[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) >> Cambridgeshire County Council v X and Y [2016] EWFC B37 (26 April 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B37.html Cite as: [2016] EWFC B37

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT
(Sitting at Peterborough)

		Crown Buildings Rivergate Peterborough PE1 1EJ
		26th April 2016

JUDGMENT
 


JUDGE GREENE:

1. The proceedings before me concern a little girl, Z who was born in October 2015. The proceedings are brought by Cambridgeshire County Council represented by Miss Gold and they apply for a care order and placement order in respect of Z.
2. The parents are X and Y. They both appear in person before me and both oppose the applications. Z is represented by counsel, Miss Shackleford, on the instructions of Z's guardian, Paula Holdcroft. Miss Holdcroft supports the applications made by the local authority.
3. The parents oppose all aspects of the application, including the grounds for it and what is usually referred to by lawyers as the "threshold criteria" in s. 31 of the Children Act, but they do say that they would agree to a supervision order. X and Y have each earlier in these proceedings been represented by very competent and specialist solicitors, but they chose to dispense with their services. I urged them at the Issues Resolution Hearing to obtain representation for this hearing, but they have chosen to proceed without being represented.
4. The evidence I have heard in dealing with the matter has been contained in the bundle of documents before me. This includes a report from a psychologist, Mr. Flatman, who was not called to give evidence, and I have heard evidence from the social worker, Tracy Radford, from X and Y, from the independent social worker, Alison Boardman, and from the guardian, Paula Holdcroft.
5. The local authority says that the threshold criteria is met because neither of the parents is able to meet Z's needs and she would suffer neglect. The document prepared by Miss Gold, which I think it is helpful for me to read out, puts it this way:

"1 On the relevant date [in other words, 28th October when proceedings began]… Z… was likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care likely to be given to her by her parents not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

2 The parents were living together and wished to care for Z as a couple.

3 The mother has learning difficulties and suffers from epilepsy and needs to be reminded to take her medication. The father is the mother's carer. The mother's general cognitive ability is in the extremely low range, which affects her capacity to parent Z [based on the report of Graham Flatman]. Her cognitive limitations makes it difficult for her to understand Z's needs [based on the report of the independent social worker Alison Boardman]."

The document goes on to allege that:

"4 The father uses cannabis on a regular basis which would put Z at risk of neglect as the father would not always be focused on Z and responsive to her needs.

5 Both parents neglect themselves and have poor personal hygiene. Z smells strongly of body odour when she has spent time with her parents. The parents are likely to neglect Z's need to be kept clean and be dressed in clean clothes.

6 In spite of a high level of personal support the parents were unable to care for Z properly in hospital following her birth. The mother slept through Z's crying in the night and failed to respond to her crying during the daytime.

7 Even with support the parents have been unable to care for Z properly during supervised contact. Neither of the parents are emotionally attuned to Z and they find it difficult to comfort her when she is distressed and crying. The parents struggle to change Z's nappies and to change her clothes. The parents need to be prompted to play with Z and do not understand her need for stimulation [based on the report of Alison Boardman].

8 The parents are vulnerable individuals and if Z lived with them they would be unable to keep her safe and protect her from dangerous individuals [based on the report of Alison Boardman]."

Almost every aspect of that document, which I have just read out, is disputed by X and Y.

6. The very brief background is that Z is the only child of X and Y. They live together and wish to care for Z together. The mother's background is that she was in foster care from the age of 12. She was noted to have learning difficulties and poor self-care skills, suffers from epilepsy and, although there is some dispute, the general view seems to be that she needs to be reminded to take her medication. Y is her carer and has carer's allowance in order to assist her, and also to assist her if she were to suffer from an epileptic episode.
7. She is also believed to neglect herself. The father has reported difficulties of taking care of himself as well and to have alleged poor hygiene. He himself was known to children's services as a child due to concerns about neglect and alcohol abuse. He was brought up by his grandmother. He was involved in an abusive relationship with a previous partner that resulted in a non-molestation order being made, which he was found to have breached.
8. The referral was made initially to children's services when the pregnancy was recognised. The local authority put in assessments and provided support, including some parenting sessions and parenting classes, with a view to engaging the parents and attempting to assess whether they could be able to care for Z, and to assess what support they might need in order to achieve that. The proceedings were commenced after birth, the hospital having reported significant concerns about mother's inability to recognise or respond to Z's needs in hospital.
9. I have considered the reports of Mr. Flatman, Miss Boardman and the guardian. They all make it very clear that mother's cognitive ability is very low. Her own evidence before me left me in no doubt about that. The evidence that I have heard satisfies me that neither mother nor father were able to respond appropriately to Z's needs in hospital. It was apparent that they had been unable to retain or use the information which they had been given during the pre-birth assessment.
10. The parents say that mother's difficulties at the hospital were due to her having suffered an epileptic seizure and then being heavily sedated. It seemed to me on the evidence that that may account for the situation immediately after the birth and the first night, but the concerns continued throughout this day and there is very clear evidence that the mother was not able to respond to Z's needs and Y was not able to compensate for mother's deficiencies.
11. Y challenges the report of Mr. Flatman saying it cannot be relied upon because mother did not complete all of the tests. It is clear from the report that her inability to complete some of the tests itself is a factor which feeds into the conclusions which he reaches. He is a very experienced psychologist. It is very clear that X engaged in a very substantial proportion of the assessment sufficient for Mr. Flatman to form clear views. This included the fact that mother has extremely low intellectual ability, that that would undoubtedly affect her parenting, and it was also clear to him that it would have an effect on her unwillingness to accept advice or support.
12. I heard in evidence from the social worker, Miss Radford. She was able to give fair and balanced evidence and had clearly considered all of the possibilities of support for this couple. She said in her opinion they struggled to care for themselves and could not safely care for a baby with less than round-the-clock support. That was something echoed by the guardian and by Miss Boardman, who all said that the level of support that would be needed would be 24 hours a day seven days a week. In other words, that the level of care required would amount to full-time care by someone else, which would itself have an impact on Z emotionally. The local authority could not provide such a level of support, nor would it be reasonable. Moreover, the parents made it clear in their evidence that they do not believe they need that level of support, or indeed any support at all, and they would not accept it.
13. The evidence of Alison Boardman was very clear, balanced and compelling. She was clearly sympathetic to the parents, as was the guardian and the social worker. I found Miss Boardman's evidence honest and reliable on factual matters where the parents disagreed or disputed with her, such as whether there was food available of an adequate amount.
14. The evidence of Y was dismissive of the concerns and of all the expert evidence in its totality. Although X had less to say she agreed with Y, particularly in saying that all the evidence of lack of proper care was wrong. She said that she could parent Z without any help or support and that she did not want any help or support.
15. On all of those matters I did not find the evidence of X or Y to be credible or reliable. It is clear to me from the evidence I heard from them that they have no insight into the concerns or their own manifest deficiencies, as set out in all of the statements and reports and the evidence which I heard.
16. Although I accept the evidence about the difficulties with the lack of funds which led to there being frequently not enough food in the property, and led on occasions to Y not attending contact because he said he did not have the money to get there, and also the issues about spending money on cannabis, it seems to me that they are not really the main issues in this case. The main findings and the main concerns are that X's cognitive ability is so low that she does not have the capacity to parent Z. She struggles to care for herself and to do so relies heavily on support for Y. Those concerns about her lack of ability are magnified by her being incapable of recognising those deficiencies, and therefore a refusal to accept help or support in relation to them.
17. Although Y clearly has a better level of cognitive functioning, it is clear to me that he is not able to recognise or meet, or indeed prioritise, Z's needs. He too neglects himself with his personal hygiene and both he and mother are therefore likely to reflect Z's.
18. The evidence before me is overwhelming from the hospital and the contact supervisors of the level of intervention that is needed in order to meet Z's needs, and of the inability of the parents to placate her either alone or together. There were basic tasks such as dressing, which they struggled with, and it seemed clear from all of that evidence that they were not able to even recognise Z's needs, let alone meet them. The evidence is also overwhelming that they were unable to be emotionally attuned to Z's needs. They were not able to comfort her, recognise when she needed comforting, or what it was that was upsetting her. That was true even during relatively short periods of contact.
19. I was left with no doubt at all, on the evidence before me, that were they to have Z's full-time care, as they ask, that Z would be very likely to suffer significant harm through neglect and inability to recognise or meet her needs. Their failure would not be intentional (it is recognised by all parties that they love Z), but they would fail to meet her needs through an utter lack of ability to do so. I find the threshold under s. 31 of the Children Act clearly met on the basis as set out in the local authority's document.
20. Z's welfare is the paramount consideration and as the care plan is one of adoption I have to be satisfied that nothing else will do to meet Z's welfare needs. The professional evidence is clear: there is no reasonable support or service that could make up for the deficits which sadly X and Y have demonstrated. The level of care required by third parties to meet that deficit would be 24 hours a day seven days a week. That level of care is, firstly, neither reasonable nor achievable and secondly, the parents have made absolutely clear in their evidence that they do not accept the need for it and would not accept any such help.
21. I have to conclude, therefore, that there is no basis upon which I could make an order that would result in Z being cared for by her parents. Y has said on a number of occasions that I should make a supervision order. That would leave Z in their care without a level of support anywhere near what would be required to ensure her safety. A supervision order would not meet the needs which have been very clearly identified by all the evidence before me, and would leave her exposed to very apparent and very obvious risk of significant harm on an ongoing basis. There are no other family members or friends who have been put forward who would be suitable, and Z is too young for long-term foster care to be a realistic option.
22. I have borne in mind that it is her welfare throughout her life which is my paramount consideration. I have kept in mind the considerations in the welfare check list both in the Children Act and the Adoption and Children Act. Many of the welfare issues, which I have addressed, are also matters which formed part of the threshold considerations in view of the nature of the concerns put forward by the local authority. I have no doubt in my mind, having heard the evidence and considered submissions made by all the parties, and particularly given careful consideration to what Y said on behalf of himself and X, that Z would be likely to suffer significant harm that no support could protect her from. She has a clear need for safe and stable care that her parents are not capable of giving to her.
23. I have considered her Art. 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Z has an overriding right to safety and protection and for her welfare needs to be met in a stable home. I am sadly drawn to the conclusion that there is no other way of achieving that other than by an order which would enable her to be placed for adoption. I therefore approve the care plan put forward by the local authority and make a care order.
24. I turn then to the application for a placement order. Such an order can only be made either with the consent of the parents or if I find that I can dispense with their consents. The Adoption and Children Act provides that the parents' consent can be dispensed with in these circumstances only if I find that her welfare requires that I do so. The care plan for adoption, which I have just approved, cannot be implemented unless a placement order is granted to enable a suitable home to be found and Z to be placed there. It is inevitable that I find her welfare requires that I dispense with the consent of her parents in order to be able to make that order and for the care plan to be implemented. I therefore dispense with the parents' consent and make the placement order. Those are the orders that I make.
__________