Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 9 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:

Magistrates

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

Between:

	Re J		

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

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

X FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT 
Case No 
Re J 
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 Facts and Reasons
These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by all parties save for the Second 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 Orders are appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Facts 
This is an application by X Council for a Supervision Order in respect of J dob 	(aged 1). The local authority also supports the making of a residence order in respect of J to his maternal grandmother C. The Local Authority also applies for leave to withdraw the application for a placement order in respect of J.

J’s mother is L and his putative father is D although Mr S has never engaged with the local authority or with these court proceedings to determine paternity. The parents have never been married and only Miss S has parental responsibility for J.

J has been the subject of an Interim Care Order to X Council since 26 February 2009 due to concerns of the local authority that he has suffered significant harm as a result of his mother’s misuse of drugs whilst pregnant and is likely to suffer significant harm as a result of his mother’s misuse of drugs and alcohol and consequent chaotic lifestyle and the impact this has on Miss S’s ability to care for J on a consistent basis. 

The local authority has completed a parenting assessment of Miss S which does not recommend that J is returned to her care. Miss S has not actually seen J	since 23 August 2009.

Following an independent social work assessment Miss G has been caring for J since 4 January 2010 and no concerns have been raised about her ability to care for J or protect him from harm. 

The interests of J have been represented by his Children’s Guardian, Dr A and his solicitor Mr W. 

Both Miss S and Miss G are also represented by solicitors, Mr T and Mr R respectively. 

We have read the independent assessment of Miss G completed by MH dated 9 October 2009 and the final statement and care plan of DL dated 21 February and 10 February 2010 and have noted the proposed basis for threshold filed by the local authority dated 1 June 2009. On 12 October 2009 the court found that the threshold criteria was made out in accordance with s31 (2) Children Act 1989. 

We have also read the report of J’s guardian dated 26 March 2010. Dr A supports that making of the orders. 

Reasons 

J’s welfare is the Court’s paramount consideration. We have considered the no order principle and consider it better to make an order than no order. Without an order J could be returned to the care of his mother and his placement with his grandmother needs to be secured on a legal basis. 

The local authority are satisfied that the care Miss G affords J is meeting his needs and she is able to protect him from harm and therefore no longer considers it necessary for J to be the subject of the level of statutory intervention a full care order would subject J to.

The local authority does however consider it appropriate to remain involved and be able to offer advice and assistance to the family for a period of time. 

We are satisfied that the threshold criteria is met and J has suffered harm and  would be at risk of suffering significant harm if returned to the care of his mother at this time. 

We have considered the welfare checklist in respect of both orders and agree that these orders are necessary and a proportionate response in order to meet the welfare needs of J.

We therefore make a Supervision Order in respect of J in favour of X Council for 12 months and a Residence Order in respect of J to his grandmother C.

We grant leave for the application for a placement order in respect of J to be withdrawn.

Magistrates