Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCC 41 (Fam)

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Date: Wednesday, 26th May 2010

Before
A CIRCUIT JUDGE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	X LOCAL AUTHORITY	Applicant	
	- and -		
	B & R	Respondents	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr W (instructed by Legal Department, X Local Authority) for the Applicant.
Mr P for the Parents.
Ms J for the Guardian.

Hearing dates:
26th May 2010

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report, no person may be identified by name or location (Other than a person identified by name in the judgment itself) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved

.............................

Her Honour Judge:	
1.	
	I am dealing today with an application by X City Council for a care order.  The Local Authority applies for an order in respect of KTR, who was born on 28th November 2008 and is now some 18 months old.  	
2.		The proceedings started when K was only about six weeks old, following his admission to hospital with serious injuries.  He had a subdural haemorrhage and rib fractures.  The matter proceeded slowly, as these cases do, whilst considerable expert medical and other evidence was obtained.  At a fact finding hearing in October 2009, over which I presided, I made findings that the injuries to K were non-accidental and that, on the balance of probabilities, the injuries were caused by the mother.  It is right to say that, following that hearing, various other expert reports have been obtained, including psychiatric and psychological assessments, as a result of which the Local Authority ask the Court to say that the child cannot be rehabilitated to the care of the mother; and indeed in fairness to the mother she accepts that the weight of the evidence is such that she cannot seek that rehabilitation today.	
3.		So the care plan is for K to remain where he has been since his discharge from hospital, and that is placed with his maternal great aunt and her husband, Mr and Mrs H.  They have clearly given a high standard of care to K since he was released from hospital, and I am sure are committed to doing so for the foreseeable future.  As I say, the mother has conceded that a care order should be made and that K should remain with his maternal great aunt and uncle.	
4.		I mention very briefly the father’s part.  He took part in the finding of fact hearing, but since then has failed to attend contact and has failed to take any part in the proceedings and, indeed, has failed to give any instructions to his solicitors.  In due course, the Court will make an order that the Local Authority should be permitted to refuse contact between the father and K.  	
5.		The issue for me to decide is the issue of what level of contact in particular the mother should have after today’s final hearing when a final care order has been made.  The mother was enjoying contact six days a week for a very long period of time until a couple of months ago.  I would comment that it might have been incumbent on the Local Authority to consider reducing that level of contact before they did, because clearly that led the mother to feel, not surprisingly, that a higher level of contact should continue once the care order was made.  Six days a week contact following a finding of fact hearing at which findings were made perhaps led the mother into a false sense that that level or certainly a high level of contact would continue once the Court had sanctioned the final placement for K.  The contact was reduced by the Local Authority belatedly to fortnightly some short time prior to this hearing. 	
6.		The Local Authority came to Court with a care plan that the mother should have contact six times a year.  The mother in her short evidence which she has given before me suggested that she would like it weekly.  She in fact said: “I would like as much as I can have.”  The Guardian’s initial proposals were that the mother’s contact should be monthly and she stands by that today.  Various negotiations took place yesterday and the Local Authority too now say that mother’s contact should be monthly.  However, Mr P in his address to me on behalf of the mother asked me to consider that contact should be fortnightly.	
7.		This is quite a difficult exercise because the child has been where he is going to remain, luckily, for a long period of time and, in so far as he has any understanding at his age of 18 months, no doubt understands that this is his home.  The mother, therefore, argues that he will not be unsettled by a level of contact of weekly or fortnightly.  I do not think he would be, but what is important is his perception as he gets older.  There is talk of the relationship between the mother and K being maintained, as no doubt they have a relationship, but henceforth in practical terms that is not to be a mother and child relationship.  Indeed, it is conceded that the mother and child relationship exists between his carer, KH, and K.	
8.		The Guardian, very validly, makes the point that she knows that the mother accepts that K should be regarded in practical terms as K’s mother, but says that it is KH who struggles with accepting the primary role.  So what we are looking at is a pattern of contact which will cement Mr and Mrs H as K’s primary carers.  That is what they are and that is what they are to be for the foreseeable future, probably, with the greatest of respect to the mother, for the whole of his minority.  So they must be allowed to take the primary caring role without interference and interruption.  To balance against that, the mother has the right to contact and the Local Authority have the duty to promote it, but what we must do is set it at a level which meets the child’s needs for contact and also promotes his security and welfare, not only in the short term but in the longer term.	
9.		In short, I endorse the Local Authority’s amended proposals that the mother should have contact on a monthly basis for a minimum of three hours, but what I do say is that the matter clearly has to be kept under review and if that goes well, and providing Mr and Mrs H settle in their role as permanent carers which is being endorsed by this Court, then the review process should look in fairly short order (and I believe there is a review in September) at increasing the duration of the contact and possibly increasing the frequency to fortnightly.  I was asked at one point to look at fortnightly immediately and then review it downwards if necessary.  It is far better to walk before we run in cases like this and to look at how the monthly contact goes with a view – and I do voice this opinion if it goes well over the next few months – to increasing it possibly to fortnightly and certainly for a duration of well in excess of three hours.	
10.		I am not going to make an order, but I endorse the Local Authority’s proposals for contact in respect of the mother and also, so far as I need to, in so far as they are included in the care plan, their proposals for bimonthly contact with the paternal grandparents and ad hoc contact arrangements for the material grandparents.  I also endorse the indirect proposals.