Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 76 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:

A District Judge

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

Between:

	X Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	Ms M	1st Respondent	
	Ms J	2nd Respondent	
	K(a child through his Children’s Guardian	3rd Respondent	

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

Ms A	for the	  Applicant	
Ms B	for the	1st Respondent	
Mr C	for the 	2nd Respondent	
Mr E	            for the 	3rd Respondent	

Hearing dates: 11.10.10

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

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 (Other than a person identified by name in the reasons themselves) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved

Justices’ Reasons

		
1.	This is an application by X Council (the Council) for care and placement orders in respect of a child, K born who is one year old.  K’s mother is Ms M (the mother) who attended at court but left before the hearing commenced.  The mother does not consent to the applications before the court but does not actively oppose them.  The identity of K’s father is not known and consequently he has not been served with notice of the proceedings.  K’s grandmother, Ms J (the grandmother), has been joined as a respondent to the proceedings.  She has attended at court and again does not actively oppose the applications whilst not consenting to them.  K himself is represented through the Children’s Guardian, Mr D who supports both applications.
	
2.	
K has two half-siblings, F who is five years old and G who is four years old both of whom are placed with the grandmother and originally it had been hoped to conclude their cases today by way of Care Orders to the Council with both children remaining placed with the grandmother as a family network carer.  However, the grandmother was considered at the fostering panel on 13.9.10 when the panel refused to approve the grandmother as a long-term carer for the two children and the Council has therefore had to put forward amended care plans which are for placement for adoption.  However, neither F nor G has yet been approved by the adoption panel as suitable for adoption and therefore their cases can not proceed further today.  I have also been informed that in any event the grandmother intends to appeal against the fostering panel decision and has 28 days in which to do so.  Until this appeal has been heard no final decisions can be made in respect of F and G.
	
3.	I have therefore set a new timetable for the proceedings relating to F and G but all parties have asked me to deal with K’s case to a conclusion.  Although the grandmother was originally hoping to care for K as well as his two half-siblings she has very sensibly decided that as the fostering panel has deemed her unsuitable to care for G and F she should not pursue her wish to care for K as well and so once again she does not actively oppose the applications.
	
4.	The history of this matter is fully set out in the care plan for K at CP 33-35 of the bundle and I adopt that for the purpose of this judgment. The threshold criteria can be found at pages 11-14 of the bundle.  They graphically set out the concerns in this case namely poor home conditions, neglect of the children’s physical care, and a lack of stability due to a large number of house moves and missed health appointments.  There have also been issues of domestic violence and concerns about other relationships which the mother has had with inappropriate partners.  On 29.9.10 the mother filed an amended response to the threshold document (pages 35-36) in which she conceded each of the facts relied upon by the Council.  Threshold is not, therefore, in dispute in this case.   I am satisfied that the schedule at pages 11 – 14 properly reflects the concerns in this case.  I approve the schedule and make findings of fact accordingly.  It therefore follows that at the time protective action was taken the children were suffering and were likely to suffer significant harm in the form of emotional harm and neglect as well as impairment of their health and development due to the care given to them or likely to be given to them not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give unless an order is made.

5.	I must now consider what order, if any, to make having regard to the welfare principles set out in Section 1 Children Act 1989 and reminding myself that it is the welfare of K which is my paramount consideration.   K is 16 months old and is a white child of British nationality.  He was made the subject of an Emergency Protection Order on 6.11.09 after the mother reneged on an agreement that he would be accommodated by the Council under Section 20 Children Act 1989 following his discharge from hospital.  Instead, the mother removed K from the hospital ward.  Following the making of the EPO K was placed in foster care where he has remained throughout under a succession of interim care orders from the 11.11.09 onwards. 
	
6.	I am told by the Children’s Guardian that K has made good progress whilst in foster care and is now feeding better although he still suffers with some reflux at times.  Furthermore, treatment of his left foot is progressing well and he is able to stand and walk with assistance.  He is described as a happy and contented child who readily engages with anyone who will play with him.  He also appears to be developing a strong bond with his foster carers and their own children.  He is meeting his developmental milestones.
	
7.	As I have already said, the mother does not actively oppose the applications in respect of K.  Although she still uses an address in this area for post she is believed to be living in a different part of the county with friends and in the light of assessments carried out she is not in a position to care for K herself.  Furthermore, the grandmother has also decided not to pursue her application in respect of K but to concentrate her energies in looking after F and G.  I realise how difficult it must have been for both the mother and grandmother to have arrived at this decision but I commend them for it and for putting the interests of K before themselves.  
	
8.	The mother’s sister and her partner also applied to be considered as carers for K but after receiving a negative viability assessment they have also decided not to pursue an application.  Again, I acknowledge how difficult this must have been and have no doubt that K is loved by all members of his family.
	
9.	I am therefore satisfied that K cannot be returned to his mother either now or in the foreseeable future and there are no other family members able to care for him.  In view of K’s age he needs to receive consistent, stable and loving care so that he can meet his full potential and decisions about his future need to be made as soon as possible.  I therefore make a care order to X Council so that they can pursue their plans for permanency as set out in the care plan at CP33-43.
	
10.	I must now consider the placement application. As K is only 16 months old he requires a permanent, stable and loving home where all his needs can be met throughout his childhood and into adolescence. In my judgment this can only be achieved through adoption. On 4 October2010 K was considered by the council’s Adoption Panel and approved as suitable for adoption. K has already formed strong attachments to his current foster carers but it is believed that these can be transferred to his new carers. However, the sooner this change of placement occurs, the easier it will be for K to begin to form new attachments. As the Council intend to pursue a plan for adoption in respect of F and G I have been informed that, should the court agree, attempts will be made to try and identify a family who will be willing to adopt all three children. However, the Council believe, as does the Children’s Guardian, that this may prove difficult, in which event the Council would not wish to delay placing K with an adoptive family in view of his young age.
	
11.	The mother does not consent to a placement order being made and I can only proceed to make such an order if I dispense with her consent which I am asked to do on the grounds that K’s welfare requires that parental agreement be dispensed with. This, of course, mirrors the test which I must apply in considering the application generally, namely that the paramount consideration must be K’s welfare throughout his life.
For the reasons I have already given, and applying the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, I am satisfied that K’s welfare dictates that a placement order should be made so as to safeguard his future care, and that for the same reasons the consent of the mother should be dispensed with.
	
12.	In arriving at this decision I am aware that K will not be brought up in his birth family and will have only limited contact with his mother and grandmother via the Council’s letter box scheme as set out in the care plan at page CP 37 of the bundle. If K is not placed with F and G the Council will strive to find carers who are open to direct contact taking place between the siblings. The Children’s Guardian also recommends that consideration is given to other family members being included in the arrangements for indirect contact ( para. 49 of his report). I am satisfied that these arrangements are the best that can be made in the circumstances and will help meet K’s need for information about his biological family as he grows older.
	
13.	I therefore dispense with the consent of the mother and make a placement order in favour of X Council in respect of K. In doing, so I approve the care plan.
	
14.	In arriving at my decision I have taken account of the right to private and family life of the mother and grandmother under Article 8 but my decision is in accordance with the law and proportionate to the concerns which have been raised in this case. Furthermore, care and placement orders are necessary to protect the health of K in all the circumstances of this case.
	
15.	Heard before a District Judge on the 11.10.10 with the judgment delivered on the 13.10.10.