England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

Ms T Mother

1^st Respondent

                           Mr S Father

2^nd Respondent

M a child through her children’s guardian

3^rd Respondent

1.

This is an application by The Council for a care order in respect of M who was born on the [a date] and who is now 16 months old.  M’s mother is Ms T who is present at court and consents to the application.  M’s father is Mr S who is not present due to the weather but who is legally represented and he has been able to give full instructions to his solicitor Ms H.  I have also had sight of an unsigned position statement from him setting out his position.  He too consents to the application but has raised an issue over contact which I shall address shortly.  M herself is represented through the children’s guardian Mrs S who also supports the application.  I should say at this juncture that although the council seek a care order it is with a care plan for M to remain placed with her mother.

2.

Within the court bundle is an amended schedule of findings sought at pages 11 -14 and which is not disputed for the purpose of today’s hearing.  Accordingly I am satisfied that the threshold criteria are satisfied in this case and I make findings of fact accordingly.  It therefore follows that at the time protective action was taken M was at risk of suffering significant harm in the form of neglect and emotional harm and the likelihood of harm is 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 if an order is not made.

3.

I must now consider what order, if any, to make having regard to the welfare principles in the Children Act and I remind myself that it is M’s welfare which is my paramount consideration. 

4.

The council’s care plan can be found at pages CP1 – 9 of the bundle and is a very helpful summary of both the concerns which exist in this case and also the history of these proceedings.  In summary, M was made the subject of an interim care order on the 3.9.08 as a result of concerns about her parents’ lifestyle, their past history of the misuse of both drugs and alcohol and their care of other children who have either been placed in long-term foster care or adopted.  M was originally placed with foster carers on her discharge from hospital but following a positive assessment of the parents, who were then living together, she was placed with them on the 3.3.09 subject to an interim care order.  M remained there until the 23.6.09 following a police raid at the parents’ home address when it was believed that the father was involved in the supply of controlled drugs. A police investigation is still ongoing and I am told that the father is bailed back to the police station to a date in February 2010.  On the 23.6.09 M returned to her original foster carers but following the separation of the parents she was returned to her mother’s sole care on the 13.7.09 where she has remained to date.  M and her mother are currently living at a hostel although Ms T hopes to obtain her own tenancy shortly.

5.

A number of further assessments have been carried out by a Family Centre, an independent social worker and a psychologist and these reports can be found within the court bundle before me.  All of these reports recommend that M remains in the care of her mother providing the mother receives a high level of support and monitoring, full details of which are set out in the care plan and which will be supplemented by an agreement between the mother and Social Care once Ms T obtains her own accommodation.

6

The mother has filed her own position statement dated 4.1.10 indicating her agreement with the proposed care plan and also a willingness to co-operate in every way.

7

The father also supports the care plan as does the children’s guardian in her most recent report at pages C134 – C137 of the bundle.

8

Having regard to all the information before me I am satisfied that M should remain in her mother’s care where she continues to thrive.   However because of the historical concerns and the high level of support which the mother undoubtedly needs, particularly when she moves to independent living, this should be supported by a care order to The Council who can then share parental responsibility with M’s parents.  I do not believe that a supervision order could achieve or provide this same level of support.  I therefore make a care order to The Council in respect of M.

9

With regard to contact I have dealt with this on the basis of submissions with the agreement of all the parties.  The father is currently having contact to M once every 2 weeks for 1 hour supervised by the council.  The care plan proposes that contact should become once per month for 2 hours and remain supervised.  The father has no issue with the contact remaining supervised but would like it to be weekly and if that is not possible then certainly fortnightly as he believes that an interval of 4 weeks between each contact will adversely affect his relationship with M to the point where he thinks he will become a stranger to her.  At first blush I think there is some force in this submission as M is only 16 months old.  I am however assured by the social worker and by the children’s guardian that they feel that by increasing the length of contact to 2 hours it will be of better quality and offer the opportunity for the father to perhaps engage in activities and visits with M that would not be possible if contact were to remain for 1 hour duration.  Furthermore, both the council and the guardian are reluctant to increase the overall amount of contact until the outcome of the police investigation is known for fear that if the father receives a custodial sentence contact may have to be reduced in any event.  There are also concerns that the father is struggling to accept that his relationship with the mother is over and whilst the mother will not be directly involved in the contact arrangements the father may in some way see an increase in contact as an opportunity to try and re-kindle his relationship with her.

10

I have given this matter a great deal of thought and at the present time I am persuaded that it would not be appropriate to increase the overall level of contact from 2 hours per month however that may be structured.  Furthermore, as I am assured by both the social worker and the children’s guardian that by moving to monthly contact so that each session can be extended to 2 hours, this will promote a better quality of contact and I am persuaded that the arrangements set out in the care plan are appropriate at the present time.  Having said that, contact arrangements can always be reviewed if it is felt to be in the best interests of M to do so.  Whilst this is often done under the statutory review process it can happen at any time and the children’s guardian informs me that I can have every confidence in the social worker to review the arrangements if she feels that it is in M’s best interests.

11

I am therefore satisfied that the contact proposal of 2 hours per month set out in the care plan are appropriate in all the circumstances and I do not propose to make any formal order as to contact.  The care plan is approved.

12

 Before a District Judge on the 5.1^.10.