The District Court granted the Child and Family Agency a care order for a child until the child reaches 18, after finding that the child’s health, development and welfare would be avoidably impaired or neglected if removed from the current foster placement.
The judgment identifies the child’s mother as MCA. She was not at the hearing but was represented by a solicitor. The court said she was aware of the hearing and the orders sought. The putative father was not a legal guardian or a party to the case, the judgment says. The judge directed that nothing be reported that could identify the child, the mother, the putative father or their extended family.
The Agency became involved after a maternity hospital referral concerning the mother’s heroin use during pregnancy, homelessness and vulnerability. The child was born prematurely and needed medical treatment. After initially being cared for by the mother with support, the child was admitted to hospital with a fractured skull. The judgment records evidence or suggestion of non-accidental injury, without making a finding about its cause. A later head injury also required hospital admission; the judgment says there was no evidence or suggestion of non-accidental injury in that instance.
The child later lived with the mother during a residential detoxification programme and in supported accommodation. After the mother’s private care arrangement with a friend ended, she signed a voluntary care agreement when the child was 17 months old. The child remained in the same foster placement for two and a half years before the hearing. An interim care order had been extended from time to time pending the final application.
Evidence from social workers and the Guardian ad Litem described the mother’s limited engagement with services and inconsistent attendance at access visits. The Guardian said the child had experienced attachment disruption, insecurity and loss, and was receiving speech and language and occupational therapy support. She considered the foster placement to be meeting the child’s needs and supported a care order until 18. The judge accepted the evidence that removing the child from the placement would risk avoidable impairment or neglect.
The order was made under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991. The judge said its duration was proportionate, citing the mother’s absence from day-to-day care for three years, inconsistent access, vulnerability and lack of fixed accommodation, and the child’s need for stable care. Access was left to the Agency’s discretion under section 37.
Under section 47, the Agency must bring the case back to court in specified circumstances, including extended gaps without an allocated social worker or fostering link worker, failures concerning care planning, a breakdown or proposed change of placement, or missed deadlines for an assessment of needs or long-term placement matching. The court also directed a review near the child’s 16th birthday if the child remains in Agency care, continued efforts to locate the mother, and services to address the child’s identified needs and identity issues at an age-appropriate stage.