England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

Ms R

1^st Respondent

Mr W

2^nd Respondent

M(a child through the Children’s Guardian)

3^rd Respondent

Mr L of counsel

for the

  Applicant

Ms H, solicitor

for the

 1st Respondent

No legal representative

for the

2^nd Respondent

Ms S, solicitor

for the

3^rd Respondent

These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by all parties save for the first and second respondents, who do not oppose nor consent to them, such Facts and Reasons being adopted by the Court and the Court is satisfied the proposed orders are appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

1.

I am considering applications by X Council for a care order and a placement order in respect of M who is 16 months old.  M’s parents are R and W who share parental responsibility for their son.

2.

Ms R has not attended court she has chosen instead to attend a re-arranged contact session with her son which is understandable.  At court today she is however, represented by Ms H who has been able to take her client’s instructions over the telephone on various issues that have arisen at this hearing.  I am satisfied Ms R is fully aware of the nature of this hearing and the likely outcome and I am prepared to proceed to finalize this matter in her absence.

3.

Mr W has not attended court nor is he represented.  He participated in the early stages of these proceedings and was represented however he has played no recent part in the proceedings and given his solicitor no recent instructions.  On the 4.5.10 his solicitor was removed from the court record and he is therefore no longer represented.  As a result of confusion with the court allocated dates for this hearing notification was sent to Mr W by the court confirming that the case would be dealt with on the 14^th and 15^th July 2010 when the case is actually listed for today the 13^th July 2010.  The parties urge me to continue with this hearing and make final orders in respect of M in Mr W’s absence.  I have been told of the numerous attempts made by the social worker to contact Mr W.  I have been told of the efforts made by the Children’s Guardian to try to ascertain his view in respect of the Local Authority’s proposals for his son.  Despite numerous efforts no one has had any recent contact with M’s father.  Although the court notification sent to him shows tomorrow’s date I have before me copies of two more recent letters sent to Mr W by the Local Authority.  These letters were sent to him at his last known address.  The first letter was sent on the 29^th June 2010 explaining that further court papers were available to him and asking him to make urgent contact with the Social Worker to discuss the ongoing court proceedings.  The second letter was sent on the 2^nd July 2010 and clearly notified Mr W that the court hearing was to commence today the 13^th July 2010.  It set out the place and time for the court hearing and told Mr W that he should attend court because the Local Authority would be seeking orders in respect of his child on that date.  The letter re-iterated that he should also make urgent contact with the social worker to discuss the case and arrange for collection of recent court papers.  As a result of the above information, the considerable number of attempts made to try to get Mr W to re-engage with Social Care and the court process, his lack of attendance at court hearings, his lack of co-operation with his own legal representative and his total lack of commitment to M I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed with this case in his absence today.  I am satisfied that details of today’s court hearing together the implications of him not attending have been sent to Mr W’s last known address.  I am therefore satisfied that all possible attempts have been made to give him notice of this hearing and that he has chosen not to attend.

4.

The Children’s Guardian is Mr G who attends court and is represented by Ms S.  The Guardian has prepared a combined report in this case dated the 23^rd June 2010.  The Guardian fully supports the Local Authority’s plans for M and supports the applications before me today.

5.

The case was originally commenced before Lay Magistrates in the morning court session.  As indicated above, confusion occurred in respect of the court hearing date and therefore the parties needed some time to consider whether the matter could proceed today, whether Mr W had been notified of today’s hearing, whether an agreement could be reached in respect of the threshold criteria and whether Ms H was able to contact her client to take her full instructions.  The matter was therefore stood-down until the afternoon court session when it came before me on an un-opposed basis with Ms H having contacted her client and obtained her full instructions over the telephone.

6.

I have read the documents filed in this case and listened to the parties submissions.

7.

The schedule of findings sought in respect of the threshold criteria is agreed by the parties present and court.  There has been no statement filed in this regard by Mr W.  Having considered the unchallenged evidence contained in the documents filed in this case I am satisfied that the threshold criteria contained in S31 of the Children Act 1980 are met namely that there are reasonable grounds for believing that at the time when protective measures were taken the child was suffering or was 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 him not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him.  M’s physical needs were neglected and he was placed at the risk of harm.  I approve the amended agreed schedule annexed to this judgment (paragraph 22) and make the specific findings sought therein.

8.

I must now turn to the need for an order.  In reaching my decision I have considered as I must all relevant welfare criteria as is required of me by the Children Act.  I remind myself that it is M’s welfare that must be my paramount concern and that I must only make an order if his welfare requires it.

9.

The history of Social Care’s involvement with this family is fully set out in the documents filed in this case and I do not propose to re-hearse that evidence in this judgment. 

10.

There have been a number of assessments in this case.  M has difficulties with respect to his development and his health and he was assessed by a multi-disciplinary team on the 24.2.10.  The team concluded that at the age of almost one M’s skills were at the level expected of a child aged approximately 6 months.  A plan was made to promote M’s development via input including physiotherapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy.  M has had recurrent chest problems.  He has poor hearing which is the subject of on-going monitoring.  A paediatrician assessed M as likely to progress at approximately half his chronological age and that he will need help with learning throughout his school career.  In the paediatrician’s opinion those caring for him will need more skills than the average parent.

11.

The parenting assessment concluded that Ms R had limited acceptance of the health and developmental concerns in respect of M.  The assessment concluded that she can not parent M effectively she could not provide even a basic level of care for him.   Ms R struggles to accept M’s health and developmental needs and the changes needed with respect to her parenting and she appears to find it hard to accept advice from professionals.  The assessment was completed in March 2010 and concluded that Ms H demonstrated no ability to provide an appropriate level of care and little insight into M’s health needs.  The assessors recommended that an alternative long-term placement be sought for M.

12.

A psychological assessment of Ms R completed in December 2009 concluded that without assistance in developing insight and parenting skills, Ms R would be unable to prioritize M’s needs above her own.  The psychologist recommended a residential setting in order to teach parenting skills to M’s mother but also that there would need to be one to one cognitive behaviour therapy alongside the residential placement to assist the mother in coming to terms with her inability to be consistent and to increase her motivation.

13.

A psychological assessment concluded that Ms H’s attachment to M is “non-existent” (C76) and when the psychologist observed a contact session she concluded that this was “of extremely poor quality” C75).  This assessment recommended that M should be placed for adoption as soon as possible and that direct contact should reduce and then stop when he was placed for adoption.

14.

Mr W visited the family home before M was placed in foster care but it appears that he had limited involvement in his son’s care during this period.  Mr W has not had any contact with his son since October 2009 despite numerous attempts by the professionals to try to speak to him to discuss M and the plans for him.

15.

There are no members of the extended family who can care for M.  His maternal grandmother put herself forward as a carer but an initial assessment concluded that she would not bee able to meet his needs.

16.

Through her solicitor Ms H, Ms R has confirmed that she does not challenge the amended threshold document.  She tells me and I accept that she love’s her son very much and misses him.  Whilst she can not agree to the Local Authority’s plans for M she does not intend to actively oppose them.  Ms R would understandably like her son returned to her care but she has bravely accepted that her life at the moment is not stable enough for her to be able to give him the care that he needs especially in light of the difficulties he has.  Ms R I am told reluctantly accepts that M can’t wait for her to be in a position where she can care for him.  I am told that Ms R ideally would like to see M post adoption but if this is not possible then she would like to participate in the post adoption letter-box schemed to be kept up to date with her son’s progress.

17.

The Children’s Guardian fully supports the Local Authority’s applications for M and now supports the care plan which has also been amended at court today.  The Guardian in his report has comprehensively addressed the welfare checklist.  I agree with his findings in this regard and adopt them in this judgment as my own without addition or amendment.

18.

In light of the evidence before me I have no hesitation in making a care order in respect of M to X Council.

19.

I must now consider the application for a placement order.   As M is not yet one year old he requires a permanent stable and loving home where all his needs can be met throughout his childhood and into adolescence.  In my judgment this can only be achieved through adoption. M was considered by the council’s adoption panel on the 30^th April 2010 and they recommended that he was suitable for adoption.  It is however, important to acknowledge that there remain substantial questions over what M’s longer term developmental progress will be and this will present difficulties for the Local Authority when they are trying to identify adopters who are able to accommodate this uncertainty.  M has already formed attachments to his current foster carers but it is believed that these can be transferred to his new carers however it is important that M’s future is in a caring and stable family and that this can be secured as soon as possible.   The sooner this change of placement occurs the easier it will be for M to begin to form new attachments.  

22.

Ms R and Mr W do not 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 on the grounds that M’s welfare requires that parental agreement be dispensed with.  This of course mirrors the test which I must apply in considering the application generally namely that the paramount consideration must be M’s welfare throughout his life.

21.

For the reasons I have already given and applying the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 I am satisfied that M’s welfare dictates that a placement order should be made so as to safeguard his future care and that for the same reasons the consent of  Ms R and Mr W should be dispensed with.  In arriving at this decision I am aware that M will not be brought up in his birth family and will have only limited contact with them through the Council’s letter-box scheme but I am satisfied that these arrangements are the best that can be made in the circumstances and will help meet M’s needs for information about his biological family as he grows older.  I am further aware that the search for adoptive parents will be kept under review and progress will be evaluated one year after the making of an order.   I therefore dispense with the consent of Ms R and Mr W and make a Placement Order in favour of X Council in respect of M, in so doing I approve the care plan as amended at court today.

22.

Amended Threshold Criteria

There are reasonable grounds for believing that at the time when protective measures were taken for him, the child was suffering or was 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 him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him, evidenced as follows:

Ms R neglected M physical needs by:-

She demonstrated little knowledge of a baby's needs, including those of basic feeding patterns. This resulted in M being at risk of obesity when he was taken into care. Advice was given by Dr on the 30th July 2009 about his feeding and Ms R had started to put this advice into practice however the effect of this had not been able to be observed due to the short amount of time from the appointment until he was taken into care.

- the home environment was very dirty, littered with rubbish and cigarette butts to the extent M could not be placed on the floor

- on the 4th August 2009 there was a lager can and an empty wine bottle on the floor of the family home

- on the 10th August 2009 M was found in a bedroom with the door shut unattended. In the bedroom there was paraphernalia associated with cannabis and the dressing table was piled high with clutter. Ms R was downstairs smoking. Ms R was cautioned for cruel treatment of M on the 10th August 2009

- Ms R failed to register M with a GP within a reasonable timeframe and failed to get his first immunisations done on time


Ms R placed M at risk of harm by

- despite being told on the 06.04.09 (AA16) about the concerns the Local Authority had in relation to paternal grandfather, who has been convicted of sexual offences against children under the age of 16, she continued to associate with him and he came into the property to decorate

- youths and young adults frequented the home, they smoked in the property and came in and out of the room where M was. This issue was raised by the Local Authority but their advice was not followed in obtaining alternate accommodation which was available

- allowing her partner  to be involved in the care of M, knowing that he abused cannabis on a regular basis


Ms R failed to cooperate with professionals by

- having been offered support from family aide organisation, after 3 months failed to engage with the service by not attending appointments

- An Intensive Family Support Service offered support twice per week to Ms R and although there were some improvements this was not able to be sustained by her

23.

Heard before a District Judge Magistrates’ Courts on the 13.7.10.