Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 70 (FPC)

In the X Family Proceedings Court

Re K & T

Before:
Mr H
Mrs E
Ms W

Legal Adviser:  Mrs T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	X Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	M	1st Respondent	
	and		
	D	2nd Respondent	
	and		
	K & T
(by their Children’s Guardian, Ms M)	3rd Respondent	

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

Mrs H-P	for the	Applicant	
Mrs L-D	for the	1st Respondent	
Mr T	for the	2nd Respondent	
Mr K	for the	3rd Respondent	

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

Hearing date: 27 August 2010

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

WRITTEN REASONS

The written reasons are being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report, no person may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the child and the adult members of his family must be strictly preserved

Justices’ Facts and Reasons

	These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by all parties, 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 a Supervision Order in respect of K (DOB: ) and T (DOB: ).  The local authority also supports the making of a Residence Order in respect of K and T in favour of their father, D.	
2.	K and T’s mother is M (DOB: ) and their father is D (DOB: ).  The parents have never been married and although they have cohabited with each other in the past, D moved from the family home in [] and they continue to live separately.  D is named on T’s birth certificate but not on K’s.  D does not share parental responsibility with respect to either T or K.	
3.	K and T have two full siblings – S (DOB: ) and A (DOB:) – but they are not subject of these proceedings.	
4.	K and T have been the subject of Interim Care Orders to X Local Authority since 16 February 2009.  This has been due to concerns of the local authority that they have suffered significant harm as a result of their mother’s misuse of alcohol and the impact this has on M’s ability to care for K and T on a consistent basis.	
5.	K and T have been living with their father since [] under the Placement with Parents Regulations 1991 and they are noted to be thriving in his care.	
6.	K and T were initially having contact with their mother twice weekly.  However, following the completion of the psychological assessment of M and the development plan for the children to be placed with their father, M’s contact was reduced to monthly.  M’s alcohol dependency impacts upon her ability to attend consistently and the quality of the contact sessions has been varied.  As a result, contact only takes place if M is in a fit state to attend.  The duration of contact has now been reduced to 45 minutes.	
7.	The interests of K and T have been represented by their Children’s Guardian, Ms M, and their solicitor Ms C-W.  The Children’s Guardian is not able to attend today’s hearing but they are legally represented by Mr K.	
8.	Both M and D are present in court today and are legally represented by Mr T and Mrs L-D respectively.	
9.	X Local Authority is represented today by Mrs H-P.	
10.	We have read the bundle provided for today’s hearing, in particular the final statement and care plan of Ms P, Social Worker, dated 20 July 2010 and 2 July 2010.  We have also noted the ‘Amended Findings of Fact Sought in Relation to Threshold Criteria’ filed by the local authority today.  The parties have agreed this document and we are satisfied that the threshold criteria is met in this case.	
11.	In her statement dated 24 August 2010, M agrees with the plan of the local authority for K and T to remain with their father.  She also acknowledges that she is unable to care for K and T at this time as concerns about her alcohol misuse remain unresolved.	
12.	D has not filed a final statement, however, he has co-operated with the assessment process within the proceedings.  D completed a positive Parenting Assessment in August 2009 and has subsequently resigned from his job in order to participate fully in parenting the children.  Placement with Parents Regulations were approved on 12 March 2010 and the rehabilitation programme to D - which was developed and endorsed within the court proceedings - has been successfully concluded.	
13.	We have read the report of the Children’s Guardian, Ms M, which supports the making of a Supervision Order to X Local Authority and a Residence Order in respect of the children to D.	
	Reasons	
14.	As we are considering the making of a final Order, we must first consider the issue of whether an anonymised version of this judgment should be publicly recorded.  The parties’ legal representatives have raised no objections to such reporting and we make an Order that an anonymised version of our Facts and Reasons in these proceedings be published, following approval by all the parties.	
15.	K and T’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration.  We have considered the ‘no order principle’ and consider it better to make an order than no order at all.  Without an Order, K and T could be returned to the care of their mother and so their placement with their father needs to be secured on a legal basis.	
16.	The local authority are satisfied that the care D affords K and T is meeting their needs and they are thriving.  They therefore no longer consider that the level of statutory intervention a full Care Order would subject K and T to is necessary.	
17.	However, the local authority do consider it appropriate to remain involved and be able to offer advice and assistance to the family for a period of time.	
18.	As is acknowledged by the Children’s Guardian and other professionals, D has made significant progress and has been able to provide a loving and caring home for all four children.	
19.	We adopt the contents of the ‘Amended Findings of Fact Sought in Relation to Threshold Criteria’ as our findings of fact.  We are satisfied that the threshold criteria is met and that K and T would be at risk of suffering significant harm if returned to the care of their mother at this time.	
20.	We have considered the welfare checklist in respect of both Orders and agree that these orders are a necessary and proportionate response in order to meet the welfare needs of K and T.	
21.	We therefore make a Supervision Order for 12 months in respect of K and T in favour of X Local Authority and a Residence Order in respect of K and T to their father, D.  By making this Residence Order, we also make a Parental Responsibility Order in favour of D in accordance with Section 12 of the Children Act 1989.	
22.	We have considered the Human Rights Act 1989 and, although the making of these Orders is an intervention into the life of the family, we believe that it is justified and proportionate in all of the circumstances.	
	Orders	
23.	The children, K (DOB: ) and T (DOB: ), shall reside with their father, D	
24.	The Respondent Father, D, shall have Parental Responsibility in respect of the children, K (DOB: ) and T (DOB: )	
25.	There shall be a Supervision Order in favour of X Local Authority in respect of the children, K (DOB: ) and T (DOB: ) until midnight on 26 August 2011