How much contact?

[MandyLou]

We are looking after our g/s who is nearly 8 months old. We have applied for a RO - and go back to court for a directions hearing next month. His birth mother currently has contact 3 hours twice a week supervised (by SS, and in a contact house) while a PAMS assessment is being carried out.
We expect the report to say he should stay living with us and support the RO.
At the moment we have a contact order which says we are to make him available for contact at SS discretion (or words to that effect).
What I want to get a feel for is how much contact is sensible going forward from here. SS say they will review contact in light of the assessment.
I personally don't feel that the little one gets benefit from what must, to him, feel like a childcare arrangement. He is very unlikely to ever be in his mother's care full time, and certainly there will be supervision until and unless she can demonstrate a change in behaviour and lifestyle.
The reality is that on the days he has see her he is really hard to settle later on. That might be because we are also stressed by it, but I can't help feeling that he is getting nothing positive out of the time. In fact she treats him like a toy or a doll which is even more distressing for me.
Does anyone have any ideas of what sort of contact would be best? I'm hoping that the court will allow us to decide for him, I just want to know what to ask for.

[MandyLou]

Thanks Irene
That sort of level seems 'reasonable'. Given what birth mother is like I would guess she will slowly drift away from that sort of arrangement anyway.
Well at the very least we have a starting point to put before the courts if we are asked. I'm hoping we get our RO when we next go to court. I'm also hoping the court will say somehting like 'reasonable' contact, and leave it up to us to decide what that means.
The closer we get to court the more worried I am. It all looks like we should be fine... but this is just a directions hearing scheduled for 1/2 hour so I have no idea how much may be decided there. At the very least we need an interim RO.
Poor little one - at least he is so young he doesn't understand.

[MandyLou]

We had a call from the social worker last week to say they will be suggesting a maximum of 4 times a year in their report to the courts.
I think I will prefer no 'order' but at least we can say we will allow reasonable contact based on their suggestion.
It will not be a surprise to any of you that SS will not facilitate any contact after the RO is granted. We are going to be left to fend for ourselves - I was expecting that to be honest. We don't get any help except the supervision for contact at the moment - no financial support or any allowances, and I don't expect that to change at all.

Family care really does save SS lots of money, doesn't it!!

[MandyLou]

So we went to court for what was expected to be a contested RO hearing yesterday.
Birth mother is considered a vulnerable adult - no one wanted to make her give evidence, so we all worked hard on trying to reach a compromise. I wish we could have done that the first time we went to court as my legal bill is considerable (whereas she receives legal aid).
Anyway, we have our RO by consent, but we are left with contact twice a month. The judge was clear that despite her being unable to care for the little one, and despite her making no effort to see him for the last 2 months, she should be allowed to build a relationship with him. Suggestions of once a week were made.
I suppose twice a month is ok - but I cannot see her sustaining it. If anything I am upset at the suggestion that she gets to play with her son for a while and we get to do all the hard stuff - the sleepless nights as he is teething, the buying of nappies, babymilk all of the other expense.
I should be happy - he is with us under an order which at least gives some stability (we will want SGO in the future I think) - but why should she be able to see him when I cannot see that he will get anything out of the contact at all. He doesn't know who she is.

[David Roth]

Firstly, congratultations on getting your Residence Order, and on being able to do so by agreement in the end. Hopefully the mother having agreed to the order will make it easier for her to be co-operative with you in future.

However, I do understand your concern about the contact that has been agreed. Is this set by a contact order, or is it just the level of contact that the parties agreed to, without any order being made? I do find it surprising that the judge has set the contact at a higher level than the mother is currently able to sustain - it makes me wonder whether it has been set out of sympathy with her over losing her child, rather than taking account of what will meet the child's long-term needs. Setting a high level of parental contact for children who are permanently placed away from their parents risks confusing children as they get older.

My suggestion would be to start by co-operating with the contact at the level that has been set, but if the mother finds it hard to keep to all the contacts that have been arranged, then have a discussion with her about reducing it to a level that she can manage - maybe once a month, or even still further if she finds that hard to manage. It is possible for you and the mother to come to an agreement between you about changing the contact arrangement, even if there is a contact order. However, it may have to take place over time.

At the moment, the child is still an infant, so won't feel let down that a contact appointment has not been kept, but this could change as he gets older. The way this affects children varies, but some can feel it is their fault that parents don't visit, while others seem relatively unaffected or see contact as a chore. Fortnightly contact could intrude quite a lot into your lives, and you will need to handle any reduction very sensitively with mum.

[MandyLou]

Hi David

Thanks for the congratulations. It still feels quite strange to be honest but at least we can rest a little easier for now.
The contact is set out as part of the residence order - but it is only for an hour twice a fortnight, and supervised at a contact centre. I think there is an element of sympathy for birth mum, but the judge did say that supervised contact at a contact centre is really only a temporary arrangement. His expectation is that through mediation we may come to a different arrangement.
Of course, he also commented that this is the best we can achieve in the short term and that things will inevitably change when she has her second child (due in December). We now know that childrens services will be highly unlikely to let her take this baby home. I expect that they will be coming to talk to us soon.

If I am honest, I feel let down by the court in a way. The little one is clearly thriving in our care (and we dread to think how he would have been if he had been in her care). We are under no illusions as to her ability or even motivation to care for her own child - although she states very strongly that she is absolutely fine. But the judge appears to be focussed on her rights and feelings without really seeming to look at how damaging it might be to the little one to have a parent who is only there when she wants to be. It brings me back to Mother's Day when she was so upset because she wouldn't be getting a card from her son. She hadn't even asked how he was in the 6 weeks before that day, let alone seen him.

