# (A Child) [2010] EWMC 75 (FPC) (2010)

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 75 (FPC) In the Magistrates’ Court Family Proceedings Court Before: A District Judge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: X Local Authority Applicant and Ms G st Respondent Mr A nd Respondent S (a child through her Children’s Guardian) rd Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms E for the Applicant Ms C for the st Respondent Ms D for the nd Respondent Ms M for the rd Respondent Hearing dates: 29 September 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Justices’ Reasons 1. The Court is concerned with the future of S aged five months, who has resided in Local Authority foster care since her birth on [DOB] under the auspices of successive Interim Care Orders originally granted in April 2010 (A22). S's mother is G and her father is A. The parents are married to each other and share parental responsibility for S. Neither parent is present at court today but they are legally represented and the father has filed a position statement dated 27.9.10 in which he indicates that he does not wish to actively oppose the Local Authority’s applications. I have been informed by the mother’s solicitor that although she has not filed a position statement she adopts a similar approach to the father. S herself is represented by the Children’s Guardian, Ms H, who supports both applications. 2. The Local Authority applies for a Care Order and a Placement Order in respect of S. The hearing before the Court today is a Threshold and a Disposal Hearing. 3. The background to these proceedings is set out in the Court Bundle, specifically in the Chronology at pages 6-15 and the statement of the Social Worker, B1-5 of the Court Bundle. I have read all the documents filed in these proceedings including the Final Analyses and Recommendations of the Children’s Guardian (C27-35). 4. Social Care have had prolonged involvement with the family since September 1987. The application for care and placement orders arises out of the historical concerns of the Local Authority that the older children of the family suffered neglect and sexual abuse in the care of the parents. There were concerns over the poor state of the home environment, despite extensive and prolonged provision of services, including Family Aide and Home Care, as well as the provision of financial assistance to the parents. The parents had not been able to improve the home conditions for the children, and consequently the Local Authority sought Care Orders in 2007/2008 in respect of the six younger children at the time. 5. Parenting and Risk Assessments were completed in respect of the parents. Concerns were raised regarding the father’s sexually abusive behaviour, and by the mother’s limited ability to protect her children from harm. The recommendation was that the parents should undertake specific pieces of work with the assessors. The father was to undertake counselling over a period of six to twelve months, with reinforcing sessions that would address his sexually abusive behaviour. It was recommended that the mother should access and attend long-term counselling over a period of at least two years to address her awareness and risk. It was highlighted, however, that this may not be enough to minimise risk to the children in the mother’s care. 6. Neither parent has undertaken the recommended pieces of work. 7. In relation to these proceedings, the Local Authority did not propose that the parents undergo any further assessments beyond the pre-birth assessment and addendum which were negative (C1-9 and C15-19). The parents did apply for an assessment to be undertaken by an independent risk assessor that could be completed within appropriate timescales. However, subsequently the parents made a decision not to proceed with that assessment. 8. I have considered the threshold criteria in this matter (23-25) as sought by the Local Authority. The threshold relies on the history of the parents and mother’s nine other children, the youngest three having been adopted and another three children being placed in long term foster care. Findings had previously been made that those children had suffered or were at risk of suffering sexual abuse and suffered and were at risk of suffering neglect. I am satisfied that the parents have not been able to commit to the changes in their lives or to follow through with suggested counselling and therapeutic intervention. I am satisfied that the threshold criteria are met in this case as set out at pages 23 – 25 of the bundle and I make findings of fact accordingly. It therefore follows that at the time protective action was taken S was at risk of suffering significant harm that harm being sexual harm and neglect due to the care likely to be provided to her by her parents not being what it would be appropriate for a parent to give. 9. . The Threshold Criteria having been met, the Local Authority asks the Court to approve its Care Plan and seeks a Care Order in respect of S. The Local Authority also seeks a Placement Order under Section 22(2) (b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 so that S's future permanency may be ensured by way of adoption outside the natural family. S was accepted for adoption by the Local Authority Adoption Panel on 9 September 2010, and that decision was ratified by the adoption decision maker on 22 September 2010. The application for a Placement Order was lodged at Court on 15 September 2010 subject to ratification. 10. As I have said, S is only five months old. She is a white British child who is a happy and contented baby and no concerns have been identified in relation to her health and general development. She has settled well in her current placement and has developed an attachment with her carer. It is the view of the Children’s Guardian that S’s next move should be to a permanent family placement which can meet her needs through to adulthood and that such a move should take place with the minimum of delay. I agree. Earlier in these proceedings the mother’s oldest child F put herself forward as a carer for S. A viability assessment was completed and both F and her partner presented as positive parents, having two young children of their own. However F and her partner later declined to take a full Kinship Carers Assessment after much consideration although this in no way reflects upon their parenting of their own children. No other family members have come forward as potential carers for S. 11. I am therefore satisfied that S cannot be returned to the care of her parents either now or in the foreseeable future and as there are no other family members able to care for her the only order I can make is a care order to X Council so that they can plan for her future with an alternative adoptive family. 12. I must now consider the placement application. As S is only 5 months old she requires a permanent, stable and loving home where all her needs can be met throughout her childhood and into adolescence. In my judgment this can only be achieved through adoption. S has already been considered by the council’s Adoption Panel as suitable for adoption and the council have informed me that they hope to be able to place her with an adoptive family before the end of the year. S has already formed strong attachments to her current foster carers but the Children’s Guardian believes that these can be transferred to her new carers. However, the sooner this change of placement occurs, the easier it will be for S to begin to form new attachments. 13. Neither parent consents to a placement order being made and I can only proceed to make such an order if I dispense with their consent which I am asked to do on the grounds that S’s welfare requires that parental agreement be dispensed with. This, of course, mirrors the test which I must apply in considering the application generally, namely that the paramount consideration must be S’s welfare throughout her life. 14. For the reasons I have already given, and applying the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, I am satisfied that S’s welfare dictates that a placement order should be made so as to safeguard her future care, and that for the same reasons the consent of both parents should be dispensed with. 15. In arriving at this decision I am aware that S will not be brought up in her birth family and will have only limited contact with her birth parents through the council’s letter box scheme, but I am satisfied that these arrangements are the best that can be made in the circumstances and will help meet S’s needs for information about her biological family as she grows older. Furthermore, the care plan provides for S to hopefully have direct contact with her birth siblings twice per year and I would commend such an arrangement if at all possible. 16. I therefore dispense with the consent of the mother and the father and make a placement order in favour of X Council in respect of S. In doing so I approve the care plan. 17. Heard before a District Judge Magistrates’ Courts on the 29 th September 2010. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII