[2010] EWCC 11 (Fam)
IN THE COUNTY COURT

__________________

Hearing date: - 22nd February 2010

Re:  C (Minor)

Applicant: D
Respondent: S

_________________
_________________

Approved Judgment
The judgment is 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 judgment itself) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved

J U D G M E N T

1.	THE JUDGE:  I am dealing today with an application by the local authority for a care order in respect of K.   The local authority seek a care order.   Their care plan is for K to be adopted, and they also seek a placement order which will enable them to facilitate their care plan.
2.	K’s mother is C, and she has attended each hearing of this matter.   She has given evidence today, very movingly, about her wish to resume the care of her child.   I think she said he was taken away from her last April and it is time he came home.   She says that she has accommodation for him, that he has lots of toys and clothes, and a television and a computer.   She said that she could care for him because she knows when he is hungry, and she knows that he has a wet bottom.   She said that she could learn new things every day about how he changes, and that she would be able to look after him, saying “If I get him back I will think about accepting help.   He’s the only thing I’ve got left.”  
3.	These proceedings were commenced by the local authority because of basic concerns about where Miss C was living and the appropriateness of the accommodation and so forth, but more particularly, I think, about her association with what can only be described as risky adults.   This court made findings about a man called A in January of last year, and found that he had been involved in inappropriate sexual behaviour with nieces, and there is also concern on the part of the local authority about Miss C’s meeting with a gentleman called C, who is also well known to these courts as a risky adult in respect of children.
4.	There has been a psychological assessment of the mother during the course of these proceedings and sadly that psychological report indicated that the mother was a very vulnerable woman who needed care for herself, and Miss X was clearly of the view that this mother would not be able to keep K safe and to meet his changing needs as he became older.
5.	This court deals on a daily basis with parents who have treated their children in an appalling fashion, and it is perhaps easy for the court in those circumstances to ratify plans which will remove these children permanently from their parents.   In this case I perhaps would regard it as the mother not having the necessary skills to care for this child in the long term.   It is not acts of commission which we are looking at but possible acts of omission.   I cannot accept on what I have read and heard that she would have the necessary skills to protect this child in the long term from risky adults who appear to be on the periphery of her life, and also to meet his changing needs as he grows older.
6.	I have no doubt, and nor does anybody else in this case, and she has addressed me very movingly during the course of the proceedings, that she loves this little boy dearly, and that her dearest wish is to have him live with her.   This may sound a trite phrase, and I do not mean it in this way at all:  loving a child is simply not enough to meet their needs for stability, security, safety and permanence throughout their minority.   So whilst I do not doubt her love and devotion to K, her commitment to him in contact and her commitment to these proceedings, I regret to say that the evidence points very strongly against any further work being done with the mother and against the return of K to her care.   She has shown, sadly, an inability to work with the social worker, who is one of the most experienced and skilled social workers who appear before this court.   Mrs. P has simply said it has been impossible to carry out a rational conversation with the mother, even about anything as straightforward as a bus ticket, and in those circumstances the chances of carrying out the skilled and difficult work which would be required to enable the mother to recognise sexual risk and protect K from it simply would not be able to be carried out.
7.	I have no alternative, I am afraid, but to make a care order placing K (tape changeover; words missed) to be placed with his mother or within his extended family.   That care plan must be an appropriate one in his best interests, and I therefore endorse the care plan and move to make a placement order which will enable the local authority to implement their care plan.   I dispense with the mother’s consent on the basis that K’s welfare demands that I do so, and I make no order for costs save public funding assessment.   
8.	The mother asked me to consider the issue of direct contact, but I simply could not be satisfied that she could in any way, shape or form be supportive of any placement other than one with herself, and such support would be an important prerequisite to post-adoption contact.   She will be given the opportunity for indirect contact and can show to K through that contact that she has not given up on him and has remained interested in his wellbeing, and in turn he can be reassured about hers.   This is a case where indirect contact only would be appropriate, and of course the content of that would be monitored by the local authority in the usual way.
9.	So I make the final orders which the local authority seek.

_________________________