Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 8 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:

Lay Magistrates

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

Between:

	X Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	Ms Y
Mr C 
S a child through her Children’s Guardian                                                         	1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent	

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

Mrs A for the   Applicant
Ms D of Counsel for the 1st Respondent
Mr D of Counsel for the 2nd Respondent
Mr B for the 3rd Respondent

Hearing dates: 8th March 2010

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

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

1.	We are considering an application by X Council for a Care Order in respect of S who is under three years old.  S’s mother is Ms Y who has attended court today and is represented by counsel Ms D.  S’s father is Mr C who has attended court today and is represented by counsel Mr D.  It has been confirmed at court today that Mr C is named as S’s father on her birth certificate. He therefore has parental responsibility for his daughter and is an automatic respondent to the application before us.
	
2.	The Local Authority care plan for S is that she remains in her current placement with Mr and Mrs W under the Care Order.  X Local Authority will remain the designated authority.   The arrangements for contact between S and her parents are set out in the filed care plan and these will be kept under review to ensure that they continue to meet S’s needs. 
	
3.	As indicated above Ms Y has attended court today and whilst she has not filed a statement in these proceedings her position has been clearly set out to us by Ms D.  Ms Y whilst not consenting to the application does not actively oppose it and does not seek to challenge the evidence before us today.  Ms Y has reluctantly reached this position today because she realises that at this time S is being well looked after in her current placement and she does not seek to change this.  Ms Y understandably loves her daughter and we appreciate how difficult and distressing this decision must have been and recognise that she has put her daughter’s current needs before her own.   Ms Y, whilst understandably wanting as much contact as possible with her daughter accepts the proposed arrangements in the knowledge that these will be kept under review to ensure that they meet S’s needs.
	
4.	As set out above Mr C has attended court today.  Mr C has not filed a statement in these proceedings but his position has been clearly set out to us by Mr D.   Mr Clark has accepted that he has had difficulties in the past.  He would ideally like S to be cared for by her mother but if this were not possible he would like an opportunity to care for her.  Mr C has recognised that at this time this is not a realistic option and he reluctantly accepts that S must remain in her current placement.  Mr C does not consent to the application, but does not actively oppose it and does not seek to challenge the evidence before us.  Mr C accepts the arrangements in respect of contact with his daughter accepting that these will be kept under review to ensure that they meet S’s needs.	
5.	The child herself is represented through the Children’s Guardian Mr L who together with the child’s solicitor Mr B supports the Local Authority’s application.  Mr L has filed a final analysis and recommendations report dated 5th March 2010 in which he approves the Local Authority’s care plan.  Mr L has seen S in her current placement and confirms that she is well settled and thriving.
	
6.	We have read these documents and listened to the parties’ representations.  The history of Social Care’s involvement with S and her family is fully set out in the documents filed in the court bundle. We can see no purpose in rehearsing this evidence in these reasons particularly as it has not been challenged by any party.  S was made the subject of an emergency protection order on the 12.6.09 as a result of the Local Authority’s concerns.  This emergency protection order was extended on the 19.6.09 for a further six days and on the 25.6.09 an interim care order was made to the Council.  Under the interim care order S was placed with Mr and Mrs W, Ms Y’s maternal cousin and her husband on the 9.7.09.  S has remained in their care since that date.
	
7.	There have been a number of assessments in this case namely a risk assessment of Ms Y dated 30.12.09 which does not support the return of S to her mother’s care; a psychological assessment of Ms Y dated 21.2.10 which does not support the return of the child to her mother’s care and a kinship carer assessment of the Mr and Mrs W dated November 2009 which approved them as carers for S on a long term basis.
	
8.	At court today the parties were given some time in which to prepare an agreed schedule of findings.  This document has been signed by all the parties and is annexed to this judgment.  On the evidence before us we are satisfied that the threshold criteria for the making of a final order are met in that at the time the proceedings were issued S was likely to suffer significant harm being attributable to the care likely to be given to her not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to a child and that harm is the neglect of the child’s physical, emotional and developmental needs.  We make the specific findings sought in the agreed schedule of findings document which is annexed to these reasons.
	
9.	We now turn to the need for an order and the most appropriate order in all the circumstances.  In reaching our decision we remind ourselves that it is the welfare of S that must be our paramount consideration.  In reaching our decision we have considered as we must the welfare criteria contained in the Children Act.  The Children’s Guardian in his report has addressed the welfare checklist in detail.  We agree with his analysis in this regard and adopt it as our findings in this regard.  Mr L has set out his recommendation in respect of the orders available to the court at paragraph 23 of his report.  This analysis has been of considerable assistance to us and we agree with his recommendation.   At this time we agree that to fully support Mr and Mrs W and ensure the stability of S’s current placement a Care Order is the most appropriate order.  This order will provide assistance in respect of the difficulties which might be experienced in managing contact between S and her parents.  This may however change in the future.  
	
10.	The placement Mr and Mrs W is not within X Local Authority’s area.  Mrs A for the Local Authority has confirmed that X Local Authority will remain the designated Local Authority.  Accordingly we make a Care Order to X Local Authority in respect of S.  In doing so we approve the care plan and arrangements for contact recognising that these will be reviewed to ensure that they continue to meet the child’s needs.
	
11.	Heard before Lay Magistrates on 8.3.10.