England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

Local Authority

Applicant

and

Mother

1^st Respondent

(represented)

and

Child A

2^nd Respondent

(represented)

and

Father

3^rd Respondent

(Not Present)

This is an application by the local authority who are represented for a care and placement order in respect of Child A. He is the child of the 1^st and 3^rd respondent.  The couple were never married and the father’s name is not on the child’s birth certificate.  The mother is present in court today and represented.  The father is not present in court today and due to his recent non engagement is not represented in court today.  The social worker is present and the guardian is present and represented by the child’s solicitor.

Background to the case.

These proceedings concern Child A who is under one year old.  An interim care order was made last year and Child A has been the subject of interim care orders since then.  He was placed with foster carers shortly after birth.  This was after he had remained in hospital for a few days due to drug withdrawal symptoms.  His mother is serving a long sentence in respect of serious charges.  She is not due to be released until next year.  The local authority plan is that the child be placed for adoption and that contact with mother should be way of annual letter box contact.  They recommend that father do not have any contact. This approach is supported by the guardian.

The father has been represented in the past.  He is not named on the birth certificate but his paternity has been ascertained by means of DNA testing.  He is not considered a viable option to care for the child.  His relationship with the mother was a violent one.

The mother put forward members of the extended family as possible carers.  However, the local authority has been unable to trace any of these.  The child remains in foster care to date.

In the mother’s reply to the threshold document she accepted that her two older children were removed from her care due to her choice of lifestyle, drug and alcohol misuse.

She accepts that the threshold criteria were satisfied as regards the initial application for a care order.

We have read the bundles provided by the local authority and the most recent statement of the social worker.

Today we have heard evidence from the social worker who has confirmed her three statements.  She also confirmed the viability assessment of the father which was negative and the final care plan and the Annex B report and the statement of facts.  We also heard evidence from the guardian who confirmed her initial analysis and the final analysis.

The mother chose not to give evidence today.

The mother heard yesterday that there is a possibility of applying to be re-categorised which could lead to an open prison placement and which may have a mother and baby unit.  Today she was hoping for an adjournment of this matter in the hope that her situation will change to the extent that there may be an opportunity to care for her child.  We refused the application for this because of the uncertainty of the options available.  The local authority supported by the guardian made representations that any meaningful assessment of the mother could take up to two years as it would involve assessment both in the prison and the community and the outcome would be uncertain due to historical concerns.  Both feel that this delay would be detrimental to the young child’s future.  We accept that it is important that any changes to his care should be made in the near future to avoid any problems with him building new attachments.

Reasons

We accept that the mother has made every effort since the birth of her baby and her imprisonment to obtain a place in a mother and baby unit.  However, she has been unsuccessful in this.  Similarly she has made improvements to her life since being in prison.  She has produced various certificates from prison to support this.  However, historically any improvements to her life have been short lived in the past and she has reverted back to her chaotic lifestyle.

The proposals put forward by the mother are very uncertain and are heavily outweighed by the delay that this would cause to the child and his permanent placement. The welfare of the child is this court’s primary concern. We have read and accepted the welfare checklist as specified by the social worker in her statement.

We have been told that the home finding team has identified two possible placements and should the orders be granted and with the panel’s approval there is every chance that the child could be placed with his permanent family in the near future.

We cannot overstate the importance of avoiding delay in securing the child’s future.  It is important to concentrate on his welfare and this will best be served by making a final care order and dispensing with mother’s consent in the making of a placement order.  We have got to look at the long term future for the child and give him the opportunity for a stable and secure future.  This can only be achieved by the making of these orders. We have considered the Human Rights Act and the no order principle but the right of the mother to have a family life is outweighed by the needs of her child.  We feel that these orders are necessary and proportionate.

We therefore make a final care order and a placement order in respect of Child A today.