Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCC 34 (Fam)

In the County Court

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

Between:

	Local Authority X	Applicant	
	and		
	A Mother	1st Respondent	
	and		
	A Guardian	2nd Respondent	

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

Hearing dates: 4th August 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

Introduction
In these Public Law proceedings the Applicant Local Authority [LA] seeks a Care Order in respect of the one child age 16months. Their Care Plan is for placement of the child with a substitute family by way of adoption. Mother opposes the application and seeks the return of the child

Family Dynamics
The child for whom I am concerned and whose welfare is my paramount consideration is currently in foster care and has been since birth on its discharge from hospital. The child is thriving. The mother [M] is age 28 and is the 1st respondent. The father [F] of the child is not known, despite request for DNA tests, but it is believed to be one of two parties both of whom both have refused to participate in the testing or the current proceedings despite the efforts of the LA. The child is represented by a guardian and all 3 were legally represented in the proceedings which lasted 3 days. Mother presented herself as a single person, unemployed, and not being in any relationship with anyone. Additionally she has given birth to 4 other children. 

Her 2 eldest children, aged under 10, were the subject of care proceedings in 2004 when a supervision order was made and despite those 2 children residing for a short period with the maternal grandmother under a residence order, whilst the father [B] served a prison sentence, on his discharge, those children have continued to resided with him in the north of England.

The 2 remaining children age under 6, were the subject of separate care proceedings. The father of those children is L G and is possibly the father of the child the subject of these proceedings. A care order was made in 2006 following the recorder making findings of fact against both parents of non accidental injury, and those children were subsequently adopted in 2007. The youngest of those two children was born with syphilis. 

Additionally when age 15 mother had a termination of pregnancy.

Chronology
There is a detailed chronology set out at the beginning of the bundle which comprises one lever arch file, which I adopt for the purposes of this judgement. In summary the mother has been involved in a number of abusive relationships, littered with domestic violence on her and her children. In previous proceedings there has been a failure by mother to protect any of the children putting them at risk of significant harm as evidenced below. 

Despite the adverse findings of the care proceedings in 2006, she has continued her acquaintance with L G the father of those 2 children, despite him being of a violent disposition. He was also the father of an unrelated child to these proceedings, in which a care order was made and that child subsequently adopted. 

There is a long history of domestic abuse between mother and LG some of which was in public and a particularly violent episode being capture on CCTV. In late 2008 mother presented herself to the midwife explaining she was 5 months pregnant having concealed the pregnancy and the identity of the father. She indicates the father is LG, although she admits having active sexual relations at the same time with another male E who has also refused to participate or undergo DNA test.

Threshold
In a Public Law case a Court has no jurisdiction to make any Public Law Order unless and until the so-called threshold criteria set out in S 31 of the Children Act 1989 are established. I have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the child concerned, is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm or likelihood of harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to that child. 

The burden is on the Local Authority as the applicant.
In re: B 2008 UKHL 35, Baroness Hale stated 
“…I … would announce loud and clear that the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold at s31(2) or the welfare considerations at s1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegations nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies”.

 It is stated by the LA that threshold under S31 Children Act above is reached the date being the birth of the child having regard to the history and long involvement of the LA over many years. In particular significant harm had occurred previously to the 2 middle children as mentioned earlier. M accepts that date as being appropriate. The LA relies on the earlier threshold documents and the finding of facts made in those proceedings by the recorder. The M accepts that by virtue of those proceedings the court is likely to concluded that child was likely to suffer harm. She also accepts that she put her relationship with LG before her Children’s’ needs. 

Additionally the LA say the mother could not be trusted, she misled them and the hospital authorities, and concealed her relationship and contact with LG

Evidence. 
The Local Authority.
The social worker’s statement followed that in the bundle. Evidence was given of mother’s lack of cooperation with the LA in failing to advise them of the pregnancy, her inability to disassociate herself with LG despite all that occurred in the past, and her altercation with LG on Boxing day 2009 when the police were called and she was subsequently arrested, but released and not charged.. She had met him on a number of occasions, and it was firmly believed that LG was regularly staying at her home 3- 4 nights per week. She continue to show a lack of insight or appreciate her own vulnerability, gravitating to him whenever possible. He was present at the birth and held the child, he has played with the child and she has met him for coffee. Additionally she has not despite the length of these proceedings and the suggestions by experts, made any attempts to access any of the courses, Freedom project, suggested until very recently. The evidence is that she cannot stay away from this abusive relationship and seeks continual support, and this is despite saying if he attempted to contact her she would seek police support and obtain a non molestation injunction. The LA do not agree with the 4 recommendation in the conclusion of the report in Professor Ostapiuk’s at para 5 [ 3027 ]

Despite a viability assessment on the maternal grandmother MGM, grave concerns were expressed as to her ability to work in partnership with the LA and that she would not be able to protect or meet the child’s needs to ensure safety. MGM has filed no evidence in support of the M and did not appear during the proceedings, save to be in court to provide support and comfort for her. She was also believed to say that if LG was the biological father she would not be prepared to offer any kinship caring, as she had an unpleasant incident with him in which following an altercation, he stole her dog and was suspected of burning down her garden shed. Lastly her relationship with her daughter is itself difficult and can be hostile.

However the home conditions and living arrangements of the M have never been of concern to the LA as it is appropriate and is capable of providing the basic essentials for the M and child. There appears however to be evidence of a male having been living at the premises. 

The LA concern has always been as to the physical violence displayed to M by her various acquaintances. It would be pointless to carry out residential assessments for the reasons that the LA have no concern as to the home conditions which the M would keep, especially in a secure and observed situation. The problem would arise when she was allowed to reside alone in the community with the child. It is admitted that in a controlled situation she regularly exercises contact consistently and in a proper manner. The time to undertake further assessments would also impact on the child because of the delay. Neither did the LA accept she had made the psychological leap to move on from LG as no such evidence existed - the contrary in fact as LG had been present at the birth hospital, and she had been with him on a number of occasion on her own admissions.

This witness was subsequently recalled to deal with an issue raised by the psychologist. She explained that there were no provision within the local authority to provide intensive and long term mentoring to adults as suggested. Mother does not have a learning difficulty and as such would not have justified a referral to adult services. A referral can only be made if the child is placed with the parent.

Independent Social Worker ISW
This evidence was contained in an 80 page statement on the joint instructions of the 3 parties, after he had the benefit of reading the forensics psychologists, F Psy, report which had been file one week earlier and whose conclusion with which he disagreed. ISW had interviewed mother and the maternal grandmother but concluded that he was not able to recommend supportive measures for placing the child with M in the community, and agreed with the care plan to work to wards permanency by way of adoption. 

Despite M assurance she would follow through counselling and attendances on courses, M did not do so until much later, by which time some 6 months delay had occurred. 

Whatever the outcome he recommended M be encouraged and supported in her attempts at counselling through her GP and attend courses through Women Aid, the Freedom program, and which was a pathway for her to gain some direction and control of her life without relying heavily on others. He accepted that she was a vulnerable young lady who had been subjected to domestic violence and abuse over may years. He expressed concerns as her inability to apply mature reflection on the factors contributing to the domestic violence and her relationships with the fathers of her 5 children. 

She had failed to attend the care and adoption proceedings some 4 years before the recorder earlier, despite one of the children receiving significant injuries, and she had minimised the seriousness of those injuries. The current foster carers of the current child were also the carers of those 2 other children who commented that during contact by M to the child they had noticed a positive change in Mothers attitude and behaviour. 

The concern of the ISW related however to the behaviour of M away from the gaze of the professionals, and when M was not in a controlled and supervised environment. Her ability to recall accurately her own disjointed childhood was plainly evident.

Her ability to consider carefully the consequences of her inappropriate actions was further evidenced when she commenced parallel sexual relations with E, who is one of the possible putative fathers, spending half the week with him and half with LG. Such behaviour displayed reoccurring impulsivity and lack of maturity.

Despite her assuring the professionals and her mother that her relation with LG had finished she had seen him after her alleged separation on a number of occasions. He had attended the birth of the child and visited 3 times when she was in the maternity ward. On 26th December, 2009 she had been arrested whilst drinking at his house. Clothes and bathroom toiletries of LG were notice in her home the tenancy of which remained in their joint names. 

She admitted that she had met him sometimes at her darts club and had met for coffee and they had exchanged telephone calls and clearly knew his alternative address as she was able to visit him on Boxing Day. There was failure to disclose the ‘boxing day’ incident despite opportunities to the ISW or the forensic psychologist.

It was recognised that M had attended diligently and consistently the contact to the child, 3 times per week, some of which was observed by the ISW, which he felt within the supportive environment, with all the provided resources, she did so in a calm and methodical manner, but was concerned as to the level of stimulation and as to why she had not been able to do in respect of her 4 other children. 

On speaking to the MGM he was informed M could be secretive. She had a falling out with LG when an altercation took place in her home when her dog was stolen, the police called and her garden she subsequently destroyed by fire.

 LG informed him he was currently resides in a home with 3 others and was on probation and struggling badly to manage alcohol and drug dependency, and that his anger management training had not assisted him when he had been in prison. He presented as a deeply trouble young man, struggling to manage his own life. He gave the clear impression that although not participating in these proceedings and despite his relationship with M having ended, he knew a lot about the current action.

Lastly, were it considered that care should be that the child should be returned to M, he believed it would require extensive input to enable her to consistently apply the basic care skills to the child when dealing with the stresses and demands of everyday life. There was serious concern expressed as to her ability and capacity away from the protective environments. Prior parenting programmes failed resulting in significant injuries to her 2 other children occasioned because of misleading information fed to the previous LA.

Forensic Psychologist report [ FSR ]
Again this was obtained on the joint instructions of the 3 parties. He differed in his conclusion with the ISW. At the time of completing his report he had been unaware of M arrest on Boxing Day but filed a supplemental note stating his views would not have altered. He observed the MGM would provide kinship caring for the child but only if LG was not the biologic father, which mother regarded as being a selfish attitude. Mother stated that LG should not be allowed any contact to the child and that if he made any attempts to contact mother she would apply for a non molestation order, and seek police support. She believes he was the perpetrator of the injuries incurred by their children 4 years earlier. She also wished to move home to a safe address of which LG would be unaware.

He asked for professional to be aware of her cognitive limitations, ensuring a simple conversational approach, which would require a slower pace of delivery with frequent checks to ensure she understood and was able to maximise comprehend and retain the information. She should work with Women’s Aid ‘the Freedom project’ and ‘Recovery Toolkit’ programmes which should teach her how to keep herself and children safe and how she would build up her low esteem and self confidence.. He believes she has made an important psychological break from LG and has learnt to look at her past behaviour more objectively as she has acknowledged she failed to protect her earlier children, He state 
“ with the help and support of victim treatment it may be possible for mother to remain free of abusive relationships” 
He accepts she is a vulnerable adult who does not assert herself and is more easily deflected off course, but that with close monitoring from professionals she could develop skills to become a safer parent.. He conclude
 “… in the past mother compromised her ability to protect children by continuing in violent and abusive relationships with risky intimate partners. If she can [1] distance itself from abusive individuals [2] engages in rehabilitation as outlined above [3] demonstrates a willingness to be open and honest with professionals [4] and successfully establishes a social support network, then there is a realistic prospect that you can become a safe and protective mother to the child within the timescale consistent with her daughter's needs.”

As none of those programmes have yet been implemented and as they were meant as a gateway and a path only for mother to follow, the realistic date for consideration of completion of those courses would be March – April 2011. Disappointingly no such programmes had commenced and even if they now progressed on the time scale above it would realistically be mid summer 2011 before a full analysis could be made as to their success. He accepted that it would take a great deal of time to change mothers behaviour as currently because of her personality she cannot be open and honest with the professionals. He accepted she will always need ongoing support, unless she becomes involved in a positive relationship.

Mother
She provided a helpful statement of 59 paragraphs, containing details of her early childhood, relationships, previous court proceedings her current position and planned future. She admitted there were 2 earlier attempts at suicide following the breakdown of relationships and the pressure brought about by her unhappy relationships. Domestic violence had followed her leading to the break up with a number her partners and her losing her 4 earlier children. The proceedings in 2006 were difficult and despite attendance at earlier hearings she could not face the final hearing and did not attend. She gave evidence however that the extensive injuries caused to her daughter were caused by LG the Childrens’ father but did not say so at the time. She had concealed this information following a positive assessment by the then local Authority to allow the children to be returned to the parents. She accepts now that she should have dealt with matters differently but recognises that she failed to protect the child in her care. She had refused to press charges when she herself had been severely assaulted by him which had been caught of CCTV. Despite this she continued her association with LG and for a time had a parallel sexual relation with CE whilst cohabiting with LG. She remains uncertain as to who is the father of the child of these proceedings. The tenancy of her home remains in the joint names of herself and LG and despite splitting from him in Christmas 2008, she has met him socially on a number of occasions in town, had coffee once, engaged in telephone conversations and retained in the home some of his personal clothes and toiletries. Additionally she had asked LG to be present at the birth and allowed him to visit her in hospital on 3 occasions. She admitted that she had lied to the midwife about her medical history, and to the guardian and failed to tell her and the ISW about the boxing day 2009 incident when she was arrested after visiting LG at his home and drinking a quarter of a 70cls bottle of whiskey. She knew where he lived having been informed earlier. Since then she has said she has had no contact. 

Contact has been regularly exercised 3 times per week and there have been no complaints raised as to the manner and conduct of such. The foster carers had remarked there and been a significant improvement as to her commitment to contact. She had begun to form social networks with a colleague, her own mother and family a friend who was assisting her. She had recently taken the initiative in contacting women’s aid and her GP, to address her deficiencies. She believed that she had changed as she was now 4 years older since the last proceedings. She agrees there should be a care order but asks for time, 6 months, for courses to be completed and further assessment made and for the child hopefully rehabilitated to her. She was critical of the LA in not assisting her in taking these initiatives earlier as they must have known because of her personality and make up she was a person who lacked confidence. She accepted however that the ISW and guardian had helped and directed her in seeking these courses, but felt it was something she could now achieve alone. She now realises that was wrong.

Guardian. The evidence was contained in 2 reports. Save for some typos there was no significant alterations in her oral evidence which she gave at the conclusion of all the witnesses above. She remained of the opinion the child should remain in the care of the LA and agreed with the final care plan of closed adoption. She had met M and the 2 possible putative fathers of the child, the maternal grandmother [MGM], child and the LA. She understands the adoptive parents of the 2 middle children have expressed an interest in this child should the proceedings result in a care order and plan as the LA have requested. 

She had been present at the contact sessions and recognised that M had shown a commitment to contact which has been positive for the child and accepts that M did behave appropriately at all times and in her view that she did attempt to stimulate the contact. In this latter respect only did she disagree with the ISW.
Her concern was that M had continued to have contact with LG meeting him on a number of occasions of which there was positive evidence up to Boxing Day 2009. She was concerned M had ‘requested’ his attendance at the birth and had misled the G in that regard. She had met him regularly at darts, and had been to his house on Boxing Day 2009 which resulted in her subsequent arrest, despite assuring her on a number of occasions that she wished to have nothing to do with him.

The MGM Confirmed she wished to have nothing to do with the putative father LG. Additionally the 2 eldest children of the M, had now returned to live with their father in the north of England following his discharge from prison.

The G expressed a strong view that the M and LG remained in a relationship for the reasons already mentioned by all the witnesses, and did not accept the psychologist’s optimism for the mother or his conclusions. She agrees that during contact M is loving and caring for the duration of the contact but the evidence is she cannot distance herself from LG. She like the ISW supports the LA application.

Capability
It is useful to remind myself of what Hedley J said in re L [care; Threshold Criteria] 2007 1 FLR 2050
“Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting including the eccentric and barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. 
It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the province of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done. One never ceases to be surprised at the extent of complication and difficulty that human beings managed to introduce into family life. Significant harm is fact specific, and must retain the breadth of meaning that human fallibility may require of it.”

Findings
The mother of these five children has been the subject of domestic violence in a number of relationships. She has been abused physically and emotionally and abandoned by her former partners. She is a shy quiet nervous young mother small and slight of build who has been seeking the love and attention from a caring partner for many years. Because of her vulnerability she has left herself open to abuse. At 15 she was pregnant and following a termination, entered a volatile relationship with her first partner who was the father of her first two children. She lost both those children following care proceedings to that father and has had little or no contact with him all of them since.
Her second relationship with LG was particularly violent not only to her but the two children of that relationship. That is fully documented in the judgement of recorder. She was prepared to accept his behaviour and did not protect those two children resulting in the serious injuries. That resulted in the full care order and adoption placements being made.

She admitted during the course of these proceedings, for the first time that it was LG who cause those awful injuries to those children but did not say so at the time and has stood by him for a number of years subsequently. It clearly shows a flaw in her character that hopefully she is now attempting to address. She is a person who cannot protect herself or the children from harm. It directly impacts on her ability to protect children in the future. 

I find as fact that the mother continued to associate with LG at least up until Boxing Day 2009 which was eight months post birth. Her tenancy remained in their joint names. Some of his personal clothes and belongings remained in her property when visited by social workers. She had correspondence addressed to him at that address. She met with him regularly at darts and in town and had Coffee on occasions; she asked that he be present at the birth of the current child despite the injuries caused to her and her previous children. And she visited him on Boxing Day 2009 leaving for a short time to visit an off-licence to buy whiskey before returning and consuming a quarter of bottle, until the police were subsequently called and she was arrested. This is not the act of a woman who had terminated all relationships with LG.
I accept the chronologically of events presented by the local authority. There is no real plausible evidence to the contrary to dispute that.

I find that she has misled the Guardian and the local authority about her relationship with LG. She hid the pregnancy from the local authority and the midwives, and throughout which she smoked and drank alcohol.
I find on hearing the evidence that mother cannot provide the basic care to protect this child. She has failed to work with the local authorities who have strived to assist her as the Guardian and the Independent social worker did.
I find that despite saying that if LG attempted to contact her she would seek a non-molestation order and an occupation order and notify the police, she has not. To the contrary she has initiated and promoted the continuance of their relationship. As LG did five years ago he has left her to pick up the pieces as he has refused to appear and contribute to these proceedings despite the Guardian and the local authority’s efforts.

I find she has over the years repeatedly made mistakes in this long relationship which because of the domestic violence fuelled invariably by alcohol has caused serious injuries to her and the children. I find that in 2004 - 2005 she and LG misled the local authority and the court causing the children to be returned to them. The consequences of that resulted in serious injuries sustained by the children. Nothing has really changed in the last 5-6 years.
She clearly knows what is expected of her, which been has been confirmed in particular by the independent psychologists analysis and has been repeated by the social worker Guardian and Independent social worker. However none of the recommendations were ever followed through by her until recently, when following a meeting with her solicitors she placed her name down for consideration to be included in certain of the courses with women's aid. It is however too little and far too late.

I find that she does not have a supportive network. Her relationship with mother is mixed. It is on and off, and although her mother did support her and was present throughout these proceedings that could change quickly. No one else came forward to support her. No other evidence was filed. A female friend she has made recently herself had her own children taken into care.
I am satisfied that at the date of birth the local authority were justified in commencing the proceedings as there was a real risk of significant harm to this child.

Mother realistically excepts these findings as through her counsel she agrees a care order should be made in these proceedings. She does not agree the care plan for adoption. She says that that the child should be rehabilitated to her after she has completed all the courses and that by April 2011 the local authority will be in a better position to assess the situation. She is fortified by the recommendations of the independent psychologists and his final conclusions which conflict with that of the Independent social worker. The psychologist had hope, providing the four conditions were applied as above in his report, and mother reached all those milestones. There are however no guarantees and as I find his conclusions are based primarily on hope.

Mother accepts LG is a risk to her child that she has not taken the necessary steps far enough to become a safe parent. Fearful of LG she remained his partner and she wanted to be associated with him. She was finding herself in stressful situations beyond her control minimising and discounting his abusive behaviour. Despite forming a relationship with the other possible putative father, she continued her parallel sexual relationship with him in order to accommodate her needs attention and affection which suggests a repetition of her impulsiveness and lack of mature reflection. She failed to consider the long-term consequences.

I find threshold having been reached I need to consider the overall care plan. I have regard to the Children Act and the welfare checklist S.1.3, both of which the local authority and Guardian have addressed and which I unreservedly adopt. I approve of the care plan for adoption.

I do not wish it thought having listed all of mother's failures and inadequacies that I consider her to be a wicked person. She is not. Is she is a young mother who is not physically well. She is thin and gaunt. Her maternal grandmother says she has a poor diet picking at her food, and she smokes and drinks. She has tooth decay and mouth ulcers. She has been involved with social services most of the life and even more so in the last 10-11 years. She knows of a no better lifestyle as she has never been given the opportunity during school all there after to improve her lot.
And yet she has the ability and now the possibility so to do. She religiously attended contact three times per week. Of concern to the professionals however is her lifestyle away from those structured areas policed by professionals. She needs to follow through the appointment she has made commencing in September 2010, with women's aid and hopefully she will find support and form new friendships which is something she craves.

She did not appear at the proceedings in 2006 because she could not face being present, but in these proceedings despite being clearly upset she took a big step and gave evidence. She did so honestly and never attempted to mislead the court and recognised and accepted her many failings. She is now about to commence a path which may give her independence but that will not be for some time.

My concern is that this young child is now of an age whereby it is beginning to bond with its foster carers and it is essential that if a new family is to be found it must be done speedily as I have to balance the risk of further delay.

And what about LG. ?
He never filed any evidence, but it is clear from the evidence of those above he has had a long involvement with social services and the police. He was captured on CCTV carrying out a violent assault on M. He has admitted to some of the witnesses his association with male prostitutes, [F1020] and on returning home with large amounts of cash, despite not being in gainful employment. There is some evidence he may have been a rent boy [F 1087]. He has a long history of drug offences and convictions for burglary. He is believed to consume large amounts of vodka. In February 2005 he put a glass in his brother’s face in a public house to which he pleaded guilty. He and M were of the perpetrators, individually or jointly in the proceedings before the recorder. He refused to undergo DNA testing or participate in these proceedings save agreeing to be interviewed. He was not interested to know whether he was the child’s father or not. He refused to cooperate in ‘anger management courses’, or ‘enhanced thinking skills ‘[1069]. His own child by another relationship was taken into care and subsequently adopted. 

I find he is a deeply troubled young man who is a real risk to this child and the M.

Disposal 
Once the threshold criteria are established the court has to ask a number of sequential questions. The essential questions are: 
Whether an order should be made at all, and if so, what kind of order.
In answering these fundamental questions, the Court has to apply the principle that the Child’s Welfare is the paramount consideration; apply the statutory Welfare Checklist; not to make an Order unless the Court considers that the making of an order would be better for the child than making no order at all; and before making a Care Order, to consider and approve the Care Plan and the proposals for future contact if any.

Decision 
On all the evidence I have heard and read it is clear that an Order has to be made. The only real option upon a proper consideration of the welfare checklist is for a Care Order. Both the allocated social worker and the guardian have completed the detailed exercise of the operation of the Welfare Checklist in the circumstances of this case and I agree with their views and adopt them. I make a care order.

The Human Rights Act 1998
The principle of proportionality must always be considered alongside the welfare
 Checklist of s1 Children act 1989.

Hale LJ in re ; C&B 2001 1 FLR stated;
‘Intervention in the family must be proportionate, but the aim should be to reunite the family where the circumstances enable that, and the effort should be devoted to that end. Cutting off all contact and ending the relationship between the child and their family is only justified by the overriding necessity of the interest of the child’

I have considered the relevant articles of the Convention on Human Rights. I am satisfied that the interference with the mother and father’s right to family life is both justified in law and pursues a legitimate aim, namely the welfare of the child. By the same token the interference fulfils a pressing need and is proportionate to that need.

Finally at the conclusion of the hearing the LA notified all the parties that they had filed a placement application. The parties asked, subject to my judgment, that I should consider that application. The guardian had filed her report in support of the above. I have considered the application and the reports, and have applied the welfare checklists as set down in S.1.4 of Adoption and Children Act 2002. These have been addressed and I agree with the conclusions of the LA and the guardian and make the placement order.