IN THE KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES COUNTY COURT	Case No.  K12C00833 

St James Road
Kingston-upon-Thames
KT1 2AD

Tuesday, 11th February 2014

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE CORBETT

In the matter of:

Re:  B-R (Children)

______________________

Counsel for the Local Authority:	MR DEAN

Counsel for the Mother:	MISS PEACOCK

Solicitor for the Father:	MISS HOLLAND

The Maternal Grandmother appeared In Person

Solicitor Advocate for the Guardian:	MISS HINDLE
______________________

JUDGMENT APPROVED BY THE COURT

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by
Apple Transcription Limited
Suite 104, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES
Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838

Number of Folios:  101
Number of Words:  7,262

JUDGMENT

1.	THE JUDGE:  I have been concerned with the welfare of two boys: 
A B-R, who was born on 26th December 2009; and his younger brother, 
R B-R, born on 8th March 2011.
2.	The local authority, the London Borough of Lewisham, has been represented throughout this final hearing by counsel, Mr Dean. The boys’ mother is Ms B and she has been represented by her counsel, Miss Peacock.  The children’s father, Mr R, who shares parental responsibility for both children with the mother, is represented by his solicitor, Miss Holland.  The children themselves have been represented throughout the final hearing by their solicitor advocate, Miss Hindle.  The guardian is present at court today.  Miss Wilson, who is actually the solicitor for the children, has been unavoidably detained this morning and may come into court later. The maternal grandmother is also a party to the proceedings.  Her husband in fact was not joined as a party. She has acted in person throughout the final hearing.  
3.	The local authority has applied for a care order and a placement order in respect of the two boys.  The final hearing at Kingston County Court took place on 29th to 31st January following a reading day on 28th January.  The case was transferred from the Inner London and City Family Proceedings Court where it had been case managed for 54 weeks, a very long time.  The purpose of transfer to this court was because this court could offer an earlier final hearing than the Family Proceedings Court.
4.	The issues were stark.  Should the court make a care order and a placement order in respect of each boy so that they are placed for adoption outside the birth family, the local authority’s proposal which was opposed by all parties.  Or should the boys be made the subject of special guardianship orders to the grandparents.  That proposal was supported by the boys’ parents at the final hearing, although they had not previously supported it, and by the guardian.
5.	After hearing all of the evidence and submissions I indicated to the parties that I could give an outline of my decision, and that I would list the matter for judgment today, 11th February.  My decision was that the parents cannot, either separately or together, provide good enough care to either child.  The parents accepted that and did not put themselves forward in the final hearing.  I dismissed the application by the local authority for a care order and a placement order and I indicated that I would make a special guardianship order to the grandparents.  I also gave an indication of my views following submissions about the transition plan to the grandparents, and about the contents of a written agreement and matters which I hoped would be added to the special guardianship support plan.  Despite special guardianship not being the local authority’s proposal it has, appropriately, filed and served a support plan in the event that the court made a special guardianship order which was in line with the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in the case of Re: W [2013] EWCA Civ 1227.
6.	In light of the fact that the parents did not put themselves forward as carers for the boys, accepting realistically that they could not provide good enough parenting for them, this judgment does not go in detail into the merits of the assessments of the parents.  If, in the future, there is any further litigation in relation to these boys all of the court bundle which was available to the court at this hearing needs to be considered, including, importantly, the reports relating to the parents’ ability.
7.	I find the threshold met as set out in the final composite threshold document dated 20th December 2013.  The threshold document will be attached to the orders which I make today.  In brief at the relevant date, 22nd November 2012 both of the children were suffering or likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to them, or likely to be given to them if an order were not made.  The parents maintained a relationship.  The local authority alleged that that was characterised by domestic violence to which the boys were exposed.  The father accepted that their relationship involved volatility and arguments.  The mother accepts that she had a volatile relationship with the father but not to the extent reflected in the papers.  The mother has a history of dishonesty and failing to engage with professionals in her dealings with them regarding the care of the children.  The mother has neglected the physical and emotional needs of the children.  She failed to prioritise their needs and failed to provide basic care, emotional warmth and supervision.
8.	The grandmother had two children, A and R, when she was a teenager.  She then began her relationship with the grandfather in about 1988.  Twenty five years later they are still together and they married on 30th June 2012 and the grandfather took on the mother’s elder two children as his own.
9.	The grandparents, in 1988, took on the care of the mother’s two nephews.  At that time their daughter (the mother of the two children with whom I am concerned), was about the same age as A, her cousin.  The mother’s behaviour became a concern to the grandparents from about 2006 when she was 16.  Over the years she has made a large number of allegations against her family and against others not in her family.  I have seen a detailed psychological assessment which, amongst other things, says that the mother exaggerates and sometimes fabricates events in an impulsive manner.
10.	In 2009 the grandparents’ daughter, L, had a brain injury.  L is now aged 18 and lives at home.  I have heard that she had to learn to walk and speak again, which she could not have done without the support and complete dedication of her parents according to L.  The grandmother assists L still now with some care tasks, for example, hair washing.
11.	The younger nephew is aged 21.  He has been in prison for a four month prison sentence, having been involved in the London riots.  He met with the assessor, as part of the proceedings, who described him as friendly and articulate.  He lives still with the grandparents.  The older nephew is now aged 23.  He had been living with the grandparents until last year when he moved out to live in a hostel.  He has been sentenced to two prison sentences, including for his involvement in the London riots.  It appears from the special guardianship assessment that both nephews were very supportive and positive about their aunt and uncle, who I shall refer to as the grandparents.
12.	Contained in the court bundle is a long report from a Residential Unit where the mother underwent an assessment.  The outcome of that was negative.  In addition there are psychological assessments of the father and the mother by Dr C.  Importantly, for the purpose of the issues in this case, there is a special guardianship assessment carried out by the local authority permanence team.  It did not recommend a special guardianship order to the grandparents.
13.	The boys have been placed together in foster care throughout these long proceedings and their grandparents have weekly supervised contact.  The mother’s last contact with the boys was almost a year ago in early April 2013.  The father’s was at a similar time.  Neither parent has sought contact since.  If it were not for the grandparents these two small boys would have been without family contact.
14.	The mother and father attended the hearing before me on every day and they are here today for judgment.  Handwritten statements were prepared which they signed.  The parents are still a couple.  They live together in the London Borough of Enfield.  When they came to court they said that they fully supported the children being placed with the mother’s parents in Hackney.  This had been a recent change of position.
15.	The law which I have had to consider when looking at the options for the boys can be summarised quite briefly.  Their welfare has to be my paramount consideration.  The welfare checklist which is set out at section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 is highly relevant and I have taken it into account when considering the paramountcy of the boys’ welfare.
16.	I have to have regard to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  I should only interfere with the children’s and the parties’ right to family life in circumstances where I consider it necessary and proportionate to do so.  Following the Supreme Court’s decision in 2012 in the case of Re: B and the line of authorities in the Court of Appeal of last year, including the case of Re: B-S, courts have been particularly alert and concerned to ensure that when an application for a placement order and a care plan for adoption is placed before a court the court scrutinises the evidence to consider whether it is indeed necessary and proportionate to make such placement orders which would have the effect of severing birth family ties.
17.	I heard evidence from a number of witnesses to which I will refer now.  The solicitor for the guardian in her written submissions prepared a summary of the evidence of the witnesses which I have found very helpful when I was preparing my judgment and I include some of the summaries now.
18.	The allocated social worker was CYT, he accepted the following in relation to the grandparents’ care of their nephews.  There was no Social Services involvement with any of the grandparents’ own children when children.  The nephews moved to live with the grandparents in an unplanned way.  It was very unlikely that the grandparents would have known about their nephews problems in the circumstances of their move and by the time that they moved in with the grandparents the nephews had already suffered very severe neglect for many years, exposed to domestic violence and to alcoholic parents.  Furthermore, A had been sexually abused.  It was reasonably foreseeable that the nephews would exhibit behavioural difficulties as a consequence of the parenting they had received and reasonably foreseeable that support would be required from a local authority, their local authority at that time being Hackney.  There was no evidence of any support being provided to the grandparents to meet the nephews’ needs between 1999 and 2003.  When support services were offered by the London Borough of Hackney in 2003 there is no suggestion that the grandparents failed to accept those services.  But by 2003 the elder nephew’s school was having considerable difficulty managing his behaviour which resulted in him being excluded for a limited period.  There was no evidence of the grandmother having sabotaged attempts to support her and the boys, the word “sabotage” being used in a chronology prepared by this local authority upon reading of the Hackney files.  The grandmother regularly sought help from the London Borough of Hackney and did not seek to hide the difficulties she and her husband were experiencing.  It was not clear whether family therapy was offered but there was no evidence of failure to attend if it had been offered.
19.	The social worker was referred to his addendum statement of 15th January when he said this:  “It is highly likely that should the boys be placed with their grandparents that they would have similar poor outcomes”, ie, to those of the grandparents’ own children and of the nephews.  When he was asked in cross-examination how it was that he came to that conclusion the social worker confirmed he had never been to the grandparents’ home, never met their daughter, L, and had no information about the elder sons.  He did not know whether they had any children.  He had not observed contact between the grandparents and the children.  He had not seen the grandparents interact with L, or the 2 elder sons.
20.	The social worker said that he had based his opinion on the likely future outcome for the boys on the information from the London Borough of Hackney and from what he had been told.  He confirmed that prior to reaching the decision that adoption was in the children’s best interests he had not considered whether the children could be placed under a special guardianship order and supervision orders with their grandparents, he had not considered the children being placed subject to child in need plans under a special guardianship order, nor had he considered the children being placed with their grandparents under care orders.
21.	The allocated social worker confirmed that in the event an adoptive placement for the boys together could not be found the local authority would change their plan to one of long term fostering.  He said that the local authority’s alternative plan was for the boys to remain with their current foster carers, but that they had not yet even been approved as long term foster carers generally, nor indeed matched to these boys.
22.	The social worker, when asked about the special guardianship support plan, accepted that the support set out in the plan at that point filed by the local authority, at E298, was generic and not particularly tailored to the needs of these boys.  He accepted it would be beneficial for support to be put into place to enable the Bs to attend a course to help them learn about attachment and how to manage the boys at an early stage and that the additional support that Anthony was receiving at nursery should continue.
23.	My impression is that the allocated social worker relied heavily, perhaps partially understandably, on the special guardianship assessment of the grandparents.  But as the allocated social worker I considered that he had provided no real scrutiny of a chronology that had been prepared by his colleague upon reading the London Borough of Hackney files.  There was, I felt, inadequate consideration of the pros and cons of the relevant placement options and a completely insufficient balance of the pros and cons for the boys.
24.	I heard from SW, a family finding social worker.  She confirmed that an adoptive search would take place for up to a year.  She confirmed that the estimated timescale which is included in her statement was based on her recent experience in finding a placement for children with a similar profile, but the fact that these boys are boys who have a developmental delay requiring a placement together would make it harder to find a placement.  She told the court that there was currently one approved family which she considered may be interested in caring for the boys.  Miss Wilson, I thought, was doing her best to answer relevant questions that were being put to her.
25.	I heard from Miss AS.  She prepared a special guardianship assessment of the grandparents.  Her summary begins at E261 of the bundle and I will summarise what she says:  
“I fully appreciate how much they want to care for their grandchildren, that they want to keep them within the birth family.  Their commitments and intentions are sincere.  They would do everything in their power and within their capacity to make it right for the children.  
The boys need carers that can make them feel loved and give them a sense of belonging.  The grandparents are well equipped to do this.  However, the acrimonious and highly tense relationship between the grandparents and the children’s own parents would make it very difficult for them to bring up [the boys] in an environment away from conflict and tension.  They would struggle to shelter the children from conflict and their moving house to a neighbouring borough, should this be feasible [which had then previously been the proposal but is no longer] would not solve the problems or counteract the risks.  
The boys have experienced emotional neglect, lack of consistent warmth in the care of their parents and for their progress to continue they need an environment where they are loved [which I know the grandparents can offer] and where there is also harmony and predictability.  The grandparents’ household is hectic, loud and busy.  The adults get on well most of the time but tend to engage in disagreements and arguments.  The boys would not stay the centre of attention for long and this would have a negative impact on their progress.  Any disruption will have a detrimental effect on them.  I believe that the children’s parents would find ways to destabilise the children’s placement and that the grandmother in particular would find it difficult to diffuse any conflict caused by the parents.  
Emotions are very high between the two extended families and there is a lot of resentment on both parts.  A lot of reparatory work would need to be done between the grandparents and parents for things to change significantly.  The grandparents have disagreements and difficulties over their respective parenting styles and this was a problem when they were bringing up [their nephews and the boys’ mother] and in the absence of any change this will be a problem again if they are entrusted with their grandchildren.”  
So she does not recommend the children are placed on a permanent basis under a special guardianship order or any other provision.  She then goes on to say:  
“Notwithstanding my recommendations it is also my view that [the boys] have a positive and close relationship with their grandparents and this, if possible, should be taken into consideration when making plans for their permanent care.”
26.	The special guardianship assessor’s colleague, Miss B, read the London Borough of Hackney files in relation to the grandparents and their children and prepared a chronology.  It is attached to the assessor’s report.  The special guardianship assessor confirmed that that Hackney chronology, whilst not forming the foundation on which her assessment was based, was very significant and was her main source of information for the period 1998 to 2006.  She, like the allocated social worker, accepted that there was no evidence of support being provided between 1999 and 2003 and that in early 2003 direct social work support had been in place for about three weeks.  She suggested there were gaps in the chronology and that there may be additional information not in the chronology which would indicate that direct support was provided for longer.  However, she accepted it was impossible for her to know whether information left out of the chronology was positive or negative.
27.	She accepted, as did the allocated social worker, that it was reasonable to conclude that the situation at home with the nephews may have been deteriorating by 2003 in light of the nephews’ own difficulties and lack of support.  She accepted again that there was limited reference to support between 2003 and 2006 and that when requested by the grandmother support appeared to have been put into place following requests.
28.	In relation to whether family therapy was offered by Hackney and turned down by the extended family she suggested that in her experience as a social worker, given the circumstances the family was in by 2006, a referral would definitely have been made and that the grandparents’ presentation to her during her assessment indicated they had failed to engage.  She said:  “I have a view that it was not taken up.”
29.	With reference to the mother, the assessor said that her relationship with her parents, in particular her own mother, had been difficult when a teenager and that the first reference to her being a concern was when the mother was almost 16.  She accepted that the grandmother had engaged with social workers to try and improve that relationship but remained concerned about the grandparents’ insight into their role into the mother’s own difficulties.  She accepted it was common in situations where a family member was seeking to care for a relative’s child within care proceedings for there to be tension and difficulties.  She also went on to accept that the important factor was how the relatives reacted if the parents did cause difficulties.  She said it was positive that the parents have said within these proceedings that they do now support the grandparents, but she could not attach any weight to that because that was a sudden and, to her, unexplained change of heart.
30.	She repeated on a number of occasions her concern that the grandmother may overreact to situations, potentially exposing the children to her own heightened sense of alarm or to unnecessary confrontation.  She also highlighted her concern about the grandparents’ ability to maintain a unified approach to parenting and she thought that Mrs H-B may suffer strain or possibly depression as a consequence of the difficulties that may arise looking after her grandchildren.  However, she did accept that there was no evidence of the grandmother having suffered from depression since 2006, including in the period following L’s brain haemorrhage in 2009. The assessor felt that she was in difficulties in setting out the extent to which the grandparents’ ability to care for their grandchildren would be impacted by their responsibilities to L.
31.	She said she had limited information about their older children but said that she had not been made aware of anything of concern in relation to those two young men and their children.  
32.	She accepted when it was put to her that the grandparents had had to undergo and adapt to significant changes in their own lives, firstly when their young nephews came to live with them in 1998, secondly when L had a haemorrhage.  She acknowledged that the grandparents had made changes and stuck together as a couple through very difficult times.
33.	My strong impression is that the special guardianship assessor gave inadequate consideration to the differences in the potential placement of the boys as against the actual placement of the nephews back in 1998 and inadequate consideration of the very limited support offered by the London Borough of Hackney to already troubled boys and their carers.  I felt she gave inadequate consideration to the positives that these grandparents can offer their grandchildren.
34.	The children’s mother gave some limited evidence.  She provided a handwritten statement to say that she had not supported her parents out of spite previously but strongly supports them now.  She did not seek to contradict or challenge the wealth of evidence about herself and her own parenting. 
35.	The father did not give evidence, nor was he required to do so.  He, like the mother, attended court every day.  He had not been in contact with his solicitor from late August until attendance at this hearing in late January.  In his handwritten statement he accepted that there would have to be a risk assessment of his contact to the children.  He says that he wants to mend bridges with the mother’s parents and, like the mother, he said that in the past out of spite he had said nasty things about them.  Neither parent, as I have said, sought to challenge the local authority’s position that the children cannot be cared for by them together or separately.
36.	I heard from Mr B and Mrs H-B.  Mr B told me about 26-year-old R who is married with two children, he is a working man, and of A, aged 27, who has had a partner, for about seven or eight years with two children, who is also a working man and that he and his wife see their grandchildren approximately weekly.  He told me about L, who is aged 18 and is at college now, and about her brain injury.  He gave the date immediately, 15th February 2009.  He, like L’s mother, gave some description of the help that L needs with day to day tasks and about the encouragement that he was giving L to be independent.  He described a reasonably good relationship with both A, who has his own flat and who visits several times a week including staying with the Bs when there was some problem with gas in his own flat, and he described his relationship quite positively with his other nephew who still lives with them.
37.	The maternal grandmother gave a moving account to the court on how on 13th July 1998 she went to collect her own children from school and her nephew ran to her pleading not to go into care.  She told me how filthy he was with head lice.  On the next school day, which I think was the following Monday, her younger nephew came home with her husband as no one had collected him from school.  They have remained as part of the family ever since.  She also provided some more information than I had read about in the papers about how troubled her two nephews had been by their earlier experiences.  A had suffered foetal alcohol syndrome, his brother had been diagnosed with ADHD and learning difficulties.
38.	Both of the grandparents accepted that looking after the nephews had placed a strain on their husband and wife relationship.  Mr B told me that at one point he reached the point when he could not stand the strain of looking after them and he spent a period living away from home.  He said that there were differences in the parenting styles that he and his wife adopted but they would usually reach a point when they would take a common approach.  They both told the court that they received no help from the London Borough of Hackney between 1999 and 2003, in other words, the four years following the boys’ being placed with them, other than the provision of £35 to buy clothes and beds, a one off payment, not a weekly payment.  They told the court that the help they had received between 2003 and 2006 from Hackney had been patchy.  It was clear that for a short time in 2003 what appears to be a family support worker did provide some assistance but it was only for a limited period.  In relation to the boys’ medical diagnoses which I have just referred to no assistance or guidance had been given the grandmother told me.  As to family therapy neither grandparent could recall it actually being offered, although the grandmother could recall there being discussion about whether there should be any family therapy.
39.	As to their relationship with their daughter, the children’s mother, the grandmother described that relationship as better than it had been, although not fine.  She thought it had improved since about shortly before Christmas.  She told me that she would never be friends with the children’s father but she thought it was significant that they did all want the same outcome in these proceedings, which was for the boys to remain within their family.  She also told me how the children’s father had apologised to her the week previously to her giving evidence.
40.	Mrs H-B said that in relation to L that she had been in receipt of higher rate Disability Living Allowance but that had reduced to middle rate in 2012 and there is a review in May of this year.  She described the limited help to L that she provides because L’s mobility on her right side is affected to a degree.  L wishes to be as independent as possible according to both her parents.
41.	As to the question of the extended paternal family and the potential for difficulties between them and the maternal family, the grandmother confirmed to me that she no longer considered, as she had said to the special guardianship assessor, that they would need to move house before caring for the boys because the father’s step-father, who had lived near them and had previously made threats to her family, was no longer living in the area.  She told me about the sums that she has paid to bring down her rent arrears and was hopeful as a result that in any event the family would be able to move to larger accommodation, still within the area, in the reasonably near future.  They want to stay within the area because of their support network.  Both grandparents work part time.
42.	The children’s guardian gave evidence and spoke to her final analysis.  She emphasised that her position remained the same after hearing the oral evidence.  She does not support the local authority’s application for care and placement orders and supported special guardianship orders to the grandparents.  She recognised that there were risks associated with that placement but considered that the local authority’s balancing exercise was flawed, placing undue weight upon the information within the Hackney chronology which appears to have been interpreted quite negatively by the special guardianship assessor and read without scrutiny by the allocated social worker.
43.	The guardian did not suggest that there were not very significant difficulties in the grandparents’ family home when they were caring initially for their nephews and indeed in the years following, but it was the guardian’s position that the local authority has judged the grandparents’ difficulties in caring for their nephews with very limited consideration of the circumstances in which they went to live with the grandparents and the limited support and advice they had received.  The guardian was also of the view the local authority has failed to take into account the positive outcomes for the grandparents’ children, L R and A.
44.	The guardian asked me to consider the different ages at which the boys ceased to be cared for by their parents when they were really quite small compared to the nephews.  She thought it was a positive that the grandparents have had the opportunity to get to know their grandchildren over a long period of weekly contact.  In fact another difference now as opposed to the nephews’ situation is that there are no other minor children in the grandparents’ household and if they are to move to the grandparents this would be a planned move.  The guardian gave balanced evidence which I found thoughtful, realistic and compelling.  
45.	The role of the court in proceedings such as this is to evaluate the appropriate placement options for both of these boys based on the evidence which the court has.  A plan for adoption should only be approved if it is the only course possible which is in a child’s best interests, ie, nothing else will do.  Professionals who have the responsibility of putting forward a plan for adoption must show that they have covered all placement options with an analysis for and against each.
46.	The boys both have developmental delay.  They have made great progress in foster care and I would like to congratulate the foster carers and hope that will be passed on to the foster carers.  They have clearly worked very hard with the boys who had suffered great neglect in their parents’ care.  
47.	Clearly the boys need active, hands on carers.  The question is can the grandparents provide good enough parenting for these boys with their particular needs?  The grandparents have had some very significant life events to deal with, notably when they took on the care of the grandmother’s nephews in 1998 and when L had a brain haemorrhage in 2009.  They have remained together as a couple for over 25 years and married in 2012.  They appear to me to be open and honest when they gave their evidence.  They did not appear to minimise the difficulties which they have had with their nephews.  Their nephews suffered poor parenting from their own birth parents and had suffered very severe neglect for many years, exposure to domestic violence and alcoholic parents.  They moved to the care of the grandparents in a very unplanned way.  It was reasonably foreseeable that the nephews would exhibit behavioural difficulties as a consequence of their birth parents’ care, or lack of care.  It was reasonably foreseeable that support would be needed from the grandparents’ local authority, but I could see no evidence of support provided between 1999 and 2003, save a small one off payment.  When support was offered in 2003 there is no suggestion that the grandparents failed to accept it, and by then A’s school was having difficulties in managing him.  There is no evidence of the grandmother having “sabotaged”, which is Lewisham’s word, attempts to support her and her nephews.
48.	As I read the evidence she regularly sought help from the London Borough of Hackney and did not seek to hide the difficulties that she and her husband were experiencing.  I accept Mr and Mrs H-B’s account that in the period 2003 to 2006 any help was patchy and they received no help at any time in respect of their nephews’ diagnoses of ADHD, learning difficulties and A’s foetal alcohol syndrome.  I accept the grandmother’s evidence that family therapy was discussed with her and her husband and that her husband was more reluctant than she was, but that it was not offered and therefore not refused.
49.	The chronology of the London Borough of Hackney files prepared by the London Borough of Lewisham social worker was interpreted quite unnecessarily negatively by the special guardianship assessor.  It is my conclusion that the London Borough of Lewisham have carried out a flawed balancing exercise and have failed to consider sufficiently the circumstances in which the nephews went to live with the grandparents and the limited support they received at that time and subsequently.  The local authority has completely ignored the positive outcomes for the B’s other child, L, and the elder boys.  They have simply not looked at the difference in the grandchildren’s situation as compared to the nephews’ situation.  The nephews moved in a very unplanned way.  The grandparents have had the opportunity for weekly contact to their grandchildren over the last year and therefore have been able to get to know the boys, including their behaviour, well.  This will be a planned move with the practical support of the London Borough of Lewisham.  
50.	I have to record that I found it simply astonishing that the allocated social worker said in his statement of 15th January:  “It is highly likely that should the boys be placed with their grandparents they would have similar poor outcomes.”  He said that in circumstances where he had never been to the B’s home, never met L, had no information about the older sons and had not observed contact between the grandparents and the boys.
51.	It appears to me that the grandparents have managed very well with the trauma that was L’s brain injury, provided her with a balance of parental support and encouragement to independence.  I do not see that the level of care that L requires prevents them from having enough time to care for their grandchildren well.  Having heard from them in evidence I am satisfied that they are aware of the risk that the