[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> T & H (Children) [2104] EWFC B181 (16 December 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B181.html Cite as: [2104] EWFC B181

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE COUNTY COURT

		The Law Courts The Quayside Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 3LA
		16th December 2014

JUDGMENT
1. THE JUDGE: Newcastle County Council bring this application before the court in relation to four children: A, who was born on 15^th September of 2004 so now aged 10; B, born on 8^th July of 2006 so now aged 8; C, born on 7^th February of 2009 aged 5 and; D, born on 23^rd March of 2011 and so now aged 3.
2. This case has been before the court longer than one would have hoped but there have been a number of unforeseen occurrences, not least the fact that F, the father, sustained a very serious accident and subsequent injury which necessitated a delay within the proceedings. M is the mother of the children. Neither of the parents are present today. However, F has filed a statement as directed and is represented today by Mr O'Neill. He agrees to the plan of the Local Authority as far as A and B are concerned but he does not give consent in relation to the Local Authority plan that the boys should be placed for adoption.
3. Mr Nixon appears today on behalf of M, although he is not on the record as acting for her. M had disengaged from the proceedings but came to court at the adjourned IRH on 13^th November and indicated that she wished to be heard in relation to the proceedings. She attended at her solicitors the following day and an appointment was made for her. She did not attend that appointment, nor four subsequent appointments, nor a final appointment which was made on 11^th December for her. The solicitors have been as diligent as they could be in attempting to get instructions and it is the position that M after that initial indication at the adjourned IRH has failed to give instructions, provide a statement or, indeed, attend either at the solicitors or today at court. Mr Nixon has confirmed that he spoke to M by telephone. She said she would definitely be here today. She is not. The Local Authority wrote to the mother also, alerting her to the fact of the final hearing and indicating that orders could be made in her absence. I am satisfied that mother is well aware of today's proceedings, she is well aware that this is a final hearing and she is well aware of the ambit of the orders which this court can make.
4. The Local Authority have put care plans before the court in which they seek special guardianship orders for A and B to Z, who is the ex-partner of F. The special guardianship report is within the bundle. It is clear that the girls are settled within Z's care and that the care she provides for them is good care. As far as C and D are concerned, there have been concerns about C and his ability to form an attachment within an adoptive family and concerns generally in relation to his welfare. However, upon consultation with Dr Halliwell the indications are that he will be able to be the subject of a successful adoption.
5. The guardian was concerned about the Local Authority plan for the two boys. He fully supported the plan for the two girls and initially did not recommend a placement order. However, following upon Dr Halliwell's assessment and further consideration by the social worker, the guardian is supportive of the plan in respect of C and D which is a search for an adoptive placement for a twelve month period and if that is unsuccessful for the boys to be placed in a long-term foster placement.
6. I have had this matter before me on a number of occasions. I am satisfied that the threshold is crossed by reason of the matters set out within the bundle at A67. The care provided for these children was not adequate and they were exposed and suffered significant harm. The parenting assessments of the father and mother were negative. An NSPCC assessment was undertaken in respect of father, as there have been some positive observations but that assessment in its conclusion was negative. There have been assessments by Ursula Cawthorne regarding the sibling attachment, and also Dr Ince filed a report in respect of F as there were concerns about his capacity but the conclusion was that F did have capacity.
7. It is clear that it is necessary for orders to be made in respect of each of these children. As far as A and B are concerned, the special guardianship order meets their welfare, it is in their best interests, and the Local Authority propose that there should be a supervision order for a period of twelve months to assist Z and the girls. I am satisfied that those are appropriate orders, as indicated that the threshold is met and I am satisfied that the welfare of the girls is ensured by reason of the special guardianship order to Z.
8. As far as C and D are concerned, the Local Authority seek placement orders. I have been referred to the documentation in support of those orders and have considered the statement of facts dated 2^nd July of 2014 and the annex B report within the documentation and, of course, the guardian by reason of his most recent position statement supports the placement application. I have regard to those matters set out within the Adoption and Children Act 2002. There is no consent to the placement order but I am satisfied that the welfare of C and D requires that I dispense with parental consent and considering those matters set out at section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act and bearing in mind that the Act underlines that it is the welfare of the children throughout their lives that is the paramount concern of the court, I consider whether or not it is appropriate to make the placement orders as set out within the Local Authority plan.
9. Mr Gray on behalf of the guardian has referred me to the present jurisprudence in relation to placement orders and adoption and emphasised the Supreme Court decision wherein the phrase "nothing else will do" arose and has been cited with approval. Following upon that decision there has been some concern in circumstances such as these where there is a contingency plan if adoption does not prove possible and Lady Justice Macur has added that, of course, as with all decisions in relation to children one has to consider not only the global picture and evaluation, consider what the options are and determine that nothing else will do within the light of what meets the welfare and interests of the children.
10. Clearly this is a case where if adoption is practicable and achievable, then the interests of C and D are served. If no adoptive placement can be found, then clearly an alternative course must be looked at. It is not in their interests to look for an adoptive placement beyond twelve months and as the children are unable to return to their family, and there is no-one else in the family who can provide care, then long-term fostering is the only other satisfactory option. Therefore, I approve the plan of the Local Authority in relation to C and D. I dispense with parental consent and make the placement orders. The contact as far as the girls are concerned is set out within the care plan and the position with regard to contact as far as the boys are concerned is also, as one would expect, set out in the plan. Therefore, the court will make those orders, being satisfied that those orders meet the welfare and best interests of these children.
[Discussions re order follow]