Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 82 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:
A Lay Bench

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

Between:

	A Local Authority	Applicant	
	And		
	Mother “B”	1st Respondent	
	And		
	Father “C”	2nd Respondent	
	And		
	Child “A” by their Guardian	3rd Respondent	

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

Hearing dates: 4TH October 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.

Issues not In Dispute
1.	The Local Authority applies for a Care order in respect of the Child “A“ (DOB and a Placement order.
2.	The father is “C”
3.	The Mother is “B”
4.	The father agrees that threshold has been passed.
5.	The father agrees to the making of a Care Order in respect of “A”,
6.	The mother does not agree but does not oppose the Care or Placement order application.

Finding of the Court
1.	“C” agrees that the threshold criteria is met in this case. As against him he agrees that:
a)	his relationship with “B” has been unstable,
b)	he has a long standing and enduring problem with drug abuse,
c)	he has a significant criminal history.
2.	“C” does not put himself forward as a carer to “A”
In respect of “B” she has not agreed that the threshold criteria has been met but agrees the following facts:-
a)	that “A” is her fourth child born to her and that the 3 older children have all been removed from her care and adopted as a result of her lifestyle not being conducive to raising children. “B” accepts that her third child “J” was born with drug dependency in 2006,
b)	“B” accepts that following “A’s” removal she did not engage with social services as well as she had previously done,
c)	“B” accepts that her relationship with the father has been unstable,
d)	“B” accepts that the father was at her home in April 2009,
e)	“B” accepts that she has a significant criminal history,
f)	“B” accepts that she has prostituted herself in the past in order to fund her drug habit,

In addition to those matters agreed above, the court having read the evidence filed by the Social Worker further finds:- 
1)	That the threshold criteria has been met in this case and that the relevant date is the 14 October 2009.
2)	The mother has a significant long standing and enduring drug problem which has continued following “A’s” birth. The mother has abused prescription methadone and street drugs for many years.
3)	The mother has failed to engage consistently with social services and CDU.
4)	On the 14 October 2009 home conditions were very poor – there were cigarette ends on the floor and table, the kitchen was dirty, the upstairs of the home was described as appalling and clearly did not meet “A’s” needs.
5)	The mother has allowed “C” into contact with “A” despite entering into a written agreement with the local authority to the contrary.
6)	The mother leads a chaotic lifestyle

In determining whether the Threshold Criteria under Section 31 has been satisfied, we have examined and considered the documentary and oral evidence presented.
We find as a matter of fact the following:
See findings of the Court as set out previously.

We therefore find that the threshold criteria has been satisfied.
PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION

In deciding what orders to make, if any, we have considered the welfare of the Child to be our paramount consideration.

WELFARE CHECKLIST

We have considered the factors in the welfare checklist and make the following finding of fact:

a)	Having regard to the ascertainable wishes and feeling of the Child concerned, considered on the light of their age and understanding we find

“A” is only 1 year and 9 months of age, she is too young to express her wished and feelings.

b)	Regarding their physical, emotional and educational needs we find

“A” needs security and stability in order to ensure that her physical, emotional and educational needs are met.

c)	The likely effect of any change in their circumstances

If “A” were to return to the care of either parent, she would be likely to suffer from a lack of stability on the parenting she would receive.

d)	Their age, sex, background and any characteristics which the Court consider relevant.

“A” is a little girl with no physical or developmental difficulties.
“A” is of mixed race.

e)	Any harm that they have suffered or is at risk of suffering

“A’s” needs were not being appropriately met when she was cared for by “B”.

f)	How capable each of their parents and any other person to whom the Court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting their needs.

The court does not consider that either parent is capable of meeting “A’s” needs now or in the foreseeable future,

g)	We have considered the range of powers available to the Court under this Act in the proceedings in question.

The Children Act 1989
Adoption and Children Act 2002

DECISION OF THE COURT

(All application should be considered in light of a persons Human Rights and especially those contained in Article 8 of the Convention)

In reaching s decision we have considered the parties rights contained within the European Convention on Human Rights

We have considered the rights of all parties under the ECHR

We have considered the principle of making No Order,

We do not think this would be appropriate.

We therefore make the following order(s):
 A Care Order and a Placement Order

In making the placement order we note that “C” gives his consent to the making of the order and has confirmed this position to his solicitor at Court today.

The Mother “B” does not agree, nor does she oppose the application and accordingly the Court must consider whether it is appropriate to dispense with her consent. 

In doing so the court has had full regard to the welfare checklist contained within the 2002 Act and disposed with “B’s” consent under the provision of S52 (1) (b) of the 2002 Act the court determining that adoption is in “A’s” best interest throughout her life.

On that basis we dispense with “B’s” Consent.