England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 66 (FPC)

 

 

In the Magistrates’ Court

Family Proceedings Court

 

 

 

Before:

A Lay Bench

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

 

Between:

 

	A Local Authority	Applicant
	and
	Ms B	1st Respondent
	Mr S	2nd Respondent
	Child D through his Guardian	3rd Respondent

 

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

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

 

Ms W	for the	Applicant
Ms A	for the	1st Respondent
Mr D	for the	2nd Respondent
Ms W	for the	3rd Respondent

 

 

Hearing dates: 20^th May 2010

 

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

 

Justices’ Reasons

 

 

1. This is an application for an interim care order made by the Local Authority in respect of Child D, who is now approaching 18 months old. His mother is in attendance and represented, his father is not in attendance due to recently imposed bail conditions, but was represented. We have been referred to Section 31 and Section 38 of the Children Act 1989. In order to grant the application, we have to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to him, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give, pursuant to Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. The point at which the threshold criteria must be met is the date on which the Local Authority first intervened on a statutory basis to protect the child. In this case that date is the 18 ^th of May 2010.

 

2. It is not disputed that Care Orders were made for 3 of this mother’s older children, who have since been placed under Special Guardianship Orders. Neither is it disputed that Child D has been in the care of his mother since he was born prematurely and has not been on the Child Protection Register between the beginning of August 2009 and the 22^nd of January 2010. It is also accepted by all parties that Child D is thriving in his mothers care.

 

3. It is not disputed that the child’s father wishes that the child remains in his mothers care provided that this is a safe environment for him.

 

4. When dealing with an application for an interim care order, the court must look at the evidence and determine whether there is potentially credible evidence and whether it gives the court grounds for believing that the threshold criteria under Section 31(2) exists. If there are such reasonable grounds, the court must then consider the welfare principle set out in Section 1(3) so that it may exercise it’s discretion as to the order to be made.

 

5. We heard from the Social Worker involved with Child D, the child’s mother and the child’s Guardian.

 

6. The Social Worker provided evidence in the form of 2 written statements dated the 18^th and 19^th of May 2010 and also gave evidence to the court. She told us that she had been in her current position for the last 2 years, but the family were known to Social Services since 1997.

 

7. We have heard a lot of evidence about the family situation since the beginning of 2010 as well as evidence preceding that date. We heard that the Social Worker outline her concerns relating to the care of the child. She said that she had concerns over:

 

• the written agreements that were not always adhered to,
• mothers recent presentation, particularly whilst under the influence of a substance,
• fathers presence at the home with mother and child,
• mother leaving the child with inappropriate people,
• mother’s mental health

 

8. We heard that the first written agreement from January 2010 asked for full engagement with Social Services and child protection plans; engagement with NSPCC relationship work; attending meetings and accommodating visits when required; to refrain from drug use. We heard evidence that although Mother refused to sign the agreement she did so 3 days later. We heard that initially there were daily visits for the first month, which were reduced to three visits each week. We heard from the Social Worker that the Local Authority had concerns about Mother’s compliance with this agreement due to her lack of engagement with Social Services by failing to attend 2 Child Protection Conferences. We heard that bereavement counselling had been arranged for Mother but this was turned down by Mother. There was a further agreement between the Local Authority and Mother signed on the 7^th of May 2010. After the agreement was signed, we heard that there was some discussion expanding on the content of the agreement. The evidence that has been presented to us is that the Local Authority wish to rely on the content of the agreement as it is written. The Social Worker’s evidence is that this agreement has also not been complied with particularly due to the Child having been left with inappropriate people. We were told that within the last 2 weeks, there have been several visits to Mothers home by the Social Worker and there has been no response. Some of these visits we were told were arranged visits, and some were unannounced. The lack of response to these visits culminated in the Police attending at Social Services request on the 17^th of May to check on the Child’s safety. We were told that the child was observed to be clean and tidy and that there were no concerns following that visit.

 

9. With regard to Mother’s drug use we heard from the Social Worker that she was concerned about mothers drug use in light of Mother’s presentation at a visit on the 7^th of May 2010. During this visit we heard that mother was giggling inappropriately and continuously and that her concept of time appeared confused. The Social Worker gave evidence that in her opinion Mother was under the influence of a substance. The Social Worker gave evidence that no request was made for drug testing as a result of this incident because of earlier tests from January and February 2010 proving inconclusive due to mothers prescribed medication. We heard evidence that the Social Worker discussed more sophisticated drug testing with mother but mother refused to agree to this. The Social Worker told us that this behaviour was directly contrary to the behaviour expected under the written agreements. We also heard from the Social Worker that until the 18^th of May the Child had presented well. He had kept all his neo natal appointments and health appointments. She said that until recently there had been good engagement with Social Services. We heard evidence that until recently there were no concerns about the Childs needs. The Social Worker gave evidence that the Local Authority concerns regarding presentation also related to matters raised by the childminder provided for the child. We heard that on the10th of May the child was not ready for collection when the childminder called. The concern was that the child was not in the routine that he had been used to. We heard that a further concern had been expressed by the childminder that she could not make contact on one occasion when she called following the 10^th of May. The Social Worker gave evidence that prior to this, there had been no concerns over the care that had been afforded to the child.

