England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

 

 

                                                                                                Case No: LS13C00261

 

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LEEDS

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002

 

AND IN THE MATTER OF X (A CHILD)

 

Date: 2 July 2014

 

Before :

 

HHJ Lynch

 

 

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

Between :

 

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

 

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

 

Farzana Tai for the Applicant

Jane Aldred for the 1^st Respondent

Elizabeth Withyman for the 2^nd Respondent

Clare Linden for the 3^rd Respondent

 

Hearing date: 1 July 2014

(judgment delivered 2 July 2014)

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

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

Introduction and Background

1. In these proceedings I am concerned for X, a child aged one and a half.  She is the only child of M and F.  The parents are both still young, the mother being twenty one and the father eighteen. The couple began a relationship when they were very young, having now been together for over four years.  F does not have parental responsibility for X, not being named on her birth certificate.  X’s maternal grandparents were also assessed as potential carers in these proceedings and at one point applied for party status but they have since withdrawn this application.
2. The local authority began care proceedings in early October 2013. On 27 September, when she was nine months old, X was removed by the police from the care of her mother after she had broken an agreement to keep away from F and had assaulted a neighbour. There were already concerns on the part of professionals regarding M’s chaotic lifestyle and lack of stability as well as X being exposed to domestic violence in her parents’ relationship, her mother seeming to be unable to separate from him.  There were concerns about F’s volatility and violence, also his heavy cannabis use and involvement in criminal behaviour. 
3. An interim care order was made at the first hearing on 11 October and has been in place ever since. Early on in the case M issued an application for either a residential assessment or an independent social work assessment. That assessment was refused and the case was timetabled to an issues resolution hearing. By the time that hearing took place in January 2014 the local authority's view, having carried out a parenting assessment, was that X should not be placed with her mother. F did not initially get involved in these proceedings but he finally attended the hearing on 30 January and said he wanted to be assessed to care for his daughter.  The local authority carried out a parenting assessment of him which also reached a negative conclusion.
4. The local authority had prior to the proceedings assessed the maternal grandparents negatively (as well as a paternal great aunt) but it was only in early January, when it was clear the local authority did not propose to place X with either of her parents, that the grandparents made an application for further independent assessment of their ability to care for their granddaughter. When that application came before the court on 12 February, the guardian took the view that a fuller assessment of them was required to enable the Court to determine whether adoption was the only outcome for X. The local authority, whilst standing by its viability assessment, conceded that such an assessment would be beneficial and instructed an independent social worker to carry that out. That meant some delay in the proceedings being concluded but clearly this was purposeful delay.
5. Following that further assessment of the grandparents the matter was listed for final hearing before me, although I had had no previous involvement in the case, to ensure the earliest possible determination.  The grandparents initially sought party status and to challenge the independent social worker’s negative assessment of them. Having had sight of the assessment however, at a hearing on 13 June they decided not to proceed and were given leave to withdraw their application for a special guardianship order.  During proceedings both parents have had regular contact with X.

Threshold

6. M has been able to agree that when this case was begun threshold had been crossed such.  F has not been able to reach the same point.  He failed to give his solicitors instructions in the run up to this hearing, has not prepared any final evidence and has not responded to the threshold document.  Ms Withyman managed to speak to him on the phone yesterday morning and he made certain concessions as to the facts cited by the local authority but then would not concede that they meant X had suffered significant harm or would be likely to do so in the future. 
7. Having considered the evidence in this matter, and taking into account the factual concessions made by the parents, I am satisfied that threshold is met in this case.  I find that, at the time protective measures were taken (which I take to be when the police removed her), X had suffered emotional harm and neglect as a result of :

o   being exposed to the relationship between her parents, which is characterised by domestic violence;

o   having lived at twelve different addresses in nine months, including following her mother being evicted from two refuges and one private tenancy, and as a consequence having been provided with a stable and secure home by her mother;

o   the chaotic and unstable lifestyle of her mother;

o   her mother failing to engage and co-operate with professional agencies, including the health visitor to address concerns in relation to X’s weight gain;

o   the parents having colluded in staying together overnight in breach of an agreement, having resumed their relationship some months ago and having concealed this from the local authority;

o   the ongoing and regular drug use by her father.

I am also satisfied that, at the time the proceedings commenced, if she had been returned to the care of her parents it is likely she would have suffered significant harm in the form of emotional harm, and neglect as well as physical harm from being caught in the crossfire of domestic violence.

The Issues and the Evidence

8. In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter.  I have heard evidence in court from the social worker, Gail Whiting, and the guardian, Mary Jolley.  M understandably found this hearing very difficult and chose not to give evidence.  F failed to attend and has not filed a statement but I heard submissions from his barrister on his behalf.  All other advocates also made submissions to me at the conclusion of the evidence.
9. The local authority seeks both a care and placement order in respect of X. The local authority has completed negative parenting assessments of both of the parents and is clear that X could not be in the care of either of them, solely or as a couple. The local authority's plan, given the lack of any possible family placements, is to seek an adoptive family for X. It is proposed that following this hearing contact between X and her parents would gradually be reduced to once per month. The plan originally had been to reduce to contact every other month, however the local authority agreed to an amendment to the final care plan for contact to stay at monthly until an adoptive family has been identified. That plan is supported entirely by the children’s guardian so I propose first to look at the evidence upon which those parties rely.

The Position of the Professionals regarding the Mother

10. The local authority and guardian rely upon the parenting assessments of the parents carried out by Gail Whiting and a colleague.  Looking first at the assessment of M, she did not engage fully with this assessment as she failed to attend three out of the five sessions.  Although the assessment was negative overall, the social worker noted positives as it was clear there was a good and loving attachment between X and her mother and contact sessions were of good quality.  
11. Looking at M’s own history, when she was fourteen her relationship with her parents became strained, as her parents did not agree with her lifestyle choices and struggled to manage her behaviour. She ended up leaving  the family home to go and live with her sister who suffered from drug and alcohol issues. M received limited parental guidance and not experienced much stability or security, which would have inevitably impacted upon her ability to parent well herself.
12. The parents began their relationship when M was sixteen and F thirteen and M moved in with F and his mother.  The local authority had concerns about F’s welfare in the care of his mother due to him being exposed to domestic violence, heavy cannabis use by F and his mother, as well as violence in the parents’ relationship.
13. The relationship between the parents, and their inability to end that, has been a key concern for the local authority. In the assessments both of the parents accepted the relationship had been abusive.  M said they would argue every other day, which was often hurtful verbal abuse. She spoke of F having been violent towards her four or five times, although she did not consider pushing or being pinned against a wall as being violent. M minimised the level of violence stating “it was only now and again” and “it wasn’t too bad most of the time”. She also acknowledged X would have seen their arguments and fights.  She recognised that she had prioritised F’s needs over X’s, in order to prevent him becoming violent. She could not however grasp the impact witnessing this would have had on X.
14. M acknowledged she had failed in the past to separate from F, despite having been given assistance to do so.  During the assessment, carried out in the latter part of last year, she claimed to have separated from F in September. It is now known that their relationship in fact never actually ended, despite what the social worker was told.
15. During the assessment, it was recognised M would need support and she was referred to agencies, including a self-esteem group.  Her engagement with those groups was very limited. She also lived in a refuge at one point with X but failed take up support offered there, instead going out to see friends. Ms Whiting acknowledged that M had in the last two months engaged with her support worker from a local project and had begun courses including in respect of self-esteem and domestic abuse within relationships. I noticed in M's position statement she spoke of beginning a parenting course around 11 June, about two weeks ago.
16. Another concern brought out in the assessment was M’s transient and often chaotic lifestyle.  Since leaving her parents’ home she has lived with numerous individuals, both before and after X’s birth.  M was unable to accept the concerns regarding her transient lifestyle. The local authority assisted M in obtaining her own tenancy but she never made the property habitable nor did she move in, continuing to live with friends. Ms Whiting conceded in her evidence M had very recently obtained a property with support from the local authority and had moved in. I noted however when she filed her position statement at the end of May she was still living with the paternal grandmother.
17. At the end of the assessment, the workers identified all the strengths and concerns in respect of M.  The conclusion was that X should not return to the care of her mother. Ms Whiting recommended that M would benefit from completing a parenting course, work around domestic violence awareness, and also engaging with counselling to deal with her experiences in her teenage years and experiences of violence. A self-esteem course would assist in increasing her confidence and to limit her vulnerability in future relationships.

The Position of the Professionals regarding the Father

18. The local authority also assessed F, after he became involved in the court proceedings in January, extremely late in the day.  The assessment was a PAMS assessment as F has some learning difficulties as well as having a diagnosis of ADHD.
19. The social worker in her evidence accepted that, when looking at parenting skills, F had engaged well with the parenting manual during the assessment and was able to demonstrate a good knowledge of practical basic parenting tasks.  He could verbalise how X might be affected by things going on around her, looking back to his own childhood. He said were X with him or her mother he would ensure there was no violence or cannabis use around X. The social worker also accepted in her assessment and in her oral evidence that there was positive interaction seen in F’s contact with X.
20. Looking at F’s own experience of being parented, it is clear from the assessment there were many concerns. There had been a worrying level of exposure to drugs throughout his life, his mother, father and possibly his paternal grandmother being involved. F has used cannabis since he was thirteen, alongside his mother, historically to a high level although the social worker is aware he is working with his youth offending worker to reduce his level of consumption.  In the past he has been offered support from a local drugs service but has not engaged with this. 
21. F also when growing up witnessed serious violence between his mother and her ex-partner and was himself the subject of two periods of child protection planning.  When discussing the violence in his relationship with M, he was open about this.  He said it had begun when he discovered she had been unfaithful. He admitted punching M in the stomach before she was pregnant and that the rest of the time he hit her in the face. F reported to the social worker getting irritated by little things and needing to let his anger out by punching or kicking. In the parenting assessment he was able to consider his own experiences of exposure to domestic violence and how this could have impacted upon him. He also acknowledged that X’s exposure to violence was not right and that if she were exposed to violence all her life she may think this were normal and be violent herself.  I note this specifically because he has been unable to provide instructions to his barrister to accept that threshold was crossed but seems to have done so in discussions with the social worker.
22. The social worker was clear about the potential of harm to X from F.  He was advised to access various courses for anger management but has not done so until more recently as required under his probation order. He  has a significant history of offending behaviour and is currently involved with the Youth Offending Service. F was last given a community order in late 2013 for assaulting his mother. I note he also has a conviction for assault of M.
23. Looking at the relationship between the parents, during the assessment F admitted that he continued to speak with M and had done so throughout the court proceedings, although he said she was likely to deny this. He described secretly meeting M all the time although said they had not been in a sexual relationship. This was in contrast to M who continued to deny to the social worker that she and F were in a relationship.  What has since become clear is that they must have continued an intimate relationship as M is pregnant by F and is due to give birth at the end of this month.  When asked about possibly being pregnant, M denied this until late in March, when she would have been around five months pregnant. At that point the parents said they wished to resume their relationship and be assessed together to care for the unborn child and acknowledged they were residing with the paternal grandmother. 
24. The assessment of F concluded negatively, the social worker deciding that his diagnosis, his offending behaviour, his heavy drug use, his lack of addressing of his difficulties, meant X would be likely to come to harm if placed in the care of her father. The social worker conceded in her evidence since that assessment concluded F had begun to make some changes due to his work with the youth offending team but this was very much in the early stages and did not make her feel it would be right to delay decisions to assess him any further.  This position was endorsed by the guardian who said X needed permanence now and could not wait any longer to see if her father could make and maintain change.

Placeability of X

25. At the outset of this hearing Ms Aldred explained M opposed the making of a placement order due to work that was being done with X. The local authority has been aware for some time that X's foster carers had experienced difficulties with her behaviour in placement. In the final care plan the social worker had referred to this as follows : “X is currently displaying some anxious and difficult behaviour in her foster placement, she requires high levels of attention and becomes distressed easily. X seems to be experiencing some challenges in her attachment with her carers and more recently her parents as seen in contact sessions. As such the plan must recognise the impact upon X of disrupting X's attachment further. However it is felt that X requires a long-term placement so that she is able to settle and work through any attachment difficulties with support and form positive relationships to her future caregivers.” Later on in the care plan it reads : “X's carers are currently accessing support through the Fostering Surgery at Therapeutic Social Work Team for support and guidance in caring for X. Should X be adopted than the prospective family will have access to a range of support services from adoption support services.”
26. Ms Whiting expanded upon this in her oral evidence. X's carers had raised this issue some considerable time ago and initial enquiries were made of the Therapeutic Social Work Team.  As X's carers are outside this local authority's area the social worker was told support could not be offered. The referral was made to another team via X's health visitor, which referral was then lost. By the time the matter was re-referred X could not be seen until July which the social worker felt was far too long a wait. As a result she referred the matter back to the team here who then accepted the referral. That led to a meeting on Monday of this week with a psychologist from that service. By this point the foster carers in fact said X had been much better over the previous two months but it was felt it was still worth pursuing the referral.
27. According to Ms Whiting, the psychologist said that because of X's experiences in her mother's care she would expect some difficult behaviour which could impact on X's attachment and her ability to regulate her emotions. She agreed to complete a short assessment with X with the aim of giving a view as to how to improve X's ability to form relationships and also what type of care she would need in the future. Any support needs would also be identified. This piece of work will be completed in six to eight weeks from now.
28. Ms Aldred put to the social worker that X stood out from other one and a half year olds. Ms Whiting accepted that, saying it was concerning that X needed support such a young age. She said however X's behaviour in no way made her unadoptable although it would have some impact on her adoptive placement. Her view having spoken to the psychologist was that X's behaviour was not something over and above any other child who had been through X's experiences. It was not an in-depth psychological assessment which was being commissioned, just a piece of work to help X and the adoptive parents grow together. The goal was to use the assessment to find the right placement for X. Despite what was known of her behaviour, three potential adopters had been identified locally, one of which would reflect aspects of X's cultural heritage. Ms Whiting was clear that X needed stable and predictable care and adoption would give her the best possibility to make lifelong attachments.
29. The guardian too had been alert to this issue. In her final report she said : “…her foster carers report sustained periods of very clear emotional distress during which she is inconsolable and rejects efforts to comfort her. I understand these episodes, during which she wails continually, without tears, and is very tense, tend to occur the day after family contact. At such times X also requires high levels of personal attention and her distress is only manageable with the constant presence of one of the carers. I understand that her distressed wailing can continue for hours on some occasions. X has been referred for specialist help, and I am told that the problem occurs in peaks and troughs and is currently less acute than it has been. However, it is evident that she is a child who will require particular care and attention – “patience in spades”, and an understanding that there are sometimes whole days of trauma is how one of the carers described it – and that this will need to be accounted for in future planning for her.”
30. Ms Jolley in her oral evidence was clear that given her behaviour X would need someone who would understand her background, her experiences in her mother's care, and the behaviour she has exhibited. However she said X's behaviour was not extreme and as such one would not be looking for  someone unusual as an adopter. She noted the improvements already seen in recent months. She said X was at a crucial point in terms of forming attachments and the local authority were right to address this. Several times she complimented the local authority on being proactive in seeking advice to ensure the right kind of adoptive parents were found and X's needs were given extra attention.
31. The guardian was also clear that X had been waiting for a very long time and she would be worried about any further delay in planning for her. She said X needs to move to her final placement as quickly as possible.

The Position of M

32. The parents oppose the position taken by the professionals.  M, to her credit, was able to come to court yesterday and take a pragmatic approach to the case. She was very clear that she loved her daughter dearly and wanted to care for her. She had begun to make changes very recently which she felt was positive but she understood that I had to look at matters in a timescale that was right for X. She therefore very bravely did not oppose my making a care order which must have been incredibly hard for her. I am satisfied she did this because she saw that what she wanted was not what was best for X, something very few parents manage. Quite understandably she did not agree to me making a care order but did not challenge the evidence and left the decision to me.
33. In terms of the current situation between the parents, when I asked Ms Aldred on behalf of her client I was told the relationship was at an end. The explanation was that F's engagement had waned over the past weeks as M’s engagement with agencies had improved. When the social worker gave evidence she phrased it slightly differently, saying that M had said that morning that she was thinking of ending the relationship.  I noted that at the time of the mother's position statement, filed at the end of May, that the parents still lived in the same property and, in the mother's words, “remain on amicable terms”. She also said in her position statement that she would wish to be considered as a sole carer for X whilst maintaining an amicable but arms length relationship with F and spoke of not wanting her care of her children to be jeopardised by “cohabitating fully”. It certainly seems to me that if the relationship has indeed ended it is extremely recent and I am not at all confident F knows of the ending of it or accepts that.
34. M did oppose my making a placement order. Her argument was that the involvement of a psychologist from the local authority with X meant that I could not say adoption was in X's best interests. She invited me either to adjourn proceedings while that piece of work was done or to dismiss the local authority's application entirely.

The Position of F

35. F chose not to attend court for this final hearing. His explanation through counsel was that he had to take his paternal grandmother to hospital in the absence of his father. I do not believe this had been communicated to anyone prior to yesterday's hearing commencing. I was also very conscious he had failed to become involved in these proceedings for the first three months. Likewise he has failed to give any instruction to his solicitors for some time and two dates for the filing of his statement have come and gone. Ms Withyman on his behalf invited me to adjourn proceedings for him to have a further opportunity to attend but I refused that application. I am quite clear F has not put his daughter first and she cannot wait until he can find the time or the inclination to commit himself to her court case.
36. Ms Withyman told me that F did not accept the negative assessment of him. He accepted the violence in his relationship with the mother although he would say this was not in X's presence. He accepts ongoing use of cannabis although says he has cut down and is seeing a drugs worker as part of his probation requirement. He accepted he had colluded in keeping from the social worker the fact he was staying with the mother overnight in breach of an agreement. He would have supported the maternal grandparents caring for his daughter or indeed the mother doing so but if not he would want to care for her himself. His view was that he was now capable of doing so. Through the youth offending work he was attending a course in domestic violence issues and anger management and planned to go to college. He felt he had begun to turn his life around and wanted the court to adjourn proceedings on that basis. He was very clear he strongly opposed the making of a placement order, saying that X was attached to her parents.

The Legal Framework

37. I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of X.  I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family.  The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare.  In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders are “very extreme”, and should only be made when “necessary” for the protection of the child’s interests, “when nothing else will do”.  The court “must never lose sight of the fact that (the child’s) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at least one of them” and adoption “should only be contemplated as a last resort”. 
38. It is not for the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering is not permitted.  In YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 967 it was said : “Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and….everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family.  It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.”
39. I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (supra) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the options for X, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer.
40. In reaching my decision I have taken into account that X’s welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I have to consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and X as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. I am very conscious that any orders I go on to make must be in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of X’s rights and be proportionate. I am also conscious that I must have in mind the general principle that any delay in determining X’s future is likely to prejudice her welfare.
41. A placement order is sought by the local authority in respect of X.  The court cannot make a placement order unless all parents with parental responsibility (here just M) have consented or the court is satisfied that the parents’ consent should be dispensed with.  A court cannot dispense with a parent’s consent unless either the parent cannot be found, or lacks capacity to give consent, or the welfare of the child “requires” consent to be dispensed with. In that context I am conscious that “requires” means what is demanded rather than what is merely optional. 

Decision

42. I have to ask myself whether X should be rehabilitated to the care of her parents or one of her parents or whether she should be adopted. I have to balance the pros and cons of each of the options being presented to me together with any other options which seem worthy of consideration. McFarlane LJ in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 said “What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.” In addressing this task I have considered all the points in the welfare checklists contained in both the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002) and propose to consider the evidence in the light of those factors.
43. The first factor in the checklists, although the order they appear in is not an order of priority, is the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned regarding the decision (considered in the light of her age and understanding).  In this case I link this factor to the next one, X’s particular needs, physical, emotional and educational, and also consideration of her age, sex, background and any characteristics of hers which the court considers relevant. X is obviously too young to express verbally a view as to where she wants to be. I think her behaviour however speaks volumes. She had an attachment to her mother, and to a lesser extent her father, and it has taken time for her to build up an attachment to her foster carer, as evidenced in her behaviour. She is at a crucial stage where lifelong attachments need to be formed. She needs a permanent secure home as quickly as possible with carers who one can be confident will meet her needs throughout her life.
44. Conscious that X is a child of dual heritage, her mother being white and her father himself of dual heritage, namely white and Asian. Were X to be in her mother's care she would have grown up in a white family that her mother would have been able to reflect back to her her heritage. Were she to be placed with her father her British Asian heritage would be marked. Accept that in making a placement order I cannot be certain her heritage would be reflected in any placement. Her father would wish her to be placed in an Asian Muslim placement and in fact one of the three potential families is such a placement is at this point it is impossible to know if that will be the placement chosen for X. It must be more important that the right family is found with the skills to meet X's needs but am satisfied the local authority has the issue of cultural heritage in its mind.
45. I must also consider any harm which X has suffered or is at risk of suffering and linked to that how capable each of her parents are of meeting her needs. I have already found that threshold was met at the beginning of these proceedings. X did suffer significant harm in the care of her parents. At the present time looking at the parents I am satisfied neither of them is currently able to meet X's needs.
46. M has been able to acknowledge that she is not, accepting the changes she is trying to make have only very recently been begun. It is to her credit that she has been able to acknowledge this. I have to agree that M has left it far too late for her daughter to make changes. Her dishonesty in continuing her relationship with F and lying about it to the local authority makes it very hard to trust her now. It does seem she has engaged better with professionals recently, has just moved into a flat on her own, and today is saying her relationship with F is at an end, but all of this is entirely untested. She is also about have another big change in her life when she gives birth to her second child. I am quite satisfied it would not be right at this time to wait to see if she can build on the start she is has made as X needs to move now.
47. Turning to X's father, F is utterly unrealistic in saying that he is now in a position to care for X. He did not even attend court to demonstrate that change and that speaks volumes. The steps he is taking, to the limited extent that I have any information about them, seem to me to be more linked to the need to avoid breaching his probation order than necessarily acknowledging X’s need for him to change. I have no doubt were X in his care at this point she would be again at risk of harm. I cannot be confident the parents will maintain their separation, if indeed they have separated, and only time will tell. Time, however, is not a luxury X has. 
48. I have considered whether there is support which could be offered to assist the parents. The reality is the professional support they currently have may be assisting them in making change and therefore may be the right kind of support. It has however been on offer throughout these proceedings but the parents did not avail themselves of it. It is very positive that they now seem to be attending courses and taking support but that is still a long way from making and sustaining permanent change.
49. I am conscious that, particularly if I make a placement order, X’s circumstances will in due course change as she would move to her adoptive family. It is clear she found the move from the care of her mother very disturbing and has taken some time to settle with her foster carers. It has to be accepted she will be upset by having to move again and will have to form new attachments. This is the case for any child in X's situation but we know she has already found this difficult. The problem is she has to have a change in her circumstances as she is in a short-term foster placement. Whether she moves to adopters, to a long-term foster placement or to her mother, change is inevitable. The local authority I am satisfied is doing all it can to help in that process by referring X to a psychologist. This gives the best possible chance of her being matched to the right potential adopters and of that family being given appropriate support.
50.  Clearly X will be affected throughout her life as a result of having ceased to be a member of her birth family and becoming an adopted person. She will lose her relationship with her mother and her father and indeed with extended family on both sides. As I have already said, those are relationships one would wish to maintain if at all possible for a child but they cannot outweigh her need for a secure and permanent home for the rest of her life. There are no family options for X at this time, nor indeed are there any I think would be an option in the near future such that it would be right to continue to put X's life on hold.
