[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales County Court (Family)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales County Court (Family) >> B (A Child) (care order & placement order) [2013] EWCC B17 (Fam) (01 November 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2013/B17.html Cite as: [2013] EWCC B17 (Fam)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT CHELMSFORD
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OFxxxxxxxxx CHILDREN

		1st November 2013

JUDGE ROBERTS:

1. I am concerned with B, a little girl of eight months. She was born in March 2013, and this is the final hearing of the application of Thurrock Borough Council for a care order and for a placement order with regard to her. The parties are Thurrock, B's mother, Miss X, and B by her Guardian, Sue Johnson, and they have been represented before me by Mr. Ahern for Thurrock, Miss Watts for Mother, and Mr. Munro for B. I have read two ring binders of evidence which comprise the application, statements and orders in these proceedings, and the proceedings regarding B's four half-siblings which concluded in March last year, in particular the judgment and reports in those proceedings, and I have read useful position statements prepared for today and some contact notes. I have heard oral evidence from the social worker, Tendai Mundanda, from Miss X and from the Guardian, and I have heard helpful submissions from the advocates.
2. B is Miss X's fifth child. The eldest and the third child are in foster care, the second child is under a special guardianship order, and the fourth child has been adopted. As I understand it, Miss X has contact with the older three. Care proceedings took place in 2011 to 2012 after considerable Social Services involvement and ended with the making of care orders for each child and a placement order for the youngest. The application for the special guardianship order came later as X's foster carer applied to become her special guardian. The children were removed from the care of the mother and her then partner, who was the father of the fourth child, and whom I am told has now died, because of a range of concerns, unreasonable physical chastisement, that means being hit, their physical needs not being met, their emotional needs not being met, their education needs similarly, and there was some verbal abuse in the relationship between the adults. Mr. W used drugs and Miss X was not working properly with professionals.
3. There were several very full assessments carried out in those proceedings by the social worker, by two independent social workers, and by a psychologist as well as by the Guardian, who is fortunately the same guardian. All the reports were negative about Miss X's ability to parent the children or any of them on their own. It was for those reasons that a core assessment was undertaken when Miss X became pregnant with B soon after the conclusion of those proceedings, and when that assessment was also negative care proceedings began about B as soon as she was born. I have no doubt that having a baby removed from you in hospital is a traumatic event.
4. The local authority were of the view that Miss X had not made any relevant changes in her life during the intervening year and that she would not be able to parent B safely and therefore they applied to have her removed to foster care, which is what happened.
5. At the adjourned CMC I believe I refused Miss X's request for a further independent social worker assessment. I found nothing to suggest at that stage that she had made significant changes and I was particularly unimpressed that she had already lied to the local authority by that stage, in April, about B's paternity as that did not suggest she would be able to work with professionals in her daughter's interests. The evidence I have had today, apart from the previous proceedings, is therefore that of the social worker, the mother and the Guardian. There are no family members who could care for B. Her father's identity is not known despite the best endeavours of the social worker. The local authority seek a final care order and placement order with a view to placing B with adopters, unfortunately not the adopters of B's half-sister. The Guardian supports this plan but Miss X does not.
6. Regrettably, this case was scheduled to be heard in early September but I was ill that day and the case apparently could not be tried in my absence. B is therefore eight months old and her need for her future to be decided is urgent. The issues I must decide are therefore are the threshold criteria met and, if so, what sort of order, if any, should I make. If I make a care order as the local authority seeks should I approve the care plan and make a placement order, alternatively, should I return B to her mother's care or order a further assessment to see if that could take place. I have to apply s.31(1) of the Children Act and, if I make a care order, ss.1 and 47(1) of the Adoption and Children Act. I must also have in mind the rights to family life of Miss X and B but if there is a conflict between these rights I am satisfied that B's rights as a child prevail.
7. I have been referred to the case of Re S, which has many things, but amongst them it emphasises that adoption must always be an order of last resort and that other options should all be explored and not rejected for reasons such as resources.
8. Turning to the witnesses and the evidence, I should first say something about the previous reports, all of which Hodges DJ accepted in his judgment in March 2012. In the previous proceedings Dr. Derry, the psychologist, reported:

