England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

Ms R

1^st Respondent

Mr N

2^nd Respondent

M, K, KD and KM (four children through their Children’s Guardian)

3^rd Respondent

Ms B

for the

  Applicant

Ms G of Counsel

for the

1^st  Respondent

Ms W

for the

2^nd Respondent

Ms S

for the

3^rd Respondent

These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by all parties save for the first and second respondents, who do not oppose nor consent to them, such Facts and Reasons being adopted by the Court and the Court is satisfied the proposed order is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

1.

These proceedings concern a child M who is nine years of age, K who is seven years of age, KD who is four years of age and KM who is two years of age.

2.

The mother of all four children is Ms R who is not present at court today but who is represented by Ms G of Counsel.  The father of the two eldest children is Mr K who died in 2009 but who had little contact with his daughters prior to his death.  The father of the two younger children is Mr N who again is not present at court but who is represented by Ms W.  Neither the mother nor Mr N, who for the purpose of this judgment will be referred to as the father, have actively engaged in the case.  The mother’s attendance at contact of late has been sporadic and the parents have not given their solicitors recent instructions.  I am however satisfied that both the mother and the father know of today’s hearing and I must therefore conclude that they have deliberately chosen not to attend perhaps because they find the process too painful.

3.

X City Council has applied for Care Orders in respect of all four children. Today, and for reasons which I will enlarge upon in a moment, I am asked to deal with the threshold for all four children but then to adjourn the proceedings for M and K pending an adoption panel meeting in July and to make Special Guardianship Orders in respect of KD and KM to their paternal aunt and uncle with whom they have been placed since 26.10.09.  These applications are supported by the Children’s Guardian, Ms C, through whom the children are represented.

4.

The orders for the two boys would be welcomed by their aunt on behalf of herself and her husband and she attends court today.

5.

The background to this matter is very helpfully set out in the Local Authority case summary dated 12^th May 2010.  In short all four children became known to Social Services in January 2008 shortly after KM’s birth.  There is a catalogue of referrals from a number of different sources but all of them were alleging that the children were being neglected, living in poor home conditions and a lack of supervision to the point where they were wandering the streets.

6.

The children were made the subject of child protection plans in June 2008 at which time further issues of domestic violence and drug and alcohol misuse were identified.  Matters came to a head on the 5.5.09 when KM was presented at the hospital with a cut to his lip which required stitches under a general anaesthetic.  There was information to suggest that this injury had occurred following an incident of domestic violence in which objects including glass were smashed.  Initially the children were accommodated on a voluntary basis but interim care orders were made on the 8.5.09 and have remained in place since that date.  It was not initially possible to place all four children together but as I have said on the 26.10.09 both boys were placed with their aunt and uncle where they have remained.

7.

The two girls are also placed together and the Council’s long-term plans are for them to be placed together in the same adoptive placement subject to panel approval.

8.

The threshold criteria are set out at pages 16 – 19 of the bundle and have not been challenged by the parents.  For the purpose of this hearing I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the threshold criteria are met for the reasons set out in the schedule which will be annexed to this judgment and I make findings of fact accordingly.  It therefore follows that at the time protective measures were taken KM was suffering significant physical harm and all four children were suffering neglect and emotional harm attributable to the care given to them not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.  Furthermore I am satisfied that all four children are at risk of future significant emotional and physical harm and neglect for the same reasons.

9.

I must now consider what orders to make having regard to the welfare principles set out in the Children Act and reminding myself that it is the welfare of each child which is my paramount consideration.

10.

During the course of these proceedings the mother has been the subject of a parenting and risk assessment, an addiction unit assessment and a psychiatric assessment none of which have been favourable to her.  I have also read in the report of the Children’s Guardian at page five that there is evidence to suggest that the mother has continued to misuse alcohol and on one occasion reported to the Social Worker that she had replaced alcohol with amphetamine.

11.

As I have already said the mother has been inconsistent in attending contact but last attended on the 7.5.10 when the Children’s Guardian also attended.  However the mother declined an interview with the Children’s Guardian afterwards in order that her current views could be ascertained.  I am told by Ms G that in an ideal world her client would like all four children returned to her care but that perhaps her absence today is an acceptance that in reality this can not happen.  I think this is probably true.

12.

The father’s position is slightly different in that although he has not fully engaged with the court process he does seem to have accepted at a very early stage that the two boys were appropriately placed with his brother and wife.  The father being content with this placement did not wish to put himself forward as a carer for either child.  However the father has been more consistent in attending contact with his two sons on a weekly basis.

13.

I now turn to the care plans for the children.  As I have said M and K are placed together in the same foster home and the plan is for their names to be placed before the Local Authority Adoption Panel on the 9.7.10.  Subject to panel approval a placement application will then be issued.  With this in mind a final hearing for these two children has been arranged for the 28.7.10 before me at which time I will be better able to scrutinize the care plans and deal with any placement application.  Nevertheless on the information before me now I am satisfied that neither the mother nor the father are in a position to care for these two girls whether it be immediately or in the foreseeable future and as there are no other family members available to care for them their long-term care will have to be secured outside their birth family.  The only question to be determined is whether that will be by placement and adoption or long-term foster care.

14.

I know that M in particular continues to express a strong desire to return to her mother and for the whole family to be reunited but at the same time she also acknowledges the shortcomings in her mother’s care of the children in the past.  Whilst M’s idealised view is very understandable it is one that I am afraid would not meet her or her siblings best interests.  Therefore in respect of M and K I will make further interim care orders initially for 28 days which then can be renewed through to the proposed final hearing on the 28.7.10.  I will give further directions in respect of that hearing at the end of this judgment.

15.

Turning to KD and KM I am told in the Children’s Guardian’s report and I accept that they have settled well in their current placement and that the change in KM is particularly noticeable.  He is described as having blossomed as a result of the consistent care he has received from his aunt and uncle.  Whilst KD has settled into his new family and appears to be happy there, there appears to be some minor behavioural problems particularly towards his brother.  Nevertheless I agree with the Children’s Guardian that it is a positive outcome that both boys continue to remain within their birth family.

16.

The aunt and uncle were the subject of a positive kinship care assessment which can be found at page C116 of the bundle and also a Special Guardianship Report at page C133.  The Children’s Guardian also supports the continued placement of both boys with their aunt and uncle.  Accordingly I am satisfied that this placement is meeting the needs of both boys now and will continue to do so as they grow older.  I therefore make both KD and KM the subject of Special Guardianship Orders to their aunt and uncle.

17,

Lastly I must deal with contact this is fully set out both within the addendum to the care plans and also a further document which has been prepared by the social worker and presented at court this morning.  Essentially the arrangements are these that all four children currently have contact with each other and with the mother and father separately.  In recognition of the fact that none of the children will be returning to the care of their parents there is to be a phased reduction in the level of contact to the point where there will be direct face to face contact between the parents individually and the two boys three times per year and between the girls and the boys three times per year even if the girls are placed for adoption.  The long-term plan for contact between the girls and their mother is not something which I have to deal with today save to say that it will be gradually reduced to reflect the fact that they are not being returned to her care.  The Children’s Guardian is satisfied that these plans are in the best interest of the children and that they will help to meet their need to retain family relationships whilst at the same time reflecting the fact that there are no plans for rehabilitation to either the mother or the father.  I am also satisfied with these arrangements and I therefore see no need to make any formal order as to contact.  The care plans for KD and KM are approved.

18.

Heard before a District Judge on the 13.5.10.