England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

1.

This is an Application by X City Council (the Council) for a Care Order and a Placement Order in respect of J who is five months old.  J’s mother is Ms G and J’s father is Mr M.  The father does have parental responsibility for J.  Both parents have attended at court today and are legally represented.  They do not consent to the applications but do not actively oppose them.

2.

J is represented through the Children’s Guardian, Ms E, who supports both applications.  The background to this case is fully set out in the documents submitted and in particular in the Local Authority’s case summary at CS1 - CS3 and in the detailed statement of the Social Worker dated 12 November 2009 (B1 - B10) as well as the pre-birth assessment undated which can be found at C1 - C16 of the Court Bundle.

3.

There have been previous proceedings involving the child’s seven siblings JM who is now 20 years of age, SM aged 17,  EM aged 15,  JM aged 14,  SM aged 12, CM 10 years of age and SM who is 8 years old.  Those proceedings took place before the County Court.  The documents in respect of those proceedings can be found in Section E of the Court Bundle.

4.

There were concerns about neglect, emotional harm, physical and sexual abuse.  In particular the home conditions were of concern.  There were numerous missed health appointments, overcrowding, lack of stimulation afforded to the children, concerns about the children’s behaviour and that their development was being neglected.  SM and EM were found to have been sexually abused by a neighbour and there was concern that the parents had failed to protect them.

5.

During the course of those proceedings an assessment of the parents was undertaken by the NSPCC which raised concerns that the children were at risk of significant harm in the form of neglect and emotional harm if placed in the parents’ care.  A psychological assessment was undertaken which concluded that the mother’s learning difficulties were significant and impacted greatly on her ability to parent the children.  The father could not provide primary care for the children due to his alcoholism.

6.

X Council sought and obtained a Care Order on all the children and Freeing Orders on the four youngest on 14 February 2002 in the County Court.  The Court in those proceedings found that the children suffered emotional harm, neglect, physical harm and that the parents failed to protect the three eldest children from sexual abuse.

7.

In July 2009 a referral was received that the mother was pregnant.  A pre-birth assessment was commenced on 21 July 2009 and concluded on 1 October 2009.  The pre-birth assessment did not recommend that J remain in her parents’ care upon her birth.  There were continuing concerns about the father’s continued alcohol consumption and his health.  The father did not appear to accept the concerns about his and the mother’s care of the older children until the last assessment session.  The mother’s own learning difficulties meant that she could not be a primary carer for the unborn child.  The father’s health and alcohol consumption would mean that he could not be the main carer for J.

8.

In light of the above it was felt appropriate that the baby be placed in foster care at birth which the parents agreed to.

9.

No further assessments were proposed by the Local Authority, but at a hearing on 3 December 2009 the parents were granted leave to instruct a psychologist to undertake an assessment which was due to be filed on 31 March 2010.   However by the time of a Directions hearing before this Court on 25 January 2010, concerns had arisen that the parents had not been attending contact as regularly as one would have hoped.  Given the lack of commitment shown to the contact, the Duty Children’s Guardians raised concerns with regard to the need for a psychological assessment if the parents were already showing such little commitment to attending contact.  At the Directions hearing on 25 January 2010 the solicitors representing the parents had not received any instructions in this matter at all.  The Duty Guardian gave instructions to the solicitor who represents the child today, requesting that he file an application to dismiss the previous Direction for a psychological assessment.  That matter was listed to be heard before me on 1 February 2010. 

10.

At the hearing on 1 February 2010, which was before myself the Application was made on behalf of the child that the Direction for a psychological assessment of the parents be revoked as the parents had failed to attend contact with no good reason for almost two months.  They had also not given their solicitors any instructions since December 2009.  Given the draconian nature of such an Order, Directions were given so that the parents’ solicitors could arrange for the parents to be personally served with a letter outlining that this matter was going to be heard again on 8 February 2010 at 10.00 am before myself and that their failure to attend at the next hearing and give instructions there was every likelihood that the Direction for a psychological assessment would be discharged.

