X Local Authority v A Mother & Ors [2010] EWCC 21 (Fam) (2010)

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCC 21 (Fam) In the County Court Before: District Judge X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: X Local Authority Applicant and A Mother st Respondent And A Father nd Respondent And A Child by their Guardian rd Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hearing dates: 8 th June 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgement Introduction In these Public Law proceedings the Applicant Local Authority seeks a Care Order in respect of the one child who is aged 10months. Their Care Plan is for placement of the child with a substitute family by way of adoption. The child since birth has been in foster care. He presents as a happy content baby having a had regular established day and night routine. Although he is undergoing assessment for his delayed motor development, plagiocephaly, and torticolis. His vision is also being monitored as a precautionary measure. Family Dynamics The child for whom I am concerned and whose welfare is my paramount consideration is a boy aged approximately 10months. Mother is in her early 20’s and has had 2 previous children by 2 different fathers. Both those children were considered to be at risk and no longer reside with her, one having been the subject of care proceedings and finally adopted in 2007, and the other subject to a special guardianship order in 2009 order. There is no contact to either. The father the subject of this application is not related to the previous proceedings. He is in his late 20’s. and has one child by another relationship born in 2009 who resides exclusively with that mother. There is no contact with that child. In the existing proceedings, paternity was in question but this was confirmed. At all times the parents were legally represented, as were the local authority and the guardian. Despite each parent having large extended families and exhaustive enquiries by the local authority, there were no other parties to the proceedings nor were any offered as kinship carers. Chronology There is a detailed chronology and case summary set out at the beginning of the very full bundles which I adopt for the purposes of this judgement. In summary the local authority had previous extensive involvement with the mother. The court had in those proceedings made findings that the children were at risk as a result of the parents in ability to learn and develop the necessary skills so as to prevent the children being placed in a situation of risk of harm. Mother had failed to address her own health needs, was not honest with the professional advisers trying to assist her, and engaged in behaviour that had placed her at risk and left her vulnerable. Those concerns were replicated in the current proceedings. Both the parents were of low intellect and failed regularly to engage with the a series of professionals to whom they displayed hostility. They were both the subject of their own respective chaotic childhoods and had unrealistic views as to their own ability to parent a young child. Mother had a history of mental health difficulties and self harm. Additionally she failed to protect herself from the sun [because of an acute medical condition this was essential] and failed to follow up her medical appointments, and her appointments in respect of her eyesight. Father was himself the product of the care system casting concern as to his ability to parent a child. Both had to be taught and had to display that ability with input from the professionals, and that those standards could be learnt and maintained It was hoped that as some progress had been made at the pre-birth child protection conferences and displayed that the parents were co-operating In and effort to assist the parents, the local authority agreed to fund an initial 4 week residential assessment [at a cost of £5,000 per week], at an independent parent and baby centre. If it proved successful the local authority would continue with the funding for an additional 8 weeks. In August 2009, both parents remained for one night and failed to participate further in the residential assessment. The limited report from the assessment centre stated that neither parent had the ability or knowledge to meet the very basic needs and although some were met [ displays of love and affection,], they were insufficient and believed the child would be at risk if left in the community. Threshold In a Public Law case a Court has no jurisdiction to make any Public Law Order unless and until the so-called threshold criteria set out in S 31 of the Children Act 1989 are established. I have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities , that the child concerned, is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm or likelihood of harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to him/her if the order were not made not being and what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him/her. The findings sought by the local authority were as follows Both parents were vulnerable, with mother having mental health problems and having made attempts at self harm. Both were brought up in or part of the care system and both being poorly parented themselves as children. They lived and continued to live chaotic lifestyles being unable to budget Neither was realistic in their ability to parent a young child Mother displayed hostility to the professionals who were attempting to assist her and the child and when attempting to ensure she took proper care of here own health. At the time of the hearing the mother and father presented themselves as couple. The Burden and Standard of Proof . The burden is on the Local Authority as the applicant. In re: B 2008 UKHL 35 , Baroness Hale stated ‘…I … would announce loud and clear that the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold at s31(2) or the welfare considerations at s1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegations nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies’. On the evidence before me and as neither the mother or father, appeared at the final hearing to oppose the making of the orders sought, and as I was satisfied that they had been given full and proper notice and were legally represented throughout, and there was no good reason why they did not appear, I agree that the local authority have satisfied me that threshold has been crossed. It follows therefore that in my judgement the threshold criteria are satisfied in respect of this child. Capability Before I reached that conclusion