England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X  Local Authority    

Applicant

and

Ms D                                                             

1^st Respondent

                           Mr P

2^nd Respondent

M and C through the Children’s Guardian Ms W

3^rd and 4^th Respondent

Ms A

for the

  Applicant

Ms L

for the

 1st Respondent

Ms S

for the

2nd Respondent

Ms RS

for the

3^rd and 4^th Respondent

1

M aged 5 and C aged 2 became subject to a Child Protection Plan under the categories of physical and emotional abuse following a Child Protection Conference in October 2008. 

2

On 7 August 2009 X Local Authority attended at the family home due to referrals received from M's nursery who were concerned about his non attendance and from Family Aide who have been unable to gain access to the family home.  Both parents were hostile to the attending social workers.  The social workers were concerned about the unhygienic state of the living room and wanted to view the rest of the house but were prevented from doing so by the parents.  The parents told the social workers that they would leave the area. 

3

Due to the heightened concerns of the social workers and given the parents' aggressive behaviour towards them, the team manager returned to the house to see the children and view the rest of the home, accompanied by the police. The parents allowed access to all rooms which were uninhabitable.  There was barely any food in the cupboards and fridge but there were bottles of lager in the fridge.  There were no clean surfaces in the kitchen, there were pots with mould and empty bottles of vodka and wine. There were a lot of flies all over the property.  The children were undressed and C's nappy was in need of changing.  There were unsafe items around the house including razors in the bathroom to which the children had access.  The team manager observed that the safety gates and cot that Social Care had provided were not in use.

4

The police used their Police Protection powers to remove the children from the care of their parents and Social Care placed them with Local Authority foster carers on 7 August 2009. On 10 August 2009 Emergency Protection Orders were granted in respect of the children.  The children were made subject to interim care orders on 17th August 2009.

5

Ms D and Mr P are currently been offered once a week contact for the duration of an hour. This contact is supervised by one member of Social Care staff.  If the orders sought are granted the Local Authority will look to reduce the children’s contact with Ms D and  Mr P and look to terminate contact once a prospective adopter has been identified.  Annual letterbox indirect contact will be offered.

6

The Family Centre were requested to undertake an assessment with Ms D and Mr P to look at their background/parenting history; the nature of their relationship; their understanding of concerns and risks posed to their children; their understanding of a child’s emotional, physical and developmental needs; the nature of attachment between the children, Ms D and Mr P; Ms D and Mr P ability to implement advice, accept concern’s and their ability to work with professionals in the future.   The assessment, dated 25.1.10, concluded that Ms D and Mr P do not have the capacity to safely care for M and C and have subjected them to significant emotional/physical harm and neglect. Furthermore, Ms D and Mr P have failed to demonstrate potential for change and certainly not within an acceptable timeframe for the children.

7

The clinical psychiatrist was requested to undertake a psychiatric assessment of Mr P. However, Mr P failed to engage with the assessment.

8

A chartered clinical psychologist was asked to provide an opinion with regard to Mr P’s psychological presentation, his understanding of issues and whether he could take responsibility, his ability to change his parenting approach, his ability to protect and meet the needs of the children, how his substance misuse had impacted on his parenting and his ability to work with professionals.  The assessment, dated 8.4.10, concluded that Mr P should not have sole unsupervised care of his children and if contact with the children became inconsistent or inappropriate then contact should cease.

9

The psychologist was also instructed to undertake an assessment of Ms D, to be filed by 18^th June 2010, but he was unable to file a report due to Ms D’s failure to engage with the assessment.  

10

At the Family Group Conference in February 2010 the maternal grandmother and a family friend put themselves forward to undertake a Viability Family Network Carers Assessment. The family friend stated that he wanted to be assessed on the basis of secondary carer if maternal grandmother’s assessment was negative.  Social Care undertook a viability assessment of them which recommended that full family network carer’s assessments were not to be undertaken.

11

The parents have taken the difficult decision not to oppose the local authority’s applications for care and placement orders today.

12

Findings of the court regarding statutory/threshold criteria

13

The parties have filed an agreed threshold document this morning, which is annexed to these reasons.

Having read the documentary evidence we are satisfied that the children are suffering or are likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the children or likely to be given to them if the order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

14

Welfare checklist s1(3) Children Act 1989

15

We concur and adopt the application of the welfare checklist as outlined by the Children’s Guardian in her final report.