51. I have considered very carefully the question of whether I can say at this time adoption is the right outcome for X and I am satisfied I can. The work the local authority are doing is not relevant to whether X should be placed for adoption but simply to assist in identifying with whom she should be placed and what support should be given to potential carers and X. No one anticipates the assessment in any way changing the plan for X. The guardian spoke of how X's behaviour would have an impact on the matching process and indeed this factor would be at the top of the list of considerations, but her behaviour did not in itself make her a more difficult child to place, a view endorsed by the social worker. I would agree with that assessment. Many children with attachment difficulties come before this court and it is still right for those children to make placement orders. I agree the local authority is acting responsibly in seeking the assessment which can only assist in the matching process.
52. What is clear to me is that X needs decisions made as soon as possible. Once the assessment concludes the local authority will be in a position to match X with the right family and to put appropriate support in place. It would not be right at that point for the matter to have to come back to court, building in delay and possibly putting off potential adopters. It is important therefore that I act now to avoid any delay for X.
53. Given then I am quite clear at this time X could not return to the care of either of her parents, I have balanced in my mind whether she should wait, in short-term or long-term foster care, for the possibility that one of them may be able to care for her at some time in the future. I have considered the positive factor of the good existing relationship she has with her mother in particular. I have also considered the fact that M is due to give birth to a full sibling of X in the next month. If X is adopted she will lose the potential of that relationship as well. However if M does manage to make the necessary changes in her life to enable her to care for that baby she may need to focus on one child rather than two. And I have to consider X's need, given her age and particular behavioural difficulties, to have a lifelong family as soon as possible. Delaying further will mean significant additional problems for X and this cannot be right. Balancing all considerations I am certain the plan for adoption is the right one for her at this time. No one actively promoted the idea of long-term foster care but I have addressed my mind to it.  I have considered the comments of Black LJ in respect of the advantages of adoption over foster care as set out in Re V [2013] EWCA Civ 913. With a child as young as X I accept the perceived wisdom that such a child should not be placed in long-term foster care and that their need for a permanent secure home would best be met by an adoptive placement.
54. In this case, having carried out the balancing exercise that I must, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of X being returned safely to her mother’s care or of being placed with her father, and that her needs for stability and permanence can only be met in an adoptive placement. I am satisfied that the local authority’s final care plan, as amended to allow for ongoing monthly contact between X and her parents until an adoptive placement is identified, is proportionate and (in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002) in her best welfare interests. I therefore make a care order. Having also concluded that X’s welfare requires me to dispense with her mother’s consent to placing her for adoption, the word “require” here again having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, “the connotation of the imperative”, I therefore make a placement order authorising the local authority to place X for adoption.
55. There is one further direction I wish to make.  I think it is hugely important for children who are adopted that they have information available to them, through their adoptive parents, so they can make sense of their early life. I also want X to know the brave decision her mother has made today and how this will help in giving X the best possible future. This judgment, in setting out what I have read and heard in court, gives at least a summary of the information we have. Whilst it will be placed in an anonymised form in the public domain it is important that it is easily available to those who will be bringing X up.  I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment must be provided by the local authority to X’s adopters so that it is available to her in future life. 
56. I also make an order for public funding assessment for all the respondents in this matter. 
57. And I address my final words in this judgment to M, who has been brave enough to come to court and face up to this situation.  I know that for her my decision is devastating and nothing I can say will take away the pain that will cause her. I hope very much she can take the support offered to her now to see through the very difficult changes she needs to make in her life if she is to have the potential to keep her next baby in her care. Today will feel like an end to her but she has to see it as a new start and I hope those supporting her can help her remember that.

LJ13C00261

 

THRESHOLD

AS FOUND BY HHJ LYNCH 2.7.14

 

At the time protective measures were instigated, X was suffering and was likely to suffer significant harm. That harm is due to the level of care she was receiving from her parents, that level of care not being that which is reasonable to expect to be given by the parents to a child.

 

X has suffered emotional harm and neglect as a result of :

o   being exposed to the relationship between her parents, which is characterised by domestic violence;

o   having lived at twelve different addresses in nine months, including following her mother being evicted from two refuges and one private tenancy, and as a consequence had not been provided with a stable and secure home by her mother;

o   the chaotic and unstable lifestyle of her mother;

o   her mother failing to engage and co-operate with professional agencies, including the health visitor to address concerns in relation to X’s weight gain;

o   the parents having colluded in staying together overnight in breach of an agreement, having resumed their relationship some months ago and having concealed this from the local authority;

o   the ongoing and regular drug use by her father.

 

If X had been returned to the care of her parents it is likely she would have suffered significant harm in the form of emotional harm and neglect as well as physical harm from being caught in the crossfire of domestic violence.