Neutral Citation Number:  [2010] EWMC 10 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:

District Judge (Magistrates Court)

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

Between:

	X Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	Miss C	1st Respondent	
			
	(a child)	2nd Respondent	

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

Re M (a child)

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

Miss G  for the   Applicant
Miss H for the  1st Respondent

Miss K  for the 2nd Respondent

Hearing date: 18 February 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

Judgement

		
1.	I have read the bundle provided by the Local Authority, heard evidence from D, Social Worker and heard representations from the solicitors.
	
2.	This is an application for a care Order in respect of M.   M’s mother is C, his father has not been named.
	
3.	The background to the application is fully outlined in the various statements and the chronology contained in the bundle, and is summarised in the introduction of the Care Plan at CP11.   M is a disturbed child with severe behavioural problems and intense educational needs.   The relevant evidence is contained throughout the case papers as is evidence of his mothers’ failure to respond to those needs.   Since it is conceded that the threshold is crossed it is not necessary for me to deal with matters at length, but formally I am satisfied that on the basis of the schedule of findings as at out at pages 15 to 16 of the bundle and supported by the relevant statements and professional reports, the threshold criteria are met.
	
4.	In the care plan the Local Authority contend that M’s welfare can only be safeguarded by his placement in long term foster care.   In this placement he will receive therapeutic support.   M has such complex needs that there is no plan to rehabilitate M with his mother.  The plan is to reduce contact to 6 times a year.   This will be reviewed regularly taking into consideration M’s needs.   M’s current need is to build a firm attachment with his carers.
	
5.	C accepts that she is unable to care for M at the moment but she has raised various concerns about the Local Authority Care plan outlined in her statement of 10 February 2010.   She is concerned in particular about the level of contact steadily being reduced and that there is no prospect of M returning to her even if she begins to deal with her own substantial difficulties.   
	
6.	I have heard evidence from Mr D, who tells me that M has made far better progress in therapeutic care than was anticipated.   Mr D stresses the view of the professionals involved in M’s case, that a child with such entrenched and serious problems will need focused and intensive parenting for a substantial period.   
	
7.	I accept this evidence and Mr D’s expert opinion, that to facilitate this focused parenting, contact with Miss C must be limited in the way envisaged by the schedule.   However, as Miss G points out the plan is not carved in stone and much may depend on M’s response to the therapeutic assistance being given to him over the next two years.   No promise, however, is being held out to Miss C that M will be returned to her, but it is encouraging that persons close to M are likely to be involved in the access given to Miss C.   Miss C herself has indicated her willingness to accept appropriate professional assistance.   
	
8.	I am satisfied though that the Care plan contains a fair considered and intelligent strategy  which incorporates a degree of flexibility and which if implemented will be in the best interests of M in terms of his welfare and development.   I therefore approve it.
	
9.	The Children’s Guardian supports the making of a Care Order and fully endorses the care plan and the Local Authority’s proposals for contact
	
10.	I must now consider what order, if any, to make having regard to the welfare principles set out in section1 of the Children Act 1989 and reminding myself that it is M's welfare which is my paramount consideration.  
	
11.	I start from the point that the court should not intervene in the life of children and families unless it is necessary to do so. The less-interventionist approach applies, not only as to whether an order is necessary, but also to the choice of order. I am satisfied that the evidence produced at this hearing is sufficient for me to find that the order sought here is necessary to safeguard the child’s welfare.
	
12.	I have had regard to Article 8 and have undertaken a balancing act of all the parties rights under the Act.  I have paid due regard to the interests safeguarded by the Human Rights Act and I am satisfied on reviewing all the information that the measures of interference are fair and proportionate
	
13.	I make a Care Order for M, in doing so I accept the care plan at CP10 to 25 of the bundle.