In the Matter of T (A Child)

The issue for the court is what is in the best interests of A, a baby born on 20^th March 2014 and now 8 months old. Should she be placed in the care of her maternal grandmother who is already looking after her older sister, B, or should she be adopted? The Local Authority supports placement with the grandmother while A’s children’s guardian argues for adoption. The parents of both children are the mother, who is 21 years old and suffers from a mild learning disability, and the father, who is still only 17 and has played no part in this hearing. They do not live together. B, born on 20^th April 2011, is now 3½. The mother was unable to look after B and has been assessed as being unable to look after A. To her credit, she accepts this. She has attended this hearing in support of her mother. She lives across the road from her with her father, the children’s grandfather, and has been having supervised contact with both children.

I accept the unanimous professional view that A cannot be brought up by either parent and that the threshold for the making of a care order is clearly crossed.

The grandmother is 55 years old. She has not had an easy life. She was sexually abused by her father throughout her childhood. In 1979 she entered an abusive marriage with H. They had three children. The older two were boys. One of them suffered a fractured skull at the hands of H. The grandmother did not separate from him and the children were both adopted. A third child, a daughter, D, was brought up by the grandmother after she eventually separated from F. She and the grandmother now have a fluctuating relationship which is currently amicable.

In 1986 the grandmother married E. They have one child, A’s mother, C. They separated in 2011. Both the grandmother’s daughters have claimed to be the victims of sexual abuse themselves. In 1993 D claimed that she had been sexually abused by the grandfather’s brother, J, but there was insufficient evidence to bring charges. The grandmother says that the grandfather had himself been sexually abused as a child. The grandfather’s brother, P, has convictions for sexual offences. In 1997, the mother alleged that she had been sexually abused by an uncle but the family refused assessment and the case was closed. It is also to be noted that B was born from a relationship between her mother, aged 17, and her father, then aged 13, that the grandmother had been unable to control. There is plainly a history of intergenerational sexual abuse in this family to the point that concern has been expressed about the quality of the relationship between the mother and her own father.

The grandmother lives in a four bedroomed property. She was the carer for her elderly mother who died in April 2014. This was a heavy responsibility, but it brought financial benefits that have now been lost. The grandmother has been psychologically assessed. Her intelligence test scores are in the low range. She is a friendly person who is eager to please but who easily becomes anxious, particularly when under scrutiny. In recent times she has taken medication for depression and continues to take it to control anxiety symptoms. Despite her own history and existing responsibilities, the grandmother stepped in to care for B and was granted a residence order in November 2011. Her parenting of B has been closely assessed in these proceedings and a report in June 2014 recommended that B should remain in her grandmother’s care.

Before A was born the Local Authority carried out a viability assessment in relation to the grandmother. It was negative, based on the historic sexual abuse issues. At the time of A’s birth the Local Authority, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council, took the view that she could not safely remain in the family. It applied for an emergency protection order on the day of the birth and on the following day, 21^st March, was granted an interim care order. A has been in foster care since that time with a significant amount of contact with her grandmother in particular. This occurs three times a week for two hours. The only specific incident of real note since A’s birth is that on 23^rd July B was noticed to have a bruise on the inner and outer aspects of one ear. The grandmother was unable to satisfactorily explain this. Its cause has never been established and it remains a suspected inflicted injury.

A considerable amount of information has been gathered during the course of these proceedings. In summary, it comes from Charlotte Varnam, A’s social worker who presents the Local Authority’s case and has carried out an assessment of the grandmother, B’s health visitor, her nursery teacher, the grandmother’s family support worker, who carried out direct work with the grandmother, the contact supervisor, the independent reviewing officer and Miss Rachel Humphries, the Children’s Guardian.

The Local Authority’s care plan is to place A with her grandmother under the auspices of a care order after a short period of introductions to the home. There would be continued social work support, visits from the family support worker and involvement of an agency known as Family Intervention Programme. There has been no parallel planning with the result that an adoptive placement could not be achieved before A’s first birthday at the earliest.

I heard evidence from the social worker, Miss Varnam, and from the Guardian.

Giving evidence in favour of the care plan, Miss Varnam relied upon her own observations and the very positive views of the family support worker as well as those of the professionals who know B. She says that she observes a positive attachment between the grandmother and A and a blossoming attachment between the girls themselves. She assesses the grandmother as having a reasonable understanding of sexual abuse issues after attending a course. Her support network is limited but adequate. The demands of looking after two children would be challenging but not insurmountable with professional support which can be graded in accordance with need. Home conditions are more than acceptable. The grandmother’s anxieties are not in themselves a concern but natural. She has shown incredible resilience and tenacity. The injury to B’s ear is a concern but does not seem to be a reflection of the bigger picture.

The Guardian spoke of a number of concerns. The most immediate is the grandmother’s ability to provide basic care. Despite the amount of contact, she is dependent on prompts to carry out activities such as feeding capably. The Guardian is apprehensive about the grandmother’s ability to look after two children with differing needs. B has shown some signs of resenting the division of attention. A may suffer a lack of stimulation. The situation of the mother and the grandfather living nearby is not helpful. The grandmother may need more specialist work to help to identify the risk of sexual abuse against this family background. Her emotional state is a cause for concern with the recent loss of her mother and consequent financial issues. The effect on A and, indeed, of B of a placement breakdown would be extremely serious. The Guardian points to the observations of A’s independent reporting officer who has similar reservations. It is, in my view, a healthy state of affairs that these views have been openly expressed. I take account of the reservations about the care plan that are expressed by two very experienced social workers.

The Guardian also has concerns about the Local Authority’s approach to planning. At the outset of the proceedings it was adamant that A would not be safe at home but a few weeks later it was advocating placement with the grandmother. The Guardian believes that the Local Authority decided to support this cause without thinking through the amount of support that would be required and has now produced broad and rather non-specific proposals as an afterthought (my word). She regards some aspects of the planning as “haphazard”, for example, the plan to place A before Christmas. In summary, the Guardian regretfully expressed the view that she could not support the Local Authority’s plan and saw no alternative for A but adoption.

The threshold for intervention having been crossed in this case, the decision turns upon an assessment of A’s welfare in the wider sense. I have regard to the welfare checklist and focus in particular on the question of whether, as the Guardian fears, A would be likely to suffer harm if she was placed with her grandmother. I have regard to the guidance given by the appeal courts. I must evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the realistic options, mindful of the particularly serious interference with the rights of the birth family that adoption represents.

The only realistic options in this case are placement with the grandmother and adoption. Long term fostering is not an option for a child of this age. I have been assisted by the evidence of both Miss Varnam and Miss Humphries as to the advantages and disadvantages of the two options which have shown the court the whole picture. Given their opposing conclusions, they were naturally drawn into emphasising particular aspects of the evidence but I am satisfied that they have both reached a conscientious, professional judgment.

My findings of fact and conclusions in this matter are as follows:

In summary, I do not dismiss the Guardian’s apprehensions as unreasonable but, unlike her, I find that the evidence in this case does not achieve the level of cogency that would be required to justify the ultimate conclusion that there is no alternative to adoption. On the contrary, I find that taking all factors into account the better outcome for A is to be placed with her grandmother and with her sister. The prospects of success are sufficiently good and the Local Authority’s support plans sufficiently robust for this course to be pursued. I am not influenced in reaching this conclusion by the delay that would arise if an adoptive placement had to be sought. Even though A needs to move to her long term placement as quickly as possible, a delay of a few months would not prevent adoption being the choice if it was the right thing overall.

It has been rightly said by the Guardian that at the age of 8 months A is at a critical phase in her development. As a result of the court’s decision, the grandmother is being trusted with a precious opportunity. In addition to her own commitment she will need substantial support from the Local Authority for the foreseeable future, whether under the terms of a care order or at a later date via a special guardianship order with financial support. The grandmother also needs help from other family members. In particular, the mother can contribute to the well-being of B and A by trying to get her life in order and not adding to the pressures on her mother by making demands on her or, indeed, by having other children that she is not able to look after.

I will, therefore, make a care order in respect of A, no lesser order being appropriate in these circumstances and I will approve the care plan and the support package that accompanies it. I take into account the most recent information about the Local Authority’s intentions to place A under Regulation 24 of the 2010 Regulations whilst the grandmother is approved as a Local Authority carer. As to whether A should be placed before or after Christmas, I say nothing. This is something that concerns the Guardian and has understandably been raised but, in my view, it is a matter for social work judgment in consultation with the grandmother.