England and Wales County Court (Family)

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCC 4 (Fam)

 

 

In the County Court

 

 

Before:

The Circuit Judge

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

 

Between:

 

	X Local Authority	Applicant
	And
	A Mother	1st Respondent
	And
	A Father	2nd Respondent

 

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

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

 

Miss T for the   Applicant

Miss R for the  2nd Respondent

Miss G for the GM

Miss K for the Guardian

 

 

Hearing dates: 17 February 2010

 

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

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

1.     JUDGE JOHN:  This application before the court relates to MK.   M was born on [a date] June 1994 and so is fifteen years of age.   Her mother is DK, her father MW, and her grandmother Mrs. F.  

2.     There is a long and detailed history to M’s young life which I need only summarise very briefly.   She has been involved with and subject to intervention by Social Services in her life from 1994 onwards as a result of various referrals made to them.   The concerns that arose related to mother’s lifestyle, to M being left in the care of inappropriate carers, to suspicions about non-accidental injuries to M, a failure to keep her medical appointments, a failure to attend properly to her education and ensure her school attendance, the resultant emotional effects this had on M herself, and the presence within the home of a Schedule 1 offender and the threat that posed to M’s security.  

3.     She was registered on the Child Protection Register in February 2006.   Since then various things have happened in her young life.   She went missing.   She went to live with Mrs. F and a residence order was made.   That was sought to be discharged later because of further difficulties that arose.   A report under section 37 of the Children Act 1989  resulted in a residence order being made in her father’s favour. Then in November 2008 a police protection order was sought and obtained after  M was missing.   She was placed for a short while with Mrs. F but became a looked-after child on 18^th November 2008.

4.     That general background was what led to there being an application for an interim care order on 7^th January 2009. It then transpired that M was pregnant.   She was placed in a foster placement which she left for a short while.   By a regulation 38 agreement she lived with her then boyfriend’s family.   The care plan was for fostering of M and she stayed with Miss G until the birth of LM on [a date] May 2009.   She then went to a new mother and baby placement where she has been ever since.    In September 2009 M went back to full time education, LM being accommodated in a crèche.

5.     A psychological assessment was undertaken by Mr. W, and in his report of 3^rd December 2009 he confirmed that M’s essential need was for support as opposed to therapy.

6.     Currently M remains in the same placement.   She has contact with Mrs. F and her father.   Father agrees with the local authority’s proposals;  so does Mrs. F.   Mother has never engaged in these proceedings.   M herself agrees and accepts the proposals and her own need for help and support, though she sees the future in terms of progression to independent living after her threshold sixteenth birthday.

7.     That is a brief synopsis of the evidence in the case.   The detail of it is contained with the social worker’s statement, two core assessments, and the reports of the guardian.   The current care plan is to preserve M’s foster placement and the level of support that it is considered she needs and that she will herself accept until and beyond her sixteenth birthday in accordance with the recommendation of Mr. W. That care plan and that proposal have to be considered alongside the pathway plan which has been prepared in her case with the same aim and objective.

8.     Turning to the threshold criteria in this case, the parties agree that the document which is at A.16 to 19 in the bundle and which should be annexed to this short judgment contains criteria all of which are met and established in the circumstances.   I have considered them independently myself.  I have considered the evidence upon which the criteria are based, and I, too, am satisfied that the requirements of section 31 are established in this case and that M was at risk of significant harm at the relevant date.  I make those findings and reach that conclusion about the threshold.

9.     That leads then to the consideration of outcome.   There is no resistance by any of the parties, and that includes M herself, to what is proposed here.   As I have already observed, mother has not engaged.   I nevertheless apply my own independent mind to what is proposed.  I remind myself that M’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration.  I must also consider all of the circumstances, in particular the criteria in section 1(1) of the Act - the welfare checklist.   Both the social worker and the guardian in detailed, helpful and expert analysis of M’s circumstances have addressed each of those criteria, and I adopt what they say unhesitatingly as an accurate, considered and valuable assessment of her position.   I only add these general observations that M’s views have been sought, and it is a mark of the progress she has made and her own level of maturity that she sees the requirements for support for her future, and has expressed that wish accordingly.   That is particularly so in the discrete circumstances of this case where her interests need now necessarily to be considered alongside those of LM as an added factor in this consideration.

10. Her physical, emotional and educational needs are as described, and particularly in her case there is a need for her continued education which itself gives rise to a need for not just the physical support necessary to enable her to pursue her education, but the emotional encouragement and support that she can derive from Mrs. F and her placement as well as her father.

11. I will not dwell on the harm which it is obvious that M has suffered from , and I will not dwell on the capability of her parents during her very unfortunate, compelling childhood.   They are addressed at length, but in considering all of the options available to the court I agree and accept unreservedly that a care order is necessary.   The local authority must have parental responsibility in respect of M to enable them to implement the only care plan which is commensurate with her needs.   It is a proportionate step.   It is a necessary step to ensure the welfare both of M and LM.   It is the least interventionist action that can be taken by the local authority in these particular circumstances.   M’s views have been fully articulated to the court.   She has expressed them clearly herself and they have been taken into account in reaching this decision.

12. Therefore I make a care order which is based upon the current care plan before the court, and I hope that in doing that, much can be achieved for both M and LM.   There is a great deal yet to be gained, despite this terribly compelling and sad background, by what opportunities are available to her now, particularly over the next year or two.   I wish her well and everyone else involved in her support well.