England and Wales County Court (Family)

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCC 36 (Fam)

 

 

In the County Court

 

 

Before:

HHJ X

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

 

Between:

 

	A Local Authority	Applicant
	And
	A Mother	Respondent
	And
	A Father	Respondent
	And
	A Fathers Grandparents	Respondent
	And
	A Mothers Grandparents	Respondent

 

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

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

 

 

 

Hearing dates: 28 June 2010

 

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

 

Judgement

 

1                 These proceedings relate to M and C, born on [a date in] 2006, and to M, born on [a date in] 2008.  The mother is K.L.H, the father G.A.L.  They are brought before the court against a backdrop of historical social services’ involvement prior to mother’s and father’s move to Wales and the involvement of this local authority, B, which began in July 2008. 

2                 In this case a composite threshold document was agreed last year identifying and addressing various aspects of and elements within the relationship between mother and father. Those included the misuse by them of cannabis and alcohol, volatility within their relationship, a lack of proper engagement with others, all of which culminated in an index incident on 15^th December 2008, the cumulative effect of which meant that the welfare of the children was under considerable threat. It led to immediate involvement of the local authority, intervention and the application for Interim Care Orders which were made and subsequently renewed.  Assessments were undertaken and this matter was progressing towards final hearing. It was envisaged by the care plans of 25^th November 2009 that that would be on the basis of rehabilitation of the children with mother and father but with a secondary or fallback position of their placement with mother’s mother and stepfather, Mr. and Mrs. P.

3                 Those care plans last year were premised on the evidence of Dr. McCarthy, who had identified improvements from the high level of historical conflict of instability in the parents’ lives, although he remained unclear whether they could cope, concluding that they could possibly do so in the future.  In his report of May 2009 he expressed considerable reservations over the individual capacity of mother and father to care for the children. However, the evidence was that the cannabis use had stopped, the alcohol use had reduced, and he regarded these as indicative of significant progress.  He concluded, however, that they would as parents require regular monitoring preceded by counselling to be continued on an ongoing basis.

4                 Dawn Flood’s community based parenting assessment in September 2009, again, recognised as significant features in this case the remorse of the parents and their acceptance of the shortcomings of the past and the impact they had had upon the children. Those observations were the foundation for her recommendation at the time which was for rehabilitation.

5                 There were two precipitating events. The first was the separation of the parents in November 2009. The second was a relapse by mother which she still claims was a single relapse in her isolated use of cannabis detected by Dr. Rattie’s analysis of her.  As a result, Miss Flood’s revised opinion in January 2010 was that the children should be placed with Mr. and Mrs. P. 

6                 In his addendum report of 5^th May of this year Dr. McCarthy considered that both mother and father needed ongoing support and counselling on exactly the same basis as he had opined a year earlier, and he came to the conclusion that mother cannot care for the children.

7                 What have turned out to be the final care plans for the children dated 25^th May of this year envisage placement with Mr. and Mrs. P.  In fact, the placement occurred earlier in that month, and that has been the result of an initial viability assessment of Mr. and Mrs. P followed by a full Form F assessment undertaken by Miss Alison Parker, an independent social worker, who found and confirmed after extensive analysis that Mr. and Mrs. P had demonstrated the necessary motivation, the skills and resourcefulness to accommodate these children. There was a particular feature of this case resulting in a particular emphasis on those aspects of them as potential kinship carers because they already had in their care Mia and Chantelle, mother’s two children from an earlier relationship, as well as Laura, their own child. The addition of M, C and M brought the number of children in the household to six. Nevertheless, they have impressed all of the people who have undertaken professional assessments of them.  Dr. Holt in March 2010 identified this as a massive and ongoing commitment. He anticipated some transitory distress for M and M and identified as well the need for C’s particular needs to be accommodated.  He regarded the prospective plans for respite care to be a helpful and positive indicator. 

8                 That was the position of the professionals. The positions of the parents are as follows. Mother supports her mother and stepfather entirely. She has now moved to the Worcester area and is in close physical proximity to the family.  It is envisaged that she will have an active role and be a regular presence in the lives of the children. She supports the local authority unreservedly in its application for Care Orders and she supports Mr. and Mrs. P, equally without reservation.

9                 Father’s position is unfortunate, to say the least. From one of enthusiastic support, both in terms of what he said and to an extent what he did up until late autumn 2009 when he demonstrated a degree of commitment to these children, he walked out of their lives on Christmas Day in 2009. They have not seen him since. His engagement within these proceedings has failed and the court is unaware through his legal representatives today whether he opposes the making of the orders sought or not.  His last position statement is potentially ambiguous in that respect. It is possible to draw an inferential conclusion that he does support the local authority. Equally, it is clear that he does not say that in as many words.  But from the point of view of the children and their future it remains unclear now whether this lack of engagement which he has demonstrated since Christmas Day last year is indicative of his indefinite approach towards them or not.

10              In assessing all of that evidence that I have addressed shortly, and the parents’ positions, as well as taking into account the evidence of the social worker, I remind myself that the paramountcy of the children’s welfare is a statutory obligation of the court in those considerations. I consider all of the circumstances and of course the particular criteria specified in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, the welfare checklist.

11              The Children’s Guardian, now Mr. F, who took over at a late stage from his colleague who was taken ill, has undertaken a very  helpful analysis by reference to the criteria which I gratefully adopt and accept as an insightful analysis of all of those considerations.  Briefly, as far as the children’s wishes and feelings are concerned, the evidence is that since placement with Mr. and Mrs. P they are happy and their feelings are consistent with what everybody intended and hoped for and, indeed, anticipated.

12              Their physical, emotional and educational needs are well addressed currently. They have a need for stability and certainty within their lives, for loving  nurture on a consistent basis. C has particular needs personally and in terms of education. They, too, seem to be addressed.

13              The likely effect of change of circumstances has been overtaken by the fact that any prospective change has now taken place and taken place well. The only other possible change would be a move away from Mr. and Mrs. P back to either or both parents. That is simply not a viable suggestion on the evidence before me. Mother is not asking for it, and father is not here. But were it to occur it would be a disaster for the children based on the assessment of mother’s and father’s position from a psychological perspective and based upon the  past.

14              The children’s age, sex and background are dealt with by Mr. F, and I agree, there is nothing extraordinary. All that has been done for them preserves their identity, their heritage and their culture.

15              The harm that they have suffered or are at risk of suffering, fortunately, in this case has been relatively low. Dr. Holt confirms that they are relatively undamaged children, despite the exposures that they have been subject to. The risk of that, however, remains considerable if they continue to be exposed to the levels of turbulence and conflict they have in the past.

16              There is ample evidence about the capability of the parents and others. The parents cannot provide care which is good enough for these children. Mr. and Mrs. P can and do.

17              In terms of the range or orders available to it the court could make Care Orders with shared parental responsibility on the basis of these care plans for placement with Mr. and Mrs. P, some lesser order or no order. 

18              In my judgment, an analysis of all of those leads firmly and clearly to the same conclusion as it did in Mr. Fs reasoning. There is a need here, in the context of all that has gone on, particularly in the context of the needs of these children, for the local authority to share parental responsibility. Making Care Orders is a necessary step. It is justifiable. It is a proportionate step to take.  Making Care Orders is in pursuit of a legitimate objective which is the welfare of each of these three children and as such it is an entirely justifiable interference in their lives.

19              Accordingly, subject to the amendment of the care plan discussed today and deemed now made and I think to one administrative amendment in the draft of the order presented to me, I make the Care Orders.

20              I wish to add one other observation about it and that relates to the amendment of the care plan today which I consider appropriate and necessary lest, upon reading it, if he does in conjunction with this Judgment, Mr. L should interpret it as an entitlement on his part more or less automatically to contact. It is impossible to plan meaningfully for an eventuality which it is equally impossible to predict at the moment. But the prospect remains that Mr. L emerging again and wishing to or attempting to enter the lives of these children. Even the interval from last December until now is significant, and I think the effect of the significance increases incrementally with every month that goes by, so much so that he needs to understand that the welfare of these children will require very specific consideration indeed to how, if at all, and when he should be reintroduced to them at any stage in the future. They are developing all of the time. Their own emotional needs will change with that development, and discrete consideration needs to be given to that, not prospectively now, but reactively when the precise circumstances not just of Mr. L but of the children themselves can be adequately assessed before a decision is made which could have such an important emotional impact upon them.