Neutral Citation Number [2010] EWMC 18 (FPC)

In the X Family Proceedings Court

RE: J

Before:  Mrs. B; Mr. F. and Mr. R.
Legal Adviser:  Mrs. C.

Between:

X Local Authority				          Applicant
And
Ms. DF				                  1st Respondent
And
Mr. AA				                  2nd Respondent
And
J				                           3rd Respondent
[by the Children’s Guardian, Ms. M]

Mr. T for the Applicant
Mrs. D for the 1st Respondent
Ms. J for the 3rd Respondent

Hearing date:  19th April 2010.

WRITTEN REASONS

The written reasons are being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report, no person may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the child and the adult members of his family must be strictly preserved.

Justices facts and Reasons

These facts and reasons have been agreed by the parties save for the First Respondent who neither opposes nor consents and the second Respondent who has not attended the hearing today. Such facts and reasons being adopted by the court and the court is satisfied that the proposed orders are appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Facts

1. This is an application by the council for a care order and placement order in respect of J. [DOB]

2. J’s mother is DF and his father is AA. The parents are not married however the father has parental responsibility. His mother is aware of these proceedings. The father is aware of the care proceedings as he has been served and attended the hearing on the 20th August 2009. He has not put himself forward as a carer in respect of J and has not been in contact with the Local Authority since August 2009. He has also been served with the placement order application and has been informed that the Issues Resolution Hearing on the 19.04.10 will be treated as a final hearing. He is not in attendance today.  He is not represented.

3. J was voluntarily accommodated on the 26.07.08. He has been the subject of an Interim Care Order since 24.07.09 due to concerns that he was likely to 
Suffer significant harm, should he be returned to his mother’s care, as a result 

of DF’s drug and alcohol misuse and prostitution. There were concerns her chaotic lifestyle would impact upon her ability to care for J. Additionally there were allegations of domestic violence between the parents.

4. The mother’s chaotic lifestyle has impacted on her ability to care for her first child, C. He has been in the care of his maternal grandmother since he was a baby.

5. Neither parent has attended contact with J since September 2008 and both have failed to engage with a parenting assessment.

6. DF is currently in prison and has not attended the hearing today. She accepts that she is not in a position to care for J and that she needs to focus on obtaining appropriate treatment for herself as she has recently been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She does not actively oppose the making of a final care order and a placement order, neither does she consent. The father’s views in respect of making these orders are unknown.

7. J has been represented by the children’s Guardian and his solicitor Ms J

8. The mother has been represented by her solicitor Ms. D. The father indicated that he would be instructing solicitors in August 2009 but has not done so.

9. We have read the social work statements filed by the Local Authority and 

Their final care plan and the basis for threshold filed by the Local Authority dated 01.12.09 and adopt all of these as our findings of fact.  We have also read the report of the Guardian dated 09.04.10 and note that the Guardian supports the making of the orders.

Reasons

The Local Authority believes that if J was to be returned to the care of his parents he would suffer significant harm due to neglect.  We are satisfied that the threshold criteria under S.31(2) Children Act 1989 are met and that J is likely to suffer significant harm if he were to be returned to the care of either his mother or father.  We consider that this harm would be attributable to the care his parents would provide not being that which it could be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

J’s welfare is the Court’s paramount consideration. We have considered the no order principle and are satisfied it is better to make the orders than to make no orders.

We have considered the welfare checklist in respect of both orders and agree that these orders are necessary and proportionate in order to meet the welfare needs of J.
We understand that the parents do not consent to the making of the care order and find that an order is necessary in order to enable the local authority to continue to safeguard J’s welfare.

We therefore make a care order in respect of J in favour of the council.
We have considered the Local Authority’s application for a Placement Order in respect of J. We note the Guardian’s recommendation that a Placement Order should be granted to enable the Local Authority to implement its care plan for adoption.  We consider that such an order is in the best interests of the child as it will allow the Local Authority to pursue its care plan.  We therefore make the placement order in respect of J and dispense with the consent of DF and AA to the making of the placement order pursuant to S. 52(1)(b) Adoption and Children Act 2002 on the grounds that the child’s welfare requires that consent is dispensed with.

We have also considered the human rights of the parties and have concluded that J’s welfare is best served by these orders.

We feel that these orders are necessary and a proportionate response in order to meet J’s welfare needs.  The permanent removal of any child from his parents is a draconian measure and we have fully considered the implications for all concerned.  Regretfully no other order or course of action would satisfactorily safeguard J and guarantee him a secure and settled future.