England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

Ms L

1^st Respondent

R (a child through her Children’s Guardian)

2^nd Respondent

Mr E

for the

  Applicant

Ms H

for the

 1^st  Respondent

Mr G

for the

2^nd Respondent

These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by all parties save for the first respondent, who does not oppose nor consent to them, such Facts and Reasons being adopted by the Court and the Court is satisfied the proposed orders are appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

1.

This is an application by the X Local Authority for a Care Order and a Placement Order in respect of R who is one year old.  R’s mother is Ms C and her father is Mr S.  The parents are not married and Mr S does not have parental responsibility for R.

2.

The Local Authority is represented by Mr E who submits that the court should proceed today to make final orders in the absence of both parents.

3.

Ms C has not attended court today and her solicitor Ms H confirms that she has not had any recent instructions from her client and that she is not formerly instructed in respect of the Placement Order application.  Ms C has not had any contact with R since January 2010.  Given her client’s disengagement with the court process and failure to attend contact with R Ms H does not ask me to adjourn this hearing.

4.

Mr S is currently in prison.  At an early stage in the proceedings he was contacted and made aware of the Local Authority’s plans for his daughter.  Mr S was told that the plan would be to seek an adoptive placement for R.  He was advised to seek legal representation in respect of this matter and to engage with Social Services.  Mr S has not instructed a solicitor to represent him and has played no part in the court proceedings and has not sought to have any information provided to him about his daughter.  Furthermore I am told that the social worker attempted to see him in prison recently to serve him with the recently issued placement application but Mr S refused to see her.  As a result of this the Social Worker left a letter containing relevant information about today’s hearing and the plan of the Local Authority for Mr S with the prison authorities.

5.

The Children’s Guardian supported by the solicitor for the child submits that the court should proceed today to make final orders in her opinion it would be detrimental to R for this case to be delayed.

6.

Notification was sent by the court directly to Ms C advising her that both applications had been listed for hearing today.  I am satisfied that Ms C has chosen not to have contact with her daughter for the last 8 months, she has chosen not to engage with Social Services and the court process and that she has chosen not to continue to give instructions to her own solicitor.  Considering all the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that everything possible has been done to encourage the parents to attend court and be involved in these proceedings and that the welfare of the child requires final orders to be made with out delay.  I am therefore satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed today in the absence of both parents.

7.

Ms H has no further submissions to make on behalf of her client.

8.

Mr G who represents the child confirms that the Children’s Guardian, Ms H supports the Local Authority’s applications.  It is submitted that the Guardian has filed a very comprehensive report addressing both applications and asks the court to accept her findings therein together with her recommendation.

9.

I have considered all the documents filed in this case and listened to the parties representations.

10.

The Local Authority has filed a schedule of findings sought in respect of the threshold criteria.  Ms C has not complied with the directions given to file a statement in response to this document nor to file a statement in response to the Local Authority’s care plan.

11.

Having carefully considered the evidence before me I am satisfied to the required standard that the threshold criteria are met namely that at the time protective measures were taken R had suffered significant harm in the form of physical harm and that she is at risk of suffering significant harm in the form of neglect of her emotional and physical needs and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to her if the order were not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to her.  Accordingly I make the specific findings sought by the Local Authority in the schedule contained in the court bundle.

12.

I now turn to the need for an order.  I remind myself that my paramount concern must be to safeguard and protect R’s welfare.  In reaching my decision I have considered as I must all relevant welfare criteria as is required of me by the Children Act 1989.

13.

The history of Social Services involvement with Ms C and her family is fully set out in the documents filed in this case and I can not see any purpose in rehearsing that unchallenged evidence in this judgment.  In summary the concerns of the Local Authority are that Ms C has two other children who after private law proceedings live with their respective fathers.  Prior to R’s birth Ms Clinton was the subject of a pre-birth assessment which was incomplete due to Ms C’s lack of engaging.  The assessment did however establish concerns which centre on Ms C’s misuse of alcohol and her lifestyle which stems from that.  Other issues were also raised as a concern and which are fully set out in the pre-birth assessment.

14.

The Guardian has comprehensively addressed the welfare checklist in her report dated 16.8.10.  I agree with her analysis and conclusions in this regard and adopt them without addition or amendment in this judgment.

15.

I am therefore satisfied that the only order that it is appropriate to make is a care order to X City Council which I do.

16.

I must now consider the placement application.  As R is only just one year old she requires a permanent stable and loving home where all her needs can be met throughout her childhood and into adolescence.  In my judgement this can only be achieved through adoption.  R has already been considered by the council’s adoption panel as suitable for adoption and the council anticipate a match will be found within a reasonable time frame.  R has already formed attachments to her current foster carers but it is believed that these can be transferred to her new carers.  However, the sooner this change of placement occurs the easier it will be for R to begin to form new attachments.  Ms C does not consent to the placement order being made and we can only proceed to make such an order if we dispense with her consent, which we are asked to do on the grounds that R’s welfare requires that parental agreement be dispensed with.  This of course mirrors the test which I must apply in considering the application generally namely that the paramount consideration must be R’s welfare throughout her life.

17.

For the reasons I have already given and applying the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 I am satisfied that R’s welfare dictates that a placement order should be made so as to safeguard  her future care and that for the same reasons the consent of Ms C should be dispensed with.  In arriving at this decision I am aware that R will not be brought up in her birth family and will have only limited contact with them through the council’s letter-box scheme but I am satisfied that these arrangements are the best that can be made in the circumstances and will help meet R’s needs for information about her biological family as she grows older.   I therefore dispense with the consent of Ms C and make a placement order in favour of X City Council in respect of R, so I approve the care plan.

18.

Heard before a District Judge on the 26.8.10.