Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 58 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:

A District Judge

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

Between:

	X Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	Ms K	1st Respondent	
	Mr P	2nd Respondent	
	C and S (two children through their Children’s Guardian)	3rd and 4th Respondents	

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

Mr E	for the	  Applicant	
Ms R	for the	 1st Respondent 	
Mr B	for the	2nd Respondent	
Mr S of Counsel	for the	3rd and 4th Respondents	

Hearing dates: 1st September 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 all parties save for the first 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.	
1.	This is an application by X Council (the Council) for care orders in respect of two children C who is almost five years old and S who is two years old.  The mother of both children is Ms K (the mother) who is present at court and legally represented.  The mother does not consent to the applications but does not actively oppose them and has not sought to challenge any of the evidence before the court.  The father of both children is Mr P (the father) who is present at court and represented.   The father does not have parental responsibility for either child but has been joined as a party to the proceedings.  He fully supports the applications before the court.  The children themselves are represented through the Children’s Guardian, Ms H who also supports the applications.
	
2.	The background to this case is helpfully set out in the most recent case summary from the Council which can be found at pages CS 10 – 14 of the bundle.  The Council have been involved with the family since 2005 following concerns as to the parents’ excessive drinking and issues of domestic violence.  The father is also a Schedule 1 offender although this conviction has not figured large in these proceedings.  The parents separated prior to the instigation of the proceedings and the children have been predominantly brought up by the mother.  At the time proceedings were issued the father had recently been released from prison and could not offer the children a home.
	
3.	On 18 June 2009 S was admitted to hospital after the mother twice dropped her on to a concrete floor whilst under the influence of alcohol.  S landed on her head and was detained in hospital for several days but thankfully she did not sustain serious injury.  The mother was subsequently arrested and charged with child neglect to which she pleaded guilty along with similar allegations arising from an incident in October 2009 which I will deal with shortly.  On 26 March 2010 the mother was made the subject of a community order for two years together with a supervision requirement in respect of all offences.  Full particulars of these can be found in the threshold document at page 22 of the bundle.
	
4.	At the time proceedings were commenced there were also concerns about the mother’s choice of partners and, in particular, the speed with which she introduced her current partner to the children.
	
5.	There were further concerns that the children were frequently left in the care of other people.  This lack of supervision resulted in the children suffering cuts and placed them at the risk of significant harm.  Further, there were serious concerns about poor home conditions and the children’s presentation which was sometimes dirty, dishevelled and unkempt.  As a result, both children were made subject to child protection plans on 1 September 2009 under the category of neglect.
	
6.	On 8 October 2009 the police attended at the family home at 1.30 am and had to force entry as no one would answer the door.  The mother was found asleep on the sofa with a lit cigarette in her hand and she appeared to be intoxicated.  Home conditions were unsafe and unhygienic with razor blades left within the children’s reach, empty alcohol bottles on the floor and the bath was full of water.  S was found sleeping in a bed with no bedding.  Such was the mother’s presentation that she was unable to recognise the police even though they were in uniform.  Once again, the mother was arrested and charged with an offence of child neglect to which she subsequently pleaded guilty as I have previously stated.
	
7.	As this was the second serious incident within four months the Council commenced the current proceedings and interim care orders were granted in respect of both children on the 16 October 2009.  Both S and C were placed together with the same foster carers where they have remained to date and appear to have made good progress.  During this time the children have had contact three times per week with their mother and once per week with their father.  Since 3 June 2010 the children have also had contact with their half-sister Z with whom it is proposed they are now placed permanently subject to a care order.
	
8.	The findings sought in support of the threshold criteria can be found at pages 20 – 23 of the bundle and have been agreed by all parties for the purpose of this hearing.  A signed copy of the schedule is annexed to this judgment (see paragraph 20).  On the evidence before me I am satisfied that the threshold criteria are met for the reasons set out in the schedule and I make findings of fact accordingly.  It therefore follows that at the time protective action was taken both children were suffering and were likely to suffer significant harm in the form of physical and emotional harm and neglect attributable to the care provided to them or likely to be provided to them by their parents not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give unless an order is made.
	