I'm ranting a bit. I'm sad and confused - and I think that everyone expects me to feel sorry for her. She is a vulnerable adult who has not got her son - lets all run around to make her feel better. What about me? I have no children of my own (she is my step-daughter). It seems I cannot have a child naturally, and our own plans to adopt to have 'our family' are derailed because we are now caring for her child. I cannot express how much that hurts.

At the end of the day, though, this little boy (and potentially his sibling) will grow up in our family and I will have the chance to love, nurture, mould and 'parent' them. And he deserves the best start in life we can give him.

[MandyLou]

I felt the need to re-read what I had posted a couple of weeks ago. I was definitely a bit low!

So far we have heard nothing from birth mum or her solicitor about the arrangements for contact - she is supposed to sort it out although practically he will do it for her. I guess it is just 'wait and see'. I don't even know what the contact centre will be like, or even where it is exactly. There are lots of unanswered questions as to how it is all going to work.

In other news a rumour has found it's way to us that birth mum intends to marry the current boyfriend as early as next month, and fully intends recording him as the father of her second child when it is born (even though he cannot possibly be the father as they had not met until she was 2 months pregnant).

The good thing is that the local authority already plan to meet before the birth and they are suggesting that they will try to get an order to remove the baby at birth. We are taking a step back at this point. We will not enter into any kind of 'private arrangement' for the second child. We shall say we have the ability to take the baby so that it remains in the family, but as family foster carers initially. Perhaps then birth mum will understand it is not US taking her children away.

[David Roth]

Hi MandyLou

If mum has married her boyfriend before the baby is born, then he will automatically have parental responsiblity for the child, whether or not he is the biological father. Mum doesn't have a choice over whether he has PR or not, it is a legal fact that a couple who are married when a baby is born will both have PR.

It sounds as though you need to be careful how you play it with the second child - but you do sound quite clear about the issues around whether a child placed with family/friends carers should be considered looked after or under a private arrangement. Do ask if you would like some more clarity though.

It strikes me that you might want to consider special guardianship for these children - was that ever on the agenda for the little one you have already? SGO does give you exclusive right to exercise parental responsibility, and is overall a stronger order than a residence order - it was intended to be half-way between RO and adoption, as a way of giving extra security for children who were going to be staying on with family or foster carers and not be adopted. Let me know if you'd like me to spell out the differences between these two orders.

And good luck with managing the contact - it sounds as though the next few months could be quite stressful, but at least the court has made its decision about your little one staying on with you.

[MandyLou]

Thanks for the reply, David.

We are considering SGO for the little one we have and the second if the baby comes to us. Our advice has been that we should apply for both at the same time.
Personally I would like to adopt rather than have an SGO - but that is purely about me. I'm sure SGO gives the stability that the child needs and, as you say, exclusive PR. And our solicitor has said that it is very unlikely the court will allow an adoption. If we were in front of the same judge then there is no way he would agree to an adoption - he was keen that the little one and his birth mother have a relationship of sorts even though she cannot care for him.

Of course things may change depending on her committment to contact, but I think that in this case (and with this court) we will be left with SGO as our option.

That is hard for me. I do not have any children - and our plan for 'our' family was to adopt from the care system. Now I think we would be seen as less suitable because we are bringing up the little one and possibly his sibling. I guess I find this hard because I am still grieving for the child I cannot have.

I couldn't be closer to this little one. I was there when he was born. I will nurture and love him and give him the best start he can have. But he will never be mine. I don't know why it is such a big deal for me. Perhaps it is just the fear that his birth mother may try to cause trouble in the future, that we will never be sucure. I don't know. One of my close friends said to me - he may not be yours, but you are his.

Family care is hard. The different emotions and worries are almost overwhelming. I know, absolutely, that we are doing the right thing for this little one - and that putting ourselves forward to take the next one is the right thing too. These children deserve to live within their family.

We wil wait and see if birth mum gets married. To be honest I don't think they have the money to pay for the ceremony, unless they are getting help from his family. But the social worker is aware of the supposed plans and they are already looking into his background. We have made it clear that we will be expecting a placement rather than a private arrangement. I have read with great interest the information on whether a local authority should treat a child as 'looked after' and I do think we have a case to say that the little one that is with us should have been treated as 'looked after' even though the local authority have said they do not think he has that status.

When I have the energy we will write to them and see what happens. Clearly we do not want to get on the wrong side of the local authority, but that foster care allowance would have been very useful - the amount we potentially should have received would just about cover the amount I have had to pay in legal bills and take the pressure off!

[David Roth]

The way that family and friends carers have to set aside their own life-plans, and build a new and different life around the children they take in, is something that carers have often spoken about when they are interviewed for research. It hasn't received the same amount of attention as other issues, as so much focus goes onto the issues of lack of support and finance, as those are issues we can campaign about, and where we hope to achieve a better deal for carers. But many carers I have spoken to have said that, while taking in the child has brought a great deal of joy into their lives, they have also experienced significant losses - older carers have to shelve their retirement plans, younger sibling carers put off going to university, or carers may as in your case lose something different, such as the possibility of adopting their own children.

I really think it is important for carers to be given space to express these feelings, by someone who understands that they are not rejecting their kin-child, they are just letting out their feelings of grief due to their own sense of loss.

With regards to the legal status of the next baby - if mum won't agree to this child being removed from her, then the local authority will have to get a legal order, probably an Emergency Protection Order. If they get an order, then the child would be looked after, and I cannot see any way for them to argue that it is really a private arrangement.