A (A Child), Re [2010] EWMC 45 (FPC) (2010)

This decision is part of the Family Courts Information Pilot - please tell us how useful you found the information by participating in this brief survey.

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 45 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court

Family Proceedings Court

Before:

The Lay Bench

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

Between:

	Local Authority X	Applicant
	and
	A Mother	1^st Respondent
	And
	A Father	2^nd Respondent
	And
	Child “A” by it’s Guardian	3^rd Respondent

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

Miss ERT	for the	Applicant
Miss CT	for the	1^st Respondent
Mr C	for the	2^nd Respondent
Mr G	for the	3^rd respondent

Hearing date: 16 June 2010

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

Justices’ Reasons

This case was not contested by the parents. They neither opposed nor consented to the order proposed by the Local Authority. The Guardian supported the Local Authority

a) The Court is concerned with Child “A” aged about 22 months.

b) Mother is in her 20’s and father is in his 20’s.

c) The parents are not married.

d) A is mother’s 4^th child of 5, but is the 1^st child of both mother and father.

e) None of the elder children live with mother, having previously been removed from her care.

f) the 5th child is subject to on going proceedings.

2. The Local Authority commenced an application for Care Proceedings on 7^th August 2009. ICO’s have been made by consent throughout the proceedings.

3. Mother has been known to Children and Family services since 1998.

4. A is currently living with paternal grandmother and her Partner, and has been since November 2009. A is settled there. Both parents agree A is settled and safe there.

5. The Local Authority seeks a special guardianship order and a supervision order for one year. The Local Authority supports contact arrangements to take place 6 times per year.

6. The Guardian supports the Local Authorities position. A recommendation for a Special Guardianship Order and Supervision Order for 1 year is contained in the report of the Guardian, filed on 15 June 2010, and put before the Court today.

7. The parents conceded Threshold today at Court, and the agreed Threshold document, dated 16 June 2010 has been signed by the parents.

8. The Court was told this morning at Court that the parents proposed to take a neutral position regarding the eventual order made by this Court, having just conceded Threshold.

9. No live evidence has been called by any party and no submissions have been made.

The Court was invited to make a determination of this Case based on the evidence contained in the trial bundle.

10. As Threshold has been conceded, the Court proceeded to consider what order / orders should be made.

We were assisted by the CAFCASS CYMRU: Report No.2, Part 3: Final Findings and Recommendations, filed by the Guardian, dated 15 June 2010.

11. The conclusions of this report have not been challenged and are accepted and adopted by us.

12. In considering what order to make, we have “A’s” Welfare as our paramount concern. In so doing, we address the Welfare Checklist in Section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. This has been fully addressed by the Guardian, starting at page 6 of the report.

We agree and adopt her assessment as our own.

In particular we note paragraph e) on page 7.

“A” has never lived with the parents, A has been at risk of significant harm due to the care likely to be given to A by the parents not being that which is reasonable to expect from a parent. A’s parents have not been able to prioritise A’s needs; they have been unwilling to take on advice in terms of engaging with A, through play, hence stimulation has been an issue as well as poor attention to safety within the home….”

At paragraph F) “[Mother’s] …… progress has not been significant enough to indicate “A’s” needs would be fully met by [mother].

“Father has not engaged well…. [he] presents as an angry man who is not able to accept or take onboard the concerns of the Local Authority…..”

13. The paternal grandparent and her partner provide “A” with good quality care, and with them A is “a much loved and valued child”.

They work well with the Local Authority and prioritise “A’s” needs.

14. We have considered the “No Order” principle in this case; however, adopting the conclusions of the Guardian, it is clearly appropriate for an order to be made. We approve the Final Care Plan of the Local Authority.

15. In our Judgement, and guided by the Guardian the orders we make today, are as proposed by the Local Authority.

16. We make a Supervision Order for 1 year, and we make a Special Guardianship Order in favour of the paternal grandmother and her partner.

Arrangements for contact should be made 6 times per year.

17. We have not been addressed specifically as to any Human Rights Issues. In making the orders in this case the Court has considered the rights of the parents and the child, in particular the right to a fair hearing and the right of any individual to enjoy family life. We believe the decisions we have made are proportionate. The rights of the A to ensure A is protected, outweighs the rights of the parents. The child’s welfare is the paramount consideration.

18. The decisions we have made is in “A’s” best interest. We have no doubt that mother and father love “A”, and we hope they will come to agree that what has been decided today is what is best for “A”.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family) >> A (A Child), Re [2010] EWMC 45 (FPC) (2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWMC/FPC/2010/45.html Cite as: [2010] EWMC 45 (FPC)

England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)