Re T (A Minor) (Care or Supervision Order)

I will ask Mrs. Justice Bracewell to give the first judgment.

MRS JUSTICE BRACEWELL: This is an appeal by the mother Cindy T., supported by her husband, the father, from an Order of His Honour Judge Kenny made on January 11 1993 at Reading County Court whereby he made a Care Order under the provisions of section 31 (1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 to Berkshire County Council in respect of a child Daniel Val T. who was born on July 6 1992.

The essence of the appeal is that the judge being satisfied that the threshold criteria were well founded under s.31(2)(a) and (b) of the Children Act should have made a Supervision Order for a period of one year under s.31(1)(b) and should not have made a Care Order to the local authority.

The chronology of the matter is that the father is now 25 years old and the mother is now 22 years old. The mother gave birth to her first child in 1986 when she was only some 15 years old. That child was called Mary-Jane. The parents subsequently married in 1987 and the next child, Robert, was born in June 1988. By October 1989 both Mary-Jane and Robert had been removed from the parents under a Place of Safety Order which was followed by an Order for Interim Care. The next child, Charlotte, was born in February 1990. Mary-Jane and Robert returned to the care of their parents under a three year Supervision Order in April 1990.

The children were made Wards of Court. By October 1990 Mary-Jane and Robert had been removed from their parents under an Interim Care Order and Charlotte was subject to an Interim Supervision Order. Luke was born in March 1991. He was made a Ward of Court and remained with his parents under an Interim Supervision Order.

In June 1991 in proceedings which were not contested by the parents, Mary-Jane and Robert were made the subject of a full Care Order and were placed with long term alternative families with a view to adoption. Luke and Charlotte were removed from their parents' care and then returned, but subsequently they were made the subject of full Care Orders. After a contested hearing in September 1991 the children were taken from the parents and placed with long term foster parents with a view to adoption.

Danielle, the subject of these proceedings, was born in July 1992. On 17 August 1992 she was the subject of an application by the local authority for either a Care or a Supervision Order. There was a full family assessment during the course of which Danielle was the subject of an Interim Supervision Order, she remaining with her parents throughout that assessment.

The hearing then took place on January 11 1993 when she was made the subject of a full Care Order under the Children Act. At those proceedings all the parties, that is the parents, the local authority, and the guardian ad litem representing the child agreed at the hearing before Judge Kenny that the threshold criteria were established as set out in s. 31(2)(a) and (b), in that the child was likely to suffer significant harm and that the likelihood of harm was attributable to the care likely to be given to her if the Order were not made, not what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to her.

Those established criteria then gave rise to consideration of the Welfare Check List under s.1(3). It was common ground among the parties that the welfare of the child required an Order as opposed to no Order; and further that it was not appropriate to consider any s. 8 Order. It was agreed by all that the choice lay between a Care Order and a Supervision Order by reason of the serious history of parental failure in respect of the previous four children.

The parents had failed to provide even basic care for those four children. They had been subjected to massive neglect. The parents had demonstrated an incapacity to sustain any change. They had lived a chaotic lifestyle with a difficult relationship between the adults. They had been hostile to help from the local authority. They had rejected assessments. The father had spent some periods in prison.

The mother had failed to keep appointments, rejected counselling and failed to protect the children from members of the extended family who were potential sexual abusers and overall, the parents had failed to demonstrate any insight or understanding of the physical and emotional needs of the children.

Judge Kenny had dealt with all the previous proceedings, and therefore he was ideally placed to assess the situation in relation to Danielle. The Children Act 1989 s. 23(4) and (5) and the Placement of Children with Parents Regulations 1991 envisage that local authorities may place children with their parents even though the local authority has obtained a Care Order. The Act also envisages that children may have...