Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCC 30 (Fam)

In the County Court

Before:
District Judge X
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	Mother A	Applicant	
	And		
	Father B	1st Respondent	
	And		
	Local Authority X	2nd Respondent	
	And		
	Father C	3rd Respondent	
	And		
	A Guardian for the children	4th Respondent	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hearing dates: 15 June 2010

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WRITTEN REASONS

The written reasons are being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report, no person may be identified by name or location (Other than a person identified by name in the reasons themselves) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved

Judgement

1.	This typed judgment is for the parties and for future reference for the 3 children the subject of this application they being  son [dob 1996] [child A]; son [dob1999] [child B] whose father is [F1]; and daughter [dob2001] [child C] whose father is [F2]. The mother of all 3 children is dob 1978 [M]. The judgment will also be published anonymously pursuant to the pilot scheme in which this court is participating.

2.	There are 2 applications before the court. The first is by M dated 6/3/09 seeking discharge of the care order made in favour of the 2nd R Council, made by this court on 23/2/07. The second is a very recent application made by F1 for contact to the 2 boys. The applicant was represented by solicitor Mr.Z ; The Council by counsel Mr X ; F1 by solicitor  Mr Y, the Guardian S. by Miss N and  child 1 by Miss D. F2 took no part in the proceedings although he was assessed, but I do record he has attended all of the contact sessions. F1 did not attend day 1 [his solicitor stated his client had travel problems in that his car was not roadworthy, an explanation which is no reason at all for non attendance]. However he did attend day 2 and gave oral evidence. His application was thoroughly examined. I will address his contact application when I have concluded the application of M.

3.	The Law. S39 Children Act 1989 permits the mother to make this application. The criteria to be applied are found in Section 1 Children Act. The applicant has the burden of showing to the court that each child’s welfare requires the revocation of the order. The welfare check list of s1 is important to consider. In this case the views of the children [in the light of age and understanding] are a particular factor especially of the older child. The emotional needs are of particular concern and the effect of a change of circumstances. The harm the children have suffered especially emotional is a particular factor relevant here and thus the risks of future suffering if the order was made. The risks are judged against the mother’s capability of meeting all the needs of the children to an adequate standard. Those needs and risks to be considered individually for each child.
I also consider the range of powers which include the substitution of a supervision order for the care order for each boy.

4.	I heard oral evidence on day 1 from the Chartered Educational Psychologist, S.W., whose report is dated 12/3/10 [pages E83-116 of the bundle]. She was handed some recent contact notes to update her. She has never observed contact but assessed following her interviews and consideration of the many case papers. Her evidence which included questions from all advocates and myself remained firm to her written report. I do no disservice to her detailed work if I extract a number of quotations which clearly summarise many of the issues in the case.

5.	First the children. ‘All the children are very demanding and they are all still very insecure’. No one disagrees with that statement. Currently children B and C are in foster placement in L. together. They have been there together for [2 years]. They are settled and doing well. Child A is in foster care separately only a short distance away and he is settled there having experienced a number [2] of previous difficult placements which caused instability. The psychologist states all 3 ‘revealed they have a strong but idealised and insecure attachment to M.’

6.	The psychologist considered the children’s individual response to the application. Of course they are aware of it and have thus been aware for the past year or so of the ongoing process and the possibility of returning to M. They are of course of different ages, none yet old enough for their views to be determinative but certainly their properly ascertained views are a factor to consider. Indeed child A is nearly 14 so his view must be of particular weight.

7.	Child A. He is described as ‘torn by his mother’s application and made it clear he has a very strong loyalty to her’. He understandably would like to see the family back together as before the 3 went into care, an idealised perception. He is aware of some of his mother’s issues at least for example her drug problem. By his solicitor a letter written to the court by child A was read out at the start of the day. This was a letter appropriately written by A with the agreement of his solicitor and the guardian and thus sets out his views. He would wish to return to live with M. He feels his current foster carers are ‘amazing’ so his wish to return is not borne from disenchantment in his placement. He feels his life has been messed around by the care process. Notwithstanding that letter the psychologist did not change her views on matters. I make it absolutely clear to child A that I very much take into account his stated wishes and his desire for the 3 children to be living again with M. Of course these views are but a part of the overall factors I must have regard. So for example even though his age is important in considering his views, his wish to return is idealised. Issues such as M’s ability to care for and protect the children must with other factors be taken into account. The consequences of failure on a return to mother and the damage that may be caused, and the impact on each child as well as collectively are very important matters.

8.	Child B.  He also expressed a strong loyalty to M but mixed with ‘strong fear  of rejection’. He is younger at 10 and has another year at primary school. He would like counselling. He showed a reluctance to talk about the application to the psychologist. At times he has expressed wish to go home but on the balance of evidence has not expressed a consistent and considered view. The Guardians evidence suggests a contrary wish on occasions. He is much younger than his brother, likely influenced by the situation and his views are in my assessment to be considered with caution.

9.	Child C was also aware of M’s application. She would not talk about it and changed the subject when approached. She was under 6 when she went into care but still has memories of living with M. She like the other 2 enjoys meeting M and F2 [her natural father] at the monthly contact sessions. In the psychologists view her attachment to M is weak.

10.	When initially taken into care all 3 children were described as ‘highly disturbed and they displayed insecure attachments and presented with a range of behaviours’ and described as ‘exceptionally demanding’. All 3 have made improvements but remain very demanding and all are still very insecure.

11.	The psychologist viewed a return to M by any or all 3 as not supported by her. She is concerned at M’s ongoing issues, including taking amphetamines, and the risk of her inability of meeting their needs. She is especially concerned at a failure and the resulting need of the children to be returned to foster care. She does not support the return of one or two to mother, she identifies the potential adverse effect on the other children of any order to return to M.

12.	M by her solicitor in opening confirmed that whilst she ideally would like to have all 3 with her acknowledged that child C did not wish to return. Accordingly she does not pursue her application to revoke her order at this time. Of course if her brother child B was to return to M then she and he would be separated, not for the first time as the 2 boys spent about a year together when they first went into care, but the effect of separation cannot be minimised even though the contact recordings record aspects of behaviour from Child B to C which may suggest ambivalence, but they are brother and sister and at their ages often disagreements may outwardly seem to be there but the sibling bond remains strong. M in her evidence in my view did not sufficiently recognise this and especially the impact on the children, especially the younger 2 if her application succeeds in whole or in part.. So on Ms case this issue has to be addressed. If child A alone were to return the impact on the other 2 is there of course but to a lesser degree as they live apart and only see each other currently once a month at parental contact sessions. The psychologist however does draw attention to the fact that child B would feel not only jealous but rejected and confused and could cause problems of anger and depression and impact on his relationship with child C. Thus a risk of being unsettled in her present foster home. However if child A’s needs clearly require a return to M then this consequence will have to be managed. 

13.	So the complex inter sibling emotional issues and consequences of a decision in favour of one child returning must be carefully considered, something which with the best will in the world child A cannot be expected to have been aware or considered in his statement of intent. Of course he would not be aware of the numerous issues raised before me in the case and the concerns expressed by the various professionals.

14.	M next gave her evidence. She has filed 3 statements which I have carefully read and considered. In her application form C1 she included a short statement. She stated that social services said she needed to make dramatic lifestyle changes from her prior involvement with drugs and alcohol and undergo anger management. She then CONFIRMS she is no longer involved in drugs. She and her former partner are separated. The police called once to remove F2 from the home. Psychiatrically she states no concerns regarding anger management. Her home it is accepted has been renovated and there are no issues regarding that. She claimed numerous requests at LAC reviews to re-assess her have been ignored as have requests to improve the contact arrangements. In that statement she believes she can adequately look after the children and they wish to return to her.

15.	Directions given by me on 15/7/09 ordered a report on Ms drug and alcohol consumption, based of course on her statement that she was not taking drugs. The psychological report of S.W. was ordered on M.  On 15/9/10 the child psychologist report was ordered.

16.	Regarding the relationship with F2 she stated [pB1] the relationship was ended in summer 2008 yet they remained friends and he called in 3-5 times a week, which frankly hardly suggests a termination of a relationship. She acknowledged in her first statement dated 9/9/09 that F2 wanted more of the relationship and in evidence she acknowledged he had strong feelings for her. There was the recent event in early May 2010 when he attacked her at her home resulting in criminal offences. She says the children know the relationship is over. Well they cannot know that. All the signs suggest to the contrary. Even at her strongest case she accepts his feelings for her, so the risk of a repetition of his behaviour cannot be underestimated. She says he would not do so if the children were there. I do not hold such certainty. There are obvious and all too clear risks. The confidence she holds in her ability to ensure he does not repeat the behaviour, or more likely in her view the fact he would not try again, is only held by her. The professionals all hold reasonable and proper worries. It must not be forgotten it was F2’s behaviour which very  much contributed to the children going into care in the first place. He takes drugs. I heard much about child A feeling guilty for the care proceedings as he gave information to the authorities when F2 attacked with a samurai sword which was the trigger event for the PPO. On M’s evidence F2 is still around. He attends contact with her. How she will deal with possible his attendances at her home is of concern especially if one or more child is with her there.

17.	Unfortunately M is a self confessed liar. She denied taking drugs pre test. She repeated the denial in the light of the results [see para 4 page B2]. On oath she confirmed she continues to take amphetamine to calm her down but not in the quantity as before. I am able to accept that. To suggest she was scared to admit to such as it would be used against her is extraordinary. Clearly the fact she continues to take amphetamine [she says not cannabis] is of considerable concern on her own ability to be able to properly care for the children especially in the difficult times or moments of stress. The fact she also lied places her credibility in grave doubt at every step of the way especially where her statements cannot be corroborated. Thus for example I accept the contact recording as accurate not her evidence when the recent record refers to words stated by child A over her new boyfriend relationship.

18.	She addresses school in general terms but has failed to even approach the schools to see if places are available. That is not fatal but the sort of practical arrangement I would have expected to have been carried out by a parent with the skills and abilities she claims to have to properly look after the children.

19.	Para 8 of the statement describes a ‘phased’ transition. This really would be under the auspices of a supervision order.  In evidence she felt such could be carried out by September. When I asked her why she did not try that approach before issuing this application [and of course if the children were having regular successful contact at her home perhaps with some overnight then her case would be seen in a different light altogether], she stated she had asked the social workers to expand contact but they refused. I state very clearly at this stage the absence of a regular and successful contact regime especially at her home, very strongly suggests to me this application in respect of each child is far too premature. I say that even if all other aspects of M’s case were in place and satisfactory which patently they are not [such as drug usage ; relationship issues with F2 and continued domestic violence ; the complex needs of the children and her ability to care] the fact she cannot rely on a successful and developing  contact history strikes at the heart of her application. Whether contact should have reached that stage by now is a completely different question. I will address such matters later when I review the social work evidence.

20.	Ms second statement of 26/4/10. That is in response to the unsupportive psychologists conclusion and the social workers statement and non support from the guardian. She stated she was trying to get help for her amphetamine use. She is currently awaiting a drug treatment course but no evidence was produced to suggest such is available in the near future. But really she needed to be able to demonstrate that she had overcome the hurdle of drug abuse. Maybe not entirely abstinent, but sufficiently progressed that the court could have confidence that she could be regarded as risk free to the care of the children. Her lack of honesty in respect of drug consumption has inevitably delayed such progress, earlier frankness and wish to overcome this hateful addiction may have resulted in sooner help. The referral for treatment/assistance was made in February 2010 yet she launched this application in April the previous year. Yet another example of this being a premature application to discharge. As she agrees the children would not be aware of such issues that is another reason why their views, especially by child A, may be expressed by them in the light of their ‘ideal’ view of their mother. Of course why should not the children wish to see her in such a light.

21.	M’s final statement. It appears that child A is aware of M’s drug usage in general terms. She now has another relationship with David S. He is an unknown quantity as is any future with him.

22.	She deals in some detail with the incident on 1/5/10 with F2. I need not here  repeat the detail save to say the effect on any child witnessing such behaviour would have been considerable from an emotional perspective. Maybe she could not be held responsible for F2’s behaviour but the fact remains there is an ongoing risk of repetition and the adverse impact on the children witnessing such is a real risk. M does not see that risk unfortunately. To suggest the answer is that he will keep away from trouble with her if the children are with her is again not supported by the behaviour described.

23.	In para 8 she is asking effectively for a trial period to show she can work with the social workers. She fails to realise the impact of failure and what will then happen to the children. As with many of these cases the balance of risk must be made. The child psychologist has considered the case from the childrens position. M just has not taken on board her objective assessment. Frankly the risks are so clear in the eyes of the experts and social workers and guardian that M’s lack of perception is concerning. She undoubtedly loves her children. She patently has made strides to improve her position from the depths reached when the children were taken into care. But she is far from being in a position to give the court confidence that she is able to adequately care for the children [even if phased] nor even limited to the 2 boys or even one of them.

24.	The way forward must be in respect of contact. Patently currently wholly inadequate. There has been no effective assessment in conjunction with M as to how the complex needs of these 3 children can be met by good contact. In my view careful consideration must be given by L/A to a brand new contact regime. I am here describing contact to M. There must be more convenient and better ways of contact especially in the immediate summer months. I do not judge the pace or development of contact. In a perfect world it may be at M’s home but I most certainly do not order that at this stage. But a fresh approach is required from the L/A and may I say from M as well. How can she expect trust when she does as she has in these proceedings. She needs to demonstrate an ability to work with the professionals for the benefit of the children. Honesty and integrity on her part would be a good start. Her undoubted love for the children alone is insufficient. It may be that the pace and development of contact will be different for each child. Such matters require careful consideration.

25.	The M stated that her application for revocation was borne by frustration over the lack of movement in contact. I accept that over the past year or so of this application that the detail of contact may have been diverted by the time and effort put into this application. The expert reports have concentrated on the discharge. The social worker who has put an enormous amount of work and effort into this family and into the huge amount of paperwork required in her core assessment, her statements and care plans, acknowledges a fresh approach to contact is required. The Guardian is in no doubt at all that current contact is inadequate. I agree a new and fresh approach is urgently required to contact especially now.

26.	In respect of the discharge application. There is no support at all from any independent source. I have 3 bundles but especially bundle 1 contains the statements, care plans and other primary papers. The psychologist, the Psychiatrist, the child psychiatrist and the Guardian are all against her. There is no reason for me to go behind their conclusions. Their individual work is thorough and professional and there is no reason not to accept their reports.

27.	The strongest grounds of M’s case to discharge are first the considerable improvements she has made to her lifestyle since the care order ; second the alleged termination of the adverse influence of F2 and third the wishes of the boys to return.

28.	. The psychologist S.W.[who reported and observed her in the care case] in the first part of her report makes the fair and valid points of that improvement. I do not repeat but take full account of the words at page 6 of her report. The social worker and the Guardian also recognise that. The report in its conclusion states clearly  ‘M has made major effort to change her behaviour and manage her life more conventionally so that she may be able to parent,. The factors which would have to change before that could be considered would be ; her relationship to drugs; she must achieve abstinence : her emotional stability as evidenced by dependence on medication and the psychiatric support : F2 would need to address his drug issue or if he could not have no further contact with M. ‘ She concludes it is not viable for M to care for any or all of her children at this time [being 9/11/09]. The de facto position has changed since then of course especially from M’s position regarding F2.

29.	A psychiatric report is dated December 2009 from Dr.C.. He addresses her long standing alcohol and drug misuse from a teenager ; her fathers death and the impact that had upon her. Her records show for example in July 2004 reference to psychotherapy with sporadic attendance and chaotic home situation. She had antidepressants. Bringing matters up to date he concludes she was pleasant and cooperative. Feeling much better and felt she had turned the corner. He concluded she did not show evidence of borderline personality disorder. She appeared much more stable over the course of the last year. But the presence of amphetamine in the tests and her denial of taking such is highlighted.

30.	Thus, although improvements, considerable concerns remains [1] her admitted amphetamine usage even if lower than previously. The psychologist believes this effectively confirms she is unable to adequately care for the children. Counsel for the L/A emphasises the point such evidence is unchallenged. It could not be. It is not the fact she lied to the court initially about this but the fact she cannot accept the impact on her ability to care for the children. Lest she be in any doubt about the fact of drug usage, this may well impact on contact especially if the time is reached when unsupervised contact is considered. In fairness to M there is no suggestion she has ever attended contact in an unfit state nor do I think she will, because contact means so much to her. Nevertheless the professionals will be aware of the fact of her drug taking. [2] of even greater concern is the fact the children, especially the older son, child A, are not aware of her failure to completely overcome her drug dependency. So any expressed view of a child must be considered in the light of this. [3] her lie about her drug taking inevitably makes others suspicious of her and trust is naturally affected. She has to rebuild such trust. [4] only she believes that her relationship with F2 is over. The psychologist describes the intensity of their relationship and even F2’s dependency on her she being the dominant partner. It is entirely a matter for her with whom she has a relationship, the interest of the court is only to the extent it affects the children. [5] the continuing risk posed by F2 away from the supervised environment as demonstrated by his dreadful behaviour which falls into the category of serious domestic violence. [6] the fact of the children’s continued fragile emotional state, collectively but also each have their own needs. This requires protection. They are in a stable environment now with their 2 foster families and risk of disruption especially in a failed return to M would be emotionally disastrous for them.

31.	I have already highlighted the views of the children. Solicitor for child A at the outset produced the letter to me from him. Throughout the case she emphasised quite fairly and fully the instructions of child A. He is nearly 14 years of age. His views are so very important I return to the issue. In many ways his views are the strongest part of M’s case. I have to apply the welfare of the child test. The law makes it absolutely clear that the child’s views must be taken into account. The older the child and the ability of him to understand the issues make the views of greater importance. Child A has consistently expresses a view to return home. That is confirmed in his letter. Ideally he would like all 3 to be together at home again as a happy family. No one in the court would not wish for that. I repeat I have considerable regard to child A’s views so clearly expressed. The Guardian told him why she was not agreeing with his wishes. I agree with the Guardian. Child A is not aware of the full picture which has been available for me to see in this court over the 2 days of evidence and as detailed in the many detailed and expert documents. There is no doubt the childrens mum has made great strides to improve her life. To rid herself of the illness of drug dependency is so difficult. She delayed seeking help by her stance she had actually given up. I accept she has now made further efforts and awaits support services. Similarly she and F2 have had an intense relationship and she will have gone through much heartache doing her best to distance herself from the bad aspects of F2. But as stated the risks remain. I also take particular not of this older son’s age and acknowledge the fact in 2 years time he will be 16 years of age and by then his views may well be determinative.

32.	M’s application to revoke the orders is dismissed in respect of all 3 children. The applications for discharge frankly should not have been pursued by her. Once her continued drug taking was apparent in my view she ought to have accepted the position and not try and wriggle out of that issue by suggesting a spiked drink or whatever. The children have been put under considerable stress by this discharge application, a fact which M must acknowledge and bear responsibility. The Guardian told me how dreadfully worried child B was last week on holiday concerned about the outcome of the case. M in my view should take a careful look at herself. She told me that she will put her children first. She needs to take on board the views fairly and professionally expressed of the Guardian and psychologist in particular. Her children are bearing the burden of their mother’s expectation they could be returning to her. Of course I fully understand how much she would like them home but she must now accept what the professionals were telling her was correct and sadly this is not possible. The children need her to support them in their placements. To let them know she acknowledges the excellent care they are receiving and that she still loves them dearly but most importantly relieve them from the burden that SHE expects them home soon.

33.	M should now concentrate on contact with the children. Time has been lost during these proceedings. Scarce and very expensive resources could well have been better deployed if the application had been restricted to contact. I acknowledge M’s frustrations over the contact. The Guardian does also. I hope I have made my finding clear there must be a complete review and plan for contact. The first issue is quality of contact not so much the quantity. The suggestion of 6 week contact for 1.5 hours at place Z is wholly unacceptable. The social worker agrees, the Guardian agrees that community based supervised contact must be considered. I could not agree more. A considerable positive for M is her commitment to contact. I accept it is difficult. The children are demanding and much as I endorse contact for all 3 there is clearly merit in considering some contact individually so that each child may have her full attention additional to the family contact. I was told of the local authority problems with contact resources and I acknowledge the social worker is perhaps limited in what is available to her. Well the L/A MUST put in place resources. The primary resource required is supervision. I do not step on the toes of those obligations to record contact but I wonder if there is too much paperwork and not enough thought about good contact. Yes there are risks M will say the wrong thing. This is one of the responsibilities she must now accept, to be appropriate. But some good activity based contact can only be of major benefit to the children. This may be no more than a family picnic in the park or at a beach but why not especially with summer on the doorstep. I expect arrangements for this type of contact to be put in place very shortly and most certainly at least a couple of occasions during the summer holiday period.

34.	Whilst dealing with contact inter sibling contact has NOT occurred between child A and his 2 younger siblings who reside together. I find this unacceptable. I was told how supportive and good the foster parents are. They live in close proximity yet there has been no contact arranged between the siblings. No explanation given why not. I would expect urgent consideration to this.

35.	In discharging the application for discharge I retain jurisdiction regarding the application now as a s34 application for contact in care by M. Insofar as necessary I allow the oral application by M’s solicitor to amend the application without re-service. After all there is no prejudice and I have little doubt all lawyers effectively expected this case to be about contact issues, especially as so much time was actually spent on the issue in the hearing. Of course the L/A will need to address what is required so I will adjourn the contact application to an appropriate time with consideration of directions when I deliver this judgment.

36.	The children remain in care. I make no formal order for contact with F2. The L/A retain the obligation to review and develop contact with him as appropriate.

37.	Regarding F1. His only contact in the past 4 years has been a recent letter which appears an appropriate start. That letter was actually in response to a letter written by each of the boys to him. Their apparent strong wish to engage in communication with him is something which must be carefully monitored and appropriately encouraged. The care plan suggesting face to face contact after all this time especially with child A, in the summer is premature. For F1 to expect an early move to direct contact is naïve and rejected. Indirect contact must be the first step with a sequence of letters and cards for birthdays etc. Perhaps an exchange of information as the child psychologist felt was so important. In private law proceedings unless there are safety reasons I am keen for exchange of information to include photos and as and when appropriate a written response from the child concerned IF that is something the child would like to do. Appropriate exchanges should be considered here. But this must be at an age appropriate pace and of course having in mind all the issues these 2 boys have. I have seen no evidence that the L/A refused such approach, none was made by F1, just an application issued. It is too soon for consideration of formal independent assessments. The social worker has already put in place an assessment of F1 which will take a few months. That is a period when F1 can begin to demonstrate his commitment by engaging in this process. He did inform me he was a heroin user until a year or so past and he still takes amphetamine. These are serious issues so a lot of groundwork is required at this early stage. The childrens priority is to settle after this application and pressure must be kept from them. F1 must be patient. He has been out of the boys lives for a long time. His life has moved on considerably and he has 3 other children. He must recognise the concerns that will exist over his drug issues and one hopes his attempts to overcome this problem are successful but that will not happen overnight. I will order with his consent the disclosure of his medical and criminal records. There will of course be the usual check for any social service involvement. 

38.	It is essential that the children are informed of what is going on and the expectations, appropriate to their age and understanding. They will need some time to settle, but I do hope some contact with M can be arranged swiftly. She needs to be able to have the chance to say something to each about the future now they all know they are remaining where they are. Each child has different needs in this respect. It may be appropriate for child A to be shown extracts from this judgment especially regarding the consideration of his wishes something I am sure his solicitor will attend to. 

39.	L/A request a s91 [14] order restricting M from making another application to discharge without the leave of the court. I have considered the judgment of Butler Sloss LJ in re P and the 11 factors. Whilst M’s current application was with little merit, certainly once the psychological assessments were received, and also her lies upon the drug issue that is no reason to impose this draconian restriction. In my view the only possible reason is based upon the effect on one or more child. There is much evidence that this application has had considerable effect on the children, if a graphic example needed then the concern to child B on his recent holiday. The Guardians solicitor suggests a one year ban, L/A counsel 2 years. The contact issues will likely be before the court for a while yet maybe longer. I adjourn the application to be considered once the M’s contact application has been determined. I do not comment either way on any future decision. To have a s91 [14] order in place with the concurrent contact issue seems to me to be wrong in principle and frankly whilst contact is before the court the expectation M will even consider launching a fresh discharge application are so remote as to not require an order. I will of course retain conduct of this case at least during the time the current matters are before this court. I would expect any future application if made to come before me and any unmeritorious application will be summarily dealt with.

40.	I will adjourn M’s application for contact for a short period as I require the L/A to put forward a clear contact plan of the type envisaged over the school summer holiday, so I will require a short appointment before me in say 3 weeks time just before the summer school break. F1’s contact application can be adjourned for 3 months and then a short directions appointment can assess the position on his application. Also at that time a more comprehensive plan for contact with M can be developed hopefully in the light of a successful summer contact.

41.	I make CLS assessment orders as necessary. No order as to costs. I also take this opportunity of thanking the advocates for their professional assistance. Counsel for the L/A if I may say so clearly and succinctly and fairly presented the case in response to the application. Solicitor for M, facing the difficult task before his client asked appropriate questions with clarity and to the point and placed his client’s case before the court skilfully. Solicitor for the Guardian only became involved quite recently but her preparation was good and obvious and clearly the childrens position was fully considered. Solicitor for child A [also with the same Guardian] actively and thoroughly presented his case and patently spent time with the child in difficult circumstances undoubtedly gaining his confidence. Solicitor for F1 was by virtue of the issues less involved but again appreciated the relevant issues.