England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

 

                                                                                                                 Case No: UY13C00049

IN THE FAMILY COURT

SITTING AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE                                                 The Law Courts
The Quayside
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE1 3LA

 

                                                                                                                                                        

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER OF: C (CHILDREN)

 

Tuesday, 17^th February 2015

 

Before:

 

HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR

 

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

 

Re: C (Children)

 

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

 

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

 

Counsel for the Local Authority: Mr Harvey Murray

Counsel for the Mother: Mrs Elizabeth Callaghan

Counsel for the Father: Miss Teresa Taylor

Counsel for the Paternal Aunt and Uncle: Mrs Susan Taylor

Solicitor for the Child: Mr Nick Kincaid

 

Hearing date: 16^th and 17^th February 2015[?]

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

 

 

APPROVED JUDGMENT

 

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by

Apple Transcription Limited

Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES

Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838

 

 

1.                  THE JUDGE:  The Local Authority, North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, applied to the court for, initially, interim care orders and care orders, followed by a placement application in respect of two children:

A, who was born on 11^th June of 2011; and

B, who was born on 8^th July 2012.

They are the children of M and F.

2.                  The matter came before the court when the two children were residing in supported accommodation with their parents.  Sadly, it had become apparent that the parents were struggling to provide adequate care for each of the children and, following a contested hearing, interim care orders were made and the children were removed from the care of their parents.  There were protracted proceedings before the court.  They were protracted for, I would say, a good reason.  Although usually delay is detrimental to children, and that is set out very clearly within the Children Act 1989, in this case the delay was necessary to enable full information to be provided and the best outcome achieved for each of these children.  It is the welfare of the children that is the court’s paramount concern.  Following a contested hearing in February of 2014, the court took the view that the threshold was crossed and gave judgment that the children could not be returned safely to their parents, either at the time judgment was given, nor was it envisaged at any later stage. 

3.                  M has appeared in this case with the Official Solicitor as her litigation friend.  F has been represented throughout and it is right to say that he has struggled to understand or accept why he and M cannot bring up their children.  It is apparent that, over the period of time that this matter has been before the court, F had many difficulties in understanding or accepting the judgment which had been given and has continued to request the return of the children to his care with M.  I heard yesterday an application for a further assessment and have given a separate judgment in relation to that.  M also has always taken the view that she is able to look after her children and it is clear that it is the dearest wish of both parents that they should be able and allowed to care for their children.  However, as indicated, that is not, sadly, in prospect.

4.                  Following the contested hearing in February of 2014, the matter remained before the court in that put forward as alternative carers were the paternal aunt and uncle, Z and Y.  The Local Authority continued with their plan that the children should be adopted and they pursued that plan even though by July of 2014 the children’s Guardian, Mrs Moffat, and the independent social worker who had been instructed within the proceedings, Pauline Fairbairn, had come round to support the placement of the two children with Z and Y.  The Local Authority expressed quite considerable reservation but in the summer of 2014 the Local Authority accepted that the children should be placed with Z and Y and, indeed, they were so placed in September of 2014.

5.                  The Local Authority continued to have grave reservation and expressed various objections and concerns to the children within the care of Z and Y.  They continued, particularly after a reported incident in October 2014, to advance the argument that the placement would not meet the children’s needs long term.  There was concern about the parents disrupting the placement, about Z and Y’s abilities to deal not only with the parents but the two children’s needs within their care.  The court had expressed a view that it was not satisfied that the stage had been reached where nothing else but adoption would do and, as indicated, the contested hearing in the summer of 2014 did not go ahead but rather the children were placed in the care of the paternal aunt and uncle.

6.                  Concerns arose in relation to Z’s previous experiences in childhood and as a young adult, and information was requested from Walsall Children’s Services.  The social worker at the time filed a negative special guardianship report and on 31^st October there was an urgent application by the Local Authority for immediate removal of the children from the paternal aunt and uncle.  The Guardian did not support that course of action and, bearing in mind that a final hearing was fixed fairly shortly thereafter, it was agreed on 31^st October, due to the proximity of the final hearing, that the children would remain in the care of aunt and uncle. 

7.                  When the matter came before me for final hearing on 20^th November, the information requested from Walsall Social Services had become, I think, partly available and the Local Authority’s position was that the placement with Z and Y should not be approved for the reasons I have indicated but the Local Authority did accept that the parenting of the aunt and uncle was good enough.  Their concerns were around the parents undermining the placement and what was called an unrealistic view that Z and Y had as far as the future was concerned.  The Guardian’s report continued in the view that it could not be satisfied that nothing else but adoption would do and the case was further adjourned until yesterday, 16^th February, for a five-day contested hearing. 

