Z (A Child), Re [2010] EWMC 17 (FPC) (2010)

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 17 (FPC) In the X Family Proceedings Court Re Z Before: Mrs F Mrs E Mrs W Legal Adviser: Mrs T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: X Local Authority Applicant and Ms AA 1st Respondent and Mr BB 2nd Respondent and Z (by his Children’s Guardian, Ms B) 3rd Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr H for the Applicant Mr B for the 1st and 2nd Respondents Ms S for the 3rd Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hearing date: 22 March 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Justices’ Facts and Reasons These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by all parties save for the First and Second Respondents , who do 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 is an application by X Local Authority for Care and Placement orders in respect of Z (DOB ). 2. Z’s parents are Ms AA (DOB ) and Mr BB (DOB ). They have never been married and Mr BB has not been named on Z’s Birth Certificate. Ms AA is therefore the only person with automatic Parental Responsibility. 3. Ms AA initially gave consent to voluntary accommodation for Z and he was placed with Local Authority foster carers as soon as he was discharged from hospital. X Family Proceedings Court initially made an Interim Care Order on 11 September 2009 and this has been renewed throughout these proceedings. X Local Authority therefore share Parental Responsibility for Z. 4. Neither parent is in attendance at court today as they are both currently in custody. However, they are legally represented and are both aware of today’s hearing date and the purpose and potential outcome of the hearing. 5. Z’s interests have been represented by the Children’s Guardian, Ms B, and the Child’s Solicitor, Ms S. 6. As we are considering the making of a final Care Order, we must initially consider the issue of whether an anonymised version of this judgment should be publicly reported. 7. The parties’ legal representatives have raised no objection to such reporting and we therefore grant leave for an anonymised version of our Facts and Reasons in these proceedings be published, following approval of all parties. 8. Z was accommodated by X Local Authority pursuant to s20 Children Act 1989 on 28 August 2009 and placed with Local Authority foster carers. Care Proceedings were issued on 7 September 2009; the court granting an Interim Care Order in respect of Z on 11 September 2009. Z remains in Local Authority foster care and is settled in his placement. 9. Z was made the subject of a pre-birth Child protection plan on 18 June 2009 in the category of neglect. The Local Authority’s concerns centred on the parents’ drug use, related criminal offences and lack of engagement with the Local Authority and other agencies. Ms AA has other children, all of whom are no longer in her care. The daughter of Ms AA and Mr CC, resides with her Maternal Aunt subject to a Residence Order. Ms AA and Mr BB’s other children were previously the subject of Care proceedings conducted by Y Local Authority. They have since been adopted outside of the family. Mr BB has five other children from previous relationships; all currently reside with their respective mothers. 10. The parents have a long history of drug use and criminal offending related to their need to fund their drug habits. As a result of this, their lifestyles have been chaotic. They have both received custodial sentences and have been in and out of prison. Ms AA was using Class A drugs whilst pregnant with Z. 11. The parents underwent a parenting assessment (completed on 6 October 2009) but failed to engage fully with the assessment. The assessment was terminated due to numerous failures to attend by both parents. 12. The Maternal Grandmother put herself forward as a potential carer for Z. The viability assessment of the Maternal Grandmother, dated 1 October 2009, was negative. 13. Neither parent has had contact with Z since November 2009. Their attendance at contact prior to this was sporadic and unreliable. 14. X Local Authority has filed its final evidence and Placement Order application. The Local Authority’s plan for Z is for permanence by way of Adoption. 15. X Local Authority has made a Placement Order application in respect of Z. Neither Ms AA nor Mr BB consent to the making of Care or Placement Orders. X Local Authority is asking that their consent to the making of a Placement Order is dispensed with on welfare grounds. 16. Neither parent has responded to the Local Authority’s final evidence. On 5 February 201, their solicitor confirmed that he was without current instructions from his clients but he was attempting to contact them. 17. The Guardian has filed her final report. The Guardian recommends that Care and Placement Orders are granted in respect of Z. 18. Family finding is currently underway with the aim of identifying a suitable placement for Z. Reasons 19. We have read the statements of the Social Worker dated 26 August 2009 and 21 January 2010 and accept these as our findings of fact. We have also read the Local Authority’s Final Care Plan dated 22 January 2010. We have considered the Guardian’s final report and recommendations dated 18 February 2010. 20. X Local Authority believe that if Z was to be returned to the care of his parents, he would suffer significant harm due to neglect. We are satisfied that the threshold criteria under s31(2) Children Act 1989 are met and that Z is likely to suffer significant harm if he were to be returned to the care of either Ms AA or Mr BB. We consider that this harm is attributable to the care that Ms AA and Mr BB would provide to Z not being that which it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. 21. We understand that the parents oppose the making of a Care Order in respect of Z and would wish to have Z returned to their care. However, we consider that a Care Order is necessary in order to enable X Local Authority to continue to safeguard Z’s welfare. We therefore make a Final Care Order for Z in favour of X Local Authority. 22. We have considered the Local Authority’s application for a Placement Order in respect of Z. We note the Guardian’s recommendation that a Placement Order should be granted to enable the Local Authority to implement its care plan for Adoption. The parents oppose the making of a Placement Order. We consider that a Placement Order is in Z’s best welfare interests and will allow the Local Authority to pursue its plan for Adoption for Z. We therefore grant a Placement Order and dispense with the consent of Ms AA and Mr BB pursuant to s52(1)(b) Adoption and Children Act 2002 on the grounds that the child’s welfare requires that their consent is dispensed with. 23. We have also considered the Human Rights of the parties and have concluded that Z’s welfare is best served by these Orders. 24. We feel that these Orders are necessary and a proportionate response in order to meet Z’s welfare needs. The permanent removal of any child from his parents is a draconian measure and we have fully considered the implications for all concerned. Regretfully, no other Order or course of action would satisfactorily safeguard Z and guarantee him a secure and settled future. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII