England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

Ms F

1^st Respondent

Mr Y

2^nd Respondent

Mr D

3^rd Respondent

Mr S

4^th Respondent

B,C,K and O(four children through their Children’s Guardian

5^th,6^th,7^th and 8^th Respondents

Mr E

for the

  Applicant

Ms T

for the

1^st Respondent

Ms N

for the

2^nd Respondent

Ms M

for the

3^rd Respondent

Ms K

for the

4^th Respondent

Ms H

for the

5^th,6^th,7^th and 8^th Respondents

1.

This is an application by X Council (the Council) for public law orders in respect of four children B who is 7 years old, C who is 5 years old, K who is 2 years old and O who is 14 months old.  The Council are seeking care orders in respect of all four children and placement orders in respect of K and O.  The mother of all four children is Ms F (the mother) who is present at court and is legally represented.  The mother does not consent to the applications but she has decided not to actively oppose them.  I commend her for this and realise how difficult it must have been for her to come to this decision.  The father of B is Mr Y.  The father of C is reputed to be Mr D and the father of K and O is Mr S.  None of the fathers have attended at court although they are legally represented.  Neither Mr Y nor Mr D has provided recent instructions to their respective solicitors.  However Mr S, who shares parental responsibility for K and O with the mother, has indicated that he is supportive of the Council’s care plans for his two sons although he has not given his written consent to the placement applications.

2.

There has been a long history of concerns for the children dating back to the year 2000 and earlier.  On the 8.12.00 care proceedings were concluded involving the mother’s eldest three children resulting in care orders for all three, the youngest being freed for adoption and the older two being placed with the maternal grandmother.  There has been a high level of concern almost ever since.

3.

A detailed chronology of major events since 2004 can be found in the bundle at pages 1-2 and 9-11.  In outline the concerns are:

a)    Physical abuse of the children – the children have suffered physical harm whilst in the care of the mother whether by neglect or assault

b)    Domestic violence – the children have witnessed violence whilst in the care of the mother

c)     Neglect of the children

d)    Alcohol misuse – the mother has abused alcohol leading to lack of supervision and neglect of the children

e)    The mother shows insufficient understanding of the emotional needs of the children

f)      Verbal abuse – the mother has on a number of occasions shouted at the children

g)    No stability or routine for the children – large numbers of people visit the house and the children are left in the care of various family members, friends and neighbours with the result that the children have no sense of their place within the family or emotional security.

4.

Although the concerns are wide ranging there is a consistent thread running through them of injury to the children which is either non-accidental or at the very least would not occur in a well regulated household.

5.

On the 25.11.09, hours before a Public Law Outline meeting was due to be held there was a telephone call to the ambulance service.  K was alleged to have fallen off the toilet and gashed his head.  The ambulance service alerted the police as this was the 9^th referral that they had had re K in the last year.  He was taken to hospital.  The police were not happy with the explanation given by the mother on the information given to them by the ambulance crew as non-accidental injury seemed likely.

6.

Earlier that same evening a social worker from Social Care had visited the home to find B was crying because allegedly the mother had told C to hit her.  She also discovered the mother on the telephone to Mr A, who was planning to come round despite the mother being warned against associating with him as a result of Social Care’s considerable concerns about him.

7.

The mother was detained overnight and was interviewed with a view to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and/or child neglect and subsequently bailed to the 14.12.09.  Ultimately no charges were brought.

8.

Having regard to the catalogue of past injuries, the chaotic lifestyle within the children’s home and the current injury sustained by K there was a real concern that all four of these children were in imminent danger of suffering really serious harm.

9.

Mr D is believed to be the father of C but he has never provided a DNA sample despite assurances that he would.  The paternity of C remains in doubt.

10.

At the issues resolution hearing on the 4.8.10 all the parties present agreed a schedule of findings in support of the threshold criteria which was duly signed by them and is annexed to this judgment. (See paragraph 22).  I approve the schedule and make findings of fact accordingly.  I am therefore satisfied on the material before me that at the time protective action was taken all four children were suffering and were likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care provided to them or likely to be provided to them not being such as it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give unless an order is made.  I identify that harm as being physical and emotional harm and neglect.

11.

I must now consider what orders, if any, to make having regard to the welfare principles set out in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and reminding myself that it is the welfare of each child that is my paramount consideration.

12.

B is seven years old, C five years nine months, K two years five months and O just over one year old.  All of them are white British children.  With regard to B the Council propose a long-term foster placement on her own when an appropriate match can be found.  B has no known disability or health needs and is developing appropriately.  She presents as a sociable, friendly and lively child and she has recently taken up dancing since she has been in care.  B maintains a strong loyalty to her mother although the psychologist, describes her attachment as being disorganised (C31ooo).  Consequently, B’s behaviour can sometimes be challenging to a foster carer and she will need consistent care and attention in the right long-term placement to enable her to settle and feel secure.  B is making good progress at school and there are no concerns in this regard.  B has some understanding of the current proceedings and has expressed conflicting views as to whether she wishes to return to her mother or stay in foster care.  If a care order is made it is proposed that B will have contact with her mother six times per year which the mother does not seek to challenge.  Contact between B and C will be temporarily suspended to allow a settling in period and then re-commenced on a more positive footing.  Contact between B and K and O will be via the Council’s letter box scheme.  Mr Y has been offered contact with B but has declined to accept for different reasons and recently B has said that she does not want to attend contact with her father.

13.

The Council’s long-term plan for C is that he should remain in his existing placement as a foster child.  Those plans have been ratified by senior management and simply await formal approval via the Council’s fostering panel at the conclusion of these proceedings.  C has no known disabilities or health needs and is developing appropriately.  However, the psychologist describes him as one of the most frightened children she has had to assess (C31ppp).  C has undergone a number of traumatic experiences during his life as well as a failure to establish any secure attachments.  C also has huge inter-personal difficulties which make it hard for him to form relationships with his peers and he therefore requires a carer who is able to both establish a trusting, supportive relationship with him as well as being able to guide him in his interactions with others.  It is for these reasons that it is believed that C should remain with his current carers and I support this view.  C is making slow progress at school but is receiving appropriate support.  C has a limited understanding of the care proceedings but appears to be happy in his current placement and views it as a permanent one.

14.

C’s contact with his mother has already been reduced to monthly over the summer holiday period and is to be further reduced to three times per year subject to statutory review.  The mother reluctantly accepts this.  C has not had any contact with Mr D since coming into care at the request of both C and his father.  The plan is that C will only have indirect contact with his father in the future through the Council’s letter box scheme.

15.

Turning to K and O, they are the youngest children in the family.  K came into care at the age of eighteen months and O was only three months old.  Both of them have been placed together in the same foster home where they appear to be making good progress.  Neither child has any known disability or health needs and in view of their age they require a safe and stable environment where they will be able to form secure attachments, be protected, stimulated and cared for.  Both boys have a good relationship with each other and this is recognised by the Council in wishing to seek a placement for them together.  Both K and O were considered by the Adoption Panel on the 6.10.10 and were approved as being suitable for adoption.  In order for these plans to succeed the Council must acquire parental responsibility for both children.  The mother does not actively oppose this and Mr S accepts that the children’s needs will be best met in an adoptive home.

16.

There have been a number of assessments carried out in this case to examine whether any of the children could be returned to the care of the mother or their respective fathers.  However, none of these assessments have proved successful for the parents and there are no other family members who are able to care for the children either.  I am therefore satisfied that the only orders I can make are Care Orders to X Council in respect of each child which I now do and I approve the care plans for B and C, including the arrangements for contact.

17.

I must now consider the placement orders in respect of K and O.  As K is only two years five months old and O is fourteen months old they require a permanent, stable and loving home where all their needs can be met throughout their childhood and into adolescence.  In my judgment this can only be achieved through adoption.  Both boys have already been considered by the Council’s adoption panel as suitable for adoption.  They have already formed strong attachments to their current foster carers but it is believed that these can be transferred to their new carers.  However, the sooner this change of placement occurs, the easier it will be for K and O to begin to form new attachments.

18.

Neither the mother nor Mr S have given their written consent to a placement order being made and I can only proceed to make such an order if I dispense with their consent which I am asked to do on the grounds that the welfare of K and O 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 K and O’s welfare throughout their lives.

19.

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 the welfare of K and O dictates that a placement order should be made so as to safeguard their future care, and that for the same reasons the consent of the mother and Mr S should be dispensed with.

20.

In arriving at this decision I am aware that K and O will not be brought up in their birth family and will have only limited contact with their birth parents and B and C 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 the needs of K and O for information about their biological family as they grow older.

21.

I therefore dispense with the consent of the mother and Mr S and make a placement order in favour of X Council in respect of K and O.  In doing so, I approve the care plans for them.

22.

The agreed schedule of findings are that the children are suffering or are likely to suffer significant harm and the harm or the likelihood of harm is attributable to the care being given to them if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give them.  The Council seek to rely on events occurring on or before the date when the applicant instigated protective measures in respect of the children.  Insofar as may be necessary the Council also seek to rely on information acquired after the date of intervention and on events occurring since that date which are capable of proving the state of affairs when proceedings began in respect of the children.  The children have suffered harm as a result of neglectful parenting, specific instances of neglect appear in the chronology (9-11) on the 7.11.07 C was observed to be dirty and hungry, further to the extent that particulars under physical abuse are not non-accidental injury they are alternatively neglect, alcohol and other substance misuse as Ms F has abused alcohol leading to lack of supervision and neglect of the children.  Ms F accepts most incidents that appear on the chronology (9-11).  Ms F has failed to protect the children from risk of sexual abuse in that she permitted Mr A to live with her notwithstanding concerns about his motives for so doing.  Despite warnings that he posed a risk to the children she continued to allow him to associate with the children.  The Council accept that they did close the case in 2005 and in 2009 Mr A left the property.  The children have suffered significant physical harm the particulars of this harm are the physical abuse of the children.  The children have suffered physical harm whilst in the care of Ms F by neglect and want of supervision on dates too numerous to permit particularising the incidents individually.  Ms F accepts most incidents that appear in the chronology (9-11 of the bundle).  On the 25.11.09 K sustained a non-accidental injury being a crescent shaped wound on the left side of the vertex of his head which required hospital treatment (cleaning and gluing of the wound).  The first explanation was that he had fallen from the toilet and banged his head on the bathroom basin.  The applicant asserts that such injury was caused by neglect and want of supervision.  The children have suffered significant emotional harm in particular the children have witnessed violence whilst in the care of Ms F on dates too numerous to permit particularising the incidents individually.  Such incidents appear in the chronology (9-11 on 18.8.08, 15.09.08, 9.3.09 and 17.6.09.  Ms F shows no sufficient understanding of the emotional needs of the children.  She has on a number of occasions shouted at the children.  There is no stability or routine for the children, large numbers of people visit the house of Ms F and the children are left in the care of various family members, friends and neighbours with the result that the children have no sense of their place within the family or emotional security.

23.

Heard before a District Judge on the 21 October 2010