England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

Ms D

1^st Respondent

Mr D

2^nd Respondent

M (a child through the Children’s Guardian)

3^rd Respondent

Ms G

for the

  Applicant

Ms T

for the

1^st Respondent

Ms T

for the

2^nd Respondent

Ms S

for the

3^rd Respondent

These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by consent by the parties and have been adopted by the Court and the Court is satisfied that the parties have agreed terms and the proposed order is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

1.

This is the Local Authority’s application for a care order with interim orders in respect of M who is nearly five years of age and who is the child of Ms D.  The identity of M’s father is unknown to the court and the Local Authority.

2.

On the 25^th November 2009 the Local Authority made an application for an emergency protection order due to serious concerns raised by mother’s presentation with mental health problems.  M was accommodated by the Local Authority

3.

In these proceedings a report has been obtained from a Consultant Psychologist and a parenting and risk assessment has been undertaken.  Information form the United Kingdom Border Agency has also been obtained.  The latest information from them is that Mr P of the Border Agency telephoned the social worker to inform her that Ms D has been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the 15^th July 2010.

4.

Also a party to the proceedings is Mr D who was made a party on the 10^th May 2010.  He is the mother’s partner and today is represented, together with Ms D by Ms T.  Ms T has indicated that she perceives there is no conflict of interest between Mr D and Ms D.

5.

M has now been rehabilitated to Ms D’s care and the Local Authority seek to conclude the proceedings by the making of a Supervision Order in favour of X Local Authority.

6.

Today I have heard representations from advocates for all parties, including the Children’s Guardian Mr J.

7.

I have read all the documents filed in this case.

8.

Both mother and the Guardian agree with the proposal of the Local Authority to conclude the case by the making of a Supervision Order.

9.

The amended threshold criteria are set out at pages 5 – 6 of the bundle.  Mother’s response can be found at page 7.  The threshold criteria are conceded by mother and I approve the schedule and make findings of fact accordingly.

10.

I am therefore satisfied to the required standard that at the time protective measures were taken M was likely to suffer significant harm in the form of emotional harm and neglect due to the care she was likely to receive not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give unless an order is made.

11.

When considering the appropriate order, I must be mindful that the welfare of M is the court’s paramount consideration.  I must also consider the welfare checklist, the Children Act 1989, Section 1(1).  I must also have regard to the principle of minimum intervention of the Children Act 1989, Section 1(5) and the general principle that any delay in determining the future of a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child, Children Act 1989, Section 1(2).

12.

I must also be mindful of the requirements of the Human Rights Act’s doctrine of proportionality.

13.

Having considered the documents filed in this case and heard representations from representatives for the parties.  I am satisfied that the making of a Supervision Order in favour of X council is the appropriate order for M at this point in time, and I therefore make such an order for a period of 12 months.

14.

Heard before a District Judge Magistrates’ Court on the 28.7.10.