Case No:  EY13C00049
IN THE COVENTRTY COUNTY COURT

140 Much Park Street
Coventry
West Midlands
CV1 2SN

Tuesday, 21st January 2014

Before:
HER HONOUR JUDGE WATSON

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: H

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

Transcript from a recording by Ubiqus
61 Southwark Street, London SE1 0HL
Tel: 020 7269 0370

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

MS GREAVES appeared on behalf of the LOCAL AUTHORITY
MS COLLINS appeared on behalf of MOTHER
MS O’REILLY appeared on behalf of FATHER
MS MOSELEY appeared on behalf of the CHILDREN through the GUARDIAN

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

JUDGMENT
HHJ WATSON: 

1.	The representation today is as it was during the hearing.  I have the local authority, Coventry City Council, represented by Ms Greaves, who is a solicitor with the City Council.  Mother, Mother,  is represented again by Ms Collins of counsel, and father of A, Father, is represented again by Ms O’Reilly of counsel, and the children are represented, through their guardian, Sarah Parker, by Miss Moseley of counsel.
2.	The local authority seeks care orders and placement orders in relation to both children.  C, born on the 27th April 2007 and A, born on the 1st August 2012.  
3.	The birth father of C is unknown and has played no part in the proceedings.  C is now six and will be seven in April this year.  C has been brought up to believe that Father is his father and it is unclear whether he knows that this is not the case.  Some urgent work is required to assist him with his identity and knowledge of his parentage.
4.	A is 18 months and she is the child of Mother and Father.  Mother, who is 22, Father, who is 30, have been in a relationship since October 2011, and very shortly after starting the relationship became engaged.  It has always been a volatile relationship which has been peppered by violent outbursts.
5.	The allocated social worker, who became involved with the family on the 6th November of 2012, referred to a number of violent incidents reported to her by Mother.  I refer to these as a snapshot of the children’s experience in the family home.
6.	On the 20th December of 2012 she described how Father had kicked off and smashed a laptop and phone when both C and A were present, and on the same occasion, had broken the Moses basket stand, a light fitting and lampshade in their bedroom.  C was spoken to by social care and reported that he had not slept and that daddy had hit him hard six times.  He later stated that he had not been hit by his father.  
7.	On the 18th January 2013 Mother called an ambulance at 9pm from the paternal grandmother’s house and reported to the control room that C was out of control and had been biting and kicking.  When the paramedics arrived they noted that Father had his hand over C’s mouth.  C was sitting quietly and crying.  C said to the paramedics that he did not want to go home to his flat because he was scared.  C was kept in hospital for observation.  The hospital observed that C was fine when mother was not present.  CAMHS completed an initial assessment and reported that C did not have ADHD nor autism.
8.	On the 23rd January Mother agreed to Section 20 voluntary accommodation for C.  Care proceedings were issued on the 26th February and on the 1st March the court made an interim care order in respect of C.  A remained at home in the care of her parents. 
9.	A further incident was reported to the police on the 23rd March of 2013 by Mother, of Father hitting the computer when A was present.  On the 9th April the team manager called both parents into the office to discuss concerns raised during home visits.  Mother reported another incident when Father had smashed up the flat.
10.	On the 12th April the duty social worker attending the family home was concerned about Father’s behaviour during that home visit, and she commented that voices had been raised, but A did not react.  Father said he was leaving the family home, but by the 16th April the parents had reconciled and both reported they wanted the relationship to continue.  However, later the same night Mother contacted the police to say Father was kicking off and had thrown the house keys at her.  The following day, the 17th April, The Haven Women’s Refuge completed a risk assessment, but Mother was not suitable for assessment because she was still in a relationship with Father and had told the women’s refuge that she was not frightened of him.  The matter returned to court on the 17th April and an interim care order was made in respect of A, and at the contested removal hearing on the 19th April, that was confirmed.  A was taken into foster care, but a separate placement to C.
11.	When the court made the order for A to be removed into foster care, Mother left the court room screaming and crying.  Father was calm, and when coming out of court gave A a kiss.  Mother was loud and shouting and approached A and snatched her from the pushchair saying, nobody was taking her daughter away.  A did not react at all, she did not cry, she showed no reaction when placed with the carers and did not appear upset, she was indeed calm and placid.
12.	During the course of the community-based assessment both parents disclosed a high level of inter-partner violence within their relationship, although Father had not been as forthcoming as Mother, and had tended to minimise his and Mother’ behaviour.  Arguments resulted from disagreements over their parenting, over Mother’ emotional difficulties and over Father’s anger.  
13.	On the 9th July of 2012, a few weeks before A was born, Father appeared before Coventry Magistrates on a charge of disturbance of the peace and was bound over to keep the peace following an incident in the home between him and Mother.  
14.	The difficulties have been longstanding and follow a pattern of violent outburst followed by a resolve to leave and separate, which in the end is short-lived and the parties become reconciled.
15.	On the 6th August of 2013 the parents decided to separate.  This decision coincided with a meeting to discuss the conclusion of the community-based assessment, which was negative.  Miss Gladys Chinniandur, the CBAS assessor, in her oral evidence to the court, described how the parents presented as a couple that day, but she was later told that they had decided to separate.  During the course of the assessment she had been told that they had separated but then, the next day, she was told they were back together again.  Miss Chinniandur was therefore sceptical about the parents’ ability to maintain the separation.
16.	She described their relationship as one of co-dependency, and that a very high level of contact was maintained with Father attending several times a day to walk Mother’ dog.  When Mother was recently in hospital he had moved back into the flat to look after the dog.  Mother is pregnant with their child and wants to maintain a friendship with Father.  
17.	Miss Chinniandur gave evidence of the risk that the relationship will resume.  The new baby is due on the 27th February and Mother is next due for a scan tomorrow, on the 22nd January, when it is anticipated a planned caesarean section will be arranged.
18.	I turn now to the hearing.  Mother does not oppose the local authority’s plan for C.  She accepts that she cannot provide the level of parenting necessary for C and she has taken a brave but child-focussed decision to allow the local authority to make the necessary arrangements for C.  He is described as a lovely little boy who should not be difficult to place, but his age and, at times, challenging behaviours might cause some delay in finding the right placement.  C has clear recollections of life at home and will need some therapeutic help to make sense of his experiences.  It is proposed to cast the net as wide as possible and to allow for a referral to CAMHS, the local authority will place his profile in the publication ‘Be My Parent’ to enable a nationwide search to be made.  A limit of 12 months will be put on the search for an adoptive placement.  In the meantime he was moved on the 11th January of this year to a new long-term foster placement.  This is an agency placement which is local and where C is the only child in the placement.  C can remain at the same school and the placement could become a long-term placement if not suitable adoptive placement is found.  C will receive the one-to-one attention all the professionals recommend that he needs.
19.	Father does not put himself forward as a carer for C or A, but supports Mother in her wish to parent A and the unborn baby.  The guardian supports the local authority care plan for C and indeed for A.  There are no family members who are assessed as suitable to care for C.  Maternal grandmother was joined as a party to proceedings as a potential carer for C.  She had significant involvement with C throughout his childhood, and had brought private law proceedings for residence prior to the issue of care proceedings.  She was assessed by the local authority and also by an independent social worker, but the outcome of both assessments was negative and maternal grandmother was discharged from proceedings.
20.	There are no alternative family members and the guardian, in her final analysis, recommends the making of a placement order for C with a reduction in contact, followed by a goodbye visit.  
21.	It is necessary for a placement order to be made to ensure that a comprehensive search can be made.  The absence of a placement order would impede the search for prospective adopters, and the local authority have indicated in the care plan that if a 12-month search does not result in an adoptive placement being found, an application will be made to revoke that placement order.  In these circumstances the welfare of C requires that parental consent is dispensed with and a placement order is made for C.  
22.	I turn now to A.  The local authority seek a care order and a placement order in respect of A, which is supported by the guardian but opposed by both Mother and Father.
23.	Miss Collins, on behalf of Mother, sought an adjournment of the hearing because Mother has recently been in hospital following a concern that she might have gone into early labour.  She is tired and in some discomfort and would prefer to deal with the contested hearing after the birth of the new baby.  It has been said that there would be no prejudicial delay for A as it is intended that care proceedings be initiated in respect of the new born baby and to seek removal at birth and placement with A in foster placement, with a proposed care plan of adoption of both children together.
24.	The adjournment was resisted by the local authority and the guardian as the dates for the final hearing had been set for some time, and it was always known that mother would be in the later stages of her pregnancy.
25.	The proceedings of course are stressful and will be whether heard this week or whenever the baby is born, that is the nature of care proceedings.  Despite some early concerns about premature labour the medical position is clear, mother is not in early labour and there is no risk to her or the unborn baby in the proceedings continuing.  There will be prejudice however to A in further delay.  A has now been in foster care since April 2013 and will be two in July this year.  There is an urgent need for decisions to be made about her future placement.  
26.	I refused the adjournment but said I would ensure that the hearing is conducted in such a way to ensure frequent breaks and time for Mother to properly conduct her case.  Mother coped well with the proceedings and was a confident and articulate witness.  
27.	I turn now to the threshold.  The threshold is not in dispute in this case.  The parents have filed response to threshold in which they comment on some of the facts raised in the threshold, but do not dispute that there was justification for the initiation of proceedings.  
28.	At A53 in the bundle, Father, whilst denying that he has an anger management problem, accepts that he has an emotional needs problem, and is receiving therapy from the Lighthouse Ministry charity.  He fully accepts that his behaviour is inappropriate on occasions and that he has had problems with anxiety and depression in the past, which the GP was treating with medication until January 2013 when Father was advised that he no longer needed that medication.
29.	Mother accepts her diagnosis of personality disorder and depression.  She has been referred on one occasion to CRISAC, the crisis team.  She has, in the past, deliberately self-harmed, including self-cutting with a knife up to the age of 18 years.  On the 31st January of 2012, when C was in her care, she describes losing control to such an extent that she had thrown a glass across the room, so that it shattered.  She was put on medication to regulate her behaviour.  On the 9th February of 2012 she tried to take an overdose of tablets.  
30.	Both parents accept that the children are put at risk of emotional and physical harm due to the volatile relationship and behaviour of both of them.  
31.	The family had pet dogs which were causing problems in the home.  On the 9th March of 2012 social care described the home as being in a poor state and furniture torn or shredded by the dogs.  Although this is described as an exaggeration, the parents both agreed that the property was in a bit of a mess, but say that this is no longer a problem because the problem dog, Trigger, has been rehomed.  Unfortunately, problems continued with a request that the dogs be placed at the home of the paternal grandmother because the dog fights were putting C at risk in June of 2012.  This suggestion met with refusal because the dogs would fight with the paternal grandmother’s dogs.  
32.	One dog has remained in the family home, it is the family pet, but it has continued to cause problems for Mother who, because of her pregnancy, has been unable to walk the dog.  The dog she describes as boisterous.  It is only in her oral evidence on the final day of the hearing that she says for the first time that she has made arrangements for the dog to be rehomed, and that it would be going on Sunday, that is Sunday of the weekend just gone.  
33.	The dog has continued to bind the parents together as it has been the reason given for Father needing to visit Mother’ flat three times a day, despite the fact that both parents are adamant that their relationship is over, that they have separated, and that it is their joint wish that A be returned to the sole care of Mother, with Father staying away and being restrained by injunction from returning to the property.
34.	Social care had concerns that the parents were unable to manage their finances in order to ensure the children’s needs were met.  Both parents accepted that was the position, but in June of 2013 said that they had now worked things out together, and that Father had taken sole control of the finances in 2012 when FABB were involved.
35.	There is, as a consequence, little evidence to suggest that Mother can manage her finances independently and her oral evidence suggested that Father was giving her money for electricity and to meet the expenses relating to the unborn child, certainly up to December and possibly up to the final hearing.  
36.	The issues for the hearing were these, the court has to resolve a number of issues in order to decide what is in the best interests of the children, and it is of course the children’s welfare which is the court’s paramount consideration.  Do the parents recognise the deficiencies in their parenting?  Do they have insight into the local authority’s concerns?  Can they make the necessary changes to their parenting?  Can they put into practise what they have learned in order to sustain the changes made?  Can that progress be maintained?  Ultimately, the question for the court is whether the parents can make the changes in the children’s timescales.  In order to make that judgment I have to have regard to the evidence.  I heard first from the social workers.  I heard evidence from two social workers, Helen Fisher, who became the allocated social worker in November 2012, four months before the issue of proceedings.  She continued to work with the family until she went on maternity leave at the end of September of 2013.  Her successor, Lorraine Welch, took over responsibility on the 1st October of 2013, but she was a very familiar face to the family as she had co-worked the case previously with Miss Fisher.  
37.	In my finding, the continuity of personnel in this case has benefitted the family and it is one of the positive features in the case that both Father and Mother are described as engaging well with both social workers.  They kept all their appointments with the community-based assessment team.  They have demonstrated a commendable commitment to contact and have opened up their home and been welcoming to visiting professionals.  I am satisfied that the parents’ willingness to be assessed and commitment to the process cannot be questioned, and I am equally satisfied that they have been fairly and comprehensively assessed by the social workers.  
38.	Helen Fisher developed a close working relationship with the parents, and I accept her professional observations and judgment.  She described her scepticism about the parents’ ability to maintain separate and independent lives.  She describes how, on numerous occasions, they had told social care that they had separated where this proved not to be the case.  This was said by Mother, in April 2013, after the contested interim care order.  A was removed from her care into foster care and there could not have been a clearer indication of the need to separate, but Mother did not maintain the separation and Mother and Father presented as a committed couple in an enduring, long-term relationship for the duration of the CBAS assessment.  It was at the conclusion of that assessment, when the recommendations were outlined to the parents, that the decision to separate was made and said to be, this time, for good.
39.	Miss Fisher acknowledged that the decision was taken on the 6th August and she did not have any evidence to suggest that they had resumed an intimate relationship, and there was no suggestion that Father and Mother were again living together.  However, Miss Fisher reported regularly seeing Father visiting the flat.  She saw him going in and out of the flat on her way into the offices as the flat is very close to the offices.  
40.	Miss Fisher described how the parents are very dependent upon each other.  Mother has no family support and relies on Father and his mother.  Mother has said to her that she will separate for one year to allow Father to get help and then they will resume their relationship.  
41.	When cross-examined on behalf of the children she listed the risks to the children from the continuation of the relationship as a real concern about the dynamics of the relationship, which has erupted into violent behaviour in the home, which has been witnessed by both children, and this was reported even during the CBAS assessment.  She also said Mother was very isolated and she described how she is emotionally, physically and financially dependent on Father.  Further, that she is pregnant with his child.  That it is a very significant level of contact, in that Father comes around two or three times a day to walk the dog and that Mother is still dependent on him.  This was evidenced by the fact that in the week preceding the hearing, because of concerns about the pregnancy, Mother went into hospital and Father moved back into the property to care for the dog.  
42.	Miss Fisher was asked whether mother could care for A, and Miss Fisher was clear that she could not.  There were too many concerns around the pattern of the parents’ relationship and their mental health.  The concerns were teased out further in cross-examination; there have been no reported incidents of domestic violence since August 2013.  Mother has self-reported in the past but there have been no such reports since August of 2013.  However, Miss Fisher pointed out that there is the protection that we are currently in proceedings.
43.	Mother has significant emotional traumas from her childhood and has made allegations that her adoptive father sexually abused her and her younger adopted sister.  She disclosed that she had become pregnant with C as a consequence of gang rape.  To Miss Fisher, these are very significant and very troubling events for which Mother needs professional help.  
44.	Miss Fisher gave evidence that a resource has been identified in the Olive Tree, which is a National Health Service referral, which can provide the necessary long-term therapy and also give individual support and advice and the intensive tailor-made work to effect changes.  However, Mother needs to access the service.  Miss Fisher herself had made appointments and tried to encourage Mother to attend.  The FABB team, who provided an intensive package of support to the family in 2012, a total of 86 sessions, also made appointments for Mother to attend the Olive Tree, which were not kept.  
45.	At H24 in the bundle, the written report from the Olive Tree personality disorder service records that treatment is voluntary and usually lasts an average of three to four years.  To access the therapy there is an initial assessment where a team of 12 therapists from different backgrounds assess whether the individual has the minimum potential psychological mindedness to explore their relationships and have the courage and capacity to face necessary changes in their relationships.  This first assessment is therefore a crucial first step.  Mother was originally referred on the 30th January of 2012, but she did not respond to appointments made and her file was closed.
46.	Her community psychiatrist re-referred her in November 2012 and she went back on the waiting list, and was offered seven appointments, but she only attended two and only for a limited period of time.  She was told clearly that she would be offered one further appointment, but that appointment was not kept and the assessment has not been completed.
47.	In the week before the final hearing she was offered yet another appointment on the Tuesday, but she cancelled it and rearranged it for two weeks’ time, on the 28th January, because of problems with her pregnancy.  Everybody is sympathetic to the intensity of this piece of work and the painful memories it will address, but the issue remains that it is work that needs to be done to effect change, and Mother has not even begun the process.  
48.	I am satisfied that social care have done all within their power to facilitate the referral, but it is voluntary and Mother has to engage herself, and she has been unable to do this.  
49.	Miss Fisher was clear in her evidence that Mother knew how important it was, knew how important social care thought it was but chose to prioritise other aspects of her life.
50.	The truth of this assessment by Miss Fisher became very apparent when, in response to questions on behalf of the children through Miss Mosley, mother said that she had cancelled the appointment on the 14th January, two days before the final hearing, but she would be going to the rearranged appointment on the 28th January, but thought that the session would demonstrate that she did not require further work.  Her reason for not attending was because of difficulties in her pregnancy, but agreed, in cross-examination, that she had attended contact on the Monday before and the Wednesday after the Tuesday appointment.  There could not be clearer evidence that the Olive Tree appointment was a low priority and that Mother had no understanding of the need for therapy or the intensity of what is involved.  Further, that she has been putting off engagement with the Olive Tree for two years and that nothing has changed.
51.	Miss Fisher was clear that her position and that of the local authority remains that adoption is in A’s best interests and that social care have exhausted working with both parents.  Her concerns specifically related to A were that although the parents were recognising that they could not cope with C’s behaviour, and Mother had shown insight into her attachment with C, neither Mother nor Father had insight into the impact of their behaviours as parents not just on C but also on A.  Their parenting style had also been harmful to A.
52.	Miss Fisher said there were concerns about basic care currently as when received into foster care.  A, when received into foster care, aged nine months, was at the developmental stage of a five month old baby.  A had not been weaned.  Mother had been concerned about tongue-tie, but had not sought advice about weaning and it was questionable whether follow-on milk was necessary.  Within one week of placement in foster care A was fully weaned.
53.	Mother has sadly not made significant progress.  Looking back to April 2012 when the FABB team were involved, the progress was described as extraordinary by Miss Fisher, but there was an over-dependency on the support workers.  When the intense level of support was withdrawn the parents could not cope and could not sustain the progress made or continue to implement the skills learned.  Miss Fisher described how the case had come full circle within three months of the nurturing support being put in place, within three months of that finishing the progress that had been made and had been evidenced by FABB, had not been sustained.  
54.	I turn now to the views of other professionals.  Kate Brady, the Cafcass adviser in the case, at the interim care order hearing, at paragraph 25 of her report to the court dated the 15th April 2013, said: 
‘It is my professional judgment, based on the information available to me, 	that Mother and Father lack insight and motivation to adequately parent their children safely.  In my opinion, this would be irrespective of any and all support services that have and would be offered to them.  They have not shown that they are capable of sustaining the necessary changes to prioritise their children’s needs over their own.  They will not therefore be able to meet C’s and A’s needs now and in the future’.  

55.	At the interim contested hearing A was removed and placed in foster care.  That was understandably a very distressing time for the parents, and mother’s anger is perhaps to be expected, but it is the impact on A of their behaviours on the 17th April which has caused the professionals such concern.  Father came out of court, he was visibly upset but sufficiently controlled not to allow that to undermine his behaviour towards his daughter.  He remained calm and approached A to give her a kiss.  Mother was distraught, crying and shouting and picked A up.  Mother was unable to regulate her emotions and others had to intervene to take A from her.  A was impassive, remaining calm and unperturbed by her mother’s outburst.  She showed no distress when taken and placed with strangers.  This total lack of an emotional response from A, then aged nine months, which had been witnessed by social care in the previous few days on another occasion, was a very significant concern to all the professionals involved in the case.
56.	I turn now to the community-based assessment with CBAS.  The parents were fully assessed by the CBAS team consisting of the social worker, who came to give evidence in court, Gladys Chinniandur, and the support worker, Amanda Grumbly.  The assessment took place over 10 sessions and included four observed contact sessions.  At paragraph 260 and paragraph 261 there is a summary of the interventions by social care, significant input from Family Action, Building Bridges, the FABB team, between June to December 2012, followed by one-to-one support from Family Links and nurturing, interventions put in place to improve parenting capacity across all domains.  FABB offered 86 sessions totalling 224 hours.  At the conclusion of the FABB sessions the parents were reported to have acquired the skills to adequately ensure the children’s physical needs were met.  However, the CBAS assessors describe how, over and above those basic needs, the children also need love, care and commitment, consistent boundary setting and facilitation of their development; but the assessment, at paragraph 264, is that in the parents’ case there has been a consistent and persistent inability to provide the levels of parenting that are required for both C and A and their differing needs.  There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that they continued to struggle with setting boundaries for C, maintaining routines for both children, showing emotional warmth, particularly in relation to C, and providing their children with a stable family environment.  Each blames this on the other’s parenting style.
57.	The assessment, at paragraph 275, is that the parents would not benefit from any further parenting classes.  This is because the parenting classes will not be effective in equipping Mother and Father with the sensitive parenting that their children need.
58.	Gladys Chinniandur gave oral evidence to the court.  She was clear that the parents had been assessed both jointly and individually and the recommendation was the same.  They are two emotionally damaged and needy individuals who are parenting their children with little or no insight into their children’s needs, because their own needs overwhelm them in the parenting tasks.  Their lack of insight leads to an inability to reflect on their functioning as parents, and this inability is a barrier to change.
59.	Of Mother, the assessment paragraph 307 is that she has multiple preoccupations which are enduring features in her life history, and sadly until she can address these work in developing her parenting skills, particularly with regard to building safe and nurturing, emotional relationships with the children, she will, in the view of the CBAS assessors, have little effect.
60.	In cross-examination it became clear that there was another aspect of mother’s parenting A alone which was not fully addressed in the report.  Reference had been made that Father, who came into C’s life when he was three, had said to the assessors that it was he who had potty-trained C and had weaned him off his pushchair.  
61.	In her oral evidence, Miss Chinniandur expanded on this to say that she had been told by the parents that Father did all the childcare because Mother needed to rest.  He took the children to the park and played with them.  This was challenged on behalf of mother, it’s been suggested that the parents shared the care of the children 50/50, and that Mother would be up in the night caring for A.
62.	A has now grown older and she has become more challenging than she was in April 2013 when she was received into foster care.  Even though mother would not have to care for C as well, Miss Chinniandur gave evidence that Mother did not have the capacity to deal with the pressures of A and a new born baby.  She had never cared for either of her children alone.  With C she had had her mother and then Father, and that Father had always been there with A.  Mother needs to show that she can stand on her own two feet, she needs to demonstrate that she can look after herself.  
63.	During the last six months Miss Chinniandur said that Mother has not had the care of either child but has not demonstrated that she is able to distance herself from Father, to demonstrate that there is no co-dependency and that she can sustain a separation.
64.	Miss Chinniandur also said there were some attachment difficulties between mother and A which had become apparent during the three minute intervention video, when a piece of work was done which demonstrated that there had been minimal stimulation of A by mother.  Although it was recognised by the CBAS assessors that mother has a better relationship with A than she has with C.  It was also said in evidence that Mother had told the assessors that she expected to bond even more with the new baby.
65.	I also heard evidence from Lorraine Welch, the current social worker.  Her oral evidence and recommendation mirrored that of the other professionals, and her own observation of contact on the 27th November of 2013 was of a very similar nature to earlier contact.  It was chaotic with an absence of boundaries set for A.  The parents had been asked to bring food for A and brought soup.  When A played with this they laughed at her and did not correct her.  Boundaries were set for C but these were inappropriate and confusing for him.  Father put in place methods learned from ‘Triple P’ but he did not and has not consistently maintained those methods, which have become confusing for C.
66.	It is perhaps not surprising that the foster carers of both children have reported to the LAC reviews, the looked after children reviews, that there has been a noticeable worsening of C and A’s behaviour after contact.  A’s foster carer has had to turn the television to the wall to stop A switching it on and off, and describes how A will scream when she is told no; behaviours which this experienced foster carer has found challenging.  
67.	I also, of course, heard evidence from Sarah Parker, the children’s guardian.  She readily accepted in her evidence that the parents’ engagement with professionals and cooperation is a positive factor, and that it took courage to agree that C is beyond his mother’s capacity to care.  It was also recognised by mother that C’s knowledge of his paternity should be handled sensitively, that Father should not tell C that he is not his dad without some preparatory work for C.  
68.	However, Miss Parker could not agree that these were steps or building blocks, as they were referred to, upon which a fuller assessment of Mother’ parenting skills as a single parent could be explored.  She referred to the extensive work with FABB which demonstrated the parents could, under close supervision, implement better parenting skills, but failed to maintain that change after the support was withdrawn.  
69.	Miss Parker drew a distinction between Mother’ vocalisation of A as her princess, but her inability to stimulate A or engage with her in the contact environment.  A was described by the guardian as ‘Bumbling around, not interacting or playing with the adults or C’.  Miss Parker did not accept this was entirely due to the artificiality of contact, but was more to do with the failure to put in place any structure or boundaries in contact.  
70.	For Miss Parker, the failure to engage with the Olive Tree, even through the proceedings, was another significant factor.  Miss Parker comes from a background of mental health and notes how intensive the intervention to effect change in personality disorder is, and she said ‘It will be extremely intrusive and distressing work for Mother’; and of course reminded the court that Mother has not even completed the first assessment and there is a very long way to go.
71.	Before Miss Parker in fact, I heard evidence from mother, from Mother.  The guardian described Mother as ‘wearing her heart on her sleeve’ and I would concur with such a description.  Mother was a very open and straight forward witness.  She told the court that she is no longer together with Father, but then went on to describe what they still do together.  They attend contact together on Monday and Wednesday; this is so they have maximum time with their children.  They do not live together but both catch the same bus to and from contact, but from different bus stops.  Father comes to her block of flats frequently because they have mutual friends in the same block, and he helps her by walking the dog.  
72.	She explained that she is having his child and so he should help her with her pregnancy, and he has a right to be involved with the unborn child whom she has named L.  He helps financially with baby stuff and he used to give her £10 for the electric.  She said she cannot control the dog while she is pregnant; it is too strong, so Father takes it out.  
73.	She told the court she gets on well with his family but she has not seen his mother since before Christmas.  She had her sister, aged 17, to help her and she has friends in her block of flats.  Her main support is from her friends who live in the Tamworth area.  For the first time, in her oral evidence, she spoke of returning to Tamworth and living in a hostel with A and the new baby.  She said she would get an injunction to keep Father away and she will not tell him or his family where they are living.  
74.	She described the division of the parenting tasks, when she was with Father, as her caring for A and doing all the night time feeds, and doing school work with C.  She described how, when they were together, it was very chaotic and Father would be a little too strict with C, whereas she herself was too soft and she used to give in to C.  She described how her mother looked after C so A was like a first child for her.  She loves A 110%.  
75.	She agreed that the health visitor was concerned about development delay because A could roll over but couldn’t pull herself up.  She had not spoken to the health visitor about weaning A but had taken advice from the speech and language therapist who, I understood, had called about twice, one or two occasions, to the home, who she had been referred to because of the tongue-tie.
76.	Mother said she had cancelled the appointment with the Olive Tree because she had been in hospital, but had not wanted to cancel the contact because she did not know the outcome of the final hearing.  She knew that she should have separated from Father before, she reported the violent behaviour but she told the court she was not strong enough to end the relationship at the time.  
77.	She described how she struggled with C after the FABB team left, describing how her mental health was all over the place.  Her relationship with Father was bad and she had hit rock bottom.  She was very clear, ‘I can’t cope with C’.  
78.	At the time of the CBAS assessment she said that she and Father were still together and she had felt very isolated, she did not want to split up with Father because she loved him, and she thought she owed him something.  She agreed that A had witnessed arguments and that she had been affected by the arguments.  She said that ‘This is why A does not react to raised voices’.  Both C and A, she told the court, had been damaged.  She said, ‘My children should never have been subjected to domestic violence’.  She described how the incidents were scary for her and would have been petrifying for A.  She agreed that, after, C would cower and be in floods of tears and that A would be jumpy, and she said that that is what she had told the CBAS assessors.
79.	She was asked why her friends could not help her with walking the dog rather than Father?  She explained that they have families and it would be dangerous for them to walk the dog.  Similarly, her reason for calling Father to fetch the paracetamol from a high shelf in her flat at night, which she told the guardian about, clearly she could not climb because of the pregnancy, and she said that, again, she could not ask a neighbour to help because they had families.
80.	She was later to describe how her relationship with Father had got in the way.  She described how she was in her own little bubble and was not spending time with A, playing with her and stimulating her.  However, now, she was not on medication, she felt brilliant, she was seeing her CPN and also Doctor Kumar every eight weeks.
81.	She expected that the children had been affected and that contact was difficult.  She said C had kicked off and screamed in contact, which A had seen, and last week, Mother said, that she had said ‘No’ to her and that A started to head‑bang and scream.  She told the court that this was behaviour that A has learned from C.
82.	It was suggested to her that she was taking on too much with A and a new baby, a move to Tamworth and returning to Coventry to undertake the therapy with the Olive Tree, but Mother did not agree, saying that she had to move away to get away from Father.  She also identified her school friends as being a support network.  She clarified her proposal with Miss Mosley, who asked questions on behalf of the guardian.  She did not expect A to come home straight away, she said there would have to be a familiarisation process.  She did not have anywhere for her to go, for example, when she would need to go into hospital for the new baby.  Therefore, A would have to stay in foster care.  
83.	She had not mentioned the move to Tamworth to the guardian; she agreed she had not done that.  Father, she said, had been out walking the dog when Miss Parker called round, and that the guardian had been invited to look round her flat.  Mother agrees that the guardian had raised some concerns about the unhygienic state of the bedding, but she said that this had now been changed and she had purchased new bedding.  She told the court that the dog was being rehomed on Sunday.
84.	She was able to agree that A needed a permanent home as soon as possible, but in the same breath Mother said that she wanted A back with her on her own, because she believed she can do it, and she asked the court to be given the chance, the opportunity to care for A alone.
85.	I turn now to my judgment on the basis of the evidence I have heard.  I have listened very carefully to all the evidence; and I have also read the reports and statements filed.  Father did not give evidence because he does not put himself forward to care for either child and supports Mother in her proposal that A be returned to her care.  In his final statement, his written evidence, he says that he remains separated from Mother, they are no longer in a relationship and he does not live with her at her property.  He is in fact homeless and is not in a position to be a carer for either C or A.  He describes how he would support Mother financially and emotionally if A was returned to her care.  He would like twice weekly contact at a contact centre.  He accepts that there was volatility in their relationship, the arguments and his emotional outbursts affected both children, but rationalises that as they are no longer in a relationship the difficulties that they had in their parenting at the start of the proceedings no longer exist.  It is his belief that it would be safe to return A at least to Mother’ care.
86.	None of the professionals support such a course and the evidence is overwhelmingly against such a placement being able to meet A’s needs.  
87.	I have to have regard to the welfare checklist, the particular needs of the child and the effect on the child throughout her life of having ceased to be a member of the original family and becoming an adopted person, the child’s age and sex and background, any harm the child is at risk of suffering and the child’s relationship with relatives, as of course the plan for A is adoption.  
88.	What these children need, and A needs above all else, is a safe and secure home which offers good and nurturing care.  
89.	I have to have regard to the threshold criteria and the risk of harm to these children if returned to their parents’ care.  I am satisfied that the relationship between the parents is and was one of co-dependency in which each derived benefit.  Father, because he liked to care for Mother and Mother because he supports her emotionally and practically.  However, at the same time it is an unstable and volatile relationship in which, in the past, both parents have lost control of their emotions and their behaviours.  Neither parent was able to meet the emotional needs of their children and both children were exposed to domestic violence.
90.	Mother was unable to put her children’s needs for a safe and stable home ahead of her desire to remain in a relationship, and she failed to separate from Father.  The children were deeply traumatised and damaged by their experiences, which is now shown in their challenging behaviours.  
91.	The professionals, in my judgment, are right on the evidence that I have heard to be sceptical that the parents have indeed separated.  There is clear evidence of an ongoing dependency by Mother which she has been unable to loosen, even when the children are in foster care.  
92.	For me, that was highlighted by her calling Father to assist at night when she could not reach a box of paracetamol.  It matters not whether he stayed the night, as she told the guardian, or not, in my judgment it is the clearest pointer that Mother simply cannot function on her own.
93.	Mother has not yet addressed her personality disorder, which is deep-rooted in her childhood and early adult experiences.  Until she addresses those very significant problems she will be unable to make the changes necessary to function on her own and to make the fundamental changes to her parenting style.  That is the conclusion of the assessment by CBAS and also of the allocated social workers and both children’s guardians appointed within this case.
94.	As Mother has only partially engaged with two appointments with the Olive Tree personality disorder service, it has not been possible to assess her capacity to change or to put any timescale on potential progress.  It is a voluntary service and mother needs to engage, but she has failed to do so and has failed for two years.  It is too late and hopelessly outside the children’s timescales to say she will go to her appointments two weeks after the final hearing.  
95.	I am satisfied that social care have done all within their power to assist and facilitate her attendance, but it was not important to her and other aspects of her life were given greater priority.  This piece of work has not even got off the starting blocks and is a marathon ahead for mother to complete.  This leaves the parents in the very stark and thankless position that the work that they did with FABB so successfully between June and December 2012 has unravelled.  The lessons learned could not be translated into change and improved parenting, and once support was withdrawn, as it inevitably would be because these are short-term intensive interventions to effect change, the parents could not sustain those changes.
96.	The children were removed from their care, first C, whose behaviour was the most difficult, but even with the knowledge that C was in foster care the problems remained unchanged.  Domestic violence and inadequate parenting continued, A had to be removed and still changes were not effected.
97.	CBAS concludes that until the parents learn to reflect on their parenting styles and make the internal decision to change, any parenting classes will be ineffective.
98.	In my judgment the assessments are comprehensive, thorough and cannot be overcome by a very natural but, in the end, hopeless belief that things will be better this time.  There are no family members who have been assessed as capable of caring for either child, and the choice of placements are these: a rehabilitation home to mother, that is not a possibility for C as his behaviours have resulted in a recent change of foster placement because of the disruption he has caused to normal family life.  Mother, to her credit, recognises she does not have the capacity to care long-term for C and supports the local authority care plan.  She understands it is to be adoption, and I am satisfied, having considered the welfare checklist as outlined by the social worker and the guardian, that adoption would give C the best chance of a long-term family placement without continuing statutory involvement.  However, there are risks that such a placement might prove difficult to find because of his age and challenging behaviour.  His new foster placement could be long-term and any further moves are therefore minimised.  
99.	Adoption is a serious and irrevocable decision and impacts on the rights of the birth family, but for C it is both just and proportionate.  I am satisfied that placement for adoption is therefore in C’s best interest and his welfare now requires that mother’s consent be dispensed with if it is not given.
100.	A is younger and has had less exposure to her parents’ care, but is still showing that she has suffered emotional harm and continues to be exposed to that home in contact.  She now needs a permanent home.  She has been placed away from her family since April 2013.  It is suggested that she should continue in foster care whilst mother adjusts to her new baby and begins the therapeutic journey.  
101.	For the reasons I have already given, I am not satisfied that this is even a viable proposition.  Mother has, to date, failed to engage with the Olive Tree, she has not disengaged from her co-dependent relationship.  The changes necessary are fundamental and arise from flaws in her personality, which affect her ability to parent and to make the necessary changes deep‑rooted in her.  In all probability mother will continue to avoid appointments and engagement and it will only result in unproductive delay.
102.	It is said in closing submissions on behalf of mother that now that she has conceded the case in respect of C, she is better placed to care for A and her unborn baby when she arrives.  Also, it is said that there has been a significant change in that she has separated from Father.  It is argued that by maintaining a civilised friendship this is not indicative of an ongoing intimate relationship and is to be commended.
103.	The nature of the concern is not that the parents have maintained a sexual relationship but that they are co-dependent, which prevents either of them from separating with any realistic prospect of maintaining that separation; neither parent desires it, and the relationship therefore persists.  When under pressure Mother turns to her only support, which is of course Father.  
104.	C is not the only child with challenging behaviour and I am not satisfied, even without C to care for, that mother is in a position to provide the emotional care that A so desperately needs.
105.	In my judgment there is emerging evidence that the behaviours exhibited by C are being repeated in the behaviours shown by A at contact and immediately following contact.  Mother has been unable to put in place strategies to deal with those emerging behaviours, choosing to laugh at A’s antics instead of putting in place the boundaries and good parenting practises taught by the FABB team and the nurturing group in respect of C.  Mother recognises her inability to cope with C’s behaviour, but is unable to see that A, as she grows up, is becoming more challenging; and that Mother has been unable to develop the skills to meet her changing needs.
106.	The CBAS assessment highlighted the very significant parenting which was done by Father, and mother does not recognise that and is unable to identify any support network to replace his input.  Mother delegated the parenting of C to first her mother and then Father, describing herself to the court as a ‘First-time parent’ with A.  She is simply not equipped to provide that care because she cannot apply the skills taught to her.
107.	As the CBAS assessment said, ‘She needs to develop the insight to recognise the deficits and to show a willingness to change’.  Although mother expresses a willingness to do anything which is asked of her and who works with the professionals, she does not comprehend, in my judgment, the enormity of the task and has yet to take even the earliest steps.  
108.	It is said that there is no assessment of her ability to parent A now that she has separated, but the CBAS assessment assessed both her and Father as a couple, but also the parents as individuals, and there has been ongoing monitoring of Mother’ parenting within contact by social care.  Social care has been involved with Mother and the family for many years.  Given the very clear recommendations in the CBAS assessment, sadly I am unable to accede to the submission to give mother the chance to prove she is capable of caring for A and her new born sister.  I have no doubt that mother is genuine in her desire to show she can do it and nobody doubts her love for her children; but I have to make decisions which meet the needs of the children for a secure and safe placement now, and they cannot wait for Mother to develop a new parenting style.  
109.	I am satisfied on the evidence that I have heard that sadly it is not the current position that she has made that change to her parenting style.  In my judgment the guardian is right when she says that a decision has to be made for A now.  A will be two in July, the impact of the parents’ inability to provide good enough care, as outlined in the threshold document and referred to throughout the evidence, has had a significant impact on A, even in the nine months that she was in the care of Mother and Father.  The evidence of the assessments before the court of professionals involved in mother’s life together with the children’s guardian, both the previous reports of Miss Brady and the final report of Miss Parker, consistent and cohesive in the concerns identified are preventing the parents providing good enough care.  The parents have not addressed their relationship issues, mother has not begun to address her psychological issues.  The intensive six months with FABB input failed to achieve a safer home for these children.  Both children need a safe and secure permanent home as soon as this is achievable.  The mother cannot provide this in the timescales necessary for either child.  There is no family placement identified as an option for the children.
110.	I have considered the care plans and the alternatives of rehabilitation now or in the foreseeable future, and indeed long-term fostering which would maintain the links with the birth family for A.  However, having analysed the evidence I have heard and the recommendations of all professionals, there is only one decision that I can make now, and that is that an adoptive placement must be found as a matter of urgency for A.  Adoption is a placement of last resort where no other course can be taken.  I am satisfied that there is no viable alternative and that a substitute permanent family is in A’s best interest.
111.	I have regard to the European Convention of Human Rights and the right for respect for family life and in my judgment the care plan of adoption is both just and a proportionate plan in respect of A.  I approve the care plans and make the care orders and placement orders for both children.  The welfare of A, as with C, requires that I dispense with parental consent.
End of judgment.