IMPORTANT NOTICE
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child[ren] and members of their [or his/her] family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: LS17C00066

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LEEDS

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER OF X (A CHILD)

Date: 23 June 2017

Before :

HHJ Lynch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	A Local Authority	Applicant	
	- and -		
	Y, A Mother (1)

Z, A Father (2)

X (through his Children’s Guardian) (3)	

Respondents	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

Claire Sheldon for the Applicant
Julie McGovern for the 1st Respondent
Rachel Noonan for the 2nd Respondent
Lisa Phillips for the 3rd Respondent

Hearing dates: 23 June 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
HHJ Lynch:
Introduction
1.	I should say at the outset of this judgment it is only a very brief judgment as I have not had to make any decisions today, matters being agreed between the parties. I felt it was important however to produce a written judgment, most particularly so the little boy who this case is about, who I shall call X in this judgment so there is no question of him or his family being identified, has information available to him one day about the beginning of his life and why there were these court proceedings. 
2.	These proceedings are about a little boy who is five months old. His parents, Y and Z, have cared for him since he was born but, due to concerns that people had at the time the case began, he has been subject to an interim care order. The local authority began these proceedings in January and the interim care order was made on 6th February.
3.	At the time the court case began, the local authority was worried about the mother’s alcohol use, domestic abuse within the parents’ relationship, housing issues, and a lack of engagement with ante-natal and other services. The parents moved between different local authority areas, making it hard to do any proper assessment of them. Little was known about the parents’ background although it emerged that the mother had two older children who were not in her care but were understood to live with family members in their home country, the mother not being in contact with those children. 
4.	Due to the uncertainty about the parents’ ability to meet the needs of their expected child and to co-operate successfully with professionals, the local authority began these proceedings after X’s birth. At the first hearing, it was agreed that X would remain living with his parents but with a tight placement agreement and support package. X has remained living with his parents during this court case and things have turned out very well. The problems there were at the beginning of the case seem to have improved considerably and, as I shall come back to, the professionals working with the family now say there could be a lesser order, a supervision order, rather than the court making a care order.
The Issues and the Evidence
5.	In preparing for this hearing I have read the bundle of papers provided to me in this matter. Because everything has been agreed between the parties, I have not heard any evidence in court, but each of the lawyers has told me what their client’s position is. I should also record that present in court today has been an observer from the embassy for the country where this family came from and whose nationals they still are.
6.	The parties have agreed the wording of what is called the threshold criteria, which sets out what the risks were at the beginning of this case and which gives the court the power to make certain public law orders now if they are felt necessary. The wording that has been agreed is: 
a.	At the time protective measures were taken, there were reports that [the mother] has used alcohol to excess and which, by her own admission, had been a reported feature in incidents of domestic abuse within the household. Were she to drink excessively given her previous acknowledged behaviour whilst under the influence, this has the potential to impair her parenting capacity and thus expose X to the risk of significant harm. 
b.	The relationship between [the mother and the father] has been a volatile one which has included physical and verbal abuse, with [the mother] having been convicted of an offence of battery in December 2016 following an assault upon [the father]. The very nature of this relationship exposes the child to the risk of emotional harm. 
c.	The parents have lived an unstable lifestyle which has resulted in the family moving between three different local authority areas during [the mother’s] pregnancy with X. The continuation of this unstable lifestyle is not conducive to providing safe and consistent care to X and would place him at risk of suffering significant harm in the form of the neglect of his physical and emotional harm.
d.	[The mother] has not consistently engaged with ante-natal care services in that she failed to attend midwifery and health visiting appointments on 15 December 2016; 30 December 2016; 3 January 2017 and 9 January 2017. In doing so has failed to prioritise the health and welfare of her son and placed him at risk of suffering physical harm. 
7.	Looking first what the local authority says, I have read carefully the social worker’s final statement and her assessment of the parents. She says that there have been no worries at all about the care which X has received from his parents during the time this court case has been going on. The parents have worked well with the local authority and have clearly made significant changes in their life since their son’s birth.
8.	The mother has during the life of this court case worn a bracelet which monitors alcohol use and intake. There is been no evidence from the wearing of the bracelet to suggest the mother has been drinking, other than one occasion where there was a faint result which could have been the result of the mother coming into contact with alcohol based products. The mother acknowledges that on four occasions she interfered with the bracelet in an attempt to loosen it. She explained this was because it was extremely tight, causing pain to her, and certainly on one occasion the company did adjust it, having accepted it was fitted too tightly. The social worker says there is been no evidence whatsoever of the mother drinking during the court case, despite intensive monitoring from professionals. She feels though that there now needs to be a period of monitoring whilst the mother is not wearing the bracelet, to see that she can maintain the positive changes she seems to have made.
9.	The situation between the parents also seems to have improved as there have been no reports of domestic abuse made by either of them nor reported by anyone else. Although there are still some concerns on the part of the social worker in respect of the couple’s relationship, the parents have agreed to do work around this.
10.	The local authority says that the positive changes the parents have made do need to be recognised, but there are still some worries around the mother’s ability to continue to abstain from drinking and also regarding the couple’s relationship. It is therefore seeking a supervision order for a period of twelve months, which would require it to support the family whilst not giving the local authority shared parental responsibility. The local authority says this would be the most proportionate order, giving primary responsibility to the parents but ensuring the local authority would continue to support them.
11.	The plan of the local authority is supported by both parents. They are pleased that the local authority has recognise the changes they have made. The parents say they will be happy to go on working with the social worker and with other organisations which could help them respect of their son. They are already going to the local children’s centre and are happy to take up work around domestic abuse.
12.	The children’s guardian too supports the proposal that a supervision order is made. In her report, she acknowledges the improvements in the parents’ situation since the beginning of this court case, describing it as “a stark difference”. She notes there is no evidence that since this court case began the parents of breached the contract of expectations. At the same time, she agrees with the social worker that it was only three months ago that there were a number of worries about the parents’ ability to meet their son’s needs. She agrees the mother needs to prove further her ability not to drink alcohol whilst not wearing the bracelet, and that ongoing work and support will be needed to ensure problems do not arise again in the parents’ relationship. She therefore agrees with the local authority that the making of a supervision order, to ensure ongoing monitoring but most importantly support from the local authority, would be the most proportionate order. She also comments that it would be positive if the local authority could assist the parents in finding better housing.
Decision
13.	I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of X.  I start from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family.  The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare.  
14.	In reaching my decision I have taken into account that X’s welfare is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I must consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and the children as my decision could involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. Having given very careful consideration to the order I am being invited to make, I am satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of X’s rights and would be proportionate. My task is to balance the pros and cons of each of the options for X, comparing them side by side, and taking into account the factors in the welfare checklist contained in the Children Act 1989.
15.	There are three factors which come to the fore in this case, what X needs, any risk of harm to him, and the ability of the parents to meet his needs. X is a young vulnerable baby who needs a secure, stable and loving long-term home with carers who can meet his physical, emotional and developmental needs. At the time of his birth he was at risk of harm as a result of his parents’ situation and if they do not maintain the positive changes they have made he would be at risk of harm again. However, his parents have shown so far that they can offer him what he needs, he has thrived in their care and has a secure attachment both them. Clearly growing up in their care would give him the best possible childhood whereas removing him from their care would cause him emotional harm.
16.	If I look then at the range of orders I could make, I agree with the local authority that, given the very positive reports of the parents’ care of their son, the making of a care order would not be a proportionate response to the remaining identified risks to him. I also agree it would be an unnecessary intrusion into the family life of both parents and X. The making of a supervision order however would require the local authority to advise, assist and befriend X and his family over the next year. It would mean the additional protection of continued social work support with four weekly home visits being undertaken, alongside a six-monthly review process and community-based support services.
17.	So, having conducted the required balancing exercise, I am satisfied that the local authority’s final care plan for X is proportionate and in the context of s1(1) Children Act 1989 in his best welfare interests. I therefore make a supervision order for the period of twelve months in favour of Bradford MDC. I shall reserve any public law court proceedings regarding X to myself. The only other order I make is the usual order in respect of the costs of those parties benefiting from public funding.
18.	My final words go to the parents of X. Making change to one’s life is never easy, and the changes this couple have made, particularly the mother, are significant. They deserve to be praised for being able to put their son first; he has clearly been the incentive needed to push them into these changes but they have managed to keep them up throughout this court case. I very much hope they will be able to continue to do so, knowing that the result of the changes they have made has been their son being able to grow up in their care. So many parents are unable to make the changes their children need, and judges such as me sadly often end up removing children from their families, so for me it has been a delight to deal with this case and for it to end as it has.