8.                  It is apparent from the recital of the proceedings that a considerable amount of time has passed since the Local Authority took protective measures, and throughout the Local Authority have raised concerns which, of course, have been recounted to Z and Y.  I put it in those terms because it cannot have been easy for them to continue caring for A and B, knowing that the Local Authority would be going to court to ask the court to make an order that the children be removed from their care and placed for adoption.  It must have been a considerable burden for them day-in, day-out, to have that knowledge.  However, greatly to their credit, over the latter months the professionals involved with A and B have noticed improvement, particularly in B’s behaviour and welfare.  The health visitor has remarked upon and documented the warmth of the attachment that she has seen between the children and Z and Y.  The medical professionals, namely Dr Bateman, and the speech therapist, have provided positive reports about the care provided by Z and Y and the Guardian has continued to support the placement. 

9.                  Within the position statement provided to this court on 26^th January by the Guardian the children’s Guardian has commented:

“It is felt the couple have already and can in the future provide the children with a good enough standard of care until they reach their majority.  Any perceived gaps in the couple’s parenting capacity can be supported by advice and assistance.  The couple have remained strong in their resolve to meet the long-term needs of the children and have done so in the knowledge that the Local Authority plan is one of adoption.  The Guardian has expressed the view that a special guardianship order and supervision order were appropriate and would manage the situation with regard to the parents and some of the other matters which the Local Authority have raised”.

10.              The position, therefore, yesterday was that the Local Authority had filed a statement from Alison Dodds, the social worker, who now was the social worker responsible for A and B.  In her statement, dated 12th February of 2015, she very carefully considered the assessment of Z and Y, carried out the balance sheet exercise set out in Re: B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and, despite the negative assessments in respect of special guardianship which had been provided to the court with the original assessment and addendum, the further document dated 20^th November 2014 concluded that, in the light of the information provided within the statement filed, a special guardianship order be granted to Z and Y and a twelve-month supervision order.  It was acknowledged that there were a considerable number of strengths with regard to the children remaining within the care of Z and Y and that they had demonstrated that they had been able to meet the children’s basic needs since the children’s full-time placement in their care in September 2014, that the children appeared to be making progress and appeared to be happy and settled.  The Local Authority recognised the positive progress that had been reported to them and, while it is right to say that there are some concerns, the Local Authority have concluded by recommending the granting of the special guardianship order.

11.              I have had these proceedings in front of me for some time.  I think it is certainly in excess of 18 months since I was first required to consider the welfare of A and B and I am satisfied, having regard to those matters set out at section 1(3) of the Children Act, that the placement of these children within the care of their paternal aunt and uncle meets their welfare.  Z and Y are well supported by Y’s mother, X, and the supervision order to the Local Authority is there to assist in relation to not only contact but any difficulties which may well arise, as often happens with young children.  The commitment of Z and Y needs special mention.  They have remained committed and they have provided for A and B the consistency and stability that these children need and require. 

12.              The Local Authority plan, supported by the Guardian, is that there should be contact six times per annum for each of the parents.  Neither of the parents accept that that is a sufficient level of contact but, against the background of this case, I am satisfied that the placement must be given priority.  There must not be an interference with the security and stability of these children.  Sadly, the parents have it within them to disrupt the placement but to their credit they have not done so thus far.  The parents have their own difficulties and, while they can make contact an enjoyable occasion for the children, there are some issues around such things as punctuality and an understanding of what the contact is for, namely for them, not for friends or friends’ children. 

13.              However, within the limits that the Local Authority would set upon the contact, the contact is beneficial to A and B.  Z and Y are willing to be assisted by the Local Authority in relation to the contact and hopefully by the time the supervision order comes to an end contact will be on a sure footing with both parents understanding the parameters and Z and Y are able to manage contact in a way to benefit the children.  The contact will continue to be supervised.  Sadly, that must be a requirement, certainly as far as one can see into the future, which will require careful thought as to who can supervise contact.  The Local Authority will address this within the period of supervision and hopefully by the time the twelve months is completed there will be some clarity in relation to what can happen as regards contact. 

14.              The final problem which arose was in relation to the financial situation under the special guardianship order.  As far as Z and Y are concerned, the financial position is secondary to the fact of them wanting to provide care for A and B but the practicalities cannot be ignored.  Children are expensive and taking on two children in the way that Z and Y have done should not ignore the financial position, and therefore it is the professionals around them that are concerned as to the financial position, rather than necessarily Z and Y.  Mr Murray has produced this morning a document which sets out the financial support and that now is satisfactory to everyone in that the amount that will be paid following the special guardianship order being granted, once child benefit has been taken into account, will be the same as has been previously provided and therefore, as far as the financial position is concerned, for the next two years Z and Y do not need to worry about that aspect of their care of A and B. 

15.              Approval of the Local Authority plan, approval of the special guardianship was obtained by the social worker from the senior service manager and thus all the professionals are in support of this placement.  Therefore, I give the Local Authority leave to withdraw the placement application.  It is redundant and not necessary and I make the special guardianship order in relation to A and B to Z and Y with the twelve-month supervision order to assist them.

[Judgment ends]