LOTUS CREGG

CAFCASS ASSESSMENT: LOTUS CREGG

By (Name)

Course

Professor’s Name

Institution

Location of Institution

Date

I have exhaustively gone through the information brought before the court. Furthermore, I have conducted visits with concerned individuals and discussed matters concerning the case.

14/02/2020- Assessment documents filed with the application.

15/02/2020 – A home visit to the child’s current residence, Julie Brigg’s home.

16/04/2020 – Telephone calls to Paula Clegg.

16/04/2020- Pupil Referral Unit (PRU).

Evidence base:

1. Three days after her birth, Lotus Clegg was placed under a child protection plan. The CP category was neglect. Charlie Clegg was to take care of her daughter (Lotus Clegg) under the supervision of Julie Brigg. The arrangement is a mother-daughter foster care plan since Charlie is 16 years. Both Charlie and Lotus have been in foster care since the baby’s birth.
2. Charlie has repeatedly and purposely gone against the rules set for her by her foster carer. She is obligated to prioritize Lotus’ care over going out, inform Julie if she leaves the house, carry her charged phone when she leaves the house, and attend all of Lotus’ appointments. Charlie has broken these rules on multiple occasions. Furthermore, the last time she left the house, she did not come back and is yet to be located.
3. Charlie tends to withhold crucial information concerning Lotus’ health and paternity. Unlike her original claim, Charlie has had sexual relations with men other than Anwar Rehman. She also abused alcohol and opium-based pills during her pregnancy. The drug use has affected the baby. Lotus needs withdrawal treatments
4. Lotus’ quality of health has decreased since her birth. The baby’s weight has reduced from the 20th to the 10th percentile.
5. Charlies’ exposer to parental neglect and possibly sexual exploitation during her upbringing makes her vulnerable as a parent. An assessment of Charlie has revealed the following:

• Charlie is a sixteen-year-old girl in need care and protection.
• She is the eldest of four children.
• Charlie was the subject of a child protection plan (sexual abuse category), while her siblings were the subjects of a CP plan (neglect category)

6. Paula Clegg still refuses to allow the baby contact with the rest of her family.

.

Evidence base:

1. The foster carer (Julie Brigg) is very attentive to both the mother and child. She teaches Charlie how to feed and care for Lotus. Her attentiveness has also ensured Lotus’ safety when Charlie fails to fulfil her duty. For instance, she was able to realize Charlie had left the house without informing her and subsequently filed a missing person’s report.
2. During her stay at the foster house, Charlie showed a willingness to care and bond with Lotus. She plays with Lotus every day and was active in her feeding and bedtime routine.
3. Lotus’ recent paediatrician visit shows that she has stopped deteriorating. Apart from her issues with feeding and her withdrawal treatment, the child is growing normally.
4. Charlie was also engaging Lotus in activities outside the house. For instance, she took her on a daily stroll on the pram and to one stay and play session.
5. Charlie also gives Lotus a natural birth.
6. The house of residence is clean and well maintained. Julie made an effort to childproof her home for the baby’s safety.
7. Lotus also has many toys and clothes.

Evidence base:

1. Charlie Clegg has a history with Social Work intervention in her own life. Before having the baby, she was under a child protection plan under the sexual abuse classification. The girl is vulnerable to a parent.
2. According to the assessments filed by previous social workers, Charlie has a history of spending many nights away from home and engaging in drug and alcohol abuse. The same traits are being seen in her current situation. She has left home several times without informing Julie of where she is going or when she is coming back. This habit makes for an unstable and unsafe environment for Lotus.
3. Charlie, willingness to leave her child for days without checking in or ensuring the baby’s welfare is a sign of neglect. Her history shows that this is likely to become a future occurrence.
4. Charlie’s family has not made contact with the baby since she was born. Furthermore, Lotus’s paternity is unknown. The number of potential caregivers (related) is minimal.
5. Charlie does not seem to be able to care for the child financially and emotionally. The fact that she also needs care as a child limits her capability.

Evidence base:

1. Lotus was born two weeks earlier than expected. Charlie’s alcohol and drug abuse during the pregnancy affected the child’s health and necessitated treatments after her birth. From her first day, Lotus was given medication for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome. She is now on withdrawal treatment. Lotus was put at risk by her mother’s drug use. Furthermore, Charlie failed to disclose her habits, therefore, denying Lotus proper medical care.
2. Lotus is a restless baby with poor feeding habits. More likely than not, these traits are a result of prenatal exposure to drugs and the treatments she is currently undergoing.
3. Additionally, Charlie’s disappearance affects the baby. Lotus recognizes Charlie as her primary bond; her mother’s absence is bound to affect the baby.

If the care order (S 31) is granted, the Local Authority may consider the following:

• Due to the possibly dubious nature of Lotus’s conception, identifying and engaging the child’s father as a possible guardian may be ill-advised. Charlie is a victim of sexual exploitation. Therefore Lotus’s father may be one of the people who exploited Charlie.
• Carry out a psychological assessment of Charlie to determine if her habits can be mitigated through rehabilitation and counselling. She might be fit to take care of Lotus in the future.

After my assessment, I have determined that Charlie Clegg has repeatedly put Lotus Clegg’s health in danger. Charlie’s habits have also resulted in her daughter’s neglect. I, therefore, agree with the application for a Care Order (S 31). The threshold of significant harm needed for such an order has been met. The child’s wellbeing must take priority.

Signed: (Student’s signature)

Name: Student’s Name

Court Social Work Role: Children’s Guardian

Date: 20/ 02/ 2020.