain from alcohol and drugs, and that they would be tested twice per week at the Addictions Unit. We have confirmation from the Addictions Unit Worker that this did not take place.

The Social Worker’s evidence also addresses her concerns over mother’s episodes of self harm. On the 22^nd July 2009 mother was admitted to hospital having taken an overdose of Naproxen and alcohol. On 5^th September 2009 mother admits that she cut her wrists. On neither of these occasions would mother seek further help. On the 15 ^th October 2009 an ambulance was called to the home and mother was taken to hospital. Despite medical advice given that she should see a psychiatrist for help, she refused.

The Social Worker’s evidence also details the events leading up the parent’s eviction from their home in May 2009. From January 2009 until May 2009 there were difficulties with the tenancy as the rent was not being paid. Both mother and father had the opportunity to try and seek help and resolve the issue but despite several letters and appointments being made, the parents failed to attend and eventually lost their home. Neither mother nor father engaged with the necessary agencies to try and avoid this and did not inform the Local Authority how precarious the situation was.

This eviction rendered the parents homeless and they had to sleep rough or find accommodation in hostels until they eventually found a new home in September 2009. Therefore for a period of approximately 5 months the couple had nowhere to live. The Social Worker has visited the new home and describes it as clean and tidy but sparse. She acknowledges that the parents do have a new home which is an improvement but that it hasn’t made any difference to their behaviour. She states “they may have a new home but their behaviour hasn’t changed”. They still drink to excess.

The Social Worker is also very worried about the poor level of commitment the parents have shown towards maintaining contact with their child during these proceedings. Contact is available five times per week and yet on many occasions the parents have failed to attend contact sessions despite the child being prepared for contact. As an example, since the 1^st October 2009 to the 22^nd October 2009 there has been only one attendance. Mother has attended only 50% of the contact available and father even less. The Social Worker says she does not accept some of the excuses that the parents made and feels that they both could have made more effort. This is very sad as the Social Worker says that the quality of contact when it happens is good and that the contact recordings show positive interaction between mother and child.

Unfortunately mother failed to attend contact meetings with professionals and this behaviour reinforces the Social Worker’s view that the parents cannot demonstrate a sufficient level of commitment to the child. She is satisfied that mother has demonstrated no real change in the last 7 months, in fact, there has been a deterioration and she is firmly of the view that mother cannot parent this child even with the support of father.

We next consider the evidence of mother. She filed her last statement late on the first day of the final court hearing. Her position is that she would like a short adjournment to be further assessed and that she does not accept the Threshold Criteria.

In evidence mother admits using cannabis and drinking alcohol whilst pregnant with the child. She tells us that she was drinking lager and “binge drinking “and drinking in the pub on the 3^rd February 2009 before her antenatal appointment. When questioned about her alcohol consumption during pregnancy she admits that in the pub “I didn’t even think about what the Midwife said”. Mother failed to see how this could put the child at risk saying the fact that the child was not born with alcohol withdrawal symptoms meant she hadn’t done the child any harm. Mother also admits that she cut her wrists on the 5^th September 2009 saying at first she had scratched her wrists with her nails. She didn’t want the social workers to know and therefore did not tell the truth.

Mother also admits that she is still drinking but doesn’t like to be labelled an alcoholic and she doesn’t agree that she is ever intoxicated. However there are times during mother’s evidence when she demonstrates an understanding of her situation and takes some responsibility for her actions. She knows that the drinking is her own fault saying “no one forces it down my throat “, and she admits that the couple were evicted through their own fault because they spent the money on alcohol.

Mother is known to be taking prescribed medication to help with her anxiety and panic attacks and her mental health generally. When questioned about the effects of mixing this medication with alcohol, she states “If I have a drink, then I don’t take my medication”. From this we can see that mother’s judgement in managing her own behaviour and health is impaired and this must bring into question her ability to care for the child.

Mother was questioned why she had missed so many contact sessions with her child and her answer to this was that she didn’t count the days on which she didn’t go. The Guardian suggests that a pattern has emerged whereby the majority of missed sessions are at the end of the week. Mother’s reply is that sometimes by the end of the week she is tired as she has to catch a number of buses to the Contact Centre. She thinks that she has missed sessions for perfectly acceptable reasons, for example, medical appointments or viewing a flat. She does not accept that she has let her child down but did state that when she saw her child she found it very hard to leave the child because she loves her child and she wants to take the child home.

