Case No: BT05C00916
IN THE BARNET COUNTY COURT
St Mary’s Court
Regent’s Park Road
London, N3 1BQ

Date: 18 April 2006
Before :
SIR JAMES MUNBY
(sitting as a Judge of the County Court)

In the matter of X
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
	LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET	Applicant	
	- and -		
	(1) Y
(2) X	
Respondents	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Miss Markanza Cudby (instructed by the Borough Solicitor) for the applicant (local authority)
Miss Mary Hughes (instructed by Shepherd Harris & Co) for the first respondent (mother)
Ms Jo Delahunty (instructed by Hopkin Murray Beskine) for the second respondent (child)
Miss Carol Atkinson (instructed by CAFCASS Legal Services) for the children’s guardian Ms Julia Green

Hearing dates: 29-31 March 2006 (Written submissions lodged on 4 April 2006)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
MR JUSTICE MUNBY 
This judgment was handed down in private but the judge hereby gives leave for it to be published. 
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any publication or report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the child and the adult members of her family must be strictly preserved. 
Sir James Munby : 
1.	As part of my duties and responsibilities as Family Division Liaison Judge for London I have been sitting in the Barnet County Court. I have been hearing a care case which has been transferred from the Principal Registry of the Family Division in accordance with the Barnet Family Court pilot. The case is and remains in the County Court (technically in the PRFD). I have heard the case as a County Court judge. My powers as a County Court judge under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 are, of course, just as extensive as if I had been sitting as a High Court judge. 
2.	The case concerns a teenage girl, X, who was born on 26 August 1991. She is of mixed Turkish-Cypriot and Egyptian heritage. Her two older siblings, who are not the subject of any proceedings, live with her mother, as X did before the events which gave rise to these proceedings. X’s father does not have parental responsibility and has played no part in the proceedings. 
3.	By the summer of 2004, when she was still not yet thirteen years old, her mother was very worried about X’s behaviour. She felt that X was beyond her control. X was having inappropriate – and, her mother feared, sexual – relationships with much older boys and young men, she was hardly attending school, she was staying out increasingly late and at times not coming back at all, and her mother was fairly sure she had been abusing drugs. X has in fact admitted use of cannabis. During periods when she absconds she does not care adequately for herself and has as times presented as ill-kempt, tired, unfed and unwell.  
4.	In the autumn of 2004 matters deteriorated. X ran away from her mother’s home on 8 July 2004, 6 September 2004, 12 September 2004, 2 November 2004 and 22 November 2004. On 4 September 2004 and again on 13 September 2004 her mother asked that X be taken into care. On 7 December 2004 X was accommodated by the local authority under section 20 of the Act and placed with a foster carer from whose home she went missing on 11 December 2004. After staying with an aunt she was placed with another foster carer on 20 December 2004. She went missing on 23 December 2004, returning briefly the next day, but again going missing and not returning until 29 December 2004, when after a brief visit she again went missing. The local authority did not know where she was and the police were unable to find her. 
5.	On 6 January 2005 the local authority commenced care proceedings in the Haringey Family Proceedings Court on the grounds (a) that X had suffered physical and emotional harm whilst in her mother’s care and (b) that she was beyond parental control. The application was supported by a statement from the allocated social worker, SF, dated 7 January 2005. On 8 January 2005 X returned to her mother’s home. On 14 January 2005 the FPC made an interim care order which has been renewed ever since. The same day X was placed in ABC, a children’s residential unit in London. Arrangements were made for X to start at the Z school on 17 January 2005. On the evening of the same day (17 January 2005) X went out from ABC and did not return until about 1am the following morning. On 18 January 2005 there were difficulties at school. X walked out. On 22 January 2005 X went out of ABC at 9pm and stayed out late. She was missing from ABC from 22 to 25 January 2005, when she returned briefly before again going missing. On 28 January 2005 a collection order was made by the High Court. X was found by the police on 31 January 2005 and taken on 1 February 2005 to an Active 8 unit in Derbyshire to undertake a 28-day activity programme.  
6.	On 16 February 2006 SF filed another statement. After a detailed description of events before and since X’s placement at ABC on 14 January 2005, SF made this observation:
 “[X] managed to sustain her placement at [ABC] for 7 days before she began to abscond again. Whilst at [ABC] [X] had began to share her feelings before she absconded. The local authority is of the view that [X] will be able to engage with staff at [ABC] once she is returned there.” 
7.	That has to be read in the context of the following revealing and prescient passage in the Active 8 end of placement report in respect of X dated 7 March 2005:
 “Although the environment with Active 8 Care was incredibly different to what [X] had previously been used to, staff felt that she adapted incredibly well to her new surroundings. [X] appeared to surprise herself with how much she ultimately enjoyed the placement. Staff were very pleased with the amount of effort that [X] put into everything that she did, and exceptionally happy with the amount of help that [X] provided whilst on camp. [X] does appear to be easily influenced by her peers and older associates and this will need carefu1 management and constant monitoring upon [X]’s return to London. Staff feel that whilst [X] continues to associate with older male friends her risk taking behaviour and absconding will continue.” 
8.	X returned to ABC on 28 February 2005 and to the Z school on 9 March 2005. She left ABC at 1.10pm on 1 March 2005 and did not return until 4.20pm on 3 March 2005. She was out late at night and into the early hours of the morning on 20 March, 22 March, 9 April, 10 April, and 13 April 2005. On 18 April 2005 she left at 9.08pm and did not return until 6.05pm the next day (19 April 2005). She left again at 9.06pm and did not return until 1.30pm the next day (20 April 2005). She was out again late in the evening of 20 April 2005. She was reported missing to the police on 28 April 2005. She absconded again overnight on 9 May 2005. On 31 March 2005 a 16-year old youth had been found in X’s room at ABC at 12.15am. She was seen kissing him outside ABC on 3 April 2005 at 2pm and again at 10pm. On 25 April 2005 X was excluded temporarily from school for one day. She refused to return to school on 27 April 2005. 
9.	A looked after children (LAC) review was held on 6 April 2005. It decided that a placement planning meeting should be arranged within two weeks. In the event it was held on 13 April 2005. I have not seen the minutes but according to the local authority’s evidence the placement finding meeting decided that the ABC placement was to continue in the short/medium term and that a placement agreement meeting should be arranged to coordinate what were described as “some achievable goals for the placement to continue at [ABC].” The placement agreement meeting was held on 21 April 2005. Again, I have not seen the minutes but according to the local authority’s evidence the view of the meeting was that “returning [X] to [ABC] after she returned from Active8 programme was, in retrospect, not the best placement for her.” The view was that ABC could not keep X safe in London. The decision was that a specialist foster placement outside London would provide X with some space to attempt to be settled. On 13 May 2005 X was placed with a specialist foster carer in Devon. 
10.	The local authority’s first care plan is purportedly dated 10 May 2005 but internal evidence – reference to the events of 13 May 2005 – shows that it cannot have been completed until 13 May 2005. It was in fact signed on 17 May 2005 by AG, who had been X’s allocated social worker since 4 March 2005, and by the team leader AH. This care plan was written against the background of the fact that on 22 March 2005 the FPC had fixed the final hearing of the proceedings for three days starting on 17 October 2005. 
11.	Summarising how X’s needs might be met the care plan said this: 
“The local authority recognises that residential care can be beneficial for some children, however, there has been little real evidence to suggest that [X] can not manage a family situation. [X] had not stayed in her previous foster placement for a long enough period to determine that a foster placement was not the appropriate placement. She will need to be afforded the opportunity to be shown that a family placement can contain and provide for her needs eg; (rebelliousness, absconding, risky behaviour such as associating with adult males, need for appropriate, consistent adult figures, poor self esteem). 
[X]’s needs can be met if she is placed with a strong, nurturing, robust and confident experienced foster carer. [X] needs to have firm boundaries, she needs to feel that the adults surrounding are in control, allowing [X] to be a thirteen-yearold child.” 
The care plan continued: 
“[X] was to be placed with a specialist experience foster carer in … Devon on the 13th of May 2005. However, she absconded in transit [there] and telephoned her mother to collect her. She was eventually placed on 15th May 2005 and will remain there for the foreseeable future and while the necessary assessments are completed, in order to formulate a long term care plan. A short-term placement can mean a placement of up to two years. 
[X] has been placed in a placement in Devon, where is it envisaged she could remain for up to two years, if necessary. 
The placement is expected to last until the final hearing in October 2005, depending upon the outcome of the assessments in these proceedings.” 
12.	AG filed a statement on 17 May 2005. It was countersigned by AH. After a detailed survey of events since 28 February 2005, and an account of the meetings on 13 and 21 April 2005, AG expressed his own views in the following revealing passage: 
“In hindsight I feel that it may have been better to have moved into a different placement following her twenty eight days programme with Active8, possibly in a specialist foster placement. The twenty eight days away from the London area created space for [X], but it was not long enough to enable [X] to address her own internal boundaries. [X] returning to the same environment may have been an immediate distraction. [X]  perhaps needed to be away for a longer period to begin understanding other ways of addressing her own behaviours with some therapeutic intervention and a smaller number of people within the home setting. [X] returned to her former pattern of absconding, episodes of going missing. Reports received from [ABC] had suggested that [X] was doing much better than she actually was. [ABC] considered that it was worth giving [X] another chance.” 
13.	He continued: 
“It was my professional opinion that [X] would benefit from such a foster placement as she could receive a more loving and nurturing and caring environment, it would also help with the preparation for [X] eventually returning home with her family, if all expert assessments recommend that course of action. If [X] had continued to remain in this residential placement at [ABC] with other young people who had far more serious and complex issues than [X] she may have eventually begun to copy their negative behaviour.” 
14.	He added: 
“[X] in my opinion needs a strong, nurturing, robust and confident experienced foster carer. [X] needs to have firm boundaries, she needs to feel, that the adults are in control, allowing [X] to be a thirteen-year-old child. 
I had concerns about [X]’s placement at [ABC]; [X] was able to manipulate and divide staff. I had concerns that the environment was not suitable for [X]’s needs and that the placement did not provide sufficient control to contain [X]. I had concerns that [X] should be placed in a setting where there are not multiple carers on rotation. For this reason the local authority then began looking for suitable foster placement. 
I had come to the opinion that [X] should be given the opportunity to be placed with a professional experienced foster carer. This particular foster carer with whom she is now placed has a history of providing care for individual challenging young people such as [X]. The geographical change, from London to … Devon will provide [X] with time and space with an opportunity to become settled.” 
15.	He concluded: 
“If the current foster placement breaks down the local authority will consider a further specialist foster placement. Once the report of Dr Eyre has been received the local authority will consider its future long term plan.” 
I should explain that on 22 March 2005 the FPC had given directions for the preparation of a report by Dr Richard Eyre, a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist. 
16.	As I have said, on 13 May 2005 X was placed with a specialist foster carer in Devon. Cracks soon began to appear. X made complaints about her foster carer on 7 June 2005 and again on 16 June 2005. On the latter occasion she went missing for a brief period having apparently gone off to a nightclub in a car with a male. By 17 June 2005 the view was being expressed that her foster carer could no longer keep X safe. Her behaviour was described as “continues to deteriorate”. The placement broke down in the early hours of 23 June 2005 after X threatened to kill her foster carer. Later the same day she was placed at XYZ, a children’s home also in Devon.  
17.	X’s social worker, AG, left at the end of June 2005 and on 5 July 2005 – just after the foster placement had broken down – WG took over as X’s allocated social worker. He filed his first witness statement on 16 August 2005.  
18.	At this point I must go back a little. On 22 March 2005, as I have said, and again on 17 May 2005, the FPC gave directions for the preparation of a report by Dr Eyre. His report is dated 22 July 2005. On 25 July 2005, and again on 5 September 2005, the FPC gave directions for the preparation of an addendum report by Dr Eyre. He produced it in the form of a letter dated 15 September 2005. 
19.	Dr Eyre’s report of 22 July 2005 is a detailed, compelling and vitally important document. He had read all the papers and interviewed X on 5 June 2005 and again on 2 July 2005. He also interviewed X’s mother on the latter date. He had been asked to address various specific questions. Asked to comment on the significance of X’s risk taking behaviour and the pattern of absconding he said: 
“This relates back to the earlier discussion of the attachment problems and the quality of the relationship between [X] and her mother particularly around the difficulties they have over boundaries as she moves towards adolescence. One area that has not yet been touched upon is that of [X]’s self image or self esteem. The trauma of sexual abuse and the helplessness and guilt which it induces have powerfully undermined her self esteem. Appropriate boundary setting and concern from the mother at this point can be interpreted by a child with very low self esteem as further criticism and confirmation of low worth. When such communication is overlaid with a degree of anxiety and a strong feeling which the mother in this case has as a result of her own earlier experiences then the effect may be even more powerful and feel almost intolerable for [X], such that actively resisting or indeed getting away and absconding become risky but worthwhile responses from her point of view. Risk taking is a way of boosting self esteem through providing excitement and incident and drawing significant attention to oneself even though that could be ultimately harmful or damaging.” 

20.	Asked to comment on X’s specific therapeutic needs and the timescales he said: 
“The first need is for adequate containment. Although this could be seen as a placement issue it is in fact a therapeutic need. Until [X] can experience meaningful boundaries which she understands and can benefit from over time it will be difficult for her to settle and begin to reflect on what she hears from the adults looking after her, and indeed to begin to work therapeutically. She will benefit from all the adults looking after her having clear communication between themselves and consistency in approach. She will benefit from individual psychotherapy … I would suggest that one is looking for at least a year of consistent containment and therapy before planning for any change.” 
21.	Asked to comment on immediate and long term placement needs he said: 
“At this time I do not think that [X] should return to her mother’s care. The current placement has the potential to provide adequate containment and structure and I would recommend that it should be seen as medium term and possibly right through to sixteen depending on progress. The most optimistic outcome would be that she could remain for about a year and have intensive psychotherapy with a gradual move towards involving conjoint sessions with her mother and perhaps a negotiation of a return home in time. This should not be seen as a clear recommendation but merely an indication of the very best possible outcome. I think it is probably more realistic to plan towards sixteen and build in therapy throughout that time. In addition I believe the local authority should seek to secure therapeutic support for [the mother], plus for there to be occasional meetings engaging the extended family.” 
22.	As I have said, WG had filed his first witness statement on 16 August 2005. In it he acknowledged that the local authority might not have used the foster carers in Devon if all the relevant information had been available. Referring to the placement at XYZ – which by then was in its eighth week – he said: 
“staff at [XYZ] have been resilient and willing to challenge [X] and robustly and in a confident manner set out clear expectations for her conduct … 
To date [X] has only absented herself on one occasion from the unit when she went off site for approximately 4 hours without permission. 
I recognise that this routine at [XYZ] has challenged [X] considerably. She is a young woman who likes her freedom and feels she can do what she wants to do. There have been ‘battles’ with [X] where she has had to relinquish control. 
It is very much to [X]’s credit that she successfully completed a 4-day visit to a relative” 
23.	He added: 
“There is a real sense that her current placement is a good placement and is doing an excellent job but it is still early days. [X] requires a safe and contained placement from which to form a platform to address and confront the underlying issues, which will enable some of the work to be undertaken which will underpin any good rehabilitation plan.” 
24.	On 5 September 2005 the local authority filed its second care plan. Summarising how X’s needs might be met it said: 
“[X] has been through a series of placements, which have not worked out for her. Her current placement is proving to be much more successful. This placement started on the 23rd June 2004. Clearly it is recognised that it is ‘early days’. [X] has done remarkably well in this placement. The plan is for [X] to now remain at [XYZ] whilst further work is undertaken, which will take [X] on the road to rehabilitation within her family. The key element of the work to be undertaken is the ongoing need for containment. Dr Eyre states in his expert report that this in itself is therapeutic. Once [X] is more settled she will be able to begin to reflect on what she hears from the adults looking after her and indeed to begin to work therapeutically.” 
25.	Referring to the placement details and timetable it said: 
“The plan is for [X] to remain at her current residential unit in Devon. This will provide the boundaries for [X] whilst work is undertaken to inform how viable rehabilitation is. Funding for the placement is in place for 3 months. This will be reviewed at this stage. There is recognition that this placement is likely to be required for at least 6 months. 
[X] is settling into her short-term care unit; short-term care is ordinarily up to two years. [X] will be 14 years old later this month. Family Finding Meetings have been convened to consider [X]’s care needs, the last such meeting was on 13 April 2005. The current care plan is looking at rehabilitation in the future, in the event of this not being achievable the local authority will continue to provide care for [X] until such a time as she’s ready to live independently. Consideration would be required as to whether her current residential unit should become her permanent placement if a return home is felt not to be achievable. 
The current timescales are broadly set out as 3-6 months, before it becomes clear whether rehabilitation is achievable, however there is recognition that this will need to be reviewed at 3 monthly intervals. In the event of rehabilitation not being achievable further consideration will needs to be given to [X]’s longer term placement.” 
26.	In relation to arrangements for reunification it said: 
“The current plan is to test whether rehabilitation is achievable. Six months into her current placement will be a critical time in terms of evaluating whether this continues to be achievable.” 
Given that the placement at XYZ had started on 23 June 2005 that would have taken matters to Christmas 2005. 
27.	On 22 March 2005, as I have said, the FPC had fixed the final hearing of the proceedings for three days starting on 17 October 2005. That hearing was vacated on 5 September 2005. 
28.	On 15 September 2005 Dr Eyre expressed his views on a number of questions which had been raised by X’s solicitor. Asked about the suitability of the current placement he said: 
“although I have been updated about significant events concerning [X], I believe the placement continues to be suitable and that it also remains appropriate as a mixed sex unit, tasked with helping young people keep appropriate boundaries with regard to their behaviour, and to understand the implications of their own motivations to transgress those boundaries.” 
29.	In relation to the proposed length of placement he said: 
“Given the history of recurrent placement disruption and breakdown I believe it is wise to place some priority on attaining a constituency of support for [X] over time which she hopefully cannot easily disrupt or dismantle. I share a wish for the local authority care plan to be successful and lead to significant change but I would be cautious about linking a move home with the experience of one or two possibly positive therapy sessions. The risks of a return home and further breakdown after all of this intensive help and resourcing include professionals fatigue and hopelessness as well as the impact on [X] herself. Such an outcome would not bode well for her progress towards her sixteenth birthday which is still some two years away.” 
He added: 
“There is also an issue about continuity for [X] at this time in her life. There have been long term concerns about her education and the next two years working towards GCSE examinations demand a degree of continuity which a change of school half way through might compromise.” 
30.	WG made another statement on 16 September 2005 dealing with the local authority’s plans for X’s education and a third statement on 22 September 2005 dealing with its plans for therapy for X. In his second statement, plainly written without sight of Dr Eyre’s report of the day before, WG said: 
“At the preliminary meeting held between all parties on the morning of the hearing of 5th September 2005, the local authority interim care plan to meet [X]’s educational needs was explained as amounting to provision of three months intensive individual education in her placement in Devon. It was felt that this would enable [X] to catch up with the work that she had missed in Year 9 and enable her to proceed more smoothly in to Year 10 after the Christmas break. It was felt that this was more consistent with the overall plan to re-unify [X] with her family in London. For the same reason it was felt inappropriate to enrol [X] at a local school/college in Devon – which would then need to be disrupted in three months time … 
At the hearing of 5th September, both [X] and her mother were determined that [X] should return home immediately to allow her to attend her old school from the outset of the new spring term 2006. Mrs [T] (Year Head) had indicated that this would be more acceptable from an educational perspective. 
All other parties were opposed to this and wanted [X] to return to her placement in Devon. Following the hearing I was able to impress both mother and daughter that [X] should return and I escorted [X] to her placement.” 
31.	This thinking was in line with the views expressed by XYZ in a letter to the local authority dated 14 September 2005: 
“[X]’s placement plan is for her to hopefully return home in three to six months and it is therefore not thought to be appropriate for her to be introduced into mainstream school in Devon. However she would clearly benefit from some individual tutoring to prevent her from falling too far behind prior to moving back to London.” 
32.	In his third statement, written after he had considered Dr Eyre’s latest report, WG said: 
“The local authority would like to support the plan for rehabilitation but recognise it is still very early days in respect to her current placement. A suggested timescale of 3-6 months is set out. [X]’s progress towards this ultimate goal will be reviewed on an ongoing basis by the social worker, and the placement [panel,] and more formally by all professional parties at least every three months.” 
He also referred to a professionals meeting that had taken place on 22 September 2005, attended by WG, AH, the local authority’s solicitor, the guardian and her solicitor and (by telephone) Dr Eyre. At this meeting what he called a determined effort had been made to reach a consensus around the most contentious issues surrounding the local authority’s care plan. He concluded with the observation that “[X] is continuing in general to make excellent progress.” 
33.	On 13 October 2005 the Haringey FPC transferred the proceedings to the Barnet FPC. On 2 November 2005 the Barnet FPC transferred the proceedings to Barnet County Court. (Technically the transfer was to the PRFD, because the Barnet County Court is not a care centre and the transfer was in accordance with the Barnet Family Court pilot, but nothing turns on that.) On 23 November 2005 there was an allocation hearing at Barnet County Court before a District Judge who gave various directions including a direction that the final hearing was to take place before Her Honour Judge Levy for three days starting on 15 May 2006. The District Judge also gave the parties leave to instruct Dr Eyre jointly to prepare a further addendum report by 16 December 2005. The local authority was ordered to file its final care plan by 13 April 2006. 
34.	I think it will be useful to pause at this point to take stock of how matters appeared to stand – that is, appeared to the court, the guardian and the mother to stand – as at the date when the case was transferred from the Barnet FPC to Barnet County Court. Essentially, the position was as set out in the care plan dated 5 September 2005. X was placed at XYZ. The plan was for rehabilitation to her mother. It was envisaged that that might not take place for somewhere between three and six months. Accordingly the care plan envisaged that the placement at XYZ was “likely” to be required for at least six months. The care plan recognised that rehabilitation might not be possible, in which event, as the care plan also recognised, consideration would have to be given to XYZ becoming X’s permanent placement. 
35.	I must now, however, go back to recount what had been happening largely ‘behind the scenes’. I have referred to the LAC review meeting on 6 April 2005. There were further LAC review meetings on 22 July 2005 and 24 November 2005. X’s case was also considered by the local authority’s placement panel on 9 June 2005, 23 June 2005, 7 July 2005, 11 August 2005, 18 August 2005, 22 September 2005, 24 November 2005, 15 December 2005, 22 December 2005 and 12 January 2006. 
36.	I should explain how the placement panel operates. It meets every Thursday from 1pm until 5 or 5.30pm. The panel usually consists of three or four senior managers. At each meeting it deals with the cases of some 12-15 children. Each case takes some 1015 or at most some 15-20 minutes. There are no papers. The panel reaches its decision on the basis of a largely oral presentation by the child’s social worker. The meeting is supposed to be provided by the social worker with a completed pro-forma. It is two sides of A4 paper. The first side contains three boxes. One box when completed sets out the placement details, including feedback from the social worker and the child, and the placement plan. Two more boxes deal with health and education. The second side contains two boxes. In one the presenting social worker sets out what is being requested of the placement panel. The other box, which is supposed to be completed at the meeting, records “Discussions / Decisions / Actions”. The decisions of the panel are also recorded, usually quite briefly, in the minutes. It is a fact that although, as I have indicated, X’s case was considered by the placement panel on no fewer than ten occasions between 9 June 2005 and 12 January 2005, on only two occasions (9 June 2005 and 11 August 2005) was the pro-forma completed and presented to the panel. On each of the other eight occasions the panel came to its conclusions without the benefit of anything at all in writing. Its thought processes on these occasions can only be reconstructed, if at all, by reference to the brief minutes. 
37.	I can pick the story up at the placement panel meeting on 23 June 2005, the day that X’s foster placement in Devon broke down and she was placed at XYZ. The panel authorised the placement on an emergency basis and decided that X was to stay at XYZ “until professionals meeting and further decisions made.” On that occasion the case had been presented by the social worker, AG. On the next occasion, 7 July 2005, the case was presented to panel by the team leader, AH. The minutes read: 
“[X] is at present in a residential unit in Devon and doing well. [X] does not meet the threshold for residential and the CT needs to look for a foster placement. Dr Ayers [sic] went to Devon to complete report and will recommend [X] receives therapy. Commissioning Team have 28 days to find placement as back in court for directions hearing on 15th July 2005.” 
38.	On 15 August 2005 AH sent an e-mail to the members of the panel suggesting that the minutes of the meeting on 7 July 2005 did not accurately reflect what had been decided. She set out her understanding that no deadline had been set for X’s removal from XYZ. She said: 
“the absolute priority was to concentrate on getting a grip on her risky behaviour. I asked that we do not pull her out of a placement if we are making progress … I am aware of the need to look beyond this placement but suggested 12 weeks was more realistic.” 
She asked the panel members to review the minutes. Her request seems to have been ignored. 
39.	On 22 July 2005 the LAC review meeting took place. It recognised that X’s placement at XYZ had gone well. It decided that the placement there should continue for at least a further three months. It recognised that if X could not be rehabilitated, either to her mother or within the wider family, she would remain looked after, in which case “there needs to be a decision as to where this should be.” The minutes record that twin track planning had started and needed to continue. 
40.	On 11 August 2005 the placement panel was advised that the original placement at XYZ for three months “is now likely to extend to 6 months.” The pro-forma recorded WG’s view that the placement was “going well” and that the “care plan to court is setting out a rehab[ilitation] timescale of 3-6 months (minimum) reviewable.” The panel “agreed to review in 3 months will be prepared to continue for a further 3 months.” A week later on 18 August 2005 the placement panel refused to fund therapy work with X by a particular private practitioner on account of “the extensively high costs”. It agreed in principle to fund private therapy but required the social worker to “present a more cost effective proposal.” 
41.	On 16 September 2005 there was a meeting at the Tavistock Clinic to discuss X’s case. The meeting was attended by, amongst others, the social worker WG. The minutes record WG saying that “the information given to Dr Eyre was extremely biased” and that Dr Eyre is “biased by them” – them, being a reference, as is apparent from the minutes, to X’s guardian and the guardian’s solicitor. (I note in passing that the minutes, in the form in which I have them, record a number of objections by WG to their accuracy: there is no objection by him to the accuracy of the minutes on this point.) I should make it clear that, in my judgment, there was and is absolutely no substance in any of these complaints. They are quite groundless and I do not see what basis there was at the time for making them. 
42.	On 22 September 2005 the placement panel again considered the funding of therapy. The minutes record WG and AH having told the panel that X was “doing well in placement”, that they “could be looking at her return home as early as Xmas”, but that the guardian was saying that she should not return home before she had therapy. The private notes taken by one member of the panel, DG, record “reunite with Mum? can changes be sustained.” The panel agreed to a short term block of private therapy for the next three months “with explicit instruction that this will not be long term psychotherapy.” The panel added that “Tavistock / CAMHS should be able to do this once case is out of court arena.” 
43.	On 17 October 2005 WG was expressing the view in an e-mail copied to the guardian that “[X] should receive therapeutic support within 2 weeks as she is especially vulnerable at present”. 
44.	On 2 November 2005 the team manager, AH, sent the social worker, WG, an e-mail saying “early rehab[ilitation] is now not achievable”. In the local authority’s care plan dated 22 February 2006 (see below) it is recorded that it had become apparent by early November that rehabilitation was “unlikely to be achievable.” Certainly by the middle or end of November 2005 rehabilitation had been all but ruled out as a realistic possibility. 
45.	On 15 November 2005 Dr Eyre sent WG an e-mail in which he said “my view is still that the placement may be most useful to [X] if we can confirm it is to continue to the summer and she can start mainstream school down there with the close support of the [XYZ] staff”. 
46.	On 23 November 2005, as I have said, there was an allocation hearing before a District Judge. The following day (24 November 2005) there was both a LAC review and a meeting of the placement panel. The minutes of the LAC review record that “the placement at [XYZ] is meeting [X]’s needs at least in the short-medium term and will continue until the longer-term plan is established.” The minutes also record the LAC review as deciding that: 
“the assessments of SSD, of the child psychiatrist and the Guardian will guide the long-term care plan, which could be rehabilitation with [X]’s mother or at least an extended family member or remaining looked after. If the latter, there needs to be a decision as to where this should be… Twin Track planning has started and needs to continue.” 
47.	Neither the social worker, WG, nor the team leader, AH, attended the meeting of the placement panel. X’s case was presented by another social worker, with a request to extend the placement for 3-6 months. The minutes record: 
“Panel not agreeing to extension. Social worker needs to come to the panel again and explain why care plan has now changed as she was working towards a return home.” 
The same day AH e-mailed WG:  
“Can you get [X] to panel on 1/12. In order to progress the care plan funding needs to be in place. When we were in court 4 weeks ago we had said this should go to panel before her LAC review. I know you are very busy but this does need shoe horning in”. 
48.	X’s case was not put before the placement panel on 1 December 2005, nor on 8 December 2005, despite another e-mail from AH to WG on 2 December 2005: 
“Can you get [X] to panel on 8/12. In order to progress the care plan funding needs to be in place.” 
49.	The case was put before the placement panel on 15 December 2005. Again, neither WG nor AH was at the meeting. The case was presented by another social worker, who requested that funding at the current level continue for three more months. What then happened is recorded in an e-mail he sent WG later that day which provides a rather fuller account than the very terse minutes: 
“I attended the panel and began my spiel but was immediately stopped by the Chair who told me to ask you and [AH] to return next week to make your case in person. 
The Chair did say that the panel had agreed to a time limited placement when [X] first moved to Devon and her [scil, the Chair’s] attitude did not suggest that they would easily change that decision.” 
50.	This report prompted an e-mail later the same day (15 December 2005) from AH to WG: 
“I anticipated Panel would not deal with this request in your absence … 
I had anticipated the matter of funding would be addressed prior to her LAC review on 24/11 in order that there could be some greater clarity in planning beyond early Jan 06. (This was what was indicated in the court negotiations in October.) Her funding runs out beginning of January, this is running very close to the wire.” 
51.	X’s case was brought back before the placement panel on 22 December 2005, being presented on this occasion by AH. The minutes record: 
“[X] is doing well at her current placement. There are positive changes in her behaviour and she has not been reported missing from this placement. Social worker’s manager is of the view that any change in her placement at this time might have a negative impact on her development. Request to extend current placement until Easter. 
Decision: Panel advised social worker and manager to come back to the panel on 12.01.06.” 
52.	By then X was in London having a planned home visit with her mother which had started on 17 December 2005 and was intended to last until 2 January 2006. However, it became apparent on 30 December 2005 that things were not going well – neither was getting on with the other by this stage and X was leaving home without permission and not telling her mother where she was – and it was decided to return X to XYZ earlier than had been planned. She returned there the same day. 
53.	On 9 January 2006 a meeting in Devon was held to discuss X starting mainstream school there. WG had been asked to attend but did not. The meeting was re-arranged so that WG could attend.  
54.	WG seems to have seen the writing on the wall for, on 10 January 2006, he telephoned XYZ to tell them confidentially that X’s case had gone to panel and that “it was possible that the placement would end sooner than he had wanted”.  
55.	His warning was prescient for that is precisely what happened at the placement panel on 12 January 2006. X’s case was presented to the panel by AH and WG. They sought an extension of her placement. They were turned down. The minutes read: 
“Requested that extra funding is available for an extension on placement. Previously agreed for external residential, education & other. Guardian feels that [X] is at particular risk in the London area. [X] spent two weeks over Christmas with her Mum & Aunt. Discussed what support / work done to rehab[ilitate] the child to parent. Discussed difficulties of differing professional reports / views on her future, psychiatrist recommendations, court.” 
The minutes then continue with a reference to what it is clear on the evidence I have heard was not the advice to the panel of AH and WG but rather the decision of the panel or instruction of the panel to the social workers: 
“The plan needs to be for her to return to London to a local placement and return to mainstream school in London. Will issue notice on the placement. 
Decision: No extra funding agreed, notice to be issued now and a planned return home / London for [X].” 
56.	There was no pro-forma for the meeting of the placement panel on 12 January 2006. Nor had either WG or AH prepared any written report or other written presentation for the meeting. WG took to the meeting a bundle of documents for the panel to study: the minutes of the LAC review on 22 July 2005, the case synopsis put before the court on 23 November 2005 and the order made by the District Judge at that hearing, the formal decision of the LAC review on 24 November 2005 and three reports from Devon about X’s placement at XYZ. He did not take the care plan dated 5 September 2005. It did not matter. It was accepted before me by MI, who chaired the panel, that the panel did not look at any of the papers brought by WG!     
57.	On 16 January 2005 the relevant notice was sent to XYZ, though it was not received until 19 January 2006. On the same day (16 January 2006) WG told both XYZ and X’s mother on the telephone what had been decided. Also on the same day the rearranged meeting in Devon took place to discuss X’s schooling. Again, WG did not attend. When telephoned and asked for information he said “there was no point in them admitting [X] as the placement was finishing in … Devon”. The next day (17 January 2006) WG visited X’s mother. He records that the discussion went round in circles, the mother being unconvinced that it was better for X to be back in London. At about the same time X was told what had been decided. 
58.	The same day (17 January 2006) WG prepared a written “Urgent update & risk assessment” on X. It began with an account of what had happened at the panel the previous week: 
“[The placement panel] undertook a further assessment and felt that [X] had made insufficient movement towards her central Care Planning goal, namely her rehabilitation with her mother in London. They were conscious of avoiding “drift” in her current Devon placement as well as 
o	Lack of sufficient progress in curbing some of the central concerns around [X]’s sexual promiscuity 
o	Lack of progress in developing relationship between mother and daughter 
o	The seemingly poor response by [X] to the much vaunted psychotherapeutic counselling – which had proved so difficult and expensive to put in place 
o	Continuing separation from her family / Turkish-Cypriot culture 
o	Severance from mainstream education for over a year 
To counterbalance these “negatives” it was also noted that: 
o	[X] needed to be given enormous credit as she has not absconded once over the past 8 months, which is in dramatic contrast to her previous chaotic absconsions history 
o	She has maintained a stable placement over this period which is again in dramatic contrast to her previous chaotic placement breakdown history 
o	She has had relatively successful home visits to her mum and aunt 
o	She has had sex with boys on only 3 occasions that we are aware of, and this is again in marked contrast to her previous behaviour 
o	She has successfully completed her intensive individual educational tuition over the past 3 months to prepare her for a resumption to Year 10.” 

59.	It then continued with the following appraisal by WG: “Perversely perhaps, the logic of these positive factors also supports her return to the London area as [X]’s primary motivation in maintaining her positive changes has been her desire to return to her mother in the London area. I am fearful that if she begins to believe that despite her best efforts nothing seems to have shifted in the thinking of those charged with her care then she will slip back to the chaotic pattern of indiscriminate sexual encounters and recurrent absconsions that characterised her life before my arrival last July.” 
60.	He continued by setting out that: 
“I do not consider that rehabilitation with the mother would be feasible at this stage. There are no other family members that are either willing or / and suitable to care for [X] on a full-time basis.” 
He expressed the view that X needed “a highly structured residential placement.” In effect, though not in so many words, he seems to have contemplated, though without explicitly recommending, that this placement would be in London. According to WG the assessment was shown in draft to both MI, the area director who had chaired the placement panel on 12 January 2006, and AH, both of whom made minor amendments. According to WG, he was advised by MI to “run it past our legal before sending it out” and he sent it to the legal department on 19 January 2006. 
61.	The guardian did not discover what had happened until 19 January 2006 (the day when, it will be recalled, XYZ received the formal notice from the local authority) when she was telephoned by XYZ. A letter written to her later the same day by XYZ records a telephone conversation earlier in the day between WG and XYZ when WG said that the decision to end X’s placement “had been taken at a higher level than himself & that it was not ‘up for negotiation’.” The same letter records that, when contacted by XYZ about the events of the last few days, the guardian was “totally unaware of what had been happening”. 
62.	The simple, if lamentable, fact is that at no time had the local authority alerted the guardian or any of the parties to any potential difficulties about the continued funding of X’s placement at XYZ. As a result the decision on 12 January 2006 came out of the blue so far as both the guardian and the mother were concerned.  
63.	On 24 January 2006 Dr Eyre produced his report. It was apparently received by the local authority shortly before close of business on 25 January 2005 (a Wednesday). Dr Eyre’s ‘conclusions’ are so important that I should set them out in full: 

“[X] is settled in her placement. She is responding well to the structure and support available. She is now showing a glimmer of insight and more preparedness to acknowledge strong and unpleasant feelings which may underlie some of her behaviours. 
Whilst [X] claims to be ready for individual therapy it is perhaps predictable that she throws some doubts on her capacity or willingness to work with the counsellor recently engaged. I believe that [X] has spent a long time now defending against her feelings of shame, helplessness and distress following her experiences. It is not surprising that although intellectually she can see the reason for having counselling, emotionally she may find it difficult to engage and take the risk of becoming distressed by the work. It is important to stress that in my view she is more likely to use such input when she is in the supported placement that she now has. The contrasts with trying to start this work while she is at home dealing with the difficulties in her relationship with her mother, as well as coming into contact with a familiar but at times disruptive peer group, is a stark one indeed. If one adds in the reintegration into school one could also accept the hypothesis that behind [X]’s confident exterior will be an anxious young person who will really need the support of the care home staff, counsellor and good liaison with school in order to make things work and fee1 safe for her. Again I don't feel that she will be contained and reassured sufficiently in attempting the move if she is at home with her mother and returning to the area and school and peers associated with her previous trauma and out of control behaviours. 
I think it is unlikely that … her mother, would be able to refrain from high levels of worrying for her daughter, enquiring after her, and looking for constant reassurance with regard to her safety. All of these are perfectly understandable but at this time unlikely to be very helpful in ensuring that [X] feels settled and safely looked after. 
The capacity for [X] to successfully reintegrate into mainstream education, and to come out with some positive attainment by the time she is sixteen is likely to have long term effects with regard to her future self esteem and prognosis. For the reasons above it seems that this would be best attempted in Devon. 
[Mother] is now in support of both the placement and the plan to extend the stay until it is clear that [X] has made some significant changes. 
Overall I believe that my opinion remains fundamentally unchanged from that set out in both my first report and in my letter … of 15th  September 2005. I believe there is much to be said for considering a long term placement right through to GCSE’s. If things are going well by the summer of 2006 there may be a temptation to return [X] home to London, but I would counsel extreme caution, since any “relapse” could be massively destabilizing and destructive and undermine all the progress made.” 
64.	The guardian was so concerned about what had happened, and the manner in which the decision had been taken, that she took steps to have the matter re-listed in court before Her Honour Judge Levy on 31 January 2006 (the following Tuesday). Her concerns are set out in the position statement, dated 31 January 2006, prepared by her solicitor for the hearing before Judge Levy: 
“Neither [XYZ] nor the children’s guardian knew that the local authority intended to take his course of action. The guardian is still unclear as to why this decision was taken … The local authority has failed to provide the parties with a coherent plan for [X] in the light of their changed care plan. The guardian therefore has no idea where the local authority are placing [X] in the event that she should return to London and where or what structures will be put in place to support [X]. [XYZ] have expressed serious concerns about [X]’s potential return to London. It is clear that this issue requires to be addressed urgently. The guardian is very concerned that the local authority have not seen fit to provide this information or indeed consult with her over this issue. The local authority also appear to have disregarded the views of Dr Eyre”. 
Judge Levy also had before her a statement from X in which she said that her wishes and feelings were not being properly presented to the court and that she wished to be represented separately. 
65.	Judge Levy made a detailed order, adjourning the matter until 14 February 2006 and directing the local authority to file and serve by 3 February 2006 a comprehensive statement detailing, inter alia, the reasoning behind their change of care plan and an explanation of their failure to communicate or consult with the guardian or the mother, detailed information about the placement plans for X and contingency plans in the event that the placement were to break down and their reasons for departing from Dr Eyre’s recommendation. The local authority was also directed to produce WG’s report to the placement panel on 12 January 2006 – we now know, of course, that there was no such report – and the minutes of the meeting. Judge Levy further directed, with the support of the guardian, that X was to be separately represented. 
66.	This seems to have galvanised the local authority into action. The local authority’s running records record on the same day (31 January 2006): 
“Referral received today, request for placement, decision was made that we have to look at [ABC] as our first option.” 
As has been pointed out, this is the first documented reference to ABC in this context. When and by whom this “decision” was taken is not clear from any documents produced by the local authority. 
67.	On 2 February 2006 (the Thursday) a senior manager, HC, had what the local authority’s running records describe as a “brief discussion” with AH and WG regarding X’s move to ABC: 
“Both [WG] and I have concerns over the management of her behaviour and how it will be monitored. [AH] and [WG] will go and meet with [JK, the acting manager of ABC] this afternoon, and put together a solid plan for her placement to be successful as her previous placement at [ABC] was not servicing [X]’s needs very well … At the moment she has not been absconding in her present placement and her behaviour has been very manageable. We are all concerned that her progress continues in this way”. 
68.	Later the same day (2 February 2006) there was a meeting between AH, WG, JK and JD (the social worker who was due to take over X’s case from WG during the week commencing 22 February 2006). Amongst the possible contingency plans considered if the placement at ABC broke down was secure accommodation.  
69.	The next day, 3 February 2006 (the Friday) WG filed a long witness statement, his fourth. He “strongly contested” – more precisely, he said it was strongly contested by the local authority – that the decision on 12 January 2006 involved a significant departure from the previous care plan. He recorded that X’s placement at XYZ had been “very successful”. He said that X would be placed in “a highly structured children’s home.” He went on to say that ABC was being considered “as an initial option”. 
70.	WG’s ‘conclusion and recommendation’ is so important that I should set it out in full: 
“The Local Authority respectfully requests that the London Borough of Barnet be allowed to rehabilitate [X] back to London. It is regrettable that much more consultation did not take place, but it is hoped that the court will understand that we were motivated only by the best interests of [X]. As outlined above we are firmly of the view that we have not strayed from the agreed Care Plan. 
It is also conceded that matters have taken course with more haste than would ordinarily have been appropriate. However, once again we must re-iterate our concern that this girl had now missed out her entire Year 9 and was now facing the possibility of missing much of her current Year 10. For these reasons it was critical that indecision and drift did not obstruct us once again from acting decisively to ensure that [X] did not continue to suffer further harm.  
We are aware of the concerns and reservations expressed by other parties – not least, those of our expert Dr Richard Eyre, and have hopefully established how the different focus placed on one component of the twin tracking approach by the other parties as opposed to the London Borough of Barnet’s greater focus on the urgency of rehabilitation has lead to the impression that the views of other parties had not been taken fully on board. Multi-disciplinary consultation and co-operation is vital to achieving best outcomes for Looked After Children, but it remains a vehicle or means for doing so, it is not an end itself. The most paramount factor remains the welfare of the child. If this requires, in certain circumstances, decisive unilateral action then we must not hesitate to take this action. It is little wonder therefore why the Children Act and the courts have placed this legal prerogative in the hands of a single corporate parent – the Local Authority. 
The decision of the London Borough of Barnet’s Placement Panel reflected the ongoing, intensive and robust assessment of all risk factors undertaken over the past eight months by the social Worker allocated to this case. His commitment to moving this case forward has not wavered over the past eight months. The panel itself was aware of and was further appraised by the social Worker and his manager of the views held by the GAL, our own specialist and the mother’s current position (which does shift markedly). We would respectfully request that far from straying from the twin tracking care planning process (evidenced in detail throughout this report and attached exhibits), we have in fact, been wholly attuned to it’s central rehabilitative goal and the four central principles which underpin the Children Act itself: 
•	The importance of the Child’s voice (taking in to account their understanding) 
•	The paramountcy principle 
•	The No Delay principle 
•	Keeping children close to their birth families and community.” 
71.	As the guardian points out, the penultimate paragraph shows a surprising misunderstanding of the true legal position: see Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] EWHC 551 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 42 (in particular paragraphs [43]-[44]). Moreover, as she also points out, WG’s statement does not mention any of the concerns that had been voiced only the day before. 
72.	On 7 February 2006 the guardian’s solicitor wrote to the local authority seeking clarification of various aspects of the care plan which were said to be not sufficiently specific. On 8 February 2006 HC made an entry in the local authority’s running records: 
“[JK] will get all the information from present placement to adapt their practises into [ABC] to enable [X] to settle and work well with the staff. [JK] also said she will meet up with 
[X] and put a plan together to help her move work well and encourage her education to start and maintain it.  
I think we are all concerned that [X] will revert back to unacceptable behaviour and we are all working together to prevent this from happening.” 
73.	On 9 February 2006 there was a professionals meeting attended, on the telephone, by Dr Eyre. Dr Eyre made it clear that he did not agree with the local authority’s plan to bring X’s placement at XYZ to an end. He said: 
“I believe that she will go back to her original bad behaviour if she moves to London. The key is consistency and containment of placement … when she goes back to London there will be difficulties … She won’t be able to cope … [XYZ] will provide a level of support for her which won’t happen in London. Tried that. She knows where to go when she is in London. I feel strongly that this is a probability not a possibility.” 
He added that: 
“if something goes wrong in Devon it is less likely that she will be engaging in risky behaviour … if something in London occurs it will be a major problem.” 
On 10 February 2006 the local authority held a legal planning meeting. I do not know what was discussed or decided. 
74.	On 13 February 2006 the placement panel met again. The minutes on this occasion are markedly longer and more detailed than on previous occasions. And on this occasion it appears that the panel actually condescended to read and consider some of the relevant papers, for the minutes record that the panel considered Dr Eyre’s reports dated 22 July 2006 and 24 January 2006 as well as the notes of the legal planning meeting the day before. It is striking, however, that the panel did not consider – or, seemingly, feel the need to consider – any of the other papers filed in the court proceedings, not even the care plan filed on 5 September 2005. 
75.	X’s case was presented by AH and JD. The minutes record AH as giving the following “evidence”: 
“[AH] said that placement in Devon was never considered as a long-term arrangement. She has liaised with [the Z] school about planning what support [X] will require eg, an escort, learning mentor etc 
[AH] expressed concern about the timing of [X]’s planned move to [ABC]. She said that she wants to make sure that all the necessary arrangements are in place before [X]’s move. She stressed the need for agreements about structured support with education, contact and emotions to be in place.” 
The mother’s view was reported as being that X should remain in Devon until she had completed her GCSEs – ie, until June 2007. The guardian’s view, as reported by AH, was as follows: 
“Shares Dr Eyre’s view. Dr Eyre considers that rehabilitation is not an appropriate option for [X] for time being. Dr Eyre’s report also suggests that any plan for [X] to move back to [London] should be after her completion of GCSE – July 2007. His report also suggests that [X] is not ready for mainstream education in [London] yet and she should stay in Devon as placement is working well.” 
The decision of the panel “on balance” was that: 
“the management of [X]’s day-to-day care and return to mainstream school would be better effected in [London] than in Devon … [X] to return to [London] in a planned way – end of February or beginning of March 06.” 
76.	The same day (13 February 2006) AH made a long witness statement, her first. Like WG she insisted that there had been no change in the care plan for X. She stated the local authority’s acceptance that “communication in respect of the placement move was inadequately communicated [sic] to the guardian … and regrets this omission.” She expressed the local authority’s “regrets” that the placement panel on 12 January 2006 “made a decision regarding [X]’s placement without having the benefit of Dr Eyre’s report.” She explained the panel’s thinking on that occasion as follows: 
“The panel considered the representations prior to the making of their decision. These were 
(i) Rehabilitation home was no longer an immediate option, therefore [X] would require a care placement for the foreseeable future, 
(ii) Most children in care benefit from being placed within the local authority of their origin. This reflects good practice and policy in childcare planning, 
(iii) [X] had a potential placement available to her within [London], 
(iv) This placement is closer to [X]’s family and ethnic community, 
(v) [X]’s wish to return to [London], 
(vi) The local authority are more knowledgeable about [X]’s difficulties and her behaviour. This information has been built up over the eight months during [X]’s residence in [XYZ]. This knowledge base is likely to assist the professional network in the management of [X]’s behaviour. 
(vii) [X] had completed her programme of tutoring and needs to be reintegrated back into mainstream school. Her old school … are willing for her to return to the school and assist her with her re-integration into mainstream education. 
The panel made a decision that a phased return back to [London] was in [X]’s best interest. Further funding was agreed for a period of 28 days.” 
77.	AH recorded JK’s acknowledgment that when X was previously at ABC “she had no programme of support at school”, JK’s recognition that “additional planning in respect to her education is important” and JK’s belief that ABC “is an appropriate placement” coupled with her acceptance that “it is a challenge and [X] will require additional support to help her achieve what she wants to achieve.” In fact what JK had said in a letter to AH dated 9 February 2006 was that the reason why X had not absconded from XYZ seemed to be  
“due to the location of the unit, which is rural and has limited bus service to the nearest town 9 miles away. Otherwise, it would require [X] to hitch hike … It is also very removed from [X]’s network of friends with whom she was absconding.” 
JK went on to acknowledge that it would be “vital to ensure [X] does not slip back into old ways”, that “there is no doubt that [X] might find returning to [London] a challenge” and that “knowing [X] I feel she will find it difficult to undertake all that she has said she will do without the support I have mentioned”. 
78.	Explaining the local authority’s reasons for departing from Dr Eyre’s recommendations, AH said that “the local authority is in agreement with most of Dr Eyre’s recommendations”, the difference between them being X’s placement. She continued: 
“The local authority has the experience and expertise in the provision of residential accommodation for children looked after. After lengthy consideration, it is our view, that the local authority does have a residential resource that can meet [X]’s placement needs. Combined with other factors such as education, appropriate therapeutic input, access to [X]’s family and ethnic community and [X]’s wishes and feelings, it is our view, that [X]’s global needs are better met [in London].” 
As the guardian points out this “lengthy” consideration seems to have taken place between the receipt of Dr Eyre’s addendum report on 25 January 2006 and the filing of WG’s witness statement on 3 February 2006. Moreover, as she also points out, there are (with the sole exception of the meetings on 2 February 2006) no notes of meetings or discussions between the social workers. AH in her oral evidence could not recall any specific meetings. And there were certainly no discussions with X, with the guardian, with XYZ or with Dr Eyre.    
79.	AH went on to recognise that “the continuation of geographical separation from London has some merit”, continuing: 
“At this stage the 2 potential options that appeared to be open to [X] were 1) either remaining at [XYZ] or 2) giving consideration to resettling her within her home community. 
The issue that faced the Local Authority was the requirement to balance a number of different and sometimes competing needs. Dr Eyre clearly feels continuing geographical separation and the element of isolation in her care placement is a contributory factor to future success. 
The Local Authority however is obliged to consider the enormous difficulties that young people face when they live in communities some significant distance from [London] and then are brought back into their home communities post 16 years. It is well known that these young people struggle to re integrate as they tend to leave their friendship and support networks behind them. This is at the time when they are taking their first tentative steps into independence and adulthood. At this time the need to have established networks mitigates against potential isolation. 
The Local Authority has given this matter very careful and proper consideration and is seeking to balance these different and competing needs.” 
She concluded by asserting that the placement panel on 13 February 2006 had decided to move X back to London “in a planned and well managed way.” 
80.	AH went on to address what would be done if the placement broke down: 
“In the event of a placement breakdown, a planning meeting will be convened to consider what are the contributing factors and what if anything can or needs to be done to avoid complete placement breakdown. In such circumstances, it is difficult to be predictive as the factors behind breakdowns can be many and varied. The matter would be referred back to Placement Panel for consideration for additional or alternative resourcing. The Local Authority in these circumstances would maintain an open mind and would consider the full range of options open in terms of care placements.” 
81.	The local authority’s next care plan was dated 14 February 2006 and signed by WG and AH. It said that “we are identifying a highly structured children’s home close to her original school” and that “in the first instance [ABC] will be evaluated”. It added that “there have been significant changes at [ABC] and the new manager will visit [XYZ] and speak to staff there, to try to glean something of their strategies.” Surprisingly, in the section headed ‘views of others’ there was no reference at all to either the guardian or Dr Eyre. And although Dr Eyre’s reports were referred to elsewhere in the care plan as supporting the local authority’s view that “in the long term, rehabilitation should be sought with the mother”, there was nothing in the care plan to reveal that, on the central issue of whether X should stay in Devon or return to London, Dr Eyre’s opinion was in stark conflict with that of the local authority. The plan was said to be to return X to a “highly structured children’s home” near to the Z school and for her to return to that school after the half-term break on 20 February 2006. The contingency plan in the event of this placement breaking down was said to be as follows: “[X] will be placed immediately with her older half sister … until a further suitable placement can be identified.” 
82.	The same day (14 February 2006), and in accordance with Judge Levy’s order, the matter came back to court before His Honour Judge Viljoen. Both the mother and the guardian filed position statements opposing the local authority’s plan for X. The mother’s position statement said she was “sure” that X would “go backwards” if she returned to London. She supported Dr Eyre’s view. The guardian was critical in her position statement of the fact that the care plan did not contain a detailed contingency plan and commented that “the plan relies on a placement at [ABC] when this placement has been tried before and failed” and that there was not “sufficient recognition of the difficulties [X] is likely to face integrating back into [the Z] school.” The guardian said that she was not as confident as the local authority that its plan would be successful. She concurred with Dr Eyre’s view that Devon provided “a better chance for [X] to make long term changes to her lifestyle.” She did not agree with the local authority that it was in X’s best interests to move to London. She concluded that she “does not feel that she can endorse the care plan … given the strong views expressed by Dr Eyre that the risks in London outweigh the risks of imposing a plan upon [X].” 
83.	In his judgment, Judge Viljoen, having referred to the views expressed by Dr Eyre at the professionals meeting, said “that sounds like very good advice to me.” Referring to the final hearing in May 2006 he said “there is a real possibility that Dr Eyre’s advice supported by the guardian will be accepted by the court”. He commented that “past history is a good indicator of the future” and said that “the damage done if history repeats itself is immeasurable, particularly if [XYZ] is no longer available.” He said that he shared the guardian’s concerns and pointed out that the care plan was “silent at the moment on what structure is in place to prevent history repeating itself.” He said that he was not prepared to approve the care plan and “seriously” invited the local authority to reconsider it. 
84.	The local authority’s initial response to the views expressed by Judge Viljoen is to be found in an e-mail sent later the same day (14 February 2006) by VL, a senior manager, to AH and to other managers: 
“We seem to have two options (a) leave [X] in [XYZ] until May 06 (and hence, I believe, more than likely beyond then) (b) bring [X] back to London as planned. 
If we were to leave [X] in [XYZ], as suggested by the court, the likelihood is, that the arguments for her remaining there until May, be used for the placement to be extended as per Dr Eyre’s recommendation, ie, until Summer 2007. The mitigating circumstance, I think, could be [X]’s access to mainstream education, whilst in current placement. If mainstream education near her placement in Devon was not available, then I think, we may have a stronger argument to bring her back in May … 
[AH]’s view is, that we should follow the judge’s advice and leave [X] in [XYZ] as indicated until May 2006, [AH] feels that we can put forward strong arguments for [X] being brought back to London at the final hearing. I think that this may be so, but probably only, if the local ed authority is not going to provide a mainstream placement for [X].” 
85.	On 16 February 2006 the placement panel met to consider Judge Viljoen’s observations. The case was presented to panel by AH. On this occasion there was a completed pro-forma. The pro-forma stated that: 
“The LA continues to ‘twin track’ ie actively working on options both at [XYZ] + at [ABC]”. 
The minutes said that X’s education “could be jeopardised by a move mid-GCSEs.” The panel decided to meet again on 20 February 2006 following a meeting at the Z school fixed for earlier that day. 
86.	The minutes of the placement panel on 20 February 2006 are unusually detailed. The case was presented by AH and JD. AH reported both on the meeting earlier in the day at the Z school and on discussions she had had with the school in Devon. The panel’s decision was in favour of X returning to London: 
“Panel discussed the benefits and drawbacks of [X] living in Devon and [London]. There is a balance between what the two schools offer. The main difference between the two options is location. [XYZ] is in ‘the middle of nowhere’ and this means that [X] is less likely to be able to run away. However, she would also be far away from the community she knows and her culture. [London], on the other hand, would mean that [X] would have the support of social workers and would have better access to educational and CAMHS support. In addition, [X] is clear that she wants to return to [London] and therefore she is likely to co-operate to a greater degree if placed here … 
Overall panel agreed that the move to [London] and the [Z] school is in [X]’s best interest, as it wouldn’t compromise her therapy or education. [X] has indicated … that she would be open to counselling, even though she attended only 3 sessions in Devon. The move to [London] would also mean that she would be in closer vicinity to her sister, with whom she has an important relationship. It is important to note, however, that her relationship with her mother is not always constructive and will be important to ensure that contact arrangements are clear, well planned and supported.” 
The panel considered the placement at ABC: 
“It is proposed that [X] moves to a placement at [ABC]. If this placement does not sustain, the contingency plan would be to move [X] to another local residential unit. There are 4 or 5 local units that Barnet have used, and developed close working relationships with over the last few years and that have provided stable placements for young people with complex needs. Examples of these are … These local units would also allow for [X] to continue attending the [Z] school. 
Much thought will be needed in how to manage [X] at [ABC], and it is proposed that the staff team there begin to work on strategies for working with [X] in consultation … (psychologist) who supports the team on a fortnightly basis. London will also be pursuing [X]’s referral to the Tavistock.” 
The minutes conclude: 
“Panel members are confident about [X]’s return to [ABC] and the clear plans that are in place and consider this to be in [X]’s best interest for now and for the future.” 
87.	The next day (21 February 2006) the new social worker, JD, made a witness statement. He sought to assuage concerns about ABC: 
“Though [ABC] does not enjoy the geographic isolation of [XYZ], they feel able to address the concerns of the Court that [X] will revert to her old ways and begin to abscond. 
There is new management and a new staff group who have used the increased knowledge of [X] to develop and install improved methods of managing her. There would be a written agreement negotiated with [X] and her mother, and owned and signed by them.” 
He sought also to elaborate the local authority’s thinking about contingency arrangements: 
“There are several children’s residential establishments in the Barnet area who have worked successfully with other Barnet children who have had complex needs.  They are … Though their precise vacancies cannot be accurately predicted, the Commissioning Team have always been able to obtain a placement in one of them at short notice. It is to these establishments that the Local Authority would turn if the placement at [ABC] were to fail.” 
88.	The following day (22 February 2006) the local authority filed another care plan, this time signed by AH. Referring to JK, the acting manager of ABC, it recorded the fact that she had been an assistant manager there when X was previously at ABC and that “she asserts that this is an appropriate placement for [X].” The contingency plan was described as follows: 
“The local Authority would seek to move [X] to an alternative residential unit. The Care placement would be from the Private Sector. It is not possible to be specific in relation to the unit as this is contingent on the availability of vacancy’s. The 4 specific Care Homes that would be requested for a bed by the Commissioning Team are … The London Borough of Barnet has successfully commissioned beds from each of these homes and has experience of children doing well in these units. I am advised by the Assistant Divisional Manager who line manages the Commissioning Team that in the last 18 months they have not experienced a problem in placing a child in an emergency situation within this group of 4 residential units. These units are all in the Barnet area and meet the Government set target of placing children within 20 miles of the child’s home area. In the event of [X]’s behaviour being such that she is putting herself at significant harm, consideration would be given to convening a legal planning meeting to discuss whether her behaviour meets the criteria for a Secure Order Application. Such an application would be subject to the agreement by the Head of the Children and Families Department in accordance with departmental delegated responsibilities.” 
89.	The same day (22 February 2006) the case was back in court, this time before Her Honour Judge Mayer. She adjourned the matter for further hearing before me on 29 March 2006. There had been talk of mother possibly commencing proceedings in the Administrative Court for a judicial review of the local authority’s decision. Amongst the various directions given by Judge Mayer was a direction that the mother was to file and serve a statement setting out the grounds for her proposed application for judicial review. No such statement has in the event been filed. 
90.	On 8 March 2006 D, the Devon education welfare officer with responsibility for looked after children, produced a short report at the request of the guardian in relation to the steps that had been taken to place X in a mainstream school. She said: 
“The stumbling block for an educational provision has been that no-one from Barnet has come down to Devon to have a meeting with [the] pastoral and school staff, the messages they have had from care managers have been very negative towards [X] fitting into a mainstream setting, and Barnet have not made any plans regarding her long term care.” 
91.	On 20 March 2006 there was another professionals meeting, convened and attended by the local authority’s Director of Social Services – as Miss Cudby remarks, an indication of how seriously this matter was by then being taken by the local authority. There was little meeting of minds. Dr Eyre (who again attended by telephone) said that although “he did not think it was beyond the realm of possibilities that with support she could manage London … it was a more risky strategy.” He added, “I still say it is an issue about risk management which leads me to believe that she should stay in her current placement for a while yet.” It was pointed out that the mother had serious concerns that X would be at risk if she returned to London at the present time. Dr Eyre’s response was: “That is my worry. It is the worst case scenario. Effectively we would then be right back to the beginning. The priority is consistency and containment.” 
92.	The meeting is, perhaps, chiefly remarkable for the position and attitude of the Director of Social Services and for something said by MI. The Director of Social Services seems to have been puzzled by the threat of judicial review: 
“He said it was unusual to have such heat when the plan accords with the child’s own wishes and it provides continuity so he said he found he must be missing something so he wanted to hear other party positions.” 
He admitted that he had not read Dr Eyre’s reports but said that “it had all been explained to him.” He said that “the issues don’t appear difficult.” He was initially somewhat unreceptive to the suggestion that Dr Eyre should take part in the meeting but agreed after the mother’s solicitor and the guardian insisted and threatened to leave. Later in the meeting he commented that “I have had discussions with the Minister that is why we try to keep children within 20 miles of home.” 
93.	During the meeting MI said this:
“We feel that she was starting to settle at [ABC]. Then the Social Worker told her that she was moving to a foster placement and then her behaviour became out of control saying there is no point in me being good. She wants to go back to [ABC] and we can work with her and prepare her for independence.” 
94.	It was in this state of affairs that the matter came on for hearing before me on 29 March 2006. The local authority was represented by Miss Markanza Cudby, the mother by Miss Mary Hughes and the guardian by Miss Carol Atkinson. The child was separately represented by Ms Jo Delahunty. Miss Hughes and Miss Atkinson made common cause in rejecting the local authority’s care plan of 22 February 2006. Ms Delahunty, on X’s instructions, supported the local authority’s plan for her return to London and placement in ABC but made numerous complaints about the deficiencies in even the latest version of the care plan (that dated 22 February 2006). By the end of the hearing nobody’s position had changed in any material respect.   
95.	A hearing which had been anticipated to last two days in the event took three days, and even then there had been time only to conclude the evidence. It was agreed that submissions would subsequently be submitted to me in writing no later than 4 April 2006. 
96.	A significant cause of the extra length of the hearing was the late production by the local authority of a significant number of important documents, many of which, despite earlier requests, were not produced until the third morning of the hearing. 
97.	This last point deserves elaboration. As part of a more general complaint that there has been what she called procedural unfairness, a complete lack of openness in this case and a lack of transparency in the process and the outcome, Miss Hughes justifiably complained that until the hearing, and despite requests from the parties, there had not been full and frank disclosure by the local authority. (As an example she said that until the hearing none of the parties were aware of the placement panel hearings in November and December 2005 – where it is now clear, as she points out, that there were potential problems with funding. And since none of the minutes were on the social services file they were not available for inspection by the guardian.) The obligation to make appropriate and timely disclosure is clear: Re L (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] EWHC 1379 (Fam), [2002] 2 FLR 730 (see in particular paragraphs [140]-[160]), and Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] EWHC 551 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 42 (see in particular paragraphs [33], [37]). The local authority’s failings in this respect are a matter of considerable concern. 
98.	I heard evidence from Dr Eyre, from WG, from AH, from a representative of XYZ, and from the guardian. Dr Eyre reiterated his belief that a future breakdown was more likely in London than in Devon and his opposition to the termination of a placement that was not merely working but was the only one that had. He said that X would accept a decision that she had to stay at XYZ (the same view was expressed by the representative of XYZ in her evidence) and opined that continuity through until she had completed her GCSEs was more likely to equip X for the future. He identified her placement as the first priority, followed by her education and her relationship with her family, listing therapy as the least important. The guardian in her evidence said that the likelihood of a breakdown in London and a reversion by X to her previous behaviour was “very strong”. She said that X was more likely to listen to the staff at XYZ “whom she trusts” than to the staff at ABC. She said that there was a better chance of things working in Devon than in London. She said that “on a very clear balance” Devon was the better option. She would not have been resisting the local authority “if I did not feel as strongly as I do.” 
99.	Before turning directly to consider the local authority’s care plan of 22 February 2006 I must first consider the process by which that plan has emerged and the basis of the local authority’s reasoning. 
100.	I go first to the decision of the placement panel on 12 January 2006. I can take this comparatively briefly because, in the final analysis, I am concerned not so much with a merely historical analysis of that decision but, much more importantly, with the present and immediate question of whether I should or should not approve the care plan which has subsequently emerged. 
101.	In my judgment the decision of the placement panel on 12 January 2006 was fundamentally defective on each of three quite separate grounds. 
102.	In the first place, quite apart from the fact that care proceedings were then pending, and quite apart from any arguments founded on the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the decision would, in my judgment, almost certainly have been amenable to a successful application for judicial review on any view of what I might call ‘classical’ grounds of public law challenge. I say this for two quite separate reasons: 
i) First, this was a decision to terminate the placement of a disturbed teenager and, moreover, to terminate that placement contrary to the views of the allocated social worker and his team manager. A decision of such fundamental importance simply cannot be taken in accordance with a procedure as defective as that which, apparently, is normally adopted by this panel, that is, a procedure under which the panel decides without having read any of the relevant papers, on the basis of a short oral presentation from the social worker and after no more than some ten or at most twenty minutes of discussion and consideration. 
ii) Secondly, and focussing more specifically on this particular case, the decision was taken (i) without waiting for Dr Eyre’s addendum report, (ii) seemingly in ignorance of, and to an extent misunderstanding, the care plan which had been put before the court (I refer to the care plan dated 5 September 2005) and (iii) without reading any of the papers that WG had taken to the meeting for the panel’s consideration. 
103.	I do not want there to be any misunderstanding of what I am saying. I am not saying that a more elaborate procedure is required at all meetings of the placement panel or in relation to all cases. For example, a routine extension of an already authorised placement which is still supported by the social worker may well neither need nor merit either detailed paperwork or extended discussion. Nor, however, should I be understood as thinking that what happened on 12 January 2006 would have been saved if only the panel had had before it a properly completed pro-forma. It would not. The pro-forma is, no doubt, a most useful summary of what is being sought from the panel and, at least in outline, of what the particular case is all about. But decisions as important and significant in their implications as that which this panel took on 12 January 2006 require much more than a completed pro-forma. 
104.	In the second place, given that care proceedings were actually on foot, it was quite wrong for the local authority to take a decision of this importance without any warning to the children’s guardian of what was going on and without involving her in any way
105.	Thirdly, the failure to involve the mother at all in this crucial part of the decision-making process involved, on the face of it, a breach of her rights under Article 8 of the Convention. In this connection I refer to my judgments in Re L (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] EWHC 1379 (Fam), [2002] 2 FLR 730, and, more particularly, Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] EWHC 551 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 42 (see in particular paragraphs [30]-[39]). It is now three years since I gave judgment in Re G and well over five years since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. It is depressing to find that the relevant lessons have still not been learned. 
106.	It may well be that any complaint the mother would otherwise have had under Article 8 has been overtaken by subsequent events, for the question of whether there has been any actionable breach has to be assessed at the end of the day, looking to the entire history “considered as a whole” and assessing matters “overall”: see Re L at paragraphs [122] and [129]. But that does not meet what is in a sense, for the future, the fundamental point, that the process leading up to and at the meeting on 12 January 2006 was defective and, as it seems to me, such as to involve a breach of the mother’s Article 8 rights. 
107.	Before parting with this part of the case there are two more general points that I must make. They both relate to the local authority’s reaction to the more than justified complaints that have been raised, in particular by the guardian. That reaction suggests that the local authority still does not appreciate the nature and gravity of the deficiencies attending the meeting on 12 January 2006. The failure to involve the guardian is, as we have seen, described as “regrettable”. It was much more than that. And as recently as 22 March 2006 the local authority’s own minutes of the professionals meeting record the Director of Social Services describing what had happened as “a hiccup in the process”. If that really is his appraisal of the significance of what had happened then I can only say that I find it surprising. I am told that his use of the phrase was not an indication that the Director of Social Services sees this as a trivial matter – I am told that he does not – and that it was his attempt to get the parties to look forward rather than back. Even so, his use of the phrase was, I have to say, both revealing and unfortunate. 
108.	The other point is this. As we have seen, AH expressed the local authority’s acceptance that “communication” to the guardian in respect of the placement move was inadequate. This again suggests a failure to appreciate that the gravamen of the complaint is not merely that the panel’s decision was not promptly communicated to the guardian but, much more seriously, that she had no prior warning of what was going on and no proper opportunity to participate in – or, at the very least, no proper opportunity to inform – the decision-making process. These are matters about which I have had occasion to complain in the past: see Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] EWHC 551 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 42 (in particular paragraph [57]), and R (J) v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2005] EWHC 586 (Admin), [2005] 2 FLR 860 (in particular paragraph [34]). I fear that the message is still not getting through. 
109.	Turning to the more important question of what has happened since the meeting of the placement panel on 12 January 2006, I have a number of significant concerns both about the local authority’s decision-making process and, even more important, about the reasoning and thinking which appears to lie behind the care plan. 
110.	In the first place, the fundamental decision seems to have been taken early on and without that much time for deliberation. Although the local authority has, to an extent, subsequently revisited its decision, the real decision was taken, and my assessment is that the die was effectively cast, by 3 February 2006 – as Miss Atkinson points out, only a few days after the receipt by the local authority on 25 January 2006 of Dr Eyre’s report. Miss Hughes’s verdict is scathing: “It is obvious that all the activity of [WG] and subsequently [AH] was ex post facto rationalisation. Their hands were tied. And they hid behind the corporate veil.” There is, I fear, more than a grain of truth in this. Moreover, as Miss Atkinson goes on to point out, the reality is that from as early as 9 January 2006 little if anything has been done by the local authority to support or enhance X’s placement at XYZ or further her admission to mainstream school in Devon (see paragraphs [53], [57] and [90] above). Such planning as there has been has all been focussed on her return to London. 
111.	Secondly, the decision was taken at a high level of abstraction – X will return to London, rather than staying at XYZ – and before any of the relevant detail had been worked out: 
i) It was acknowledged on 15 December 2005 that there was a lack of clarity in the planning for X beyond early January 2006 
ii) On 12 January 2006 the placement panel had directed that “the plan needs to be for her to return to London”. On 2 February 2006 the local authority recognised that it still had to “put together a solid plan for her placement”. And again on 8 February 2006 it recognised that it was still necessary to “put a plan together to help her move work well”. On 13 February 2006 AH was still looking “to make sure that all the necessary arrangements are in place”. 
iii) Although it appears that a place for X at ABC had been kept open since January 2006, the decision that that is where she should go appears not to have been taken until the middle of February 2006. Only on 31 January 2006 was ABC identified as “our first option”. On 8 February 2006 the local authority was still seeking information from XYZ in order to “adapt their practices into [ABC]”. On 14 February 2006 ABC still had to be “evaluated” and its staff were still trying to “glean something” of XYZ’s strategies. 
iv) Thinking in relation to the contingency plan remained exiguous even at the beginning of the hearing before me on 29 March 2006. On 2 February 2006 secure accommodation was being considered. AH’s statement of 13 February 2006 was devoid of any meaningful plan, though in the care plan filed the next day the contingency plan was said to be a placement of X with her older half sister. By 21 February 2006, when JD made his statement, that seems to have been abandoned, and the plan, if the placement at ABC broke down, was for a placement in one or other of four residential establishments also in the London area. 
112.	Thirdly, as Ms Delahunty pointed out, a substantial amount of the relevant detail (for example, not merely, and crucially, in relation to the contingency plan but also in relation to such matters as the placement at ABC, education and therapy) is still lacking in the care plan – the plan dated 22 February 2006 – that was presented to me for my approval. 
113.	Fourthly, I have been left with an uncomfortably acute impression, notwithstanding denials in the witness box, that the care plan which is being put forward has much more enthusiastic support from higher management than it does either from the social worker or from AH, the team manager. This is not merely the impression I formed hearing AH give her evidence and listening to the way in which she framed her answers. It is also borne out by much of the documentary record. Not merely was the decision of the placement panel on 12 January 2006 taken contrary to the advice of both WG and AH – and little that happened during that unsatisfactory meeting can possibly have persuaded them to change their professional opinions – but their continuing doubts are plainly recorded. There is WG’s reference on 19 January 2006 to the effect that the decision had been taken “at a higher level” and was not “up for negotiation.” There are their “concerns” recorded on 2 February 2006 and again – “we are all concerned” – on 8 February 2006. There are the concerns expressed by AH to the placement panel on 13 February 2006 (including her account of concerns expressed by JK). There are AH’s views as recorded in VL’s e-mail on 14 February 2006. 
114.	Fifthly, and given added significance by the previous point, senior management seems to have an uncertain grasp of the facts of the case. MI admitted in the witness box that as recently as after the meeting on 12 January 2006 she had never seen any of the papers in the case. It is unclear to me which papers she has seen even now: she seemed unfamiliar with important passages in the care plan of 5 September 2005 when shown them in the witness box. Her comment at the professionals meeting as recently as 20 March 2006 is surprising to say the least. The Director of Social Services came to the same meeting seemingly not understanding what all the difficulty was about and saying that the issues “don’t appear difficult”. 
115.	Sixthly, in deciding that a move to London was in X’s best interests the local authority seems to have placed what in my judgment was unduly excessive weight upon a number of factors ultimately having more to do with policy or principle than with X’s needs and the particular and difficult circumstances in which she finds herself. I do not, of course, dispute the vital importance of listening to the child’s views – of having regard to her wishes and feelings – nor the importance, generally speaking, of placing a child if not within borough then at least within a reasonably short distance of her home. But in the present place the local authority seems to me to have had far too much regard to these matters – and, indeed, to Government inspired targets and expressions of Ministerial view – than to the powerful contra-indications presented by X’s particular predicament.  
116.	Like a number of similar cases with which one is familiar – every case is, of course, unique and has to be considered on its own facts, but X’s case is of a type which is not unfamiliar – the present case involves at its core a combination of two especially potent factors. The first, is that we have a teenager who is out of control (I use the phrase in both its colloquial and its technical sense) and who is choosing to adopt a lifestyle which is both highly undesirable and potentially dangerous. It is very worrying that a girl of X’s age should have been engaging since the age of twelve in sexual relationships – inevitably abusive and exploitative sexual relationships – with much older boys and young men, just as it is equally worrying that a girl of her age should be taking drugs. This means that only limited weight can be given to X’s wishes and feelings, for the fear must be that, left to herself, she will choose to do things that are plainly contrary to her best interests.  
117.	Whatever may be the position in relation to older teenagers, in the case of a child who even now is not yet fifteen years old and who has gone through what X has experienced, the primary requirement must be for firm parenting, whether that is what she wants or not. Too great a regard for the wishes and feelings of a rebellious and troubled teenager, particularly if they may set her on a course to self-destruction, can all too easily involve an abdication of appropriate parental responsibility. Of course, one does not ignore what X is saying, but I cannot help thinking that in present circumstances the most important thing to ascertain is not so much where X would prefer to be – after all, she may have all too many ulterior and ultimately damaging reasons for wanting to be in London rather than in rural Devon – but rather whether she is at least prepared to co-operate with what is planned for her rather than being determined to ‘vote with her feet’. In the present case, this presents no difficulty because the evidence is clear that X will co-operate even if, contrary to her strongly expressed preference, she has to go on living at XYZ.      
118.	The second highly relevant factor is that X’s dangerous lifestyle is rooted in her own locality and in the ‘friends’ she has made there. This, therefore, is a case where, far from there being good reasons of policy to bring her back to London, it might be thought that there is, at least until such time as one can be reasonably confident that she will not slide back into her old ways, compelling reason to keep her away – far away – from London. Ms Delahunty put the point very clearly: “the very factors which ordinarily dictate a home borough placement (namely proximity to local social network, familiar links and environment / cultural compatibility) are, in [X]’s case, risk rather than protective factors.” I agree. 
119.	Seventhly, and reflecting this last point, the local authority seems to have attached insufficient weight to the fact that not merely had X’s placement at XYZ ‘worked’, indeed been very successful (see paragraphs [51], [58] and [69] above), but that it was the only placement which had ‘worked’. The placement at ABC had broken down twice and the foster placement had also broken down. In the same way the local authority seems to have attached insufficient weight to the obvious reason why the placement at XYZ, unlike every other placement, had worked – its geographical location, isolation and distance from London – a reason obvious enough to JK, one of its own social workers (see paragraph [77] above). Just as it seems to have attached insufficient weight to the repeated expressions of concern, including concern by its own social workers (see paragraphs [51], [54], [67], [72], [75] and [77] above), that X might be set back and all the good work at XYZ might be set at nought if she was returned to London prematurely. 
120.	Eighthly, the local authority’s thinking seems to have been distorted by a belief that X’s placement at XYZ had only ever been, as MI put it in her oral evidence to me, short-term and temporary. The care plan dated 5 September 2005 – which, as I pointed out during the hearing, was the care plan in place until the next care plan was filed on 14 February 2006 – explicitly recognised that, if rehabilitation home to her mother proved not to be achievable, consideration would have to be given to XYZ becoming her “permanent placement”. This seems never to have been understood by MI (cf paragraph [114] above) and seems also to have been overlooked by AH when presenting the case to the placement panel on 13 February 2006.  
121.	Ninthly, the local authority’s thinking in relation to ABC seems to have been adversely affected both by misunderstanding of the facts and by an insufficiently rigorous analysis of whether ABC would actually be able to meet X’s needs. A number of points come together here: 
i) The local authority seems to have overlooked or at least attached insufficient weight to the fact that the placement at ABC had broken down twice. 
ii) MI seems to have misunderstood why the second breakdown occurred. It was not caused by the decision to place X with a foster carer; that decision was taken in the light of the fact that the placement at ABC was not working. 
iii) The local authority seems to have thought that, although X’s previous placements at ABC had not worked, changes in the regime at ABC would make a significant difference (see paragraphs [67], [77], [81], [87] and [88] above). It is not altogether clear what those changes were, or why the local authority thought they would make so much difference. After all, JK, the new acting manager on whom the local authority was placing so much reliance, had been an assistant manager at ABC during X’s previous placement there. 
iv) Insufficient weight seems to have been attached to the fact that, as late as the middle of February 2006, the planning for X’s specific regime at ABC was still inchoate (see paragraph [111] above) and that even now the care plan is not as detailed as X would like it to be (see paragraph [112] above) or as detailed as I agree it should be. 
122.	Finally, it cannot be overlooked that more than once in the past the local authority’s planning for X has turned out to be over-optimistic and, I have to say, more optimistic than circumstances at the time would have warranted. The obvious, and highly relevant, example is provided by what can now clearly be seen to have been the inappropriate decision to return X to ABC following her placement with Active 8 (see paragraphs [7], [9], [12] and [14] above). Nor can one ignore the subsequent failure of the local authority’s plan for what again is now seen to have been an inappropriate foster placement (see paragraph [22] above). 
123.	It is against this background that I turn to consider the contrasting submissions on the central question of whether or not I should approve the local authority’s care plan dated 22 February 2006. 
124.	Miss Cudby, on behalf of the local authority, submits that the care plan before the court is not an ill thought out plan. The local authority, she says, has considered all of X’s needs and sought to provide for them in an appropriate and comprehensive fashion. The plan is a proper, well thought out, plan and the plan that best suits X’s needs and welfare. Miss Cudby rightly says that the question for me at the end of the day, having considered the current plan on its merits, is whether or not to approve it. She says that I can and should. Insofar as there are any deficiencies in the plan, she says that these have now been ironed out as a result of Ms Delahunty’s probing cross-examination of AH, asking her to consider amending and particularising the care plan. I can, she says, be satisfied that all eventualities have been considered.  
125.	Miss Cudby’s submissions can be summarised as follows: 
i) Placement: Miss Cudby says that, although much has been made of the placement at XYZ, in that it has kept X safe and she has not run away, the fact is that it is a very rural placement and there has been nowhere to run to. The placement itself, she says, has never really been put under challenge by X and no-one knows how it will fare if it is. X is going to move into a new phase in her life when she reintegrates into mainstream school. This will present both her and her carers with potentially significant challenges. If X remains in Devon the only support to hand is XYZ. The local school, she suggests, is reluctant to accept X, her family are a long way away, as are her social workers. The local authority as the corporate parent has no idea of local resources and cannot, she says, be on hand for meetings and planning. Having X in London means that all professionals with responsibility for her not only know what resources are available but can access them, unlike 250 miles away. Addressing the argument that ABC has failed before so it will fail again, Miss Cudby says that this takes no account of any changes since the last placement. X, she says, has matured and more is known about her and how to work with her. ABC is aware of the kind of person she is; they are not taking on an unknown. Both placements are subject to staff and residents changing. 
ii) X’s co-operation: Everyone, says Miss Cudby, accepts that X has begun to have insight into her behaviour. She recognises that Dr Eyre and the guardian do not believe this will be enough to stop X resisting temptation if she returns to London. But this, she says, is a judgement call. She suggests that if, as everyone says, XYZ has been a good placement, one hopes that over the past ten months some movement and insight has been obtained. She submits that if in reality the only way to ensure X behaves is to keep her isolated then nothing has been achieved at all. X needs to take on some level of responsibility, for she will be fifteen in August. The process of keeping safe and making appropriate choices is hard to learn living in an isolated placement. The local authority believes that X has started to mature and that this process needs to continue in a home environment where any problems can be addressed as and when they arise, rather than in sixteen months time when she will be starting again. 
iii) Schooling: According to Miss Cudby, the role of the schools cannot be overestimated in this plan. She points out that Dr Eyre was concerned about X’s self esteem and suggests that the idea of going to a school where, as she puts it, X is not really wanted and where there are few people from ethnic minorities is not going to help in this regard. She says that the Z school is not only a better school, but it knows X and is happy to welcome her back. It has thought about her, her needs and how to manage them. In contrast, she says, the local school in Devon does not know X and has concerns about how to deal with her. Moreover, she says, the strategies suggested by XYZ will only serve to further isolate X and undermine her self esteem. 
iv) Contact with family: Miss Cudby says that X’s family are very important to her. Although contact will continue to take place wherever she lives, it is likely that she will at some stage return home and these relationships need to be supported and improved. She says that the fact that X has returned home without difficulty to family members other than her mother is significant, both in terms of what support these people can offer and also in considering how far X has come. There was, she acknowledges, good reason to place X so far away last year because she was, as AH said, a child in crisis. But that is no longer the case and the need for such geographical dislocation is no longer justified. 
v) Therapy: Miss Cudby says that the issue of therapy is also important for X’s long term welfare. In London she will be seen by CAMHS quickly. ABC has connections with CAMHS. It is clear, she says, that this level of interaction is not available at XYZ. Moreover, she says, the referral for family therapy is critical for the long term. Unless the mother and X can begin to resolve their underlying issues problems will continue. The only way this central issue will ever be tackled, according to Miss Cudby, is in London. To start when X is sixteen will be too late. 
vi) Finally, Miss Cudby draws attention to an important strand in the local authority’s thinking: X is a London child and by the time she reaches eighteen London is all she will have. In Devon X is dislocated from her social network, education, knowledge of the environment and resources. She needs to be reintegrated into the community so that she can keep herself safe at a time when she is still young enough for the local authority to have some say and input. 
126.	Miss Cudby submits that the mother, the guardian and Dr Eyre have opted for what she calls the “safe option”. By doing this they are, she says, failing to address all but one issue. There is no real consideration for X’s long term future. She says that of course the local authority wants to ensure that X is safe, but it also wants to help her become an adult who can protect herself and live a safe and independent life. The local authority, says Miss Cudby, cannot do this if she is 250 miles away in the area of another local authority whose resources are not known to it and to which it will have only limited access. 
127.	Moreover, says Miss Cudby, the current plan has X’s backing. Whilst her wishes are not determinative they should, she says, be given weight due to her age. X has told her social worker that the expected return to London has been one of the reasons that she has co-operated with the expectations of XYZ and adhered to the boundaries. X, she says, has expressed her own feelings that the rural community surrounding XYZ and the nearby towns does not reflect her sense of ethnic and cultural identity. 
128.	In conclusion, Miss Cudby asserts that the care plan gives both X and her mother the best chance of a family life in the short and the long term. The alternative, Devon, plan will, she says, only continue geographical separation without addressing the underlying issues in their relationship. If X and her mother are to enjoy any form of family life in the future, work on their relationship needs to commence as soon as possible. 
129.	X, through Ms Delahunty, agrees with the substance of the local authority’s care plan, though she disputes the contingency plan and criticises the rest of the care plan for lack of necessary detail. Ms Delahunty submits that: 
i) The best outcome for X will be a placement in London at ABC, with the comprehensive educational package offered by the Z school, supplemented by CAMHS. There will need to be, she says, a very clear behavioural working agreement with X, supported by a contract with her mother, her sister, ABC and the local authority, including clear guidelines in respect of family contact. 
ii) The criteria for placement breakdown should be clearly identified so that X has a low risk ‘break clause’, for example, Ms Delahunty suggests, limited or even no tolerance for such behaviour as absconding, going absent from ABC outside prescribed times, going absent from school or making inappropriate use of her mobile telephone or the internet. 
iii) The contingency, or default, plan following any breach should be a return to Devon. Ms Delahunty suggests that the care plan should be amended to include something along the following lines: 
“In the event of a breakdown of the London placement [X] will return to [XYZ] (subject to a place being available) or to a similar establishment and location if the reason for the breakdown in London is because of geographical proximity to risk factors and risk taking conduct by [X] (ie, absconding from [ABC] or school, undesirable associations with boys or young adults, drug taking, or absence outside defined times from either [ABC] or school) … further consideration of alternative London residential units will be displaced in favour of first consideration of a placement out of London. Secure accommodation will be a matter of last resort only after out of London placements have been explored, save in an emergency when the local authority retains its powers to apply to the court for the issue to be determined upon clear evidence and upon notice to all parties.” 
iv) In the intervening period (and, Ms Delahunty suggests, within six weeks of judgment) the local authority should further explore links and services in Devon, including appropriate therapy, education, educational support and pastoral support, so that, were the contingency plan to be implemented, it would be saved from the fundamental flaws in detailed planning that, as Ms Delahunty submits, render it defective at present. 
130.	Ms Delahunty, as I have said, also has a number of detailed criticisms of the care plan which she has helpfully particularised in Part C of her written closing submissions. She submits that the local authority should file an amended care plan within fourteen days of judgment dealing with all these matters as well as with the amended contingency plan for which she presses. She makes the point, with which I wholeheartedly agree, that any amended care plan needs to be the definitive document, rather than everyone being left to try and locate and compile the components from many, many pages of material spread between witness statements, care plans and oral evidence. 
131.	Addressing the fundamental issue between the parties, Ms Delahunty submits that, alone of the two competing proposals, the London plan – by which she means the local authority’s care plan as amended in accordance with her submissions – offers: a placement which accords with X’s wishes; a contingency plan which accords with X’s wishes and which would then be the only clear alternative, with the combined support of X, the local authority, the guardian and the mother and in the knowledge that the alternative of living in London (which would be the ideal if it worked) had been tried and failed; education which accords with X’s wishes and in the Z school (a single sex school) which knows what it needs to deliver, based on direct knowledge of the child, which has already become involved with plans for support and which has a clear commitment to her as an individual and an ex pupil; contingency education planning; family links and role models; cultural links; therapy (both individual and family); transfer to after-16 provision; access to social services support structure; access to her legal team; and access to her children’s advocate. 
132.	Ms Delahunty contrasts this with what she says are the numerous deficiencies in the alternative plan for X to remain at XYZ: 
i) Ms Delhunty accepts that, thus far, XYZ seems to have worked well for X but she poses a number of questions, each of which, she suggests, has to be answered in the negative: Can the placement expand into one that can meet the increased challenges it will face? Does it have a skill or experience shortage in its staff component, particularly when it comes to managing X’s specific risk taking behaviours? Once its geographical isolation is breached (when X goes to a school and has access to a social network with cars or other transport) what is the plan for management? Lock in? Restraint? She submits that the oral evidence from the XYZ worker was simplistic and naïve. 
ii) Ms Delahunty identifies a number of what she says are serious limitation in what the local school in Devon can offer X: it is a mixed sex college; its site is large; it has a 99% white pupil roll; it is not known if X’s private tuition is compatible with its programme as it was a London linked syllabus; the school has no direct knowledge of X as a child other than one who is in care; there is no supplemental on site education tuition identified; there is no learning mentor identified; X does not qualify for additional services as she is not ‘statemented’; the message given at the recent meeting was that the school will take X but does not actively want her as a pupil; there is no social services link up; an adequate multi disciplinary co-ordination package does not exist at present; there is no adequate contingency education package in the event that X does not attend or is excluded – she has limited tuition at present but that, says Ms Delahunty, has been provided after much delay and has been beset by practical difficulties in locating the service, arranging the funding and making provision for extension. 
iii) She submits that the Devon plan has fundamental gaps in its ability to meet, let alone promote, X’s cultural needs arising from her heritage as a child of a Turkish Cypriot mother and an Egyptian Turkish Cypriot father. Thus within the Devon plan, she says, X has no access to any Egyptian or Cypriot family save by trips to London to see her family; there are no non-white residential staff or other residents at XYZ, and there are only 1% of non-white pupils in a school population of 1800 and none who are Egyptian or Cypriot. She suggested that the evidence from XYZ again represented at best simplistic answers to cultural diversity needs. 
iv) In relation to therapy, Ms Delahunty complains that the therapy thus far tried has not been successful and that no alternatives have been identified. She asserts that family therapy will not be possible while X is in Devon – logistically the family will not be able to participate in Devon and X would only be going to London for contact, principally during school holidays. This omission, she says, is significant. Therapy between X and her mother is “crucial” for the well being of their relationship, a relationship which, she says, is strained and turbulent, with learnt heightened responses by each to the other which need to be addressed as they are a precipitating factor for risk taking behaviour by X. 
v) In terms of access to a social services support structure, Ms Delahunty submits that the practical reality if X remains in Devon is that her support will come from the staff at XYZ; her social worker cannot ‘drop by’; he will to rely on XYZ for feedback and will be dependant on XYZ for awareness of any looming issues; he cannot realistically form a relationship with X from a distance of 250 miles away; he will have a dislocated relationship with his child client which may create difficulties as he will be deprived of the firsthand knowledge base which may be crucial to monitoring the care plan and managing changes; and the delegated duties to local staff may not be sufficient to bridge the geographical and emotional separation from her family. 
vi) Ms Delahunty makes the same point in relation to X’s legal representatives and children’s advocate. Her geographical separation in Devon means that X will be entirely dependent on XYZ for support and deprives her of ease of access to others whose role is to represent her views and needs. 
vii) In relation to after-16 planning, Ms Delahunty says that no pathways have been identified. She says that it is artificial to separate a child from her cultural community and place of origin when realistically, given what she has said, she will return to London when she is sixteen. It will, says Ms Delahunty, be very hard to integrate her at that stage given the length of time she will have spent away from London.  
133.	Finally, Ms Delahunty comments that there is no suggested contingency plan if the placement at XYZ breaks down. That is true, but on her own approach Ms Delahunty has nothing to offer if, as her contingency plan provides, X is placed in Devon and were that placement to break down.  
134.	More generally, Ms Delahunty says that the significant feature of the London plan is that the arrangements for its practical implementation are well advanced. This plan, she says, is more sophisticated and better planned the Devon plan, which is embryonic in its planning and execution. She rejects the argument that a similar package could be set up in Devon in time. In the first place, she says, the capacity of the local authority to access services in Devon on X’s behalf (where the other local authority will have no responsibility for her as a London child and whose first priority will be to their own Devon children) is unknown. Moreover, there will be clear and inevitable practical difficulties in requiring a London social worker (and the placement panel to which he is responsible) to have a thorough knowledge of  the range of services in Devon that X will need, for support and services sources in Devon are not within the acquired knowledge base of a London social worker. Furthermore, the prospect of a breakdown in communication between each limb if they are implemented at a distance from London is considerable. Secondly, she says, the task of replicating the placement, educational and therapeutic services in Devon is huge, so to do so would cause further inappropriate delay for the child. X, she says, cannot wait in limbo for all the components of a proper care plan to be identified and put in place. 
135.	The success of a care plan, says Ms Delahunty, lies in the detail rather than the aspiration and upon critical examination of the detail the Devon plan falls far short of what is required. 
136.	Fundamentally, and in conclusion, Ms Delahunty submits that the plan for X to remain at XYZ is a ‘one issue’ protective plan which does not reflect the complexity of X’s combined needs. She says that once the artificial cocoon of XYZ is broken, as it will be once she goes to school, the Devon placement will offer little by comparison to London and does not have the added advantages of school support, family network, therapy access, or direct access to social services and the social worker.   
137.	Miss Atkinson, on behalf of the guardian, submits that the care plan is quite clearly not in X’s best interests and is likely to put her at risk of significant harm. Her fundamental complaint is that the local authority’s thinking and planning does not meet Dr Eyre’s central point which is that X will revert to her previous behaviour if she is returned to London and that when she does so she will fail to recover because she will then be without the necessary support in the form of XYZ. The result, she submits, will be a disaster. 
138.	Miss Atkinson’s submissions centre on what in my judgment are four compelling arguments: 
i) First, she submits that Dr Eyre’s view was clear, balanced and influenced only by X’s best interests. He has, she says, been clear in his reports that X would need a lengthy period of containment: he suggested up to a year in his first report and on to the completion of her GCSEs in his addendum report. Dr Eyre’s view is that, whilst her progress has been good, X is still showing only a “glimmer” of insight into her behaviour, and as yet she is simply not robust enough to be able to cope with a return to London and the loss of her safety net in the form of XYZ. Miss Atkinson says that Dr Eyre was realistic in his evidence and prepared to acknowledge that with the reintroduction of education in Devon there was likely to be a deterioration. However, it was his firmly held view that X would be better able to cope with setbacks in Devon because of XYZ. She submits that Dr Eyre’s evidence was impressive, was not undermined at all by the evidence of the local authority and was supported by XYZ (who arguably know X best at the moment) and by the guardian. 
ii) Secondly, as she points out, the position taken by X is not in fact resolutely against or anti XYZ. True it is that X wishes to return to London but very significantly she has indicated that she will abide by any order made by the court. This, says Miss Atkinson, is interesting from a child who has in the past had extreme difficulties with boundaries. Further, X has, through Ms Delahunty, insisted that the care plan names XYZ as the contingency plan. Miss Atkinson submits that it is implicit in that position that X herself recognizes that there is a chance that she will revert to previous behaviour and that when/if she does she will need to return to XYZ. Moreover, as Miss Atkinson points out, X has ‘allowed’ XYZ to work; she has ‘let’ this placement work for some eight months. In this connection, as Miss Atkinson observed, the guardian’s evidence is significant. The guardian reminded the court of X’s fragility and of how she had chosen to leave the unit on only three occasions thus far – her choice – this showing that she wants to keep herself safe. 
iii) Thirdly, Miss Atkinson submits that the detrimental effect upon X of being in close proximity to her mother is something that should not be underestimated though it has been seemingly overlooked by the local authority. This is something that the guardian has considered and it is something which, at this stage, both she and the mother felt would be detrimental to X. 
iv) Fourthly, as Miss Atkinson points out with some force, the school arrangements, access to therapy and other services in London will be of no use to X if and in the event that placement in London breaks down.  Should she revert to her old behaviour (as predicted by Dr Eyre, by XYZ, by her mother and by the guardian) and if she is unsupported (as they predict) then even if surrounded by the best services she will be unable to access them. Miss Atkinson says that much has been made of the detailed support package offered in London as opposed to that supposedly available in Devon. She submits robustly that this is a red herring. A place is available for X in a mainstream school in Devon and given that, and what she calls XYZ’s proven track record of containment, she says that the court can be satisfied that the support network in Devon is there. Moreover, she says, in contrast to London it has been tested and not found wanting. She rejects the suggestion that there has been no investigation of Devon ‘services’ and that the court is thus unable to build a Devon support package around X in the way that it can in London. She reminded me of MI’s evidence to the effect that if the eventual decision was to be that X should remain at XYZ “We have everything in place”. Further, she submitted that such a heavy package is not required in Devon, precisely because XYZ are able to contain X in a way that the local authority fears will not be possible in London. Moreover, as Dr Eyre pointed out, therapy is low down the hierarchy of needs. At the top is containment and then education. 
139.	In summary, Miss Atkinson submits that, on the evidence heard over three days, there is no doubt that it is overwhelmingly in X’s best interests that she remains in Devon. Further, she submits, the evidence is that should X be returned to London there is a significant risk that the placement will break down with the result that X will again expose herself to risk taking behaviour and will be unable to access the essential services and educational provision provided for her. In short, she says, a return to London poses a real risk that X will suffer further significant harm. 
140.	The mother, through Miss Hughes, agrees with the guardian. She is fearful – in fact she is “sure” – that X will go backwards if she returns to London. It was clear from her demeanour during the hearing, and from a number of her interventions, that the mother feels very strongly about this, that she is adamantly opposed to the local authority’s care plan and that she strongly favours X staying in Devon for the time being. 
141.	In my judgment, and essentially for the reasons given by the guardian and by Miss Atkinson on her behalf, the local authority’s care plan is not in X’s best interests. X’s best interests will not be served by returning her to London – even if the care plan were to be amended to meet all of Ms Delahunty’s requirements. X’s best interests, in my judgment, require that she remain at XYZ in the placement which has worked – the only placement which has – and which has worked so well. I agree with Miss Atkinson that to return X to London now poses a real risk – in my judgment, a very real risk – that X will suffer further significant harm.  
142.	Dr Eyre’s evidence, in my judgment, is of central indeed of critical importance. Having seen and heard him in the witness box I have no hesitation in accepting his evidence and his advice. 
143.	Dr Eyre’s opinion is stark. He believes that if X returns to London at this stage she “will” go back to her original bad behaviour. She will not be able to cope. He feels very strongly that this is a probability, not a mere possibility. In this opinion he is joined by both the mother and the guardian. X’s mother is “sure” that her daughter will “go backwards” if she is returned to London. The guardian’s view is that there is a “very strong” likelihood that there will a breakdown in her placement if she returns to London and that X will revert to her previous behaviour. Dr Eyre accepts that the risks in Devon will be increased when X goes to school. But he makes three important points. First, that the chance of this happening in Devon is much less than in London. Secondly, that XYZ will be able to provide a level of support for her which will not be available at ABC. (The guardian made much the same point when she said that X is more likely to listen to the staff at XYZ, whom she trusts, than to the staff at ABC.) Thirdly, and most important of all, if something does go wrong in Devon it is less likely to be damaging to X than if something goes wrong in London: it is less likely that she will be engaging in risky behaviour. Dr Eyre is very concerned indeed as to the consequences if something does go wrong in London. It will be “a major problem.” It is the “worst case scenario.” Any such relapse could be “massively destabilising and destructive” and undermine all the progress that has been made. “Effectively we would then be right back at the beginning.” He makes the point that X’s placement at XYZ is working, and is the only one which has. The guardian makes the same point, commenting acidly that the local authority’s plan relies on a placement at ABC which “has been tried before and failed.” She believes that “on a very clear balance” Devon is the better option. 
144.	Dr Eyre is clear that the first priority is consistency and containment. Therapy, as we have seen, he puts at the bottom of the list at present. Understandably he recognises the importance of education, putting it second only to consistency and containment in the placement. And here, also, he recognises the importance of consistency. As he said in his letter in September 2005, “the next two years working towards GCSE examinations demand a degree of continuity which a change of school half way through might compromise.” He said much the same in his oral evidence, making the point that continuity through until she had completed her GCSEs was more likely to equip X for the future. 
145.	Importantly, Dr Eyre expressed the view, as did the witness from XYZ, that X would accept a decision that she has to stay at XYZ. 
146.	I accept, as Dr Eyre does, that there are risks attached to X’s continued placement at XYZ. But I am left in no doubt, having read a large amount of material and heard the better part of three days of evidence, that, whatever risks there may if X remains in Devon, they are outweighed – heavily outweighed – by the very considerable risks that I am sure X will face if she is returned to London. 
147.	If everything else was equal I might be persuaded that the Z school is marginally more suited to X than the school she will attend if she remains in Devon. But everything else is not equal and any marginal advantage that X might gain from the Z school is, in my judgment, outweighed – heavily outweighed – by all the other arguments for her remaining in Devon. 
148.	I acknowledge that the plan if X is to remain in Devon is, as Ms Delahunty points out, embryonic. But this in significant measure reflects previous deficiencies in the local authority’s planning. As Miss Atkinson correctly pointed out, the reality is that from as early as 9 January 2006 little if anything seems to have been done by the local authority to support or enhance X’s placement in Devon (see paragraphs [53], [57] and [90] above). More importantly, it is not an obstacle to a continuing placement in Devon. It is a challenge to be overcome. I am confident that, with appropriate will and energy, an appropriately detailed care plan and support package can be put together. 
149.	Much – in my judgment, far too much – has been made, both by Miss Cudby and Ms Delahunty, of the difficulties posed to the local authority of ‘working’ the case if X remains in Devon, so far away from London, and somewhere where the local authority may not know what local resources will be available for her. It may be, as Ms Delahunty puts it, that the social worker cannot simply drop in on X, but one has to keep a sense of proportion. XYZ is not in Timbuctoo. The fast train from Paddington to Tiverton Parkway – the most convenient station – takes a little over two hours. It is perfectly possible to go to Devon and back – or, coming the other way, for X to come up to London and go back to Devon – the same day. We live in the world of the telephone, the fax machine and the e-mail. And I cannot help thinking that whatever deficiencies there may be in the local authority’s knowledge of what is on offer in Devon reflect, at least in part, past deficiencies in its management of the case. Again, these are not obstacles to X remaining in Devon. They are challenges that can and will be overcome with appropriate will and energy.  
150.	This is also, it seems to me, the answer – a satisfactory and sufficient answer – to the spectres raised by Miss Cudby and Ms Delahunty as to the difficulties of arranging contact and therapy (particularly, family therapy) if X remains in Devon. I accept that there will be difficulties, but they will not be insurmountable. Again, what is required is proper care planning carried out with will and energy. I see no insuperable problem, for example, in the family therapy taking place, in London, on occasions when X comes up to London for family contact. 
151.	I recognise the desirability of a placement which meets X’s cultural needs, but in my judgment this is something that at present has to take second place to the overriding need for a placement which will, to use Dr Eyre’s word, “contain” X and prevent her sliding back into her old ways. 
152.	More generally, I recognise that there are a number of arguments in favour of the proposition that a placement in London can better meet at least some of X’s needs than a placement in Devon. But this argument breaks down, in my judgment, on the point made by Miss Atkinson. If X returns to London and if – though if Dr Eyre is right, as I believe he is, the question is not if but when – her placement breaks down, then the educational, therapeutic and other services available to her in London, indeed all the other advantages to her of being in London, will be of no use to X and will avail her nothing. Ms Delahunty’s answer to this is that everything will be saved by her proposed contingency plan – by returning X to XYZ. But even if XYZ or some suitable alternative placement is available – and I am prepared to assume that it will be – this assumes, contrary to Dr Eyre’s opinion, that the situation will be readily salvageable. In my judgment that is not a safe assumption to make. Quite the contrary for, as we have seen, Dr Eyre’s view, which I share, is that any further breakdown could be “massively destabilising and destructive” and would undermine all the progress that has been made, taking X, effectively, right back to the beginning. 
153.	For all these reasons I cannot endorse the local authority’s care plan. In my judgment, X’s best interests require that she remains at least for the time being at XYZ. I say for the time being. I think in the light of Dr Eyre’s views about the desirability of educational continuity it may very well be that X should remain at XYZ not merely until the end of the current school year but until the end of her GCSE year in June 2007. That, however, is a matter which perhaps can best be decided finally at the further hearing in the summer of this year which I am minded to direct (see below).   
154.	Both Miss Atkinson and Miss Hughes submit that the deficiencies in the local authority’s decision-making process are such as to have breached the important procedural safeguards guaranteed to both X and her mother not merely under Article 6 but also under Article 8 of the Convention. I agree that much of the local authority’s decision-making has been of a pretty lamentable quality, and that the procedures adopted have not always met the requirements of Article 8. But there is, in my judgment, a short and simple answer to the claim that there have been actionable breaches of the Convention. The question of whether there has been any actionable breach has to be assessed, as I have said, at the end of the day, looking to the entire history “considered as a whole” and assessing matters “overall”. Judged from that perspective, the simple fact is that any previous deficiencies in the decision-making process have been overtaken by events, for all the matters in issue have been canvassed in detail in the course of the present hearing. Just as in Re L, deficiencies in the pre-trial process have been made good in the course of the hearing.    
155.	Both Miss Atkinson and Miss Hughes have also addressed submissions to me in support of the proposition that, were the local authority to hold to its present care plan and move X to London despite a judicial determination that her best interests are served by remaining in Devon, there would be breaches of both X’s and the mother’s Article 8 rights. They invite me to make appropriate declarations. I do not propose to embark upon any such speculations – for that is all they are at this stage. If the point arises, and it may be that it never will, then it is a matter for another day.  
156.	I will say only this. The local authority has expressed itself in Miss Cudby’s final written submissions as “not amenable to change”, though it has said it will “consider” my reasoning. I urge the local authority to reconsider its position in the light of this judgment. I urge the local authority, in particular, to consider very carefully whether its care plan really can be said to meet X’s best interests. And I take the liberty of suggesting that the local authority would do well to bear in mind the wise words of Wilson J (as he then was) in Re C (Adoption: Religious Observance) [2002] 1 FLR 1119 at paragraph [51]: 
“The guardian argues that not even a judge of the Family Division has power to quash a local authority decision and that a damaging impasse can develop between a court which declines to approve their care plan and the authority which decline to amend it. The impasse is more theoretical than real: the last reported example is Re S and D (Children: Powers of Court) [1995] 2 FLR 456. For good reason, there are often, as in this case, polarised views about the optimum solution for the child: in the end, however, assuming that they feel that the judicial processing of them has worked adequately, the parties will be likely to accept the court’s determination and, in particular, the local authority will be likely to amend their proposals for the child so as to accord with it. The event of their failure to make amendment in such circumstances would be the proper moment for a guardian to consider taking proceedings for judicial review. In Nottingham County Council v P [1994] Fam 18, sub nom Nottinghamshire County Council v P [1993] 2 FLR 134, a case where a local authority had adamantly refused to accede to the court’s invitation to apply for a supervision order, some encouragement is given by the Court of Appeal at 43F and 148 respectively to the taking of such proceedings – but (as I infer) only at that ultimate stage. In the normal case let there be – in the natural forum of the family court – argument, decision and, sometimes no doubt with hesitation, acceptance: in other words, between all of us a partnership, for the sake of the child.” 
157.	The local authority would also do well to bear in mind the eloquent plea tendered by Ms Delahunty on behalf of X herself: 
“Whatever the judicial decision, the responsible adults and local authority are urged, on [X]’s behalf, to adopt the judgment and to implement it without further recourse to the court on matters of purported principle, or by way of judicial review or application of any alleged breaches of human rights or plans for section 38(6) assessment.  
Whichever plan is approved will be the one which has survived close judicial and legal scrutiny at a sophisticated level.  
Any other route will be legalistic in structure and create further delay and uncertainty which may well jeopardize any plan for 
[X] as she needs to see that adults can work together in her best interest.  
To prolong the disagreement creates the risk of undermining [X]’s confidence in, and respect for, the authority of the responsible adults around her (grudging at the best of times given her age, vulnerability and life experiences to date).” 
158.	Finally, the local authority will doubtless also bear in mind the very similar point made on behalf of the guardian by Miss Atkinson: “she would urge the local authority to prevent the prospect of further litigation and follow the decision made by the court. However, she is so concerned at the flawed decision making process and the risks for X upon a return to London that she feels that the priority is to get the plan right.” 
159.	Miss Cudby suggested that there were three issues for me to consider: (i) Does the court approve the care plan? (ii) If not, what is to be done? (iii) In the event that the care is agreed, is there a need for the final hearing in May 2006? 
160.	I have answered the first question. I do not. What is now to be done? In the first place the local authority must now consider whether or not it is determined to pursue its own care plan or whether it will, even now, decide to maintain X’s placement in Devon. Obviously the sooner that decision can be communicated to the other parties the better. If the local authority decides, despite this judgment, to maintain its current care plan then the mother and the guardian must decide, again as soon as possible, whether or not they wish to challenge that decision and, if so, on what grounds and in which court. It is unlikely that any decisions will have been taken, either by the local authority or (if the point arises) by the mother and the guardian, in time for the hearing fixed for 20 April 2006. I would hope, however, that decisions could have been taken in time for a hearing before me the following week, when I am again sitting in the Barnet County Court. I would invite the parties to consider agreeing to vacate the hearing fixed for 20 April 2006 and to re-fix it in front of me on some convenient day the following week. At that hearing further consideration can be given to whether the final hearing currently fixed for 15 May 2006 should be vacated – I am inclined to think it should be, unless the time can appropriately be used for some other purpose – and to whether there may not be advantage to a further hearing before me in (say) July 2006. 
161.	I invite the local authority to give the other parties a clear undertaking that it will take no steps to remove X from her placement at XYZ pending the next hearing before me. I should make it clear that were the local authority in fact to remove X from XYZ without giving the other parties sufficient notice of what was planned as to give them adequate time to apply to the court (if so advised) for appropriate injunctive relief, it would be a gross abuse of its powers. I trust that the local authority can be relied upon to act appropriately. If the local authority refuses to give them the kind of undertaking I have suggested, the other parties will have to make such applications (if any) to the court as they may be advised.  
Postscript (8 May 2006) 
162.	In the event the matter came back before me on 26 April 2006. The local authority, having carefully considered my judgment, remained of the view, as I was told, that the correct care plan for X was the one it had put before the court. However, mindful of X’s age and the unsettling effect of the proceedings, bearing in mind what it perceived as the likely stance of either the mother or the guardian if it pushed ahead, and concerned that X would remain in a period of uncertainty for a long period of time, which is not in her best interests, the local authority, in these circumstances, took the view that one of the parties needed to back down. The local authority was prepared to do so. Accordingly, the local authority was prepared to accept the view of the court and implement a plan which provides for X to stay in Devon. It hoped in this way to ensure that X sees some finality on the horizon. 
163.	I gave appropriate directions, including directions vacating the final hearing fixed for 15 May 2006 and re-fixing the final hearing – before me – for a date early in the school summer holidays following the end of school term in July 2006. I have reserved the case to myself. But it remains in the Barnet County Court.  
164.	A final question was raised as to whether I should give leave for this judgment to be reported and, if so, whether the local authority should or should not be identified.   
165.	On the first question there is, I think, a distinction to which sufficient attention may not hitherto have been drawn between giving leave for a judgment to be published – by which I mean published by whoever may wish to make use of it for whatever purpose and in whatever medium – and giving leave for a judgment to be reported – a form of words which, hitherto, has tended to be thought of as referring to publication in a law report. In the present case – and this, in my experience, is very often the reason put forward for suggesting that leave should be given – the application for leave is founded in large part on the proposition that the judgment is of interest to lawyers or other professionals and that for that reason leave should be given, so that the judgment can be reported in a law report. I speak only for myself, but I think this is too narrow an approach. 
166.	I say nothing about judgments given in ‘money’ cases or in private law children cases, which, at least on one possible view, may raise rather different issues. I confine what I am about to say to public law care cases. Such cases, by definition, involve interference, intrusion, by the State, by local authorities, into family life. It might be thought that in this context at least the arguments in favour of publicity – in favour of openness, public scrutiny and public accountability – are particularly compelling. In my view the public generally, and not just the professional readers of law reports or similar publications, have a legitimate – indeed a compelling – interest in knowing how the family courts exercise their care jurisdiction. Moreover, if leave is confined in practice to those cases which are, for some reason, thought to be worthy of reporting in a law report, the sample of cases which will ever come to public attention is not merely very small but also very unrepresentative.  
167.	My own view, and I make no bones about this, is that, subject of course to appropriate anonymisation, the presumption ought to be that leave should be given to publish any judgment in any care case, irrespective of whether the judgment has any particular interest for law reporters, lawyers or other professionals. It should not be necessary to show that there is some particular reason to justify why leave should be given in the particular case, let alone any need to justify leave on the basis that the judgment deals with some supposedly interesting point of law, practice or principle. For my own part, I should have thought that the proper approach ought to the other way round. It is not so much for those who seek leave to publish an anonymised judgment to justify their request; surely it is for those who resist such leave to demonstrate some good reason why the judgment should not be published even in a suitably anonymised form. 
168.	In a Memorandum issued on 28 January 2004 (see Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 142, at paragraph [104]) Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P observed that: 
“It is also worth giving consideration to increasing the frequency with which anonymised family court judgments in general are made public. According to current convention, judgments are usually made public where they involve some important principle of law which in the opinion of the judge makes the case of interest to the law reporters. In view of the current climate and increasing complaints of “secrecy” in the family justice system, a broader approach to making judgments public may be desirable.” 
She reiterated that view in her oral and written evidence to the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee in 2004 (2004-2005, HC116-II, Ev 12, Q46, Ev 84). Her successor, Sir Mark Potter P said much the same in his oral evidence to the same Committee in 2006 (2005-2006, HC1096-I, Q36). 
169.	In my evidence to the same Committee in 2004 (HC116-II, Ev 12, Q46) I said: 
“Traditionally, we have tended to give judgments in open court only if we think there is some legal point of interest to the law reporters, but the consequence of that is that the public judgments tend to be skewed away from the ordinary run-of-the-mill case to the legally complicated case, and the consequence is that the public has very little insight into or access to the routine work we are doing. I think many more judgments should be given in public.” 
I remain of that view. I should also add that in my view it is not for the judges to decide which cases should be reported, whether in law reports or elsewhere, nor to dictate the form in which they are published. In principle that is a matter for the publishers, not the judges. Licensing of the press was abolished long ago in this country – and rightly so. 
170.	The Committee itself in its Report, Family Justice: the operation of the family courts (HC116-I) made its views clear at paragraph [144]: 
“A greater degree of transparency is required in the family courts … Anonymised judgments should normally be delivered in public unless the judge in question specifically chooses to make an order to the contrary. This would make it possible for the public to have a more informed picture of what happens in the family courts, and would give the courts the ‘open justice’ which characterises our judicial system, while protecting the parties.” 
I would respectfully endorse that view. 
171.	On these grounds alone I would give permission for this judgment to be published. I would do so on the simple ground that, whether or not there is anything in it of interest to lawyers or other professionals, or for that matter to anyone else, no good reason has been shown why it should not be published in the anonymised form in which I have prepared it. Publication in this form will not, in my judgment, identify X or otherwise adversely affect her. So I would give permission. And I would leave it to others to decide whether or not there is anything in the judgment which merits publication, either in a law report or elsewhere. 
172.	Lest this appears inappropriately radical I should add that I would in any event have come to exactly the same conclusion applying the more traditional approach. This is a judgment which, as Miss Hughes and Miss Atkinson rightly submit, contains matters of legitimate interest to a much wider constituency than those directly concerned with X’s care. 
173.	The question then arises as to whether the local authority should be identified. I propose to adopt the same approach as I did in Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 142, at paragraph [125]: 

“I do not agree with Mr Howard, however, that the identity of the local authority needs to be protected. He says that there is no public interest in naming the local authority. That may or may not be so, but it is, I think, largely beside the point. It is for the local authority to establish a convincing case for an injunction to restrain the media publishing something which is prohibited neither by the general law nor by s 12 [of the Administration of Justice Act 1960]. It cannot establish such a case merely by demonstrating – even assuming it can – that there is no public interest in the identity of the local authority, for that is to put the boot on the wrong foot. His real case is that the local authority’s identity needs to be protected in order to ensure that B’s identity is protected. That argument, if it could be justified on the facts, might well weigh heavily in the balance. But, in my judgment, Mr Howard fails to make good the factual premise. I do not accept his argument that identification of the local authority is likely to lead to the identification of either B or her carers. I do not accept his argument that a combination of the disclosure sought and ‘tittle-tattle’ will serve to identify B”. 
The same, in my judgment, applies here. As I have said, publication will not identify X or otherwise adversely affect her. There is, therefore, no reason why the local authority should not be identified. 
174.	I should add that there is, in any event, good reason, as it seems to me, why the local authority – the London Borough of Barnet – should be identified. Given my criticisms, not merely of its conduct in this particular case but of what seem to me be significant shortcomings in some of its systems, there is, in my judgment, a clear public interest in the local authority being identified.