England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

A

1^st Respondent

C

2^nd Respondent

Mr X

for the

Applicant

Mr Y

for the

1st Respondent

Miss Z

for the

2^nd Respondent

1.

We are dealing with an application made by the Local Authority for an Interim Care Order in relation to the above named child.

2.

C’s mother is A and her father is B. The father does not share parental responsibility.

3.

The Local Authority submits that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child has suffered harm or is likely to suffer significant harm. Social care has been involved with C and her mother since November 2009 following a referral relating to mother’s mental health. At the time mother had been admitted to the Hospital, on a voluntary basis, and the child was in the care of her maternal grandmother.

4.

On 9 December 2009, a referral was received from the health visitor stating that the child was now in the care of her maternal aunt, M. The Aunt was struggling to manage the care of C along with her own two young children. C then went back to be cared for by her maternal grandmother but after maternal grandfather had a heart attack maternal grandmother said she could no longer cope. C was then moved to her maternal great uncle, N and his partner, and then paternal grandmother. In a period of 6 weeks, the child had 5 different placements with family and friend carers.

5.

In March 2010, the Local Authority arranged for mother and child to move to a mother and baby assessment placement. The placement was asked to carry out a full parenting assessment. The mother failed to adequately engage with the assessment process or put the child’s needs above those of her own, the outcome of the assessment was negative and ended on 30 June 2010 (D1-8). Given the concerns, the decision was made to initiate a pre proceedings meeting which took place on 15 July 2010. The child remained in foster placement with the mother’s consent and further sessions were set up for mother to visit the child for further parenting assessment. The mother has been abusive to foster carers in placement and consistently uses foul language in front of the child.

6.

In addition to concerns regarding the mother’s mental health, lifestyle and failure to prioritise the child she has also left the placement on a number of occasions without any warning to the foster carers. There is also concern about her ability to appreciate any risk that the father may pose. The father has convictions for offences of indecent assault upon females and has recently been released from custody following a sentence for robbery.

7.

Mother has attended court today and submitted a position statement, she submits that there was a period in 2009 when she was unable to look after C by herself and that this resulted in C being cared for by several family members within a very short space of time and then being placed with Local Authority foster parents. Mother says that all of this happened at the suggestion of Social Services.

8.

Mother found it difficult being in the foster placement with C. She felt stifled and trapped.

9.

Mother accepts that she is subject to mood swings and that when she is in a “low Mood” she will find C more difficult to deal with and that C will be affected. She says that her lowness had been made worse by the stress and anxiety over the present situation with C. We heard today that mother is to access a new course of treatment to run over ten fortnightly visits.

10

Mother considers that she has addressed all of the issues which were raised with her at the meeting on the 8 July 2010.

11

The Children’s Guardian supports the Local Authority’s application for an Interim Care Order.

12.

Findings of the court regarding statutory/ threshold criteria

13.

Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 (Care/Supervision Order)

The court is satisfied that on the evidence outlined above that

a)    the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

b)    that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to

the care given to the child, or likely to be given to her if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to her.

14.

We have been referred to the case of Re L (Care Proceedings: Removal of a Child) [2008] 1 FLR

15.

Welfare Checklist (s1 (3) Children Act 1989)

The court has had regard to the welfare checklist.

16.

Human rights considerations

The court has had regard to Article 8 and has undertaken a balancing act of all the parties’ rights under the Act. We have paid due regard to the interests safeguarded by the Human Rights Act and we are satisfied on reviewing all the information that the measures of interference are fair and proportionate.

17.

Conclusion

We start from the point that we should not intervene in the life of children and families unless it is necessary to do so. The less-interventionist approach applies, not only as to whether an order is necessary, but also to the choice of order. We are satisfied that the evidence produced at this hearing is sufficient for us to find that the order sought here is necessary to safeguard the child’s welfare. We reach this conclusion because we have concerns about mother’s ongoing mental health issues which impacts on her ability to care for C. The unpredictability of mother’s mood swings and her inability to put C’s needs before her own put C at risk of serious harm. Mother has been given an opportunity to demonstrate her parenting capabilities within a supportive framework. The fact that she has not been able to do so consistently leads us to believe that C would be at immediate risk if she were to be returned to the sole care of her mother at this stage.

18.

Accordingly we make an order in the following terms:

An Interim Care order until 1 November 2010.