This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/two-year-old-boy-adoption-cigarette-smoke

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Two-year-old boy from 'smoky house' to be placed for adoption Two-year-old boy from 'smoky house' to be placed for adoption
(about 2 hours later)
A two-year-old boy has been taken from his parents’ care after a health visitor highlighted concerns about the level of cigarette smoke at his home. A two-year-old boy has been removed from his parents’ care after health workers raised serious concerns about the level of cigarette smoke and drug paraphernalia in the family home.
Health visitor Julie Allen told a family court judge she had not come across such a “smoky house” in her 10-year career. She described the boy and his father being surrounded by a visible cloud of smoke and said she had difficulty breathing. One health visitor told a family court judge that she had not come across such a “smoky house” in her 10-year career.
Judge Louise Pemberton, who was also told of a number of other concerns about the way the child was being cared for, concluded that he should be placed for adoption. The boy, who suffers with his breathing and uses an inhaler, was once found by a health worker asleep on a sofa next to his father surrounded by a “visible cloud of smoke”.
Details of the case have emerged in a written ruling by the judge following a family court hearing in Hull. The level of cigarette smoke was one of a number of concerns that emerged in a family court ruling published on Monday.
The judge said the family could not be identified. She did not identify the local authority that had asked for the boy to be placed for adoption, but she named individual health and social services staff who had worked with the family. Judge Louise Pemberton decided that the boy, who has not been named, should be placed for adoption after a hearing in Hull about the child’s welfare.
Pemberton said the boy had breathing problems and needed an inhaler, and she said that Allen had “graphically highlighted” concerns about smoke. Health professionals told the judge that the home was “dirty, smelly and unhygienic” and had led the boy to suffer diarrhoea and sickness for four weeks.
Loose electrical wires were strung dangerously around the living room – including directly over the child’s toy box – and drug paraphernalia had been spotted in the home on two occasions.
There were other concerns relating to domestic violence, lack of supervision and failure to provide adequate food for the child, the judge said.
The health workers also raised concerns about the father, who tested positive for cocaine use last October and is receiving therapy for mental health issues.
But the most graphic testimony came from health visitor Julie Allen, who told the judge that the family’s living room was “so smoke entrenched that I had difficulty breathing”.
“On entering the living room Allen described being able to see a visible cloud of smoke surrounding the father and [the boy],” said the judge. “[The boy] was asleep on the sofa and had been unwell for some time by this point.“On entering the living room Allen described being able to see a visible cloud of smoke surrounding the father and [the boy],” said the judge. “[The boy] was asleep on the sofa and had been unwell for some time by this point.
“Ms Allen described the room as ‘so smoke-entrenched that I had difficulty breathing’. She immediately expressed concern to the parents as to the impact of such smoke on [the boy], who had already been prescribed an inhaler within the previous month to help his breathing.“Ms Allen described the room as ‘so smoke-entrenched that I had difficulty breathing’. She immediately expressed concern to the parents as to the impact of such smoke on [the boy], who had already been prescribed an inhaler within the previous month to help his breathing.
“The parents seemed unable both at that stage, and when the issue of smoking around [the boy] was raised by any other professional, to acknowledge or appreciate the concern and adapt their behaviour.”“The parents seemed unable both at that stage, and when the issue of smoking around [the boy] was raised by any other professional, to acknowledge or appreciate the concern and adapt their behaviour.”
Pemberton added: “Ms Allen ... had not come across such a smoky house in many years and never with such a poorly boy sleeping amidst the smoke.” Pemberton added: “Ms Allen … had not come across such a smoky house in many years and never with such a poorly boy sleeping amidst the smoke.”
The judge said community nursery nurse Emma Green had told how the floor of the boy’s home was “cluttered” with rubbish, including empty cigarette packets – and had said the boy’s home “often smelt very strongly of smoke”. The boy’s parents fought the case, disputing what many of the professionals had said about the cleanliness of their home. The boy’s mother insisted initially that they did not smoke in the house, but later conceded that there were occasions when the property was smoky.
Social worker Sarah Tomblin had said the boy’s toys and clothes “smelt heavily of smoke”. Giving evidence, she said the house was “sometimes cluttered but never dangerous” and was sometimes in need of tidying.
Health and social services staff had also raised other concerns about the boy’s care. However, Pemberton said she was afraid that the little boy had suffered harm. She said his parents’ care of him had fallen well below “good enough”.
The judge was told that the boy’s father had mental health problems, that there had been a decline in his parents’ engagement with agencies, that the boy’s home was “dirty, smelly and unhygienic”.
She also heard that “potential drug paraphernalia” had been spotted at the boy’s home and she said the boy’s father had tested positive for cocaine.
Pemberton said she was afraid that the little boy had suffered harm. She said his parents’ care of him had fallen well below “good enough”.
“I am afraid that all of these matters lead me to an unavoidable and difficult conclusion that the risks to [the boy] in being placed with his parents are far too high,” said the judge.“I am afraid that all of these matters lead me to an unavoidable and difficult conclusion that the risks to [the boy] in being placed with his parents are far too high,” said the judge.
“The parents have given me no confidence in their written or oral evidence that they have sufficient understanding and awareness in relation to the professionals’ concerns to ensure that such concerns would not arise again in the future.“The parents have given me no confidence in their written or oral evidence that they have sufficient understanding and awareness in relation to the professionals’ concerns to ensure that such concerns would not arise again in the future.
“Adoption really is the only option now available to [the boy]. In my view, nothing else will do.” “Adoption really is the only option now available. In my view, nothing else will do.”
She added: “I want [the boy] to know that in my judgment his parents loved him very much and tried very hard but they were simply not able to meet his needs.“ She added: “I want [the boy] to know that in my judgment his parents loved him very much and tried very hard but they were simply not able to meet his needs.”
The couple had opposed the local authority application for their son to be placed for adoption. Pemberton said the boy’s mother had disputed many of the concerns raised about conditions at home and about levels of smoke.
She had told the judge “we did not smoke in the house” and said she had been “paranoid” about cleanliness. The judge said she had found much of the woman’s evidence hard to accept.
She said the boy’s father had accepted that there was “thick smoke at the property”.