12.

At the hearing on 8 February 2010, the parents failed to attend and had also failed to give their solicitors any instructions.  The parents’ solicitors confirmed to the Court and myself that the parents had been personally served with the letter advising them of the Application and of the hearing date (8 February 2010).

13.

At that hearing I confirmed that I was satisfied that the parents knew of the hearing and had chosen not to attend.  I therefore discharged the previous Direction for a psychological assessment.  The case was then timetabled to an Issues Resolution hearing on Monday

12 April 2010 at 10.00 am. That hearing could not proceed as the Children’s Guardian had only just been allocated the case and had enquiries to carry out. The hearing was adjourned until 12 May 2010.

14.

I will now go on to consider the threshold criteria in this matter.  The threshold criteria are to be found at pages 15 - 21 of the Bundle.  The threshold criteria have not been conceded by the mother or the father. They have not filed any evidence in these proceedings. Having read the documents filed in this matter and having heard the submissions of the parties, I believe that the threshold criteria have been met.  Mr M and Ms G have not sought to file any evidence in support of their case, or contrary to the matters the Local Authority to seek to rely on.  I approve the Schedule and make the Findings of Fact accordingly.  I am therefore satisfied that at the time protective action was taken J was likely to suffer significant harm in the form of emotional harm and neglect attributable to the care likely to be given to her not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

15.

I must now consider what Order, if any, to make having regard to the welfare principles in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and reminding myself above all that J’s welfare must be my paramount consideration.  I am satisfied from the evidence of the pre-birth assessment and the evidence of the previous proceedings and the parents lack of attendance at contact or engagement in the Court process that neither Ms G nor Mr M are in a position to care for J. 

16.

I have been told that the parents have not supplied information as to any extended family members who may wish to be considered as potential long term carers for J.  I have read and considered the Care Plan which can be found in the Bundle at CP4 - CP11.

17.

X Council recommends that a Care Order is the most appropriate Order and their Care Plan is for J to be placed for adoption.  I have been told that the Council’s Adoption Panel have approved J for adoption at a Panel which took place on 12 March 2010.  In my judgment J has an overriding need for stability, security and care in an environment which will meet all her needs into the future and her young age dictates that these decisions have to be made now.  There are no other family members who are able to care for J and therefore the only Order which is appropriate for me to make is a Care Order to X Council which I do.

18.

I must now deal with the Placement Application.  As J is only five months old, she requires a permanent, stable and loving home where all her needs can be met throughout her childhood and into adolescence.  In my judgment this can only be achieved through adoption.  J has already been considered by the Council’s Adoption Panel on 12 March 2010 and the Adoption Panel considered J as suitable for adoption.  Neither Ms G nor Mr M consent to the Placement Order being made and I can only proceed to make such an Order, if I dispense with their consent which I am asked to do so on the grounds that J’s welfare requires that parental agreement be dispensed with.  This, of course, mirrors the case which I must supply in considering the Application generally, namely that the paramount consideration must be J’s welfare throughout her life.

19.

For the reasons I have already given and applying the welfare checklist as set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 I am satisfied that J’s welfare dictates that a Placement Order should be made so as to safeguard her future care, and that for the same reason the consent of Ms G and Mr M should be dispensed with.

20.

In arriving at this decision I am aware that J will not be brought up in her birth family and will only have limited contact with her birth family through the Council’s Letterbox Scheme, but I am satisfied that these arrangements are the best that can be made in the circumstances and will help J’s need for information about her biological family as she grows older.

21.

I therefore dispense with the consent of Ms G and Mr M and make a Placement Order in favour of X Council in respect of J.  In doing so, I approve the Care Plan.

22.

In coming to the above decisions I have also considered Article 8 of the human Rights Act and believe the orders to be proportionate and necessary in the circumstances of this case.

23.

Heard before a District Judge on 12.5.10.