Mother’s relationship with social workers both historically and currently has always been uneasy. She has exhibited verbal aggression towards them, and has not always been forthcoming and honest.

Lastly we considered the evidence of the child’s Guardian. He filed 2 reports in these proceedings on the 27^th April 2009 and the 30^th July 2009. He has extensive knowledge of mother’s background having been involved with the care proceedings concerning all her previous children except one. Therefore he has known mother a very long time although he did not know father until these proceedings began.

Initially the Guardian thought that father might be able to support mother in the care of the child because father is an intelligent man who had a good job. The Guardian wanted to monitor the situation because although he was aware that father had alcohol problems he wanted to see if the couple could sustain any improvements. The Guardian is aware that alcohol is the ongoing theme in all the previous care proceedings involving mother’s children. However, the Guardian was of the view that until the eviction in May 2009 there were some positive factors present but he now echoes the view of the Local Authority that although mother can address her alcohol dependency and misuse she just cannot sustain an improvement on “any meaningful basis”. He feels that mother has so many problems of her own dealing with her own dependencies that a short period of adjournment would be “insignificant”. He states that the need is for the child to have permanency in life and the only certainty of that is for the child to be adopted.

The view of this Court is that the Local Authority has established the Threshold Criteria in almost its entirety as detailed in their document. We accept the evidence presented to us by the Local Authority and the Guardian that there has been no change indicating that either parent can safely be entrusted with the care of the child. However, at paragraph 16 on the Threshold document we are of the view that mother has been unable to “fully” acknowledge the concerns of Children’s Services in respect of her lifestyle because it is clear to us that she can take on board the need to change, the key point is that she cannot sustain it.

We would like to consider at this point those sections of the Welfare Checklist as it applies to the child.

1. Having regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, considered in the light of age and understanding.

The child is too young to express a view.

2. The child’s physical, emotional and educational needs.

The child is very vulnerable because of age and is totally reliant on the care provider to meet the child’s needs. The child requires a loving, stable, safe home environment to provide the child with consistency and a suitable routine.

3. The likely effect of any change in the child’s circumstances

There will be change for the child as the child is in a foster placement at present. The child’s need is for permanency within a family.

4. How capable is each of the parents and any other person to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting the child’s needs.

We are satisfied that neither parent can safely meet the child’s needs. In fact mother appears to have significant needs of her own and can be both a danger and a risk to herself. Her own problems are overwhelming. Sadly neither parent is able to control their own need for alcohol nor to fully comprehend its negative impact on their lives and on their ability to care for the child. There are serious concerns about mother in relation to her propensity to self harm despite her assurances that she wouldn’t do it if the child was returned to her. The level of contact between the parents and the child has decreased whilst the number of police callouts to the home has increased, most recently the day before the last court hearing. Neither party has co-operated well within the currency of these court proceedings. On 30^th October mother left court early and didn’t return and father seemed incapable yet again of giving consistent instructions to his Advocate.

In reaching our conclusions we have addressed our minds to the parties’ rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Articles 6 and 8, which allow for the right to have a fair hearing and the right of any individual to enjoy a family life. Both respondents have been represented and we are satisfied that they have had a fair and proper hearing. We respect the right of any person to conduct their family life with minimal intervention from the State, but this right is qualified by the overriding need to protect vulnerable children. In any Children Act 1989 proceedings the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration.

We have considered mother’s application to adjourn these proceedings. We have heard nothing to suggest that mother will be able to sustain an improvement in anything less than a year and even then with no certainty given the history of the last seven months. We have heard evidence from both the Social Worker and the Guardian that the outcome of adoption proceedings is more favourable and more likely to succeed, the younger the child. We are not persuaded that any further delay would be in the child’s interests.

We have considered the “No Order” principle and whether that would be applicable, however in this case the Care Order requested by X Local Authority is clearly the appropriate order.

We therefore make a Care Order to X Local Authority in respect of the child concerned and in doing so we endorse the Care Plan as provided by the Local Authority containing the recommendation that child M be placed for adoption.

A Legal Advisor was present during these proceedings