Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 62 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:

  A District Judge   

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

Between:

	X Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	Ms W	1st Respondent	
	Mr H	2nd Respondent	
	J (a child through his Children’s Guardian)	3rd Respondent	

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

Mr E	for the	  Applicant	
Ms R	for the	 1st  Respondent 	
Ms B	for the	2nd Respondent	
Ms M	for the	3rd Respondent	

Hearing dates:      

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

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 all parties save for the first respondent, who does not oppose nor consent to them, such Facts and Reasons being adopted by the Court and the Court is satisfied the proposed order is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.	
1.	This is an application by X Council (the Council) for a care order in respect of J who is almost 12 years old.  His mother is Ms W (the mother) who is present at court and legally represented. The mother does not consent to the application but does not actively oppose it and has not sought to challenge any of the evidence before the court.  J’s father is Mr H (the father) who is also present at court and legally represented. The father supports the application.  J himself is represented through the Children’s Guardian, Mr N who also supports the application.
	
2.	The background to this application is helpfully summarised in the Council’s most recent case summary at CS8-11 of the bundle.  The family have been known to social services for over fifteen years and in 1996 care proceedings were commenced in respect of J’s brothers/half-brothers, D, JM and L.  Concerns have centred on the mother’s ability to place J’s needs before her own and protect J from the risk of harm.  The risk of harm has emanated both from concerns about sexual abuse within the extended family, although no perpetrators have ever been identified, and also the behaviour of D who at the time was living in the family home and behaved in an extremely aggressive way towards J.  The mother accepts that she was unable to control D’s behaviour towards J.  
	
3.	In addition, J has been allowed to smoke cigarettes from a very young age; he has consumed alcohol and at times displayed bizarre behaviours, being unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy.  On his reception into care at age 11 he would hardly speak and instead resorted to animal noises.
	
4.	All of this lead to the Council commencing care proceedings in respect of J and on 3.11.09 J was made the subject of an interim care order and placed with foster carers where he has remained to-date.  The Council’s care plan provides for J to remain in his current placement on a long-term basis although this is subject to formal approval as his current carer is regarded as an assessment foster carer.  Nevertheless, J himself has expressed a wish to remain where he is and likewise his carer would like to keep him.  I therefore hope that this placement will be formerly approved as a long-term placement for J.
	
5.	The findings sought in satisfaction of the threshold criteria have been agreed in this case and can be found in the schedule annexed hereto (see paragraphs 14-25) which has been signed by the parents.  I approve the schedule and make findings of fact accordingly.  I am therefore satisfied that at the time protective action was taken J was suffering and was likely to suffer significant harm in the form of impairment of his health and development, emotional harm and neglect as well as the risk of physical harm from his brother, D, such harm and risk of harm being attributable to the care J was receiving and was likely to receive not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give unless an order is made.
	
6.	I must now consider what order, if any, to make having regard to the welfare checklist and reminding myself that it is J’s welfare that is my paramount consideration.  J is almost twelve years old.  Until he was removed into foster care he had spent all of his life in the care of his mother with whom he has a close relationship.  It is also clear that J has a good relationship with his father and has had overnight staying contact with him.  It is accepted by the Council and the Children’s Guardian that this is not a case of callous or indifferent parents but rather parents who because of their own limitations are unable to offer an appropriate level of care to their son at the present time.  J himself has his own difficulties.  He is currently the subject of an assessment of special educational needs and it is likely that when this is completed in the next few weeks he will have to move school.  He is also about to embark on work with CAMHS.  However, since J was placed with his current carers he has settled there and made progress with his development and at school (CP6).  
	
7.	The mother was assessed by a Family Centre to determine if J could return to her care.  Their report can be found at C39 – 70 of the bundle.  However, the assessment concluded that the mother is not capable of meeting J’s needs and he should not be returned to her care (C68).
	
8.	The father has also been assessed by a psychologist and her report can be found at C71-93 and C94-95 of the bundle.   The psychologist cautiously expresses the view that with appropriate levels of support, guidance and training the father could provide appropriate care for J although it could take 12-18 months to achieve (C95).  This led the father to issue an application for an independent social work assessment but on the day the application was due to be heard the father withdrew it, having come to the conclusion that he was not at present able to care for his son.
	
9.	As I have said, today neither parent actively puts themselves forward as being able to care for J although I know that they would clearly like to be able to do so.
	
10.	I am therefore satisfied on the information before me that it is important for the Council to share parental responsibility for J and plan for his future if he is to be given every opportunity to achieve his full potential in life. This can only be achieved through a care order and I therefore make a care order to X Council.
	
11.	With regard to contact, both parents have been exercising regular and frequent contact, particularly the mother who has been seeing J for three times each week.  The care plan provides that contact for both parents will be gradually reduced to a point where J sees each of his parents 6 times per year for 2 hours on each occasion.   This, of course, is subject to the statutory review process, the first of such reviews taking place in October and the following one in January 2011.  In addition, J will have contact with each of his siblings four times per year (CP10).  Whilst the parents would naturally like to see J as much as possible they appreciate that he needs to understand that his current placement is, hopefully, a long-term one and as he may have to change school as well as starting therapeutic work with CAMHS there will be much going on in his life which he needs time to adjust to.  Both parents have, therefore, very sensibly in my view accepted that the proposed contact arrangements are in J’s best interests at the present time although they do hope to have more contact in the future.  The Guardian also approves the current proposals for contact.
	
12.	I am therefore satisfied that the arrangements for contact as set out in the care plan are the best that can be devised at the moment and will meet J’s need to maintain links with his birth family.  I therefore see no need to make any order as to contact.
	
13.	I approve the care plan.
	
14.	The following facts are relied upon by the Council in support of its contentions that J suffered harm and/or risk of harm as a result of which the threshold criteria are satisfied.	
15.	The family of the mother had been known to Social Care with a history of concerns spanning 15 years.  At the material time that proceedings were issued the mother had a limited short term memory and acknowledges that whilst she was good at recognising her own needs and was well intentioned she struggled to place the needs of J before her own.  At the material time she accepts that she would have struggled to protect J should he be at risk of any harm.
	
16.	The first respondent accepts that Social Care had concerns about her older son, D, and asked him to leave the home.  At the time the proceedings were issued D remained in the home although he has now moved.	
17.	D, JM, and L, brothers/ half brothers to J were the subject of care proceedings in 1996.  They were then and remain now concerns about sexual abuse within the extended family but no perpetrators were identified.  All of the above older children (but not J) have at some point disclosed sexual inappropriate behaviour with younger children.  J himself has a worryingly increasing knowledge of sexual harmful behaviour.	
18.	The council expresses great concern as to whether the mother could protect J should he be at risk of sexual harm.	
19.	The mother accepts that her son D is extremely aggressive towards J.	
20.	The mother accepts that her older son D is violent and aggressive towards her and at the material time that proceedings were issued was unable to control him.  J witnessed this behaviour.	
21.	The first respondent accepts that J was smoking cigarettes since a very young age.	
22.	J at the age of 11 would hardly speak but rather made animal noises.	
23.	J has consumed alcohol.	
24.	J at the material time spent his weekend at his father’s house.  His father is a heavy social drinker.  J has gone out with him when he is drinking notwithstanding his age.	
25.	At the material time J displayed behaviours which were becoming more and more bizarre.  He had an inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, whilst engaging in art therapy for two full days per week (in main stream education for the remaining) together with interventions including a referral to CAHMS to assist him.  He displayed problematic, violent behaviour in school and also often absconded and did not return home.	
14.	Heard before a District Judge on 13 September 2010.