9.	I must now consider what order, if any, to make having regard to the welfare principles set out in section 1 Children Act 1989 and reminding myself that it is the welfare of each child that is my paramount consideration.  A number of assessments have been carried out in this case.  The mother has been assessed by a Family Centre (C111 – 160) but that assessment was negative and recommended that neither child be rehabilitated to their mother’s care at the present time.  The mother was also assessed by a Consultant Psychiatrist, and his reports can be found at C61-72 and C171 of the bundle.  The psychiatrist is of the view that the mother does not suffer from mental disorder or mental illness and her drinking should be regarded as a maladaptive pattern of behaviour.  There is no suggestion that she is dependent on alcohol but engages in what the psychiatrist describes as binge drinking (C71).  Accordingly, the psychiatrist does not believe that the mother requires any form of psychiatric treatment (C71).  In his report of 26 April 2010 the psychiatrist described the mother’s then stance that she could moderate her drinking as naïve.  He believes that whilst ever the mother continues to drink (albeit moderately) the risk remains that she would at times of crisis drink to excess placing the children at risk either directly or indirectly if in her care (C72).  In his addendum report dated 17 August 2010 the psychiatrist was asked to comment further in the light of hair strand test results which can be found at pages C161-166, C168-169 and C172-174, although the latter were not available to the psychiatrist at the time of his report.  The psychiatrist is of the view that the test results were consistent with the mother’s comments to him in interview back in April, which is that she had moderated her drinking but had not achieved complete abstinence from alcohol.  Accordingly, his views remained unchanged from his original report and he continued to recommend that the mother tried to achieve complete abstinence in the future (C171).
	
10.	A short report has also been filed from an addiction support agency which indicates that the mother has attended four out of six sessions with them where she has undertaken work around her motivation to change.  This work is continuing and the mother has a further appointment with this service in September (C170).
	
11.	The Guardian acknowledges that the mother has made some recent improvements with regard to her alcohol use and has demonstrated increased awareness of the concerns.  Whilst it is hoped that mother will be able to maintain these positive changes, they are very recent and in the past she has not been able to sustain change over a period of time (C191).   I agree with this assessment.
	
12.	The father was also the subject of an assessment by a family centre (C73-110) but that assessment recommended that neither child should be placed in his care (C108).
	
13.	As none of these assessments have been challenged I accept them in their entirety.
	
14.	As a result of the foregoing negative assessments of the parents the Council undertook a kinship care assessment of Z who is the father’s daughter to another relationship.  Z lives with her partner JH and Z’s son, B.  The assessment report can be found at C43 – 60 of the bundle and concludes that Z and JH are able to meet the needs of C and S and would afford the children the opportunity to be raised in a stable and loving environment within their birth family.  This report was accepted by the Council’s Fostering Panel on 28 June 2010 when Z and JH were approved as carers for both children.  Subject to the approval of the court the Council propose to place both children with Z and JH on 3 September 2010 in readiness for C commencing a new school the following week.  
	
15.	The Children’s Guardian has undertaken a thorough analysis of the welfare checklist which can be found at pages C193 – 195 of her report.  Both children are still very young. C is approaching her fifth birthday and S is just two years old.  They therefore rely on others to meet their day to day needs and require, as do all children, love security and routine in order that they can meet their full potential.  C requires some dental treatment but is otherwise in good health.  However, S is believed to be suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome which will require ongoing monitoring as she grows older.  Both children have had an unsettled start to their lives although for the last ten months they have had all their emotional needs met by their foster carers and have formed an attachment to them.  However, the Guardian believes, and I agree, that the children’s next move needs to be to a long-term placement which can meet their needs until adulthood.  Although very young, C has expressed a wish to live with Z who she knows as a family member and although S is too young to express a view the Guardian believes that she will be able to develop a strong attachment to her new carers and that the loving relationship which the two children share will assist in this process.
	
16.	The Guardian states, and again I agree that there is no doubt that both parents love their children very much and ideally they would like to have been able to care for them themselves.  However, in light of the negative assessments both parents have adopted a selfless approach in which they have placed the needs of the children above their own wishes and feelings and today neither parent seeks to actively oppose the Council’s applications.  I commend the parents for this approach and hope that in the future the children will recognise it as an indication that the parents had their best interests at heart in arriving at what I am sure has been a very painful decision for them.
	
17.	I am therefore satisfied on the information before me that neither parent is able to safely care for C or S either now or in the foreseeable future and accordingly I make a care order to X Council in respect of each child.
	
18.	With regard to contact, as I have said, both parents have been exercising regular contact to both children throughout the course of these proceedings and there is no criticism of either parent in this regard.  Indeed, the Guardian describes mother’s contact with the children as very good and the contact notes indicate that the bond the children have with their mother is especially strong (C179).  The care plans for each child indicate that contact to each parent is to be gradually reduced to a point where it becomes once per month for the mother for approximately one and a half hours and once every six weeks for the father for similar duration, each contact is to be supervised by the Council and to take place at a family support centre.  The care plans indicate that there will be some flexibility in the frequency of contact for each parent in order to accommodate special occasions but at this stage the Council’s primary concern is to allow the children to settle in their new placement and for the parents to demonstrate that they will do nothing to undermine it.  The contact arrangements will also be kept under regular review via the statutory review process and it has been suggested that the next review may be brought forward to November 2010.  
	
19.	Initially, both the parents and the Children’s Guardian were concerned about the proposed frequency of contact, the former believing that it was insufficient and the Guardian believing that the mother’s contact should also be six times per year like the father’s.  However, following lengthy discussions at court all parties have now agreed that the contact proposals set out in the care plans are the best that can be devised at present in order to meet the children’s immediate needs, and that any further adjustment should be made at statutory reviews.  I agree with this approach.  Accordingly, I am satisfied with the proposed contact arrangements as set out in the care plans and see no need to make any formal orders as to contact.  I approve the care plan for each child.
	
20.	Annexed Agreed Schedule of Findings of Fact

X Council assert that both children are suffering or are likely to suffer significant harm and the harm or the likelihood of harm is attributable to the care being given to them or likely to be given to them if the orders were not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give them.  X Council, the applicant, seek to rely on events occurring on or before the 1.9.09 the date when the applicant instigated protective measures in respect of the children. Re M (a minor) (Threshold Conditions) [1994] 3 All ER 298, [1994] 2 AC 424.  X Council, the applicant, also seek to rely on information acquired after the date of intervention and on events occurring since that date which are capable of proving the state of affairs when proceedings began in respect of them.  Re G (Children) (Care Order: Evidence of Threshold Conditions) [2001] 2 FLR 1111.  The following facts are relied upon by X Council the applicant in support of its contentions that both children suffered harm and / or the risk of harm as a result of which the threshold criteria are satisfied.  The children have suffered harm as a result of neglectful parenting the particulars are the mother has a considerable problem with alcohol abuse which impacts heavily upon her ability to provide even a basic level of care for both children.  The children are often taken to a public house by their mother and stay there for hours on end while their mother drinks.  Historically home conditions were dirty and the children presented as dirty, dishevelled and unkempt.  (It is acknowledged that home conditions are now much improved).  The mother fails adequately to parent her children, frequently leaving them in the care of others.  Lack of supervision has resulted in the children suffering cuts and at risk of more significant harm.  S has been observed eating from the floor (20.8.09) with associated obvious risks to her health.  The children have suffered significant physical harm the particulars of this harm are on or about 18.6.09 when in drink the mother dropped S twice upon her head onto a concrete floor as a result of which she was detained in hospital for a number of days.  The unsanitary conditions within the home were such that there was a risk to the children’s health.  On the 5.2.10 the mother pleaded guilty at a Magistrates Court to three charges of “Doing an act of cruelty to a child or young person under sixteen” contrary to section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.  On 26.3.10 she was sentenced in respect of the above charges to a 24 months community order with a probation supervision requirement.  The charges relate to the incident on or about the 18.6.09 dropping S twice on her head, to an incident on 8.10.09 when the police broke into the mother’s home to find her so drunk that she could not recognise police officers in uniform and in charge of the two children in a house littered with empty beer cans with razor blades out loose and a bath brim full of water one charge for each child.  The children have suffered significant emotional harm the particulars are the mother’s alcohol dependency means that she prioritises her needs above those of the children who often receive scant and / or inconsistent attention from her.  They are often farmed out to others to look after.  The mother has a history of abusive relationships with the father and others involving domestic violence incidents which are seen and/or heard by the children.  As a result of the parenting they have received the children’s health and development have been impaired the particulars are that there is a general lack of input from the mother to ensure that the children’s health needs are met with appointments being missed.  There is a similar lack of input from the mother to ensure that the children’s education needs are met with appointments and opportunities being missed in relation to their nursery education.	
21.	Heard before a District Judge on [a date] 2010.