"As a parent Miss X has a particularly poor understanding and awareness of her children. She lacked a good ability to think from the children's perspective or appreciate their thoughts and feelings driving their behaviours. The overall dynamic would place Miss X's interactions in the inept range of parenting. Miss X described particularly problems with managing the children's behaviour and the reports of J and C would suggest that they were beyond parental control. Her difficulty in interpreting the children's behaviour in the context of their emotions would prevent her from adopting more successful behaviour management strategies. The paucity of emotional warmth and positivity in her relationship with all of her children would prevent her from developing more proactive strategies to reinforce positive and compliant behaviour in her children."

The ISW, Jane Dodds, reported:

"In my discussions with Miss X it was her view that she had met the basic care and developmental needs of her children and she did not need to make any changes to her parenting in order to be able to meet those needs if the children were to return to her care. It is my view that she needs to significantly develop and improve her parenting skills to professional intervention such as parenting courses if she is to be able to meet her daughter's future needs. However, her current attitude is that she would not be willing to undertake such courses and she would therefore be unlikely to benefit from being coerced to attend."

She went on to say:

"Her responses indicate she is currently unable to accept responsibility for the difficulties her children have experienced and is therefore not at a stage where she will make the necessary changes to her parenting capacity regardless of the input of resources to support her with this."

Lesley Reiff, the other independent social worker, reported:

"Miss X does not appear to be able to show the children affection, interaction or warmth. She appears to be coldly rejecting towards them. Emotional neglect is generally understood as a form of psychological unavailability of the parent. Failure to respond to children's attachment needs can result in children shutting down psychologically and ceasing to engage with those around them. This can be damaging to long-term stable emotional health."

She went on to say:

"Miss X presents as a parent with severely compromised parenting skills and a very limited capacity to heed advice. Miss X lacks a basic understanding of child development, attachment and emotional needs, and therefore she would be unlikely to be able to implement good parenting practice in order to parent her children safely and consistently. Moreover, because Miss X does not recognise any such deficiencies on her part any professional attempts to help her are likely to be futile."

9. Hodges DJ recounted all the evidence of the professional witnesses and he said:

"Whilst I do not slavishly follow this, I see no reason to disagree with their conclusions."

He found the threshold proven although Miss X did not agree that the criteria were made out, and he went on to make the orders I have mentioned.

10. Various social workers have been involved since then and all have reached similar conclusions. Miss Mundanda told me that this mother is very difficult to work with, she cannot see that she has things she needs to change, she has no insight, she blames everyone else, in particular her children, for what has happened, and does not have the ability to work with the professionals who try to help her, who challenge her. I found Miss Mundanda to be a fair witness and I note the Guardian thought she was an excellent social worker who has done her best, and I agree. I accept her evidence that she has done all that could be done to try to assist Miss X in addressing her many difficulties whilst always putting A's needs first, and I accept her evidence. In the Social Services evidence there is no evidence of change of approach by the mother.
11. There are some changes of circumstances, because Mr. W of course is not around, but it was clear when Miss X gave evidence that she has not been able to accept the judgment of Hodges DJ or the advice of the experts in the previous proceedings. She does accept that she should have done more to protect the children from Mr. W but that is as far as it goes. She is of course in a very difficult position. She loves all her children and finds herself without any of them at home and with an application to have the fifth removed permanently. She does not have learning difficulties but she certainly struggles to understand much of what has happened and what is expected of her. Her thinking seemed to me to be concrete. For example, she kept rejecting the idea that the children had been neglected because she told me a paediatrician has examined them and said they were healthy. She could not understand that neglect is and was for her children about many more issues than physical wellbeing. In particular, it was very clear to me that her understanding of the emotional needs of her children had not moved on at all since the last proceedings. This was evidenced, for example, by her attitude to C's wishes to be made the subject of a special guardianship order, which she opposes because she did not think C should get her way, by her inability to respond to B's cues in contact, sometimes causing B distress, and by, for example, her refusal to let B have her dummy which B was desperate for because she, Miss X, did not like dummies even though she was told that that was what B had in foster care and that is what B wanted. She has been criticised for not doing anything about getting therapy even though it has been clear from March 2012 that that is what was needed. She has made some efforts in this direction recently but has not properly engaged in July and has only started to attend this week. It does seem to me that she is going because she has been told she has to, not because she sees any purpose in it.
12. Miss X found giving evidence very hard and she is clearly very unhappy at this time. It is important she does now attend the mind course that she has started so that she can perhaps improve her insight, her ability to deal with the situation she is in, and her underlying difficulties with anger and working with professionals to identify just a few of the reasons for the work. Miss X has been deceitful about who A's father is, though she blamed Mr. K for this deceit. She could not see her own part in this. She has exposed herself to exploitation by all sorts of men and could not see why that sort of lifestyle would be dangerous if a child was introduced into it. She could not understand why the receipt of threats by text recently about abducting B were worrying if B was to be in her care, and she thought that it had been addressed by changing her number. I share the view of the Guardian and the social worker that Miss X has not made any important changes in her approach since the previous proceedings. Sadly, against that background, it is difficult to see how any further work with Miss X or any further assessments could make any difference.
13. I sadly have concluded that she could not parent a child properly so that a child would have what a child needs, a nurturing and healthy, emotional, physical and educational experience of childhood.
14. Of the Guardian's evidence, I accept her analysis of the situation and the pros and cons why adoption is available for this child. She is really at one with the social worker. It is her clear view that Miss X does not understand the needs of her child and has no insight. In fact, she said she stood out for her extraordinary lack of insight. She did not even have a glimmer of hope in this case. Where the evidence of the Guardian and Miss X differ I prefer that of Miss Johnson who is an experienced professional who makes careful notes of conversations. It is more likely, to my mind, that Miss X does not necessarily remember all she says" so that, for example, I accept the Guardian's evidence that Miss X believes that she is the victim of a conspiracy and that the professionals in this case get money for children who are adopted. I accept the Guardian's evidence.
15. I find the threshold proven. I have said that I do not accept the paragraph about lack of interest in her baby during the pregnancy. There is minimal evidence of this, nothing direct, and there are other obvious explanations for why a professional could have that perception. Other than that, it is a very fair and accurate picture of this case and I find it proven.
16. B is a very young baby. The only options for her are to remain in foster care, perhaps to see if Miss X can now make progress, or indefinitely, for her to be adopted or for her to return to her mother. It is her needs which are my paramount concern. She needs to be in her permanent home urgently in order to develop normally and she needs to be cared for by people who can meet her needs, for security, stability, love, support, encouragement, the provision of education. I have found I do not think that her mother can meet any of these needs. I see no prospect of that changing at this time and I therefore see no benefit to B of staying in foster care where she would remain the subject of public care. I am told that there are at least nine couples waiting for a baby to adopt in a local consortium and A's needs are much more likely to be met by being adopted. It is correct that she would lose her connection with her birth mother and her older sisters but it is hoped that she can have some direct contact with her adopted sister. But, in my judgment, it is more important for B to have all the benefits of normal family life and these benefits will not be available to B either in her mother's care or in foster care.
17. I have been asked to consider an open adoption and I am certainly interested in the research paper to which Miss Watts referred me. In principle, I, as a judge, am open to such orders, but not in this case. This mother has the wrong attitude for such an order to work in the children's interests. She does not accept anything about what is said about her or why her daughter cannot be with her, and it seems to me most unlikely that she will be able to have contact in a way that is supportive of the adoption and in a friendly and open way, and I must also take into account that Miss Johnson said to me that the quality of contact with the older children was diabolical.
18. For all these reasons, I consider that the local authority care plan is correct and that adoption is what B requires. I make a care order on that basis. I must dispense with Miss X's consent for the making of a placement order as it is the case that B's welfare requires it. I have set out all her needs and I find that the only way that her needs can be met is by an order for adoption. I make a placement order and I shall direct disclosure of the documents which have been agreed, which is this judgment for which a transcript is going to be made. I believe the local authority will organise that and disclosure of the children's Guardian's report to the prospective adopters.
_________