England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

M

1st Respondent

and

L

(by his Children’s Guardian, Ms B)

2nd Respondent

Mr H

for the

Applicant

Mr L

for the

1st Respondent

Ms J

for the

2nd Respondent

These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by all parties save for the First Respondent, who does 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.

Facts

1.

This case is listed for final hearing today to determine X Local Authority’s applications for Care and Placement Orders in respect of L (DOB:  ).

2.

L’s mother is M.  She was born on [].  M is present in court today and is legally represented by Mr L.

3.

The precise identity of L’s father is not known and there is no father named on L’s Birth Certificate.  M has suggested that L’s father could be either D1 or D2.  Both have been contacted and are aware that L could potentially be their son.  Neither D1 nor D2 has engaged with the current proceedings or completed DNA testing that has been offered to them.

4.

L’s Guardian is Ms B.  Ms B is not present in court today but L is represented by his solicitor, Ms J.

5.

The allocated Social Worker for L is Ms W.  Ms W has been the allocated Social Worker throughout these proceedings.  The Local Authority is represented by Mr H.

6.

L was born on [].  On 15 September 2008, M agreed for L to be accommodated by the Local Authority pursuant to Section 20 Children Act 1989.  L was discharged from hospital on 25 September 2008 into the care of the Local Authority foster carers.  L remains in this placement.

7.

M and her family have been known to X Social Services for a number of years.  The Local Authority was notified of M’s pregnancy with L by the Community Midwife.  The Local Authority sought to carry out a pre-birth parenting assessment in respect of M, however, this could not be completed, initially due to M being difficult to locate and subsequently due to her health deteriorating.

8.

The Local Authority issued care proceedings in respect of L on 30 June 2009.  X Local Authority was granted a first Interim Care Order by X Family Proceedings Court on 8 July 2009 and this has been renewed throughout these proceedings.  X Local Authority therefore share Parental Responsibility for L.

9.

A parenting assessment was completed by Ms R on 6 July 2009.  The assessment raised concern about M’s ability to protect L from her family, her ability to provide good enough basic care for L, her temper, her lack of insight into the Local Authority’s concerns and her ability to organise a household.

10.

A core assessment was completed on 7 August 2009.  The assessment highlighted a number of concerns and concluded that if L were to be placed in M’s care, the Local Authority would be concerned that he would be exposed to physical and emotional harm.

11.

GB carried out a cognitive functioning assessment on M dated 21 August 2009.  GB concluded that M did not have a global learning impairment, but rather specific learning difficulties in respect of reading, for example.  GB recommended that M be supported by an Independent Advocate at court and in meetings in order to assist her understanding of the proceedings.

12.

Dr B was instructed to complete a full psychological assessment of M.  Dr B’s assessment report was completed on 25 February 2010.  Dr B notes that the two major challenges facing M are the impact of her limited intellectual abilities and her psychological makeup.  The assessment further notes that the interaction between M’s learning and emotional difficulties may make it very difficult to fully address her problem within a timescale that is commensurate with L’s needs.  Dr B explains various programmes and interventions that might assist M in the long-term, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, but is pessimistic about how effective these may be.

13.

An independent social work assessment of M was undertaken by Ms S.  Ms S’s report was completed on 23 April 2010.  The report does not recommend that L is returned to M’s care.  The report highlights the abuse suffered by M as a child, her limited support networks, the potential instability of M’s relationship with her partner and her inability to meet L’s needs without a high level of supervision.  Ms S concludes that L should not be returned to M’s care, as she would be unable to achieve sufficient change with her own difficulties in a timescale commensurate with L’s needs.

14.

The Local Authority believes that if L were to be returned to the care of his mother, he would suffer significant harm due to neglect.  We are aware that members of the extended family were considered, however, no suitable carer was identified who would be able to provide a long-term, stable home for L.

15.

Therefore, the Local Authority propose that the only realistic plan for L to ensure that his welfare needs are met is for permanence outside his birth family by way of adoption.

16.

L was recommended for adoption by the Local Authority’s Adoption Panel on 26 May 2010 .  This recommendation has been ratified by the Adoption Agency’s decision maker.  The Local Authority made an application for a Placement Order on 2 June 2010 .  Family finding for L is currently underway and we understand that they have located a number of potential adopters.  The Local Authority expect to be able to put forward a link to Panel in October 2010.

17.

The Children’s Guardian, Ms B, has filed her final report dated 8 July 2010.  She has recommended that Care and Placement Orders are made in favour of Wolverhampton City Council in respect of L.

Reasons

18.

As we are considering the making of a final Care Order, we must first consider the issue of whether an anonymised version of this judgment should be publicly recorded.  The parties’ legal representatives have raised no objections to such reporting and we make an Order that an anonymised version of our Facts and Reasons in these proceedings be published, following approval by all the parties.

19.

We have read the bundle of evidence provided by the Local Authority for today’s hearing.  We accept the statements of Ms W dated 16 June 2009 and 3 June 2010 as our findings of fact.

20.

We have read the Local Authority’s Final Care Plan dated 26 May 2010 and have considered the Guardian’s final report and recommendations dated 8 July 2010.

21.

We have considered the psychological assessment of M by Dr B dated 25 February 2010 and the independent social work assessment completed by Ms S dated 23 April 2010.

22.

We have read the statement provided by M today and it is clear from both her statement and the evidence that we have read that M loves L and has his best interests at heart.  She has made every effort to attend contact on a regular basis since he has been in care and we believe that she has done everything she can for L within her capabilities.

23.

M has confirmed that, although she does not agree with all the evidence that has been put forward by the Local Authority, she does not seek to challenge it today.  We feel that her bravery in reaching this decision demonstrates that she has placed L’s interests above her own and we commend her for doing this.

24.

On the evidence before us, we are satisfied that the threshold criteria under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are met and that L is likely to suffer significant harm is he were to be placed in the care of M.  We consider that this harm is attributable to the care that M would provide to L not being that which it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

25.

We therefore make a final Care Order in respect of L (DOB:  ) in favour of X Local Authority in order to enable the Local Authority to continue to safeguard L’s welfare.

26.

Having made this final Care Order, we have then considered the Local Authority’s second application, that being for a Placement Order.

27.

We have read the Annex B Report prepared by Ms W.  We note the Guardian’s recommendation that a Placement Order should be granted to enable the Local Authority to implement its care plan of adoption.

28.

M neither opposes nor consents to such an Order being made and we must therefore consider whether or not her consent should be dispensed with.

29.

We have taken into account the principles outlined in Section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and are satisfied that a Placement Order is in L’s best interests.  We therefore dispense with M’s consent pursuant to Section 52(1)(b) Adoption and Children Act 2002 on the grounds that L’s welfare requires that her consent be dispensed with.

30.

In the circumstances, we grant a Placement Order in respect of L (DOB:  ) in favour of X Local Authority, in order to allow them to pursue their plan of adoption.

31.

We have considered the Human Rights Act 1989 and, although the making of Care and Placement Orders is an intervention into the life of the family, we believe that it is justified and proportionate in all of the circumstances.

32.

We have considered the ‘no order’ principle and believe that it is better to make an order than make no order at all.

33.

The permanent removal of any child from a parent is a draconian measure and we have fully considered the implications for all concerned.  However, these Orders are a necessary and proportionate response in order to meet L’s welfare needs.  Regrettably, we consider that no other Order or course of action would satisfactorily safeguard L and guarantee him a secure and settled future.