 

10. We heard evidence that the Local Authority were concerned about the presence of the Child’s father in the home. The Social Worker told us that they had been told by Mother that Father had left on the 4^th of January and that Mother would not let him return. We heard that Social Services wanted to work with Father before he was allowed back into the home. We heard that the Social Worker was recently informed by Father that he had been living at the home until 2 weeks ago. He heard that this information was given to the Local Authority on the 10^th of May. The Social Worker told us that prior to this the Local Authority didn’t know of Father’s living arrangements. We also heard that the Social Worker was told that Mother had told her Doctor that Father had been living in the home until February. The Social Worker also told us that since January, when initially there were daily visits, and since February when there have been visits 3 times each week, there has been no sign of Father at the home. He has not been seen there and there has been no trace of him being present.

 

11. The Social Worker told us that there were also concerns that the Child was being left with inappropriate people. This was an issue that was particularly raised in the written agreement from the 7^th of May. We have heard from the Social Worker that since that date the Child had been left overnight with a person named in the agreement that was deemed to be inappropriate so that she could have a night out. The Social Worker was not aware that the Child would be cared for by that person overnight. We were also told that Mother and Child were found in the home of the specified inappropriate person on a separate occasion.

 

12. The Social Worker also expressed concerns over Mother’s mental health. This was in February when Mother had told the Social Worker that she’d told her GP that she had been having suicidal thoughts and was advised to attend the local hospital. We heard that Mother informed the Social Worker that she felt better and wouldn’t attend the hospital.

 

13. Mother did not provide any written evidence but gave her evidence in court. In response to the concerns expressed by the Social Worker, Mother was very clear in her views.

 

14. Mother told us very clearly that she had kept to the written agreements as she was supposed to, although she did accept that she had breached it twice this week by failing to answer the door when the Social Worker visited. Mother told us that she didn’t realise that everyone who attended her home had to have a police check as part of the agreement. We hear evidence from Mother that she had fully co-operated with everything Social Services had asked of her within the agreements, and had been open and honest with professionals. Mother explained that she failed to answer the door on one occasion this week because she was asleep. She told us that the Child had been awake all night with diarrhoea and that she too was suffering with the same symptoms. Mother also gave evidence that later that day when the Social Worker attended she was on the beach with the Child as if was a lovely day. The illness we were told was a 24 hour bug. Mother told us that when the police called looking for herself and the child she opened the door to them and they were content with the situation. Mother told us that she feels burdened by Social Services as they are constantly at her home. Mother also told us that she would do as much as Social Services wanted her to do in order to keep her son with her. Mother told us in evidence that she was prepared to undertake any testing but did not want to undergo drug testing where the hair would be taken from the top of the head as it would be unsightly as it grew back. Mother did tell us that she was prepared to undergo drug testing by a blood sample. Mother also told us that she did not need parenting work and that she wouldn’t undertake the NSPCC work because she was no longer a couple. Mother told us that she and the Father were going to do that work together originally but it was unnecessary now.

 

15. Mother gave evidence that her prescription medication was the only drugs that she was taking and that these had reduced to 4 or 5 each day. We were told that on the day the child was late and not ready for the child minder, he’d had his bottle at 6am and was not due another bottle until 10am. This was the usual routine and we were told that he didn’t have breakfast as a rule. We were also told that due to the lighter evenings, the child went to bed later and so woke up later. Mother told us in evidence that she used to take drugs but no longer does so. She told us that on the 7^th of May when she was giggling in the presence of the Social Worker, she was simply happy. She is always happy since Father has left. She also told us that her giggling depends on whether she is winning or losing.

 

16. Mother accepted that she couldn’t remember the exact date that Father left; it was either the 4^th or the 10^th of January. She told us that Father had not visited the home since that date but that she had met him whilst not in the child’s presence. Mother told us that she had spoken wither Doctor about Father leaving but was clear that if he has noted this to have happened in February then he had made a mistake. Mother told us that the Guardian had caught the Father at her house once, but that was some time ago. Mother also gave evidence that her friend who was deemed to be inappropriate, had told her earlier this week the Father had made threats against Mother in breach of his bail conditions. Mother told us that she had phoned the Police about this and they were now looking for Father. Mother told us that she hadn’t told the Social Worker this because she knew she was in trouble with the Social Worker for failing to answer the door, so it completely went out of her head. Mother emphasised to us that this contact from the Father was made to her friend, and that she has no contact with him.

