England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X  Local Authority

Applicant

and

Miss J  Mother

1^st Respondent

D a child through his Children’s Guardian

2^nd Respondent

1.

This is an application by The Council (hereinafter referred to as the Local Authority) for a care order pursuant to Section 31(a) of the Children Act 1989 and a Placement Order pursuant to Section 22 (5)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

2.

The Local Authority is represented by Ms R.  Miss J is represented by Mr J of Counsel and D is represented by Mr P through his Children’s Guardian.

3.

The threshold criteria and both applications are opposed by Miss J.  The threshold and both the subsequent applications are supported by the Children’s Guardian.

4.

In reaching my decision I have read the bundle of documents provided to me and I have heard live evidence from the Social Worker, Ms T and the consultant psychologist. I have also heard from the mother Ms J  (who did not file a written statement) and finally from the Guardian.

5.

The Local Authority first became involved with the family in October 2007 when Miss J requested support care following the birth of D.  She was a young mother very much out on her own and clearly needed support.

6

The father of D is Mr H but he has taken no part in these proceedings.

7

The initial referral led to parenting support for Ms J and it seems there was little further social work until June 2008 when a referral was received that D had sustained three injuries of a burn type nature and as a result he was made the subject of a child protection plan under the risk of neglect and physical harm.

8

Since the making of the Child Protection Plan in September 2008 it is contended that Miss J has continued to receive an intensive package of support from external agencies which have included the Health Service, Family Aide, X Housing, nursery provision and at times when needed respite care.

9.

It is alleged by the Local Authority that despite this intensive package of ongoing support concerns have continued to escalate particularly surrounding Miss J’s mental health difficulties which include depression and mood swings.  These have in turn impaired her ability to recognise and react accordingly to D’s physical and emotional needs.  It is alleged that this has contributed to Miss J’s inability to meet D’s physical and emotional needs on a consistent basis.

10.

As a result of these concerns a letter before proceedings was dispatched and Miss J following a Child Protection Panel Meeting was urged to co-operate with safety advice, attend G.P. appointments in regard to her own mental health and appointments with community links in order to ensure the safety of D.        

11.

By June 2009 concerns had escalated about Miss J’s ability to consistently prioritise D’s needs and her limited co-operation with professionals.  At the end of July 2009 the Department of Children and Young People’s Social Care were of the view that the Child Protection Plan had become untenable with concerns over the massive reliance on the external support which Miss J received and the respite care which D received was in the long-term unsustainable.  In view of this an application was prepared to seek an interim supervision order but it is the Local Authority’s case that this was overtaken by events.

12.

At the beginning of August 2009 Miss J had telephoned the Department’s office in distress requesting support in getting D to nursery.  His behaviour was noted to be chaotic, confused and concerning and Miss J’s behaviour was described as being unresponsive to D.  It was unclear why Miss J was unable to take D to nursery and it was suggested that his behaviour had deteriorated.  He had been unsettled and had reverted to past behaviour of concern such as screaming loudly, not concentrating and hiding in a sink.

13.

In view of these continued problems an interim care order was sought which was unopposed and D was placed with foster parents.

14.

Miss J was referred to Dr B, Consultant Psychiatrist and I refer to his full and detailed report for the details of his examination of Miss J and for the conclusions he reaches.  In his opinion “Miss J’s childhood and adolescent experiences will over time have impacted on Miss J’s self-esteem and confidence and also rendered her vulnerable to the subsequent development of mental health difficulties particularly at times of significant social stress.”  He also goes on to say that “on the basis of the history provided by Miss J and the medical records it is my clinical opinion that Miss J has border line traits in her personality.  Such traits are probably most apparent at times of significant social stress.  In Miss J’s case this could very much include the stress of being a single parent with minimal support available. This formulation of Miss J’s difficulties would explain her very changeable mood and also lack of persistent improvement in her mood despite treatment with anti-depressant medication.”

15.

Miss J’s inability to undergo some form of counselling has meant that her psychological difficulties are repeatedly manifested as periods of low mood, poor coping and impulsive urges following brief periods when her mood appears brighter and she is functioning better within the home.  If Miss J was a patient under his care he would not only be strongly recommending that she undergo some form of counselling but would also advise that she continue her current dose of anti-depressant at least in the medium term (one to two years).  Perhaps most significantly Dr. B noted “in the light of the above one can not rule  out the possibility that should D be returned to his mother’s care and there are subsequent episodes of maternal distress/low mood and poor coping this will not only impact on D’s emotional and practical care but there will be risk of Miss J again experiencing aggressive anger directed towards both herself and even possibly her son.”

16.

My attention was also drawn to the report of the Psychologist but I will deal with this later in my judgment as she gave live evidence before me.

17.

I shall now turn to the live evidence in the case.  I first heard from the Social Worker Ms T who adopted the detailed statement she has filed in these proceedings.   She gave evidence of her concerns in relation to the burns sustained by D, the state of Miss J’s finances including the welfare payments made to her and the details of the events regarding Miss J’s low mood and depression which culminated in the decision to remove D from his mother’s care.  Ms T also confirmed that Miss J was not able to offer an appropriate level of parenting and struggled with the basic care of D. I must say that I was very impressed by the evidence she gave and I concluded that she had put an enormous amount of effort into this case.  Her input could not be criticized.  I believe that it was a last resort that the decision was taken to remove D and place him with foster parents.  She clearly tried as hard as she could to help Miss J and would have hoped that Miss J could have responded to D’s emotional needs and sought greater assistance with her own difficulties.  I formed the view that she had considerable empathy with Miss J.

18.

I next heard from the Consultant Psychologist and I had already read her detailed report which she adopted in evidence.  She had prepared her report on the basis of a joint instruction led by D’s solicitor to look at the psychological issues in relation to both Miss J and D.  She met with Miss J on four occasions, had the benefit of observing contact, speaking with workers at D’s nursery and meeting with D’s foster carer.  She also had the benefit of the court bundle.

19.

Although it was suggested to her in cross-examination that she had only observed one contact session it is my view that such is the detail in her report she has left no stone unturned.  In her conclusion the psychologist concludes that there is “an insecure attachment relationship” by D to his mother “one of the characteristics of which is ambivalence”.  She further notes there is “little or no attachment evidenced in their relationship”  She goes on to say “quality of D’s attachment to his mother is likely to be a product of Miss J’s lack of emotional availability to her son at times of stress rather than reflecting a lack of opportunity to develop an attachment to each other.  It is likely that the poor attachment observed during contact has impacted on Miss J’s ability to enable D to develop emotional regulation.  It would appear that D’s experience of emotional and physical neglect has had a significant impact on his development.”  Her report states further that D presents “as a child with significant developmental delay in many areas of functioning most notably in the areas of language, cognitive play skills and social skills and adaptive behaviour.     ……that he has additional parenting needs and requires a high level of care to fulfil his development potential”.  Moreover Miss J appears to struggle to cope with the demands that parenting requires and that she will continue to struggle to meet D’s needs without intensive intervention coupled with ongoing support both with respect to her parenting and her own mental health needs.  Her conclusion is that in her opinion “it is unlikely that Miss J will be able to develop sustained parenting skills in the absence of considerable progress with her underlying mental health difficulties and individual emotional needs.”  When asked during her live evidence if these problems could be met in any other way she maintained that time was not on the side of D, a view also expressed by the Social Worker.

20.

I next heard from Miss J who gave live evidence before me.  She had not filed a written statement but produced a statement from the Together Women Project.  This was referred to as a support plan and in my view was really a statement in intent.  During her evidence she acknowledged many of the problems of the past including her unlawful use of cannabis.  She maintained things were perhaps not as bad as they seemed and she had not realised that matters regarding D’s future had reached such an advanced stage.  She had always thought that he would be coming home.  Miss J presented in court as intelligent and smartly dressed.  I had been told her home was clean and tidy.  I was concerned by her response to the conclusion of the Guardian in respect of Miss J’s failure to accept the professional opinion of the Psychologist regarding the issue of insecure attachment.  Her response of “rubbish” whilst perhaps being naturally defensive also opened up areas of continued concern.

21.

I was worried by her attitude to the use of cannabis and whilst I accept she has cut down her usage there is the continued worry over her prioritising her finances to be able to pay for an illicit substance.  I have not the slightest doubt whatsoever that Miss J loves D and would like to have him home.  I also believe she has considerable pride and perhaps does not want to respond to criticism.  Whilst she did show some emotion in her evidence she was desperately trying to put on a brave front.  She told the court that she will change in the future and taking advantage of all that is on offer albeit she accepts she has not always done so in the past.

22.

Finally I heard from the Guardian.  She supports the application by the Local Authority although she states in her report that Miss J has listened to some of the concerns and appears genuine and desperate in her wish to try again and do things differently.  The Guardian states that Miss J has identified that to support D emotionally she would be more understanding of his developmental delay; she would make greater use of the supports available’ she would learn to talk about things and would continue to take her medication.  The Psychologist believes Miss J would need long-term counselling.  Sadly that is not within D’s timescales.  The Guardian was specifically asked if there was anything she had heard during the course of the proceedings to change her mind and her conclusion.  She answered that there was not.  I did note specifically that the Guardian maintained that D was a little boy who needed above average parenting. 

23.

I have therefore summarised the evidence so far as my judgement is concerned but clearly I have considered the full bundle of evidence that has been put before me.

24.

I now turn to the issues which I have to resolve in this case.  The first of these is the threshold criteria which is set out in S31(2) of the Children Act 1989.  I have to be satisfied that D has suffered significant harm in the form of neglect of his physical and emotional needs and that D is at risk of suffering significant harm in the form of neglect of physical and emotional needs, and that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him.  The Local Authority’s submissions are

1   D has suffered neglect of his physical and emotional needs evidence  by the following

    (i)  D sustained three burn injuries within a five month period (the first of the three burns Miss J failed to seek appropriate medical attention for) from either Miss J’s hair straighteners or from hot drinks.  The Local Authority submits that these accidents were from lack of appropriate parental supervision.

    (ii)  Miss J requires continuous prompting and instruction to ensure her home is safely adapted.

(iii)            Miss J has consistently failed to budget her income appropriately and the chronology illustrates numerous occasions when Miss J has required financial assistance or instruction.  This has led on occasion to there not being enough money to buy food to feed D who at the point of being received into Local Authority care had lost weight.

(iv)           Miss J has been reluctant to accept that D suffers from development delay.

(v)             Miss J has not consistently met her own medical or mental health needs.  As a result of her own mental health problems Miss J has been unable to meet the physical and emotional needs of D.

(vi)           The evidence of the Psychologist who states in her report of the 7^th December 2009 “It would appear that D’s experience of emotional and physical neglect has had a significant impact on his development”

It is therefore submitted as a consequence of the matters pleaded that D has suffered emotional harm thereon.  These submissions in regard to threshold are supported by the Guardian.

25.

Mr J on behalf of Miss J submits that the threshold criteria have not been established.  He maintains that there is a lack of detail in respect of the burn injuries sustained by D.  If they were of such significance then proceedings would have been initiated earlier.  He further submits that the Local Authority has not established that the mother was in significant debt and there is no evidence that D goes without food.  There is no evidence that the mother prioritises herself at the expense of D, no evidence of lack of food in the house or D being desperate to eat.  It is submitted that the allegation of prompting to make her home safe does not go far enough to evidence significant delay or neglect.  Likewise whilst evidence has been given of mother not consistently meeting her own health needs there is no evidence as to how D has suffered because of this or the extent of the suffering.  Mr. J also refers to the evidence of the Psychologist who accepted under cross-examination that a portion of the exhibited behaviour was down to difficulties D could have in any event.  In making his submissions Mr. J refers to various authorities which are set out in his closing submissions and I have considered these.

26.

I have considered all the submissions carefully and I have concluded on the evidence that the threshold criteria has been met and that these matters complained of lead me to conclude that the statutory requirement in regard to threshold has been achieved.  I have decided that the burns resulted from a lack of parental supervision, that she did not accept advice regarding making her property safe, that she failed to budget properly, of equal if not greater importance she has not consistently met her own medical and mental health needs.  As a result of these problems Miss J has been unable to meet the physical and emotional needs of D and that his experience of emotional and physical neglect has had a significant impact on his development.  It therefore follows that I make the specific findings sought by the Local Authority in the amended schedule annexed to this judgment.

27.

Thus having now concluded that the threshold has been passed I must now go on to consider what order (if any) I should make.  This is an extremely difficult case.  It is a sad case and I, along with others involved in it are acutely aware of Miss J’s love for D.  However regrettably that is not enough for the judgment I have to make.  It is clear in my view that D has significant needs and requires “significant additional parenting with a level of care to fulfil his developmental potential.  I am very aware that Miss J wants another chance but I have to consider the timescale for D and it is almost an impossible question to determine how long it will take before Miss J can properly carry out her parenting duties.  A period of six months is mentioned in the care plan for adoption and this period of time may not be long enough for Miss J to be in a position where she can properly care for D particularly when I hear of the progress he is now making.  As much as I have sympathy for Miss J as she is in my view entirely on her own with no family support I can not ignore the overwhelming evidence of the experts and the social worker.  Having reminded myself that it is D’s welfare that must be my paramount concern and having considered as I must all relevant welfare criteria as is required of me by the Children Act.  I must conclude that the only order that I can make is a full care order in respect of D to the X Local Authority.  I am not of the view that any further assessment will serve any benefit.  I am satisfied that I have sufficient evidence before me upon which to determine this case.

28.

I have to consider next the Placement Application.  D needs a permanent stable and loving home and one where his needs can be met throughout his childhood and into adolescence.  In my view this can only be achieved through adoption.  D has already been considered as suitable by the adoption panel and I have been informed of the timescale for matching D with a suitable family.  I believe that any attachment can be transferred but the sooner this happens the better and the easier it will be for him to form new attachments.  Miss J does not consent to the placement order being made and I can only proceed to make an order if I dispense with Miss J’s consent.  I do this on the basis that D’s welfare requires that parental agreement be dispensed with.  This test mirrors the test I must apply in considering the application generally namely that the paramount consideration must be D’s welfare throughout his life.

29.

For the reasons I have already given and applying the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 I am satisfied that D’s welfare dictates that a placement order should be made so as to safeguard his future care and that for the same reasons the consent of Miss J should be dispensed with.  In arriving at this decision I am aware that D will not be brought up in his birth family and will only have limited contact in accordance with the proposal of the Local Authority contained in its final care plan namely through the letter box scheme.  I am satisfied that these arrangements are the best in all the circumstances and will help meet D’s need for information about his biological family as he grows older.  I therefore dispense with Miss J’s consent and make a placement order in favour of X Council in respect of D.  I approve the Care Plan for D.  I do not take the view that there should be post adoption contact in view of the insecure attachment in this case.

30.

In making all of these decisions I have had regard to the relevant welfare checklists and to the Human Rights Act.  I acknowledge that this outcome will be greatly upsetting to Miss J but I cannot be satisfied that D should be returned to her care.

Before a District Judge on 15.02.10