16

The range of powers available to the court:

No order

Supervision order

Care order

17

In respect of Article 8 and the right to respect for private and family life, we must be satisfied that the evidence produced at this hearing is sufficient for us to find that a care order is necessary and proportionate to safeguard the children’s welfare.

18

We are conscious of the fact that we should not intervene in the life of children and families unless it is necessary to do so. The less interventionist approach applies, not only as to whether an order is necessary, but also the choice of the order.

19

We agree with the recommendations of both the LA and the Children’s Guardian and in doing so approve the LA care plan.

20

We are satisfied with the arrangements for contact and accordingly we make a Care Order in respect of M and C.

Application for a Placement Order.

21

We now turn to the application for a Placement Order

22

The court can only make a placement order if, in the case of each parent or guardian of the child, the court is satisfied that the parent’s consent should be dispensed with. Mr P does not have parental responsibility for C and in respect of her, his consent need not be dispensed with. However, this is academic given he has parental responsibility for M.

23

The court cannot dispense with the consent of any parent or guardian of the child to the child being placed for adoption or to the making of an adoption order unless the court is satisfied that the welfare of the child requires the dispensation of the parents consent. 

24

Welfare checklist (s1(4) Adoption and Children Act 2002):

25

The court agrees and adopts the application of the welfare checklist as detailed in the Guardian’s composite report.

26

We have considered Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. Having endorsed the LA care plan we are satisfied that the making of a placement order is a necessary and proportionate measure to safeguard the children’s welfare, both now and in the future.

In doing so, we dispense with the consent of both parents in respect of M and with mothers consent in respect of C.

27

We are satisfied with the arrangements for contact proposed by the LA.

28

Accordingly we grant placement orders in respect of M and C.

29

                                         ANNEX

                    AGREED SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS IN

                    SUPPORT OF THE THRESHOLD CRITERIA

                        ­­­­________________________________

PREAMBLE  TO THE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS.

UPON BOTH PARENTS ACCEPTING THE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS   CONTAINED IN THE  LOCAL AUTHORITY THRESHOLD DOCUMENT DATED THE 14 SEPTEMBER 2009 ON THE BASIS OF THE MOTHERS RESPONSE TO THE THRESHOLD DATED THE 15 OCTOBER 2009, EXCEPT FOR THE PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 WHICH ARE NOW CONCEDED, AND PARAGRAPH 7 WHICH IS NOW CONCEDED ON THE BASIS OF THE MOTHER’S RESPONSE IN THAT PARAGRAPH.

30

X Council contends that at the time the Proceedings were issued M and C had suffered significant harm and are likely to suffer significant harm being attributable to the care given to them or likely to be given to them not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to a child in satisfaction of the threshold criteria pursuant to Section 31 of the Children act 1989.  The harm consists of neglect and emotional harm:-

31

1.     M and C have suffered emotional harm and neglect from Ms D and Mr P’s chaotic lifestyle.   This lifestyle has been exacerbated by their parents’ drug misuse.

32

2.     Ms D and Mr P are unable to provide M and C with the stability and routine within the home that they require due to their chaotic lifestyle associated with their drug misuse. 

33

3.     The children have been residing in unhygienic and unsafe housing conditions.

34

4.     M has both poor and late attendance at nursery.

35

5.     Ms D and Mr P have been aggressive towards Social Care staff and other professionals who have been identified to assist them with the care of their children. The first respondent would acknowledge that she was more aggressive towards social care staff and other professionals than the second respondent. The first respondent would concede that she simply did not acknowledge the extent of her problems at this time, and that she found it difficult to accept advice. The first respondent would submit that she has now seen the error of her ways.

36

6.     M and C have witnessed the verbally aggressive behaviour of both parents towards professionals and each other. 

37

7.     The parents have physically chastised M on the basis that that the first respondent would accept on rare occasions either herself or the second respondent would smack M on the hand if he was particularly naughty, however this occurred infrequently and M was never hit to his body aside from his hand.

38

8.     Ms D and Mr P have failed to fully engage with all services. Ms D and Mr P have failed to engage with Family Aide. The first respondent regrets having not engaged with all services and having failed to engage with Family Aide

39

9.     Ms D and Mr P have failed to recognise Social Care’s concerns about the parenting of the children. The first respondent would however say that herself and the second respondent have now taken steps to engage with social care and do now recognise social care’s concerns about the parenting of the children.

40

Signed by:

Ms S on behalf of the children

Ms L on behalf of the mother

Ms A on behalf of X Council

      Ms S on behalf of the father

      Dated this 23rd  day of July 2010