N L (Children), Re [2010] EWMC 79 (FPC) (2010)

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 78 (FPC)) In the Magistrates’ Court Family Proceedings Court Before: Lay Magistrates - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: X Local Authority Applicant and Ms M st Respondent Mr S nd Respondent N and L(two children through their Children’s Guardian) rd and 4 th Respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms K for the Applicant Ms P for the 1st Respondent Ms E for the nd Respondent Ms R for the rd and th Respondents Hearing dates: 18.10.10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. We are considering an application by X Council for care orders in respect of two children N who is five year old and L who is two years old. The children’s parents are Ms M and Mr S who both have parental responsibility for their children. 2. The Local Authority is represented by Ms K who has with her the social worker. If the Local Authority’s application is granted their plan for the children is for them to be placed in the care of their maternal grandparents who have been approved as Kinship Carers. The plan is also for contact to be gradually reduced in line with the individual care plans filed at CP1 – 20 and CP21 – 40 of the court bundle. The Local Authority submits that this level of contact will cause minimal disruption to the children’s routine and will enable the children to settle within their new placement whilst retaining a link with their birth parents. It is submitted that the right level of contact for the mother is every four weeks and for the father three times per year during the school holidays. This contact will obviously be kept under review to ensure it continues to meet the children’s needs. 3. The mother has attended court and is represented by Ms P. It has undoubtedly been a difficult decision for her to make but her position today is not to challenge the Local Authority’s care plans for her daughters. The mother has accepted the amended threshold document that has been prepared at court today. In an ideal world the mother would like the children returned to her care but she has bravely put their interests before her own. She does not seek to challenge the evidence contained in the statements and assessments filed in the court bundle and will continue to work with Social Care to ensure the stability of the children’s placement with their maternal grandmother and step-grandfather. 4. The father has not attended court. Throughout these proceedings he has been legally represented and Ms E attends at court today. Ms E has confirmed that she has no recent instructions from her client. The social worker has confirmed that he has recently been sentenced to a period of 4 months custody in respect of an assault on Ms M. It was made clear at the last court hearing that if parents failed to give instructions to their solicitors then the court would be asked to proceed to make final orders. We are satisfied that the father was aware of this hearing and the nature of it and that had he wished to attend he could have requested that he be produced at court. He has chosen not to seek to be produced today, he has consistently failed to engage with social care, has not attended contact since July 2010 and he has failed to give his solicitor any recent instructions. We are therefore satisfied that he has chosen not to attend court or to seek to challenge any of the evidence before us. We agree with the submissions made by the Local Authority and supported by both the mother and Children’s Guardian that the case should proceed in the absence of the father today in order to avoid further delay for these children. The children need certainty in their lives and they need to move to their long-term placement as soon as possible. 5. The children themselves are represented through their Children’s Guardian, Mrs B who together with the solicitor for the children Ms R supports the Local Authority’s applications. 6. We have considered all the documents filed in this case and listened to the parties submissions. We have been assisted in this case by the parties’ presenting it to us on an unopposed basis. We acknowledge the difficult decisions that the mother has made in order to put the children’s needs before her own and we commend her for that. It is clear to us, as it is clear to the professionals in this case, that Ms M loves her children very much and has been committed to them throughout these difficult proceedings. 7. The parties present at court have agreed an amended schedule of findings. Whilst this document also relates to findings against the absent father the findings contained in the document have all been accepted by him in his statement in response to the threshold document. Having considered the evidence we are satisfied that the threshold criteria are met and make the specific findings sought. We are therefore satisfied that at the time protective action was taken that N and L had suffered significant harm in the form of emotional abuse and neglect and that the children are at risk of suffering significant harm in the form of emotional abuse and neglect and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to them or likely to be given to them, if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them. 8. We now turn to the need for an order. We remind ourselves that we should only make an order if it is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children which must be our paramount concern. In reaching our decision we have considered the welfare checklist contained in the Children Act 1989. We have also had regard to any issues arising under the Human Rights Act. 9. The long history of Social Care’s involvement with this family is fully set out in the documents filed in the court bundle. We can see no purpose in rehearsing this evidence in these reasons except to say that we rely upon it for finding the threshold criteria met and in deciding what order is appropriate. The concerns of the Local Authority surround drug and alcohol misuse by both parents, serious domestic violence witnessed by the children, the parents’ chaotic lifestyle, failure to engage with agencies and the chronic neglect of the children. Throughout these proceedings attempts have been made to engage the parents in attempts to change their lifestyle and address their addictions. Any progress that was made was not sustained. Even after the children were removed from their care the domestic violence continued and Mr S’s current sentence is for a domestic assault on Ms M which occurred as recently as the 10.9.10. There have also been further instances of drug overdoses by the mother and heavy drinking by both parents. We have had the benefit of a large number of assessments in this case namely from a Forensic Psychologist, A Specialist in Substance Use and Parenting Capacity, Family Network Carer Assessment, A Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Report from Addiction Dependency Agency, and from and Intensive Family Support Team. All the assessments have concluded that the parents are unable to safely parent the children at this time either as a couple or individually. The Children’s Guardian has done her own assessment of the evidence and has sadly reached the same conclusion. 10. There has been a positive kinship carers' assessment of the children’s maternal grandmother and step-grandfather. The children have been having extended contact with them and it is hoped that they will move to their new permanent home during the school half-term. They will need time to settle into their new home but it is anticipated that this move will be sensitively managed to minimise any disruption to them. The children are too young to be able to express their wishes and feelings. They have a good bond with their mother and it is hoped that this can be maintained through contact. The children will have all the normal needs of children of their age. Following the positive assessment of the grandparents the children’s physical emotional and educational needs will be met by them. The grandparents also have the support of other extended family members. It is clear that the children have suffered harm whilst in the care of their parents and we have made specific findings in this regard. We are also satisfied that if we did not make an order they would be likely to suffer significant harm in the future. 11. Like the parties we are satisfied that at this stage in their lives the only order that will adequately safeguard these children is that of a Care Order. Accordingly we make a Care Order in respect of each child to X Council. 12. The contact arrangements have been set out in the care plans filed. Understandably the mother would wish to have as much contact as possible with her daughters. She has today accepted that they need time to settle into their new home and does not seek an order in respect of contact. The mother accepts that this will be kept under review to ensure it meets the children’s needs. The father has not had contact with his children since July; he has not complied with the court’s direction to file a statement for this hearing and has chosen not to attend court and not to give his solicitor any instructions to challenge the care plan. The Guardian approves the level of contact. We also agree that the contact arrangements are appropriate at this time and therefore make no order in this regard. We approve the care plans. 13. Heard before Lay Magistrates on the 18.10.10 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII