[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> Y (A Child) (No 2), Re [2017] EWHC 967 (Fam) (28 April 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/967.html Cite as: [2017] EWHC 967 (Fam)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

		Case number omitted Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		28 April 2017

Sir James Munby President of the Family Division :

1. These are care proceedings relating to a teenager I shall continue to refer to as Y. He was born in the latter part of 2000 and is 16 years old. On 12 September 2016, I handed down a judgment which summarised events down to that date: see In re X (A Child) (Jurisdiction: Secure Accommodation), In re Y (A Child) (Jurisdiction: Secure Accommodation) [2016] EWHC 2271 (Fam), [2017] Fam 80, paras 4, 6-9. I now hand down this short judgment to explain briefly why, on 23 March 2017 and without any opposition, I made a final care order in relation to Y.
2. The local authority's final threshold document is dated 14 March 2017. I do not propose to go into the details: there is no need to do so. In short, both of Y's parents (his mother died very unexpectedly earlier this year; his father does not have parental responsibility) were, as a result of various problems of their own, unable to care satisfactorily with Y. He suffered neglect and was beyond parental control, demonstrating various behaviours which, as I explained in In re X, In re Y, para 6, in due course required him to be placed in secure accommodation. However, as I went on to record (para 9), by 1 September 2016 "It was apparent that Y had done well in secure accommodation and was ready for a "step-down" move to suitable residential non-secure accommodation."
3. There was, and in my judgment plainly could be, no challenge to the local authority's case on threshold. I am therefore concerned exclusively with Y's welfare.
4. Although there have been some fits and starts along the way, Y has made remarkable progress over recent months and weeks. That reflects great credit on the local authority, but even more so on Y himself. I do not need to go into the details: they are summarised in his social worker's 'Leaving Care Assessment of Need' dated 21 March 2017 and the position statement dated 22 March 2017 prepared by his guardian's solicitors. Y wants to get his life sorted out; his thinking about himself and his future is positive; he is engaging well with his social worker and other professionals; he wants to engage in education. With his agreement, he has moved into a semi-independent placement, which is better suited to him and (as I can well understand) more to his liking than other placements where he has been, and where, in contrast, he has settled well.
5. It is rare that one reads something as positive as what his social worker says at the end of the 'Leaving Care Assessment':

"Y has written his own care plan with the support of his solicitor and social care staff employed to support him and ascertain his wishes regarding his future. This level of engagement has enabled Y to regain some control within his life … [he] is accepting of the support, guidance and boundaries that are now in place as he feels that he has been listened to … It is remarkable that Y has been able to demonstrate the maturity required to maintain the placement of his choice …"

6. The local authority's plans for Y are set out in a final Care Plan dated 21 March 2017 and a Pathway Plan likewise dated 21 March 2017. Both reflect the hard work and careful thought of the local authority; the latter, if I may say so, is a model of what a Pathway Plan ought to be. In the order I made I "commended the local authority for the work undertaken in the case, in particular the in-depth nature of the pathway planning."
7. By the date of the hearing before me on 23 March 2017, everyone was of the view that the time had come to make a final order. I agree. Everyone was of the view that the appropriate order was a care order. I agree. I am happy to approve both the Care Plan and, insofar as it is a matter for me, the Pathway Plan. I place on record that, although he did not consent to the making of a care order, I was told that Y had "indicated that he is content with his current placement and is willing to work with professionals going forward, in accordance with the local authority's Care and Pathway Plans"
8. My reasons for agreeing that a care order is appropriate are very simple. It will give Y the best chance of obtaining from the local authority, both so long as he remains in care and, after he leaves care, in accordance with the 'leaving care' legislation, the help, the support and the assistance from the local authority which he needs and wants and which, I emphasise, the local authority must provide – as it has made clear it will. As I said at the hearing, and no-one challenged this, the vital function of the local authority, as Y transitions through to adult life, is not to be a bossy nanny but to provide him with support and services. That is why the order I made contains this recital:

"The court expressed the importance of it being explained to [Y] that a care order is not in place in order to place restrictions upon him, but rather to assist him and provide him with practical support during his transition into adulthood."