England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

 

 

 

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 80 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court

Family Proceedings Court

 

 

 

Before:

Mrs M

Mrs S

  

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Between:

 

	X City Council	Applicant
	and
	SE	First Respondent
	and
	Child by way of Guardian	Second Respondent

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Ms C	for the	Applicant
Ms LD	for the	First  Respondent
Mr B	for the	Second Respondent

 

 

Hearing dates: 7^th and 8^th September 2010

 

Written Reasons

 

 

This is an application brought by X City Council initially for an Emergency Protection Order but now for an Interim Care Order in respect of E born on the [ ](aged [ ] days).

 The application has been heard on notice. All parties consented to time for service of the application being abridged.

 

The Respondent mother SE is legally represented and is present. The child’s father is D. The parents are not married and as the child has yet to be registered father does not have parental responsibility. He is therefore not a party to the proceedings and is not present.

 

E is represented by a solicitor who takes his instructions from her Guardian M.

 

These proceedings have been consolidated with the proceedings in relation to the parents older child K DOB [ ] (aged [ ] years [ ] months) and we have therefore had sight of all the documents filed in both sets of proceedings.

 

We have heard oral evidence from the Social Worker, mother, maternal grandmother and the Guardian.

 

The position today is that the Local Authority asks us to make an interim care order upon the basis of the interim care plan, which is to remove E from hospital and her mother’s care, to be placed in foster care. Mother would then have contact with E four times per week.

 

 

Mother objects to this order and asks us to make an interim supervision order together with a residence order which would place the child in the care of Mrs P. This would allow mother to go to P’s (the maternal grandmother’s) home where E would be cared for by them both.

 

This course of action is supported by the Guardian.

 

There has been a long history of Social Services involvement with this family. Mother herself was on the child protection register from 1998 to 2000. Social Services were involved with the parent’s care of K from March 2008 due to a variety of concerns. These concerns included;

1. Parents cannabis abuse

2. Domestic abuse between the parents

3. Failure to engage with health professionals to ensure K was immunised and had appropriate health checks

4. Failure to engage with social service professionals and attend meetings

5. Parents chaotic lifestyle which failed to prioritise K’s needs

6. Unacceptable and unhygienic home conditions

   

K was removed from mother and father’s care on the 9^th March 2009 under a voluntary arrangement.

 

On the 9^th March 2009 K was initially placed with Mrs P but was taken into foster care at her request on the 29^th March 2009. Mother and father completed a parenting assessment which was positive but between June and December 2009 the parent’s attendance at contact was erratic and increasingly sporadic. Mother has not seen K since December 2009. Mrs P maintained regular contact with K and attended meeting with social services.

 

 

In April 2010 Mrs P informed Social Services that mother was again pregnant and this was confirmed by mother at a meeting on 25^th May 2010. Mother confirmed that she had not received any ante-natal care until that morning. The midwife subsequently confirmed that mother’s attendance at appointments was irregular.

 

In July 2010 the Local Authority issued care proceedings and K was made the subject of an interim care order by consent. The unborn child was placed on the child protection register under the category of neglect.

 

Throughout Mrs P has stated that she wishes to be considered as a carer for K. She says that K went to foster care in March 2009 as at the time she was working full time and the Local authority were not happy that her eldest daughter S (who was child minding K) could adequately protect him should mother and father wish to remove him from her care.

Mother initially indicated that she would agree to Mrs P caring for K and the new baby until she herself got herself together and was able to care for them herself. This is still mother’s position.

 

It is clear from the evidence as it unfolded, that although there may be some dispute over the extent of the harm to which K was exposed prior to his removal from the parent’s care, all parties in court, including mother, accept that there are reasonable grounds to believe that E is likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care likely to be given to her if an order were not made. The threshold for the making of an interim care or supervision order is not disputed. We infer this from the history of the case which is agreed and the submissions made by the parties in closing. In any event we

 

 

consider that there is a real possibility that E would be likely to suffer significant harm as a result of mother’s chaotic lifestyle.

 

What we need to consider is the way in which we should exercise our discretion, in light of this, as to which order if any we should make.

 

E is our paramount concern and in coming to our decision we have considered the welfare checklist and also the effect upon E of any delay either in the proceedings or in her placement.

 

E is a newborn and we consider that it is an extremely draconian measure to remove her from her mother or her extended families care. If at all possible E should remain within the family. We balance this against the risk of harm to her should she be placed with mother under the overall care of grandmother.

