Southern Health and Social Services Trust v F (Permanency Planning)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NIMag 2 |
| Date | 29 July 2010 |
| Court | Magistrates' Court (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation no. [2010] NIMag 2
Ref:
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
29/07/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Judgment of Dungannon Family Proceedings Court
Southern Health and Social Services Trust
v
F
(Permanency Planning)
1. Bearing in mind the No Delay principle enshrined in Article 3(2)
of The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, the Court means
to allow social workers to have The Conversation with child G in
this case without further prevarication. He had been raised by
his mother until January 2009, when he was approaching 8. He
then found himself removed into kinship care, then into foster
care within a matter of a few months, where he has since
remained.
2. Throughout that period, he has been experiencing uncertainty of
the most fundamental kind, going to his sense of safety, of place
and of value. He has been kept uncertain as to what is to become
of him each night he goes to bed, whether he will be re-united
with his mother, or whether he will be looked after by somebody
else; if it is to be by somebody else, he has not known whether
that is to be by the people who have been looking after him thus
far, or by somebody else.
3. This is not a situation to be wished upon any child and all that
we have learnt tells us that this period of uncertainty must not be
protracted needlessly. A child in this situation must be
wondering always what is to become of him and the key feature
of this interim phase is that no-one can tell him for sure – cannot
open The Conversation with him. That will obviously cause him
stress and potential harm, emotionally, to a degree which will
vary in the circumstances of each case.
2
4. All information which might tend to identify the family concerned has
been removed from this text, in order to protect the rights of the family
and of the child concerned. This judgment is being distributed on the
strict understanding that in any report no person may be identified by
name or location, other than as disclosed in this text, and in particular
the anonymity of the subject child and of his mother must be strictly
preserved.
5. This Application first came before the Court on 18th February
2010. Papers filed by the Trust detailed the circumstances in
which a Care Plan for permanency by way of long term foster
care had been reached in respect of child G, then turning 9 years
of age. The sole Respondent is his mother. His father has had no
real involvement in his life and his present whereabouts in
England are unknown.
6. Full details of the case history were set out in the court papers,
but, by way of synopsis, his mother, Ms. F, had been known to
Social Services since her move back from England in May 2003,
accompanied by reports from her former partner of alcohol
abuse, impacting upon her parenting of G. In mid-2004 there
was a similar report from a neighbour. In December of that same
year, she was referred for therapeutic work following an assault
upon a female, but the work was not carried out by the Child
Protection Services. Papers offered no other excuse than
"circumstances and delay". Ms. F was at least assessed then as
posing no risk to children in her care.
7. Ms. F made a number of house moves since May 2003, related to
a tempestuous relationship with her partner. That relationship
featured both domestic violence and alcohol abuse and it entailed
several house moves for G as the parties broke up and reconciled
from time to time. There were allegations and cross-allegations,
but the overall picture was of an unstable situation, impacting
upon G's parenting. In particular, G's education has been
significantly affected and he has had to repeat a year, due to his
many absences.
8. Matters came to crisis point in September 2007. The Police had to
be called to assist in securing access to Ms. F's home. She was
found drunk and there was no food in the house. G had eaten
nothing substantial that day. Ms. F confirmed that she had been
To continue reading
Request your trial