England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

Mr R

1^st Respondent

Mrs R

2^nd Respondent

Ms S

3^rd Respondent

Mr P

4^th Respondent

C (a child through his Children’s Guardian)

5^th Respondent

Mrs M

for the

Applicant

Ms L

for the

1st Respondent

Ms D

for the

2^nd Respondent

Mr B

for the

3^rd and 4^th Respondents

Ms P

for the

5^th Respondent

These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by all parties save for the parents, 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.

This is an application by X Council for a care order in respect of C who was born on the 1.1.04. C is the son of Ms S and Mr P. C is the subject of a Special Guardianship Order made on the 14.7.09 in favour of his grandfather Mr R and step grandmother Mrs R.

2.

The Local Authority is represented by Mrs M also present is the Social Worker.

3.

Mr R is present at court and represented by Ms L. Mr R has filed a response to the Local Authority’s plan sadly accepting that he and his wife are no longer in a position to care for C and therefore agree the schedule of findings sought and do not actively oppose the application and reluctantly agree to the Local Authority’s plan for C.

4.

Mrs R is present at court and represented by Ms D. Her position is the same as her husband.

5.

Neither of C’s parents has attended court today but they are represented by Mr B. Mr B does not seek to have this case adjourned he confirms that his clients are aware of today’s hearing, they know the Local Authority’s plans for C and they do not oppose the care plan for him. The parents have not filed a response to the schedule of findings sought and Mr B has no instructions from them to agree the findings contained in the most recent document filed at court today but neither does he have any instructions from them to challenge the evidence before the court. Mr B confirmed that letters had been sent to the parents telling them that they should attend court today if they wished to oppose the Local Authority’s application. He also confirmed that the parents had spoken to both the Social Worker and Children’s Guardian within the last few days. In light of this information we are satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed with this case in the absence of the parents.

6.

C is represented through his Children’s Guardian who together with the Solicitor Ms P supports the Local Authority’s application.

7.

In June 2010 C was found with multiple bruising after he had been left by his grandparents with his parents. The doctor who examined C on the 8.6.10 concluded that the injuries were non accidental in origin. The grandparents accept that the bruising was non accidental but they deny causing the injuries. The parents have failed to file any response but have informed the social worker and the Guardian that they are in agreement with the plan. They have informed the social worker that they will not be attending court.

8.

The history of Social Care’s involvement with C and his family initially with the parents whose chaotic lifestyle including their drug addictions and criminal offending including incidents of domestic violence, is fully set out in the documents contained in the court bundle which we have read. We do not see any purpose in rehearsing this evidence in these reasons except to say that we rely upon it to find that the threshold criteria are met.

9.

The Local Authority have filed an amended schedule of findings sought dated 14.9.10. The first and second respondent grandparents agree with these findings and have filed statements in this regard. The parents have not attended to challenge any of the evidence contained in the documents before us. It is this evidence that the Local Authority rely upon in support of the findings sought. Having read the documents filed and considered the unchallenged evidence we are satisfied that the threshold criteria for the making of a final order are met. At the time the proceedings commenced C had suffered significant harm and is likely to suffer significant harm the harm and likelihood of harm being attributable to the care given to him and likely to be given to him, if the order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a child to receive. The harm consists of physical and emotional harm and risk of the same. Accordingly we make the specific findings sought in the schedule annexed to this judgment (see paragraphs 17 – 22).

10.

We now turn to the need for an order. In reaching our decision we remind ourselves that it is C’s welfare that must be our paramount concern. We have considered as we must all relevant welfare criteria as is required by the Children Act.

11.

C is a 7 year old little boy who we are told is very intelligent. He is able to clearly express his wishes in respect of contact with his family. He has had a number of carers in his short life and it was hoped that his placement with his grandparents would be a permanent one. We are told that he has attachment difficulties and work needs to be undertaken with him to support the move to his next placement in an attempt to ensure this will be a long-term placement.

12.

After the disruption in his life that C has already experienced it is important that his physical, emotional and educational needs can be met in a loving stable and secure long-term placement. In her most recent statement the Social Worker has confirmed the arrangements currently in place in respect of C’s education. This may change once an appropriate long-term placement has been identified.

13.

The difficulties that the mother and father have had and which were referred to in the Guardians report dated 6.7.09 filed in the earlier care proceedings have still not been fully resolved. It is clear that the parents are still unable to offer a home for their son.

14.

The grandparents after long and careful consideration have told us that they have reached a heartbreaking decision that they would not wish for C to be returned to their care. They believe this decision is in C’s best long-term interests. They wish to maintain a relationship with C and are pleased that he now appears to want to have contact with both of them. The grandparents are satisfied that the Local Authority will facilitate contact with C when C wants this.

15.

We have carefully considered the documents filed and listened to the parties submissions. We are assisted by this case being presented on an un-opposed basis today. We have considered the no order principle but we are satisfied that an order is needed to safeguard and promote C’s welfare. Like the parties we are satisfied that the only order that will achieve this is a care order. Accordingly we make a Care Order to X Council in respect of C.

16.

We have considered the arrangements for C to have contact with his family. These arrangements are agreed by the grandparents and not challenged by the parents. We are satisfied that in the current circumstances they are the best arrangements that can be made to allow C to maintain a link with his birth family but also to settle into his new long-term placement. Like the parties we are pleased that the Local Authority will continue to review the contact arrangements and take C’s wishes into account to ensure they continue to meet his changing needs. There is no need for us to make any order in this regard. We therefore approve the care plan.

17.

In respect of the schedule of findings sought in support of the threshold criteria the Council contends that at the time the proceedings commenced, C had suffered significant harm and is likely to suffer significant harm the harm and likelihood of harm being attributable to the care given to him and likely to be given to him, if the order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a child to receive. The harm consists of physical and emotional harm and risk of the same due to the fact that there has been a long history of concerns and Social Care involvement, eventually resulting in the Local Authority bringing care proceedings in October 2008. On 14.7.09 agreed findings were made against the mother and father in the previous care proceedings of physical and emotional harm and neglect, as per the schedule dated 30.9.08.

18.

The grandparents allowed the parents to have unsupervised contact with C without the prior agreement of Social Care, contrary to the recommendation in the Schedule 21 Report dated 9.6.09.

19.

The grandparents left C in the care of his parents on the 4.6.10 whilst they went for a 2 week holiday, even though they were advised by Social Care that, given the history, an assessment of the parents would be required prior to any such arrangement taking place.

20.

C was observed on the 7.6.10 with multiple bruising on his legs, back, shoulders and torso. This was non-accidental in origin in the opinion of the paediatrician who examined him on 8.6.10.

21.

The said bruising occurred whilst C was in the care of either of the grandparents or either of the parents. The grandparents accept that the injuries are non-accidental in origin and whilst they deny causing the injuries they accept they failed to protect C.

22.

The parents continued to have a volatile relationship. The father continues to drink alcohol. Both parents have failed to attend their appointments at the addiction unit. The mother continues to commit criminal offences and use illicit drugs. In particular, she has received a 6 month Drug Treatment Order, but has failed to attend some of the drug testing appointments. There has therefore been no improvement with regard to their ability to care for C.

23.

Heard before Lay Magistrates on the 15.9.10