it was useful to remind myself of what Hedley J said in re L [care; Threshold Criteria ] 2007 1 FLR 2050 “ society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting including the eccentric and barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the province of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done. One never ceases to be surprised at the extent of complication and difficulty that human beings managed to introduce into family life. Significant harm is fact specific, and must retain the breadth of meaning that human fallibility may require of it.” . Disposal Having been satisfied that the threshold criteria are established I have to ask a number of sequential questions. The essential questions are: Whether an order should be made at all, and if so, what kind of order. In answering these fundamental questions, the Court has to apply the principle that the Child’s Welfare is the paramount consideration; apply the statutory Welfare Checklist under s.1.3 Children Act; not to make an Order unless the Court considers that the making of an order would be better for the child than making no order at all; and before making a Care Order, to consider and approve the Care Plan and the proposals for future contact if any. The evidence before the court Mother was represented throughout the proceedings. Despite exhaustive attempts by her solicitors she failed to file any evidence save a handwritten statement following the courts direction at the I R H, that as she was not answering correspondence the solicitors had to visit her so that the court could be satisfied she was aware of what might occur. In that statement she states she could not bring herself to agreeing to the making of the orders sought and that she did not actively oppose them being made. She does state that it was a difficult decision for her to make as she loved the child very much, but that she believed it was in the child’s best interest. Father had filed 3 statements opposing the making of the orders. He did not attend the final hearing despite the order at the IRH stating that the mother and father had to notify the court whether they required the attendance of the Independent Social Worker and the independent Psychologist to give oral evidence, as otherwise, the evidence of those experts would be limited to their written reports of which they was aware. In his final statement filed just before the hearing he admitted to having no contact with the child for some 4 ½ months. He continued to oppose the orders sought. The evidence of the local authority’s social worker is full and complete. It confirms there has been no contact by the parents for some 4 ½ months prior to the hearing and prior to the parent s terminating it; such earlier contact had been inconsistent despite the efforts of the local authority to promote the same, both at the residential parent and baby unit, and in the community. I accept the evidence both parents have shown little commitment for such, and neither have provided evidence that they were prepared to place the needs of the child above their own. The independent clinical psychological reports on both parents indicated that despite each parents learning difficulties, they were not of such a level that they would not be able to care for a child. The conclusions was that the child would be at risk of physical harm and neglect as a result of the parents lack of parenting skills, with neither parent agreeing to engages with the professionals who could have assisted. Neither displayed the will to learn or co-operate The independent social worker concluded that although both parents displayed some good practical skills in that their home was clean and tidy and the fridge well stocked, it was extremely doubtful whether those skills could be translated into caring for a child; and concern was expressed at father’s aggressive manner as he possessed a short fuse and would not be able to tolerate the usual challenges which babies present. The rejection by them of the residential parents assessment and their failure to commit to contact, raised serious concerns as to any genuine motivation to adapt to parenthood. The guardian in the filing of her 3 reports recognises the failure of the parents to prioritise the child’s needs and their failure to undertake regular contact which they said they were finding emotionally difficult. Despite the local authority arranging a schedule of contact the parent failed to attend, without providing a good reason for such failure. The local authority have to continue with the paediatric overview for the child which cannot be delayed any further as such delay means that the child’s future development remains unknown. This could impact on matching the needs with the skills required by future cares. There remains significant concerns as to the Childs physical development and future abilities. The guardian accepts however that all alternative avenues have been explored and it is with regret that she has to agree with local authorities care plan and for the making of the care and placement orders as this is the only option available to ensure the child’s best interest are met Decision On all the evidence I have heard and read it is clear that an Order has to be made. The only real option upon a proper consideration of the welfare checklist is for a Care Order. Both the allocated social worker and the guardian, have completed the detailed exercise of the operation of the Welfare Checklist in the circumstances of this case and I respectfully agree with their views and adopt them. This is reinforced by the independent social worker and psychologist reports re4fererred earlier. The Human Rights Act 1998 The principle of proportionality must always be considered alongside the welfare checklist of s1 Children act 1989. Hale LJ in re ; C&B 2001 1 FLR stated; ‘Intervention in the family must be proportionate, but the aim should be to reunite the family where the circumstances enable that, and the effort should be devoted to that end. Cutting off all contact and ending the relationship between the child and their family is only justified by the overriding necessity of the interest of the child’ I have considered the relevant articles of the Convention on Human Rights. I am satisfied that the interference with the mother and father’s right to family life is both justified in law and pursues a legitimate aim, namely the welfare of the child. By the same token the interference fulfils a pressing need and is proportionate to that need. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII