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: LS16C00494
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LEEDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF X, A CHILD
Date: 13 October 2017
Before :
HHJ Lynch
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
|
A local authority
|
Applicant
|
|
- and -
|
|
|
A Mother (1)
Y (2)
The Child, X
(through her Children’s Guardian) (3)
|
Respondents
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Claire Sheldon for the Applicant
Paula Mawhinney for the 1st
Respondent
Roger Seddon for the 2nd
Respondent
James Welch for the 3rd
Respondent
Hearing date: 13 October 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Introduction
- This case concerns X, a little
girl, now a toddler. Her mother is M, the identity of her father is
unknown. The most significant other person in her life is Y, an extended
family member, who was made a party to these proceedings because she
wanted to care for X. Although X has spent most of these proceedings in
foster care, in the last few weeks she has moved into Y’s care, an interim
care order having been in place throughout.
- These have been very protracted
proceedings, for reasons I shall come onto, having begun back in the
summer of last year. The local authority applied shortly after X’s birth
for an interim care order because of concerns regarding the risk of harm
to X due to her mother’s drug addiction.
Background
- This is a case which is in many
ways straightforward and I know it well, having dealt with it for much of
the time it has been in court. The local authority was involved with the
mother’s family when she herself was a child due to concerns about her
mother’s care of her. She had her first child at sixteen and at the time
was living an unsettled and chaotic lifestyle. That child ultimately ended
up living with his grandmother. The mother began using drugs regularly and
there were concerns about domestic abuse between the mother and her
family. By the time the mother was pregnant with X she was regularly
testing positive for crack cocaine, using daily, and was still living an
unsettled lifestyle. She continued to use drugs throughout her pregnancy,
hence the local authority beginning these proceedings after X was born.
- In the early months of these
proceedings the mother seemed to be doing well and by the autumn of 2016
the plan was for X to be placed with her mother. However, at the last
minute, drug testing of the mother showed she had continued to use
cocaine, despite denying this, leading the professionals to conclude X
would not be safe in her mother’s care.
- Once the situation regarding the
mother became known, the local authority considered both the maternal
grandmother and Y to care for X. The assessment of the grandmother was
negative, due to her other commitments and the difficult relationship
between her and the mother. The assessment of Y was a problematic process,
which I do not propose to go into here, but was ultimately positive.
However then, on looking at it further, concerns arose regarding a family
member living with her. He had to be assessed to see what risk he might
pose. A psychiatric assessment of him suggested there would be risk, but
the family dealt with this by him moving to live with another family
member. Y’s husband then also had to be assessed, leading to yet more
delay, but finally the local authority was able to put before the court a
positive assessment of Y and her husband and X moved to live with them a
few weeks ago.
- All the parties in this case
agree that remaining with Y would be best for X. The mother sadly, due to
her drug misuse and chaotic lifestyle, has not seen her daughter for long
time now but I am told she supports the placement. Both the social worker
and guardian have filed final evidence confirming that this is the right
place for X to grow up. It is to the credit of Y that she has been
consistent in putting X first, including changing family arrangements to
make that possible.
- The plan of course is for X to
live with Y and her husband and it is obvious to me that that is the right
plan. The social worker and guardian say the right order to secure that
placement at this time is a care order. The mother can be unpredictable
and could put stresses and strains on this placement. A care order keeps
the local authority involved, enables the social worker to keep an eye on
the placement and requires the giving of such support as is needed to help
the family. Contact will probably be an issue at some point and that may
well be something with which Y and her husband need assistance.
Threshold
- For me to be able to make a care
order, the local authority needs to satisfy me that at the time protective
measures were first taken, X had suffered or was at risk of suffering
significant harm, that harm being attributable to the care given to the
child, or likely to be given to her if the order were not made, that care not
being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.
- In this case, the mother has
agreed to the wording of the document the local authority invites me to
approve. I am satisfied from my reading of the papers and my knowledge of
this case, that that threshold has been reached. I set out at the end of
this document the findings which have been agreed and which I approve.
Decision
- 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. In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, saying
that such orders are “very extreme”, and should only be made when
“necessary” for the protection of the child’s interests, “when nothing
else will do”. The court “must never lose sight of the fact that (the
child’s) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally
her parents, or at least one of them”.
- 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 have to consider
the Article 8 rights of the adults and the child. My decision inevitably
involves an interference with the right to respect to family life. Having
given very careful consideration to the order I am going on to make, I am
satisfied that that order are in accordance with law, necessary for the
protection of the children’s rights and are proportionate. I must
ask myself the question whether X would be best placed with Y and if so
under what order, or whether she should be adopted, placement with her
mother not being an option for her. I have to balance the pros and cons of
each of the options. In addressing this task, I have considered all the
points in the welfare checklist and propose to consider the evidence in
the light of those factors.
- X’s needs are those of any
toddler. She needs to be loved and cared for, kept safe, and to be brought
up in an environment where all her needs are met. She also needs to be in
a placement which reflects her cultural background.
- I am required to look at any harm
which X has suffered or would be at risk of suffering. Clearly if she was
placed with her mother she would be at risk of harm given her mother’s
lifestyle. Equally, if she were placed for adoption, this could put her at
risk of harm in terms of emotional difficulties later in life, due to
separation from her birth family, although I know the adoption process
would work hard to reduce that risk of harm.
- I must look at how capable the
mother and Y would be of meeting X’s needs. For obvious reasons, I am
afraid the mother simply is not able to do so this time. The situation though
is very different in respect of Y. Observations in contact show how good
her relationship is with X and how well X responds to her. All of X’s
needs are met in Y’s care and I am quite sure will be throughout her life.
- X has recently had a change in
her circumstances on moving from her foster carers to Y. I regret very
much the delay there has been in that taking place but it was necessary to
make sure that all assessments had been carried out properly. I understand
that X has coped well with the move, I am sure because Y was such a
familiar person to her through the frequent unsupervised contact she had
been having.
- If I think about what X would
want, I am sure if she was of an age where one could ask her, it would be
to grow up in her birth family if at all possible.
- The local authority and guardian
invite me to make a care order, approving the plan of X being placed with Y
and her husband. The local authority will continue to share parental responsibility
and will have a responsibility for supporting X and her family, which
seems right to me. Having therefore conducted the required balancing
exercise, I am satisfied that the local authority’s final care plan for X
is proportionate and in her best welfare interests. I therefore make a
care order, approving the plan of placement of X with Y and her husband. I
give leave to the local authority to withdraw its application for a
placement order. I reserve any future applications regarding X to myself,
if I am available, and I also make the usual direction in relation to the
public funding costs of all the respondents.
SCHEDULE
OF FINDINGS MADE
i)
M has failed to prioritise the health and welfare of X and placed her at
risk of significant harm in that:
(a) she
failed to consistently attend ante-natal appointments during her pregnancy
(b) disregarded the
advice of healthcare professionals and refused the preferred treatment for a
sexually transmitted infection.
ii) M has a
significant history of crack cocaine use. Her use of drugs whilst having the
primary care of the child has the potential to impair her parenting capacity
and thus exposes the child to the risk of significant physical and emotional
harm and the overall neglect of her basic care needs.
iii) M tested positive
for the use of illicit drugs during her pregnancy, exposing X to the risk of
neo-natal abstinence syndrome at birth.
iv) M has lead a
chaotic lifestyle which has included working within the sex industry and for
much of her pregnancy was without settled accommodation, moving between
addresses belonging to friends and relatives. She remains without settled
accommodation of her own and the continuation of her past lifestyle and
circumstances is not conducive to providing safe and consistent care to a young
and vulnerable child.
v) M is the mother
of one older child who was made the subject of a child protection plan under
the category of neglect following his birth due to concerns about M’s lifestyle
and lack of stable accommodation. That child now resides in the care of his
grandmother.
