“Blame”
26.At paragraph 23 of her submissions, Ms Troy stated as follows:“The mother is a protected party and is incapable of any conscious thought.that could result in her being blamed for placing K at risk of future harm”. That is something which was repeated in the submissions by all of the parties. They are quite rightly, and understandably, very concerned that some sort of blame might be attributed to the mother in this case, or that the difficulties in her care may be placed at her door. As I have indicated earlier, the Official Solicitor is particularly concerned that there should not be state intervention just because a person has a disability, and that they should not be deprived of their Article 8 rights. 27.In my judgment, in the present case, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to deal with the case with any reference to blame. That such a finding is not necessary in any assessment under section 31 of the Children Act is clear from a number of cases, and in particular was highlighted in Re B (referred to above) by Lord Wilson, who stated at paragraph 30 and 31 that the submission that blame should be read into the Act was misconceived. At paragraph 31, he said as follows:“The first of these alternative submissions represents a false dichotomy: for the character of the parents is relevant to each stage of the inquiry whether to make a care order only to the extent that it affects the quality of their parenting. The second of them is misconceived: for there is no requisite mental element to accompany the actions or inactions which have caused, or are likely to cause, significant harm to the child. Section 31(2)(b)(i) requires only that the harm or likelihood of harm should be ‘attributable’ to the care given or likely to be given to the child not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him. Such is a requirement only of causation as between the care and the harm. The provision was prefigured in the White Paper, Cm 62, cited above, also at para 60”.“The court will also have to make a decision as to whether the harm was caused or will in future be caused by the child not receiving a reasonable standard of care or by the absence of adequate parental control. This is not intended to imply a judgment on the parent who may be doing his best but is still unable to provide a reasonable standard of care”.28.In my judgment, “blame” is not required. Family practitioners are well used to the fact that in the family courts, we often see parents who are not blameworthy. The fact that they are not able to provide safe and adequate care may be for a variety of reasons but should not of itself reflect blame on their part. Rather, s31 recognises that in some cases where the children’s needs are not going to be met by a parent, then the state may need to intervene to ensure that those needs are met.