Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWMC 11 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:
Magistrates
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

X Local Authority	

Applicant	
	and
Miss K, Mother 	
1st Respondent	
	Mr S, Father	2nd Respondent	
	C (a child)	3rd respondent 	

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

Re C

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

Mr B for the   Applicant
Mr L for the  1st Respondent
Mr H for the 2nd Respondent
Mrs A  for the  3rd Respondent

Hearing date: 18th December 2009

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

		
1.	This is an application by X Council for an interim care order in respect of the child, C, born [a date]. If an ICO is granted the LA will allow contact between the mother and child 4 times per week for 1 hour away from the foster placement. Over the Christmas period there will be no contact on Christmas day, the weekend, the 28th December 2009 and the 1st January 2010. Contact will then resume in the new year at the Church, 4 times per week. Contact between the maternal grandmother will be once a week.	
2.	An interim supervision order was made on the 14th August 2009. Miss K, mother and C moved to a foster care placement on the 21st September 2009 which continued until the 16th December 2009.	
3.	It is accepted that up until the end of November the mother and baby assessment was going well. This is documented in the bundle at D7 a-j, h, n and m.	
4.	The Social Worker was notified that there has been a deterioration in the placement since the end of October and has supplied diary notes and observations from the end of November, filed at D8-21 of the bundle.	
5.	The concerns noted are:
•	Aggressive behaviour in front of the baby directed at maternal grandparents and the Social worker.
•	Instances of verbal violence targeted at C
•	Mother swears at C when he cries
•	Mother blames C if he does not sleep at night or if he wakes too early.
•	She can speak nicely to him, but the instances where she swears and complains at him are a cause for concern
•	Resistance to engage with professionals (see A27)
•	Mother has required constant prompting and reminding to meet C’s most basic needs
•	Once prompting ceased and mother was required to act independently, her ability to carry out basic tasks ceased	
6.	ASSESSMENT OF THE WITNESSES	
		
7.	MISS L, SOCIAL WORKER
Gave evidence about why she considers C should be removed from his mother’s care. The recent concerns are noted in the records of the review meetings dated the 2nd and the 15th December 2009.	
8.	The Social Worker stated that on occasions mother, when challenged, could be verbally abusive and had been threatening towards herself, the foster carer and link worker. This included throwing a hard toy at the social worker in temper. 	
9.	The Social Worker gave evidence about the deterioration in mother’s care of C since the end of November. She agreed when cross examined by mother’s solicitor that it was possible her behaviour had deteriorated because she had stopped taking Prozac. However, she also said she thought this was only a factor and that the deterioration also coincided with the foster carer taking less of an active role in C’s care. In fact, her behaviour suggests a return to the pattern of behaviour detailed earlier on in the chronology.	
10.	The Social Worker had noted that C had of late not been seeking eye contact with his mother.	
11.	She was not optimistic that a placement of mother with C at the grandmothers would work at this time, given mother’s state of health and their relationship in the past. If the foster carer had been unable to modify mother’s behaviour, the Social Worker could not see how the grandmother could do so.	
12.	MISS M, PARENT AND CHILD ASSESSMENT FOSTER CARER 
Evidence filed at D4-21 of the bundle.	
13.	Miss M described how mother’s behaviour seemed to change from the 26th October 2009. Miss M referred to her diary entry for that date in which she recorded that mother had told her she had come off Prozac. She advised her to visit the Doctor before doing so.	
14.	During cross examination by Mr L, Miss M was clear that mother had been asleep when she entered the bedroom on the 16th December 2009 and that C was under the duvet, face down on his mothers stomach. He was very red, he was in a deep sleep and she thought something had happened to him. However, when mother moved him he woke up. This was the second occasion she had found C under the duvet with his mother and she had already explained to mother how dangerous this practice was. Miss M pointed out that if mother was awake rather than asleep, this was even more dangerous as she would realise that she would need to take the baby out from under the duvet.	
15.	Miss M said mother did not like being told what to do so she discussed and explained rather than giving orders. 	
16.	She was concerned that mother did not act upon advice given.	
17.	MISS K, MOTHER	
18.	She asked that C be allowed to return home with her provided she lived with her mother. However, she conceded during cross examination by the Local Authority that she was not able to care for C until she had got back onto Prozac and the effects had started to kick in, provided contact was adequate.	
19.	When cross examined by the solicitor for the guardian, she denied that she had ever shouted or sworn at C or spoken to him in an aggressive manner (see for example D9 and D15 of the bundle). She denied that C was ever under the duvet as outlined at D17 and 21 of the bundle by Miss M. She accepted that she had told C to shut up on occasions. However these points were not put to Miss M when she was giving evidence.	
20.	She agreed that there were no relationship difficulties between herself and Miss M. She alleged that Miss M had already had a child removed from her and she didn’t know why the foster carer would describe her behaviour to be like this.	
21.	She agreed she did not follow the Doctor’s advice about her care of the child as she thought it was wrong.	
22.	MRS K, MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER	
		
23.	Mrs K confirmed that mother and C had lived with her and her husband for the first three months of the baby’s life.	
24.	She gave evidence that her and her husband were on leave until the 4th January 2010 and so could monitor the placement until then.	
25.	Mrs K stated that she had never seen her daughter be aggressive, shout or be abusive towards C on any occasion. She acknowledged her daughter had recently had problems with hygiene and had a bad temper. She feels she has a strong bond with C.	
26.	She was unable to comment on what Miss M had said and written as she had not witnessed the events in question.	
27.	She knows that social care want to assess her as a family carer and she wants the child to be with its mother	
28.	The guardian supports the Local Authority request for an Interim Care Order.	
29.	We agree with the concerns expressed by Miss L, the Social Worker and Miss M, the Parent and Child Assessment Foster Carer. We can see no conceivable reason why Miss M would make this evidence up and we accept it. We do not feel that a placement with Grandmother is appropriate at present. Further assessments need to be done.	
30.	We have no doubt that mother loves C but she is unable to provide proper care for him at this time, and she has acknowledged that.	
31.	FINDINGS OF THE COURT REGARDING STATUTORY/THRESHOLD CRITERIA	
32.	We are 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 the child or likely to be given to him if the order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.	
33.	Threshold is not in issue today as it has been conceded previously. However the type of order to be made is disputed.	
34.	WELFARE CHECKLIST (s1(3) Children Act 1989)
	
35.	Ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child (considered in the light of the child’s age and understanding): C has been displaying increasing distress with his mother. 	
36.	The child’s physical, emotional and educational needs:
There are serious concerns for C’s physical and emotional well being, which are documented in the bundle and expressed in the evidence given by the social worker and foster carer.	
37.	The likely effect on the child of any change in circumstances: C will remain with Miss M if an ICO is made.	
38.	Children’s age, sex, background and any characteristics that the court considers relevant: C is very young and vulnerable.	
39.	Any harm the child has suffered or at risk of suffering: C has been placed at risk by the behaviour displayed by the mother. 	
40.	How capable each of the children’s  parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting the children’s needs:  N/A	
41.	We have had regard to the Human Rights Act. With regard to Article 8 and the right to respect for private and family life, we must be satisfied that the evidence produced at this hearing is sufficient for us to find that the order sought is necessary and proportionate to safeguard C’s welfare. 	
42.	Having heard all the evidence and submissions made we are of the view that the only appropriate order is an Interim Care Order whereby C is not in the care of his mother. Our reasons for this have already been stated. Contact will remain at the discretion of the Local Authority.	
43.	An Interim Care Order is granted until the 12th February 2010 and a directions hearing will take place on the 20th January 2010 at 2.30pm when further directions will be considered.	
44.	Before Lay Justices	
45.	18th December 2009