 

17. With regard to concerns over inappropriate people calling at the home, Mother told us that she was aware that people who stayed overnight had the have police checks, but those who were just calling did not. Mother stated that it was only her 2 sisters who stayed overnight. Mother told us that she entered into an agreement that certain named people were not allowed in the property. She told us that she had taken her child to that named person’s house on the way to the park as they live on the same street. Mother told us that when the child was left in the care of another whilst she went out drinking, the person deemed inappropriate was there, but the friend with care for the Child wasn’t inappropriate and had no criminal convictions at all. Mother told us that she believed this person would protect the child whilst he was in her care.

 

18. Mother confirmed that there had been concerns over her mental health. She particularly told us about the death of her son in August last year and how she has had to deal with this. She told us that she felt she had dealt with this traumatic time very well. Mother told us that her medication since this incident has reduced significantly.

 

19. The child’s Guardian gave evidence in court as to her opinion in this case. She was involved with the Care Proceeding for this child’s 3 siblings but hasn’t had any involvement with the family between July 2008 and October 2009, when the Special Guardianship Order application was issued. The Guardian told us that she had only met Mother and Father at court during the last proceedings and had not interviewed them. She confirmed to us that there were concerns over Mothers openness and honesty but told us that the Child thrives in his mother’s care. The Guardian told us that she had no evidence to counter what was said by any witness regarding the use of drugs and alcohol or about anger and violence.

 

20. The Guardian gave evidence that the information she had indicated that the care for this child was no indicative of the care that was given to the other 3 children. The Guardian reminded us that the statements say that the child is thriving in his mother’s care until the 18^th of May. We were told that the Guardian accepts the concerns of the Social Worker, but there is attachment between mother and child and this child particularly would have needed a level of care over and above that which is good parenting. We were told that there is a good attachment and that the child will suffer if that attachment is severed in the way proposed by the Local Authority. The Guardian told us on balance that her preferred option is to look at what Mother can do and that something more constructive can be put in place to safeguard the child. The Guardian told us that whilst she accepted the concerns expressed, in her opinion, they were no sufficient to reach threshold and did not go far enough to justify removing the child from his mother.

 

21. The Guardian did make it clear to us that she was concerned by the evidence Mother had given relating to Father making indirect threats earlier this week. She told us that she had concerns about the violence that has been previously evidenced within this family. The Guardian told us that in light of the recent threats of violence made, her view is that Mother and Child should be placed in a refuge in order to be safe from Father.

 

22. The Guardian also told us that she held the view that a large degree of involvement with mother by way of education would be a beneficial way forward. We heard that NSPCC courses relating to the effect domestic violence has on children and parenting would be preferred. The Guardian also suggested drug and alcohol testing. The Guardian also told us that she would prefer to see support being given to Mother by a family member to ensure that this child is not brought up in the same way as his older siblings.

 

23. In turn we will address each of the concerns of the Social Worker and those of the Guardian.

 

24. With regard to Mothers adherence to the written agreements, we accept mother’s evidence that she had fully complied. We not the Social Workers statement of the 18^th of May that up until the 18^th of May, mother did fully engage with Social Services. With regards to the NSPCC relationship work we accept that it was reasonable for mother not to engage with this as she was no longer in a relationship.

 

25. With regard to mother’s presentation, particularly being under the influence of substances, we note the Social Workers evidence that in her opinion on the 7^th of May mother presented as being under the influence of a substance. However, no steps were taken to verify that she was under the influence of any substance. We also note that Mother was spoken to by the Social Worker in the presence of others which could have led to the inappropriate giggling. There was no expression of concern regarding the care for the child at this point.

 

26. The Social Workers concern over Fathers presence at the home is based on what she has been told by father. We are of the view that Father is not reliable. We have heard evidence that there was never any sign of Father or his belongings at the home during any of the visits – prearranged or unannounced.

 

27. Concerns were expressed that Mother was leaving the child with inappropriate people. We accept mother’s evidence that the child was only left with a person who the local authority have accepted was appropriate, although an inappropriate person was accepted to be present.

 

28. With regards to Mother’s mental health, we have heard and accept the evidence of mother that the medication has reduced from 6 different tablets to 1 of which she takes 5 each day. She is seen by her GP every 4 weeks who clearly monitors Mothers health. The medication would not have been reduced had Mothers mental health been deteriorating.

 

29. The Guardian’s concerns particularly related to the recent breach of bail and that as a result stated that a refuge would be most appropriate for the mother and child. We have heard evidence from mother that there is a police marker on the house which means that should a 999 cal be made from that property there would be an immediate response to it. We are of the view that this makes the house sufficiently safe for the child. The mother phoned the police earlier this week when her she was told that the father had made threats against her. We are satisfied that mother would do the same if Father attended the home. We are also of the view that going to a refuge would be very distressing for the child and that this would risk mother losing her home and her family support. We are of the opinion that mother has protected this child since his birth in spite of difficulties and that she has moved on from her difficult relationship with the Father.

 

30. For these reasons we are of the opinion that the threshold criteria for both a care and supervision order has not been satisfied therefore we are not able to make any order under Section 31 or Section 38 of the Children Act 1989.