Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 20 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:

Lay Magistrates

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

Between:

	X Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	Ms R
Mr D 
M a child through her Children’s Guardian                                                         	1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms A of Counsel for the Applicant
Ms J for the 1st Respondent
No Legal Representative for the 2nd Respondent
Mr G for the 3rd Respondent

Hearing dates: 5th May 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.

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 orders are appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

1.	 M is 18 months of age.	
2.	
The court granted an Emergency Protection Order on 30th June 2009.  An application was issued on 2nd July 2009 for a care order, which was granted on 7th July 2009.  M has been the subject of interim care orders thereafter and placed in foster care since 26th June 2009.
	
3.	
The child’s mother is Ms R has been represented throughout the proceedings.  The father Mr D has not taken part in the proceedings and has not been represented.  He has not been served with the application due to his whereabouts being unknown.  The court is satisfied that all reasonable attempts have been made by the local authority to locate him.
	
4.	
The court has had sight of a threshold document dated 5th May.  That document is not agreed nor opposed by the mother, who does not attend court today, and sets out the historical matters leading to the placement in foster care of four of the mother’s five elder children.  The court makes the findings as set out in that document and accordingly finds that the threshold criteria for the purposes of Section 31 Children Act 1989 were met at the time that the local authority issued these proceedings on 2nd July 2009. 
	
5.	
The court has had sight of the bundle of documents prepared by the local authority and in particular has considered the assessments of the mother commissioned within the proceedings, namely the Substance Use and Parenting Capacity Report dated 29th September 2009 and addendum dated 17th February 2010 and the Psychological Report dated 16th October 2009 and addendum dated 22nd February 2010.  The court has also had sight of the care plan dated 18th March 2010 and the Final Analysis and Recommendations of the Children’s Guardian dated 21st April 2010.
	
6.	
The mother has continued to lead a chaotic lifestyle that would not be suitable for children.  On 30th January 2010 the mother was charged with 4 separate offences of harbouring under S49C Children Act 1989.  This was in relation to her daughter MH who is 14 years old and subject to a full care order.  The mother had permitted MH to drink alcohol, smoke and remain in her home when she should have been in foster care.  MH informed her social worker that her mother uses drugs in front of her and that she asked her eldest daughter to collect drugs for her from a drug dealer.
	
7.	
The addendum psychological report states that in his opinion, because the mother was willing to harbour her daughter when she should be in placement, the mother is not able to “work effectively with professionals and therefore unlikely to parent safely and protect her child”.  The psychologist stated that there is no evidence that the mother has made any substantial changes or any commitment to changes.  She has not undertaken any therapeutic work to help her address her parenting difficulties.  The psychologist feels that the mother is unable to act in her child’s best interests and provide clear parental boundaries.  She is unwilling to cooperate with the local authority.
	
8.	
The addendum to the substance use and parenting capacity report states that the mother’s lifestyle would “militate against providing a stable, safe and predictable environment for a child to grow up in”.  The author of the report has questions about mother’s ability to give her children clear parent-child boundaries considering she was made subject to a Harbouring Notice.  The author of the report feels that mother does not fully take on board the concerns raised by social care due to the fact that she knew she was under professional scrutiny and that M’s long-term needs were being considered.  Overall the author of the report feels increased concern with regard to mother’s lifestyle and the potential impact it will have on her parenting capacity.  He feels that mother may not be able to maintain stability within her lifestyle on a prolonged basis and would not work with professionals in the future.
	
9.	
The court has scrutinised the plan of the local authority.  The local authority seek a care order today in order to progress a plan of adoption which is stated to be in M’s best interests, will best promote her physical and emotional developmental needs and will meet her need for permanence until adulthood.  The plan does not envisage ongoing direct contact but letter box contact will be offered to the mother yearly.  M was placed before the Adoption Panel on 30th April 2010.  Panel approved the care plan.  This decision has yet to be ratified and the local authority anticipates this will be done within the next two weeks.
	
10.	
The Children’s Guardian supports the plan of the local authority.
	
11.	
The mother is not consenting to, nor opposing, the care plan.  The mother has missed a significant number of contacts due to ill health since December 2009.  She has indicated to her solicitor last week that she will not be attending court.  We are satisfied she is aware of the hearing and are content for the matter to proceed.
	
12.	
The local authority has explored placement options within the extended family but no suitable placement has been able to be identified.
	
13.	
When deciding what order is best for the child, the court has considered all elements of the welfare checklist as required by the Children Act and considers that a Care Order with a plan of adoption would best promote the child’s welfare needs.  M has a pressing need for permanence; she has been in foster care since June 2009.
	
14.	
In making this order the Court has considered the competing Article 8 rights of the child and the parents and her extended family.  The court considers that the order made is both necessary and proportionate in the circumstances, there being no viable placement for M within her family and balancing her pressing need for permanence with her right to know her family of origin.  The court is satisfied that M’s identity needs will be met by indirect contact as proposed by the local authority.
	
15.	
The order is that the child will be placed in the care of X Local Authority.
	
16.	Heard before Lay Magistrates on 5.5.10.