 

We have listened very carefully to the evidence given by all the parties.

 

Mother says she has separated from father but admits to still having feelings for him and obviously still considers him an appropriate visitor to E in hospital. We have huge concerns about mother’s ongoing relationship with father and the potential for future dispute and domestic abuse. We consider that even if the parent’s do not reconcile, the issue of father’s contact with E could promote unacceptable tension which could escalate to violence. We also require evidence from mother confirming that she is drug free and could sustain a suitable home for any child.

 

In the short term we have to consider whether Mrs P is capable of providing E with good enough care. Also that she is capable of supervising mother and is

 

 

strong enough to exert her will over mother if necessary to protect E.

 

On a day to day basis mother, grandmother and the Guardian are clear that E’s physical needs can be adequately met by Mrs P. Mrs P lives in a rented property which could adequately house mother and E.

 

Mrs P has had 3 viability assessments, the first in 2009 and two further in 2010. All three confirm that she should be considered as a suitable carer for K. The Local Authority accepts this and is planning to place K with Mrs P as long as a Form F assessment, when concluded, is positive.

 

Some concerns about Mrs P were raised in the assessments and the Guardian very rightly asked for further clarification. These concerns include:

1. The registration of Mrs P’s children on the child Protection Register under the category of sexual abuse.

 

Upon this issue we accept that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Mrs P stopped all contact between the children and her former partner once the abuse came to light and informed social services and the police appropriately.

 

2. Mrs P’s history of previous convictions for a) her children’s non school attendance and b) some form of reckless driving for which she obtained a community order.

 

We accept that Mrs P’s children were older children when failing to attend school and that this is an issue to consider in the long term.

 

With regard to the driving matter we do not totally accept Mrs P’s version of

 

 

events. She was convicted of an offence which suggests that she may have driven into a former partner in her car and was subsequently made the subject of a community order and non molestation order. Both matters are serious and leave a question mark over Mrs P’s judgement and behaviour but we do not consider that this question mark should preclude further consideration of her as a carer for E in the short term.

 

Understandably the Local Authority are concerned that they do not place a child without a near certainty that the placement will be successful in the long term. This is the basis upon which they wish to remove E to foster care and will not agree the placement until the Form F assessment is completed.

We on the other hand have to balance the disruption to E of being removed from the families care with the possibility that the placement may well prove good enough in the short term.

 

On the evidence we have heard we do consider that Mrs P could provide good enough care for E. Her parenting of her own children, whilst perhaps not ideal, was certainly good enough on a day to day basis.

 

With regards to her control of mother, Mrs P has on a number of occasions reported mother’s unacceptable behaviour to Social Services and continues to have a good relationship with the current Social Worker. On the evidence currently before the court we are confident that Mrs P would report any concerns she has in the future and that she will put E’s needs first before mothers and her own.

 

Mrs P and mother have on occasions had a difficult relationship but both appear clear in evidence that should E be placed in the family home, Mrs P would be the allocated main carer and mother would be subject to her

 

 

direction. Whilst we accept that this may not always be the case in practice we do accept that mother knows she is being tested and that she has to prove that she can behave appropriately. Mother clearly understands that this is her final chance to prove that she can be a positive and valuable influence in her children’s lives.

 

We are disappointed that the Local Authority would not consider placing E with Mrs P under the auspices of an interim care order as we would be far more comfortable if the Local Authority were to share parental responsibility. Today we have been given the choice of either removing E from the family or

making an order which would require us to trust that Mrs P will exercise parental responsibility appropriately. Given that stark choice we consider that it is in E’s best interests to remain in the family home with her grandmother and mother.

 

We therefore make the following orders

 

1. That E reside with P until further order

2. That E be placed under the supervision of X City Council until 3^rd November 2010

We do require that Mrs P, mother and the Local Authority enter into a stringent working agreement which would include amongst other things the following:

 

1. That father has no unsupervised contact with E. Any contact should be arranged and supervised by the Local Authority.

2. That father should not visit the family home

3. That mother should disclose to the Local Authority all contact planned or unplanned that she has with father.

 

 

There has been substantial delay in K’s matter which we find totally unacceptable. This has not influenced our decision today save that had the assessment of Mrs P been completed last year as it should have been, we would probably not have had such a difficult and finely balanced decision today.