Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 35 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:
A Lay Bench
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	X Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	A Mother	Respondent	
	And		
	S, N and J
(through the Children’s Guardian)		

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

Ms F	for the	  Applicant	
Miss K 	for the	  Respondent 	
Mr W 	for the 	Children	

Hearing dates: 16 March 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 (Other than a person identified by name in the reasons themselves) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved

JUSTICES’ REASONS
These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by consent by the parties and have been adopted by the Court and the Court is satisfied that the parties have agreed terms and the proposed Order is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

1. 	These proceedings concern S aged 15 and N aged 10.

2. 	S is the child of Mother who states that S’s father is F.

3. 	F has not been involved with S since approximately 1994 and is not aware of these proceedings nor that S is his child. He was married to Mother and has parental responsibility for S. On 9 November 2009 the court heard evidence as to Mother and S’s fears from the then social worker about him not being located on account of his violent behaviour.  The court dispensed with service of F on the basis that it found exceptional circumstances.  

4. 	N is S’s half maternal sibling. Mother states that N’s father is H whose whereabouts are unknown. It is recorded on the order of 9 November that the court had heard evidence in relation to H and on that basis dispensed with service of him. In fact this is an error on the face of the order and the court did not hear sufficient evidence regarding him, to dispense with service of notice of the proceedings upon him. H does not have parental responsibility for N and hence is only entitled to notice of the proceedings. H has not been involved in N’s life for many years and the social work chronology and statement of the Social Worker records that Mother moved with the children to a refuge fleeing domestic violence from H in 1997, but he traced her and assaulted her in April 1998.

5. 	The court on 8 February 2010 directed that the further inquiries be made to locate H:

i.    The Local Authority shall write to the DWP to request any information they hold.

ii.   The Local Authority shall write to HMRC to request any information they may hold regarding Mr H’s whereabouts.

iii.  The Local Authority shall make all reasonable enquiries of the Births and Deaths registers of the County Councils.

iv.  The Local Authority shall make all reasonable enquiries of the  CAU and other agencies.

6. 	We have read the statement of the Social Worker dated 15 March 2010, and the report of the enquiry agent, which confirm that despite all reasonable endeavours having been made, it is not possible to locate H. Mother stated on 15 January 2010 that she believed that H was dead.

7. 	In summary a long period of instability, violence between Mother and her partners, Mother’s drug misuse, neglect of the children and a lack of understanding about the emotional impact that her behaviour had upon them led to S going to stay with the maternal grandmother with A and J in April 2002.   The children were subject to various periods of registration on the child protection register during 1996 – 2003 for A and 2002 – 2003 for N.  Subsequently A and S moved into the care of their maternal aunt and N joined them in June 2002.  This arrangement broke down and S was accommodated during July 2003 and N was subsequently accommodated with Mother’s consent in December 2004.  The children have been in foster care with their Mother’s consent pursuant to s.20 of the Children Act 1989 since this time.  

8.	We have considered all documentation filed. We were not referred to any authorities.

9.	A threshold document has been filed within the proceedings by the Local Authority which is supported by the evidence filed which we have read and considered.  Mother does not seek to dispute the evidence filed by the Local Authority except for the points set out at paragraph 8 of her statement (page 1098 of the bundle). Therefore it is not necessary for us to set out all of the detail that has led to these proceedings being taken. We find the threshold criteria under section 31 has been satisfied in accordance with the Agreed Threshold Document dated 15 March 2010.

10. 	There remains, however, concern about the risk that Mother has subjected the children to and has a lack of understanding about the effect of her actions upon them. In 2009 a letter was intercepted in prison sent from Mother to a man serving a life sentence for murder in another prison which included a picture of S.

11. 	Mother remains involved in criminal offending and drug misuse.  She is currently in custody awaiting sentence for an offence of burglary. Mother has had limited involvement in the proceedings which were started upon her release from a previous sentence of imprisonment, and whilst at liberty did not attend court hearings despite having been served with notice of the proceedings.

12. 	The children were fearful of Mother removing them from foster carer when she was released from prison in October 2009.   N started to wet the bed and was very anxious at the time of Mother’s release. We note that Mother states that she did not seek to remove the children from their placements, but the evidence is that the children were frightened that she may have sought to do so.  We also note that Mother did not seek to disrupt the placements when she was at liberty in December 2009.

13.  	Contact was set up for Mother to meet with N on 7 December 2009, but Mother made an error regarding the location of contact and was arrested before the rearranged contact took place on 9 December which was a great disappointment to N. N and S see their wider maternal family as they wish which is facilitated by the Local Authority, as they are in separate placements. They see each other every 6 weeks which is arranged by their carers.  Both children have stated that they wish to see their Mother, however they have not seen her in 2 years and do not wish to see her whilst she is in prison. Mother has been offered the opportunity of telephone contact but has not rung the children.  N has now advised the Local Authority that she does not wish for telephone contact to continue with Mother, and wishes to have only letter contact with her while she is in prison. 

14. 	S has not wanted to see Mother. S has reported to the Guardian that there may be considered letter contact with Mother in future.

15. 	We adopt the Welfare Checklist as set out in the Guardian’s Report and the statement of the Social Worker dated 5 February 2010.

16. 	We have considered the “no order” principle but for the following reasons believe that making a care order is in the children’s best interests and that their welfare requires it.

17. 	In view of Mother’s ongoing involvement with drugs and criminal offending, and the fact that she is likely to receive a substantial custodial sentence for the offence of burglary and it is anticipated that she will not be released until June 2011, it is necessary for the Local Authority to share parental responsibility for N and S to make decisions in their best interests.  

18. 	S and N want the Local Authority to share parental responsibility for them to ensure that their stable placements in foster care continue.

19. 	We approve the Care Plans for S and N. It is important that Mother’s contact with the children is regulated by the Local Authority in consultation with the children and Mother.  We note that Mother states that she seeks contact with her children but will be guided by the Local Authority, as in her statement of 25 February 2010.

20. 	We have considered the Human Rights Act and any infringement is just and proportionate.

21. 	We note that both the Children’s Guardian and Mother support the making of the Care Order.

22. 	We believe that in view of the enquiries made in relation to H that there is no reasonable prospect of locating him and on that basis dispense with service upon him of notice of the proceedings.

23. 	Accordingly we make a Care Order in respect of both S and N. The Care Plans we have stated are approved.

24. 	Mother has come to a very difficult decision in supporting the Care Orders. She realises this is in the best interests of her children as she is not, herself, in a position to care for the children.