Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 39 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:
     
A District Judge
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	X Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	Ms D	1st Respondent	
	Mr D	2nd Respondent	
	M (a child through the Children’s Guardian)	3rd Respondent	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms G	for the	  Applicant	
Ms T	for the	1st Respondent	
Ms T	for the	2nd Respondent	
Ms S	for the	3rd Respondent	

Hearing dates: 28.7.10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WRITTEN REASONS

The written reasons are 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 reasons themselves) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved

Justices’ Reasons

	

These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by consent by the parties and have been adopted by the Court and the Court is satisfied that the parties have agreed terms and the proposed order is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

	
1.	This is the Local Authority’s application for a care order with interim orders in respect of M who is nearly five years of age and who is the child of Ms D.  The identity of M’s father is unknown to the court and the Local Authority.	
2.	On the 25th November 2009 the Local Authority made an application for an emergency protection order due to serious concerns raised by mother’s presentation with mental health problems.  M was accommodated by the Local Authority	
3.	In these proceedings a report has been obtained from a Consultant Psychologist and a parenting and risk assessment has been undertaken.  Information form the United Kingdom Border Agency has also been obtained.  The latest information from them is that Mr P of the Border Agency telephoned the social worker to inform her that Ms D has been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the 15th July 2010.	
4.	Also a party to the proceedings is Mr D who was made a party on the 10th May 2010.  He is the mother’s partner and today is represented, together with Ms D by Ms T.  Ms T has indicated that she perceives there is no conflict of interest between Mr D and Ms D.	
5.	M has now been rehabilitated to Ms D’s care and the Local Authority seek to conclude the proceedings by the making of a Supervision Order in favour of X Local Authority.	
6.	Today I have heard representations from advocates for all parties, including the Children’s Guardian Mr J.	
7.	I have read all the documents filed in this case.	
8.	Both mother and the Guardian agree with the proposal of the Local Authority to conclude the case by the making of a Supervision Order.	
9.	The amended threshold criteria are set out at pages 5 – 6 of the bundle.  Mother’s response can be found at page 7.  The threshold criteria are conceded by mother and I approve the schedule and make findings of fact accordingly.	
10.	I am therefore satisfied to the required standard that at the time protective measures were taken M was likely to suffer significant harm in the form of emotional harm and neglect due to the care she was likely to receive not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give unless an order is made.	
11.	When considering the appropriate order, I must be mindful that the welfare of M is the court’s paramount consideration.  I must also consider the welfare checklist, the Children Act 1989, Section 1(1).  I must also have regard to the principle of minimum intervention of the Children Act 1989, Section 1(5) and the general principle that any delay in determining the future of a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child, Children Act 1989, Section 1(2).	
12.	I must also be mindful of the requirements of the Human Rights Act’s doctrine of proportionality.	
13.	Having considered the documents filed in this case and heard representations from representatives for the parties.  I am satisfied that the making of a Supervision Order in favour of X council is the appropriate order for M at this point in time, and I therefore make such an order for a period of 12 months.	
14.	Heard before a District Judge Magistrates’ Court on the 28.7.10.