England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 28 (FPC)

 

 

In the Magistrates’ Court

Family Proceedings Court

 

 

 

Before:

    

    

    

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

 

Between:

 

	X	Applicant
	and
	Ms A	Respondent
	B a child through her children’s guardian	2nd Respondent

 

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

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

 

Mr A	for the	Applicant
Mr M	for the	Respondent
Mr H	for the	2nd Respondent

 

 

Hearing dates: 26^th and 27^th May 2010    

 

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

 

Justices’ Reasons

 

 

1. The LA, represented by Mr A is applying for a Final Care Order re: B        who is 15 months old. B’s mother is Ms A and is represented by Mr M. Ms A has attended the Court hearing on both days. She has conceded some of the Threshold document and does not wish to contest the care and placement proceedings any longer but does not give her consent to the Orders sought. The expert witnesses were therefore released by agreement of the parties.

 

2. The father of B is XY who has had no involvement in the proceedings. Ms C, the social worker in the case has made a number of attempts to communicate with Mr XY about the proceedings. He finally responded on 17.03.10 and spoke with Mr P, Team Manager, but there has been no contact since.  Mr XY has been made aware of the three day hearing by the LA but  has not attended Court.

 

3. We have read the Court bundle, the useful reports by the Social Worker Ms C, and the Guardian’s Final Analysis by Ms P. An updated analysis has been provided by Mrs Z as Ms P is on sick leave.

 

4. The reasons for the initial application are as set out in the document C13 completed by the LA, briefly that Ms A had an inconsistent engagement with professional agencies, concerns regarding her mental health and lack of experience of independent living and parenting. Ms A had, herself, been a victim of sexual abuse and neglect in her childhood.

 

5. Prior to B’s birth, Ms A underwent an assessment by a  Family Assessment Centre. This was terminated early as Ms A did not fully engage in the assessment. The Centre concluded that “Ms A could not have the care of her baby without intensive support from the Local Authority on a statutory basis.”

A Child Protection Conference was held in January 2009 which raised concerns over Miss A’s background, mental health problems, inappropriate accommodation and young age. It concluded that the unborn baby was in danger of neglect. After B’s birth, Ms A felt that she had no choice but to agree to B being accommodated pending a post birth assessment.

 

6. A further  Family assessment was undertaken after B’s birth (C31 in the bundle). It concluded that “It is not considered safe for B to be cared for by her mother.”

 

7. Mrs G, Ms A’s grandmother, was also assessed by Social care as  potential support for Ms A should B be returned to her care. The report concluded that it would be too high a responsibility for Mrs G to take on in the light of the concerns over Ms A’s behaviour and Mrs G’s age and own commitments.

Following concerns raised by Social Care regarding Ms A’s mental health, an assessment was undertaken by Dr F Consultant Forensic Psychologist( C55 in the bundle ). He reported that Ms A was suffering moderate to, at times severe, depression for which treatment would be required before considering a mother and baby foster placement.

 

8. A psychiatric assessment was also carried out by Dr H which concluded that Ms A “lacks the ability to effectively prioritise the needs of her child over her own needs”. Whilst the report was severely criticised by Mr M, the conclusion is conceded in the Threshold Document at paragraph 6. It remains unclear whether Ms A has sought or received treatment in regard to her depression. In evidence, Ms A stated she had now seen a psychiatrist who had prescribed anti-depressants and would seek counselling to deal with her problems.

 

9. We are satisfied that Miss A has not self harmed recently and the issues with regard to her anger management difficulties and hearing voices in her head are both of some age and do not accurately reflect the current position. 

 

10. Concerns have been raised by Ms C over the state of Ms A’s accommodation and rent arrears in her report (B50-53). It reflects an inability to show that she can live independently. Due to the amount of time spent with family members she is at risk of losing her tenancy.

The court accepts that Miss A has recently resolved her housing difficulties, however this has not been soon enough for B’s timescale.

 

11. The development of her parenting skills has been limited as detailed in the report of the foster carer at B14 – B29.  We accept that this was too slow for B’s requirements.

 

12. Ms A’s ability to maintain regular contact with her daughter has also raised concerns over her commitment to her daughter. Contact sessions were reduced from five to three times a week and then down to once a week. The quality of contact and Ms A’s parenting skills and personal hygiene during Contact were also matters of concern.

 

13. Unfortunately Ms A has not engaged with either Guardian in keeping appointments for the preparation of their reports but has managed to attend contact sessions more regularly to see B on a once a week basis.

 

14. Miss. A was allowed, by the court, to outline her position on oath, guided by Mr. M.  The court heard how Ms A had experienced an extremely unhappy and unstable childhood, which included sexual abuse.  Ms A explained that her dislike of the Family Centre staff contributed to her lack of engagement.  The court was told that Ms A found the separation, following each contact with B very painful, and she therefore deliberately reduced contact as a coping mechanism, in preparation for the possible loss of her daughter.

15. Ms A demonstrated great honesty and courage in giving her evidence, and her love for her daughter was clear to the court. 

 

16. All parties agreed with Mr M that the time taken to reach the final hearing had added further to the distress and was unacceptable. 

 

17. The Local Authority and the Children’s Solicitor did not feel that it was appropriate to question Miss. A.

 

18. B is currently placed with a foster carer and the LA seek a Care and Placement Order today. She has been approved as a child suitable for adoption. Appropriate plans are in place for a further reduction of contact between Ms A and B. Annual letterbox contact and photograph exchange will then be put in place. A single face to face meeting between Ms A and prospective adopters is to be considered before B is placed.

 

19. We have taken into account the Human Rights Act; and the parents and children’s rights to a family life.  We have also considered the principle of least intervention.  We have read the Guardian’s report at C105 – C116, and agree with her findings in the Welfare Check List.

 

20. We are mindful of the delay that has occurred in this case and that B is already forming a firm attachment with her current carers.  We must consider the timetable for the child and what is in the best interests of B, and firm plans need to be made for the future. 

 

21. We are not satisfied that Miss. A has the present maturity or experience to ensure care that is good enough for B.  We are satisfied that a care order is necessary to ensure B’s safety and wellbeing. 

 

22. We therefore make a Care Order.  

 

23. With regard to the Placement Order application, we have read the Annex B report together with the Statement of Facts in support of the application to dispense with the formal consent of Miss. A  to the Placement Order.

 

24. In considering the application for a Placement Order we need to be satisfied that the welfare of the child requires the making of such an order, and that we can only proceed to make such an order if we dispense with Ms A’s consent. Ms A is not in agreement with the plan for adoption but has chosen to not actively oppose it.

 

25. The paramount consideration must be B’s welfare throughout her life. We have considered the Welfare Checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, as addressed in the Guardian’s addendum report and concur with the findings.  We should be satisfied that B’s welfare dictates that a Placement Order should be made to safeguard her future care and for the same reason the consent of Ms A should be dispensed with.

 

26. In arriving at this decision we are aware that B will not be brought up in her birth family and no other family members have been considered suitable. Ms A has had ongoing contact with B but it is proposed this is reduced as per the Care Plan and Addendum Care Plan.

 

27. B now needs to be given the opportunity of forming a secure attachment with her new adoptive carers. This process may well be hindered if there was ongoing direct contact with her birth family. We are satisfied that the indirect contact proposed in the Care Plan and Addendum Care Plan is appropriate.

 

28. Pursuant to Sec.52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act we are satisfied that the welfare of the child does require the consent of Ms A  to be dispensed with. After considering the Bundle and the addendum report of Mrs Z we consider it appropriate to dispense with the consent of Ms A and make a Placement Order in favour of X Council in respect of B.