IMPORTANT NOTICE
This judgment was delivered in private.  The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved.  All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with.  Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: LS16C00758
IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT LEEDS

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF: K and P (CHILDREN)
Coverdale House
East Parade
Leeds
LS1 2BH 

Thursday, 23rd March 2017

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE HILLIER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: K and P (Children)(Dicharge of care order)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by
Apple Transcription Limited
Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES
DX: 26258 Rawtenstall – Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counsel for the Local Authority: Miss Caroline Shields
The Mother attended In Person 
The Father did not attend and was not represented 
Solicitor for the Children/Guardian: Mr Booth

Hearing date: 23rd March 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT APPROVED
HER HONOUR JUDGE HILLIER:
1.	I am concerned with two girls, K who was born in November 2012, and P who was born in August 2014.  The applicant is Bradford Metropolitan District Council represented today by Miss Caroline Shields of counsel. The application is for discharge of a care order. The girls’ mother is A.  She is not represented today.  I have had a brief conversation with her, and her mother is in court with her. Both are very pleased that the application has been made.  
2.	The girls’ father is R.  He is not represented and has not attended today. He attended at the last hearing and I was able, at that stage, to have some discussion with him.  His position has vacillated.  He initially did not want the care order to be discharged but his concern, I think, was really born out of the level of contact and what was going to happen in the future.  At the last hearing he consented to the order being made.
3.	What R really wanted to know was, was his contact going to reduce and what did he have to do in order to have unsupervised contact?  I am absolutely satisfied that on the last occasion, were it not for the fact that I wanted the care plan to be amended to be clear as to the position in terms of supervision of contact and what would happen in the future, that I could have made a final order when he was present.  I am taking his consent from that last hearing as ongoing and continuing today, even though he is not present.    He was aware of this hearing, has chosen not to attend and has not indicated any change of heart.
4.	It is overwhelmingly clear to me that the application to discharge the care order and to substitute a supervision order for 12 months, together with a child arrangements order in favour of the mother clarifying that the girls live with her and that they have supervised contact with their father is, without doubt, in their welfare interests.  I am giving this very short judgment and will direct a transcript to be ordered. It should be read in conjunction with my detailed judgment in the care proceedings which is dated 22nd October 2015.  That sets out the history of the matter and it reminds the reader of the risk factors that were very clearly ascertained in relation to the father, in particular, and the mother at the time. 
5.	I recorded at the time that A is vulnerable and she had been unable to put her children first.  She recognised that she had failed P.   I said then that she was working well but she needed to maintain that separation from R and work with her support network to ensure that she does not put her girls at risk in the future.  It seems to me that she has done exactly what I asked her to do, with the support of her mother, the local authority and the various programmes that she has played a full part in.  She really has shown her metal and she has really done her girls proud.  If she felt she had let P down, she has now made up for that by the work that she has put in for both girls and I really do commend her for that.
6.	There is, of course, still a risk.  She remains vulnerable but she is a lot less vulnerable than she was.  She has maintained a separation from R, in fact a criticism is made of the maternal family that they have distanced themselves from him because he admitted causing an injury to P.  Having said that, I can understand why they feel that way given the findings I made about the father and that caution is a protective factor.  Certainly the good working of the family with the local authority has meant that the outcome for these girls has been very successful indeed.
7.	In 2015 I considered the range of orders that were available to me and I determined that the girls’ best interests could only be met by a care order.  I am equally satisfied now that the girls’ best interests can only be met by a reduction from the care order to substituting the supervision order.  The purpose of the supervision order is really to assist with ongoing contact issues.  Unfortunately, R has problems with housing and he has financial difficulties.  He is not able to afford supported or supervised contact of his own but there are good things about his contact. His contact with the girls is positive and it is something that they need to have.  They need to know who he is and to enjoy that contact with him but they also need to be protected from him.  
8.	It is still unclear as to why he did what he did and until the triggers are clear, and until it is safe, it is very much my view that the contact must be supervised and the continuation of the supervision order allows the local authority to remain involved for at least the next twelve months.  I say at least the next twelve months, it may be that an extension would be required and the local authority must, of course, bear that in mind and consider towards the end of the twelve-month period whether it should be extended or not. 
9.	The girls are thriving in their mother’s care.  They are enjoying the contact with their father and I am grateful to Miss Shields and to Mr Booth for drafting and finalising final orders, both in terms of a child arrangements order, supervision order and an order discharging the care order.  I approve the orders.  Having considered the welfare checklist as it applies to the girls, having read the court bundle, including the local authority social worker’s assessment of the family, the guardian’s helpful analysis and, in particular, the revised care plans for both girls which address the concerns that I raised at the IRH.  I therefore make the orders and, in addition, direct that a transcript be obtained.  It does not need to be an expedited transcript. 
[Judgment ends]