D (A Child), Re [2009] EWMC 5 (FPC) 2009

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWMC 5 (FPC) In the Magistrates’ Court Family Proceedings Court Before: A District Judge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: X Local Authority Applicant and Ms A the Mother st Respondent D a child represented by her Children’s Guardian nd Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms SA for the Applicant Ms T for the 1st Respondent Ms M for the 2 nd Respondent Hearing date: 25.11.09 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by all parties save for the first respondent mother, 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. 1. This is an application by X council (the council) for a care order and placement order in respect of a child D 2. D’s mother is Ms A. Ms A has not attended court today but is represented by her solicitor, Ms T. 3. The identity of D’s father is unknown. The mother is aware of father’s first name but is unaware of his surname or address. 4. The basis of the care proceedings in respect of D is that she is likely to suffer significant harm due to the neglect of her physical, emotional and developmental needs. D is subject to an Interim Care Order initially made on 15 April 2008. D is placed with a Family Placement Foster Carer due to having complex health needs. Ms A and D were placed together in an assessment foster placement, following a recommendation from the pre-birth assessment dated 9 April 2008. The placement was initially for a 12 week period but was extended to 16 weeks. 5. A Midway Assessment Report of the mother by the assessment foster carer, dated 26 June 2008, noted that the mother was managing all aspects of the assessment process well and therefore the assessment continued. The final report from the assessment foster carer dated 15 September 2008 concluded that the mother is unable to sustain adequate care for D due to the pressure from both her father and her partner. 6. In addition to the foster carer’s assessment, a risk/parenting assessment was undertaken by a Principal Case Worker, in conjunction with D’s social worker. Ms A’s partner (who is not the father of D) was assessed as joint carer of D with Ms A. This assessment concluded that the partner poses a risk to children due to an allegation of sexual abuse by a child in his extended family. Therefore the partner would not be able to care for D and that Ms A would need to separate from him in order for her to care for D in the future. Ms A did not accept these concerns and immediately left the foster placement to be with her partner. Ms A did not return to the foster placement to continue her assessment with D. 7. A psychological assessment of the mother was commenced in April 2008. The psychologist prepared an addendum psychological assessment dated 12 October 2008 in which he states that mother will have difficulty in recognising risks and threats until such time as they have actually occurred and thereby will have great difficulty in recognising possible, indirect or abstract threats that her partner may pose to D. The mother's IQ has been tested within the proceedings, the report prepared by the psychologist concludes that she is a 21 year old who is able to understand information and suggestions, however, her working memory is markedly low and may cause her to have difficulty in dealing with abstract issues. The psychological assessment recommends that the mother does not have sole, unsupervised care of D now or in the foreseeable future. 8. In March 2009 D’s social worker suspected that Ms A was pregnant, but she denied any pregnancy. The pregnancy was concealed until 30 weeks gestation and the mother sought no antenatal care prior to this. D’s half sibling, J was born. J is also placed in local authority foster care and is subject to care and placement orders made on 22.10.09. D is developmentally delayed in all areas of her functioning including fine and gross motor skills, and her cognitive functioning and language abilities. D is going to need the support of disability services through her life and it is thought she will function at about half her age. 9. The possibility of D being cared for by a member of the extended family has been explored. Ms A put forward three family members as possible long term carers for D. These included Ms A’s paternal aunt, and Ms A’s brother and sister. All three felt they were unable to offer a placement for D. 10. Ms A’s mother and her partner, Mr and Mrs N, came forward to be assessed. This assessment took several months, delayed whilst further assessments were undertaken to accurately ascertain D’s current and future health and developmental needs. Formal introductions between maternal grandparents and D were initiated in September 2009. However, when introductions were taking place, it became apparent that Mr and Mrs N were unable to offer the level of care D requires. On 5 th October 2009 a multi-agency professionals meeting was held, which included D’s health professionals, foster carer and guardian. Due to the concerns expressed at the meeting Social Care decided not to proceed with the placement of D with Mr and Mrs N. 11. Ms A, whilst not consenting to the care order application, does not actively oppose the application. 12. The child is represented by the Children’s Guardian (CG), who supports both applications. She has filed two reports dated 16.05.08 and 19.11.09. 13. The council maintains that the threshold for making a care order has been crossed and the schedule of findings sought is at page 10 of the bundle. I approve the Schedule of Findings at pages 10 -11 and make findings of fact accordingly. 14. Having considered all the evidence within the court bundle and the amended care plan dated 2.11.09 and applying the welfare principle, I make a Care Order in respect of D to the council. 15. As no members of D’s extended family have been identified as suitable carers for her, the council believes that D’s welfare will be best protected and promoted in a permanent adoptive placement. D was approved as suitable for adoption by the council's Adoption Panel on 13 November 2009. 16. Ms A does not agree with the plan for D to be placed for adoption. The Court is requested to dispense with her consent so that a Placement Order can be made. 17. I approve the Local Authority's plan in relation to an adoptive placement for D and dispense with the consent of Ms A on the grounds that D's welfare requires it. In doing so, I have regard to the welfare checklist in the Adoption and Children Act 2002. 18. I make a placement order in favour of the council. 19. I have read the position statement filed on behalf of the mother and her wish for increased contact. However, she has not attended contact since July although a contact was arranged for yesterday and it is not known whether she attended that. However, given this history and the plans for D I do not consider it would be in her best interests to increase contact now. If adoption is not possible and D is placed in long-term foster care she will be subject to six monthly Looked After Child Reviews when the question of contact can be considered. However, for the time being I am satisfied that the arrangements for contact as set out in the amended care plan are appropriate and I see no need to make a contact order. Before a District Judge th November 2009 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII