RE S and Another v GB ([First Respondent]) DF ([Second Respondent]) Re A, B and C

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date10 December 2010
CourtFamily Proceedings Court
Date10 December 2010

[2010] EWMC 84 (FPC)

Family Proceedings Court

Between:
RE S
X City Council
and
GB
[First Respondent]
DF
[Second Respondent]
Re: A, B and C
1

This is an application by X City Council for care proceedings in respect of three children, A, B and C. Their parents are GB and DF. The case has been listed for a two day contested hearing. The Local Authority is represented by Mr. L. The social worker is AD. The parents are represented by Miss H. The Children are represented by Mr. B. The Guardian is MD.

2

The justices have read a bundle of documents filed by the local authority together with final statements from the parents filed on the morning of the first day, and an up to date report from Dr S. It has also been shown colour photographs of the state of the property from which the children were removed.

3

The court has heard oral evidence from:

4

AD, GB, DF, MD and JS-B, Chartered Forensic Psychologist.

5

The Local Authority Position:

6

The Local Authority asks the Court to make findings in respect of the threshold criteria as set out in the document dated 17 th August 2009, and subject to some agreed amendments made today.

7

They assert that the children have suffered significant harm whilst in the care of their parents. They assert that home conditions resulted in poor standards of hygiene and lack of safety due to clutter and filth; that their mother has been suffering from emotional problems which have prevented her from caring adequately; that parents have failed to engage and co-operate with professionals at times and not understood the concerns of child protection professionals; and as a direct result the children have failed to thrive and have all suffered substantial global developmental delay. They also say that the parents have shown little evidence of improvement in their parenting skills despite the considerable input into the family prior to the removal of the children, successful completion of the nurturing programme, the input of the contact supervisor and the advice of the social worker, and that in fact, their ability to manage contact sessions was so poor, that the number of sessions had to be reduced. They say that the children cannot wait any longer for these parents to make changes and need finality.

8

The Local Authority then goes on to ask the court to make final care orders in relation to all three children, as their care plan is for long term care by adoption and placement applications are also before the court. They ask that the Court dispense with the parents consent to placement. They propose annual two ways letter box contact for parents, and plan to place all three children in the same adoptive placement.

9

The Parents Position:

10

The parents began by saying they do not concede the threshold criteria. However, as the evidence has been heard it is now conceded that the majority of the document of findings on threshold is agreed, subject to some minor amendments which the parents cannot concede.

11

They present as a couple who wish to be considered as long term carers for all three children. They do not accept they are wholly responsible for the children's condition on removal, and believe they have not been properly supported nor offered sufficient opportunity to learn and make changes. They want the court to give them more time to complete further parenting programmes and further sessions to learn coping strategies. They believe the children should wait whilst they make further efforts to change. It is unclear what orders they would ask the court to make at this stage, other than to refuse to make final orders, and to come back in about three months time to see if they are able to demonstrate positive change, after such input has taken place. They rely to a certain extent upon the recommendations made by the expert, JS-B and effectively are asking the Court to reject the Guardian's view.

12

The Guardian:

13

Fully supports the Local Authority Care plan and applications for placements. She is satisfied that the parents have been given ample support and guidance by the local authority, and opportunity to change. She believes that the parents lack the necessary insight to understand the extent of harm caused to the children by their lack of care. She believes that they have neither the capacity nor the motivation to make the necessary changes within an acceptable timetable for the children.

14

Chronology of these proceedings:

15

The case was first listed on the 14 th July 2009, when the children had been placed in foster care [C with one foster carer and A and B together with another] for about a week with the consent of the parents. They then withdrew their consent and the proceedings were issued. The Court has made interim care orders throughout the proceedings and there has never been a contested hearing other than this one. Fortunately the children have remained in the same foster placements throughout. Sadly the case has been re-timetabled on four occasions and it is important that the court sets out the history of the timetabling.

16

After the initial hearing the parties quickly identified that a forensic psychologist should be instructed in September 2009 but her report in respect of both parents was not filed until the end of December 2009. The Guardian was not allocated by CAFCASS until 2 nd February 2010. The case was initially timetabled to final hearing in March 2010, but this had to be vacated due to the late allocation of a Guardian and the need for a Cognitive Assessment Report of GB dated 2 nd April 2010. The next final hearing was timetabled for June 2010, but this again was vacated due to a problem with the Adoption medicals which were not ready for the panel in May. The next final hearing was timetabled for August 2010, but this was vacated as the Adoption Panel took the view that there should be further investigation of extended family members. There was a positive viability assessment of the father's brother and his wife, but unfortunately they then withdrew, and the final hearing in October had to be further vacated until today to enable the Local Authority to return to the Adoption Panel. Hence the final hearing is not listed until the 73 rd week of proceedings. To the credit of the Local Authority the same social worker has been allocated throughout the proceedings as indeed has the same contact supervisor.

17

Our Findings:

18

Threshold:

19

We find as facts upon which to base our decision the document as now amended at paras 5[b], 5[c] and 8[g]. We accept the parent's arguments about attending appointments but later and an alternative venue. There is no medical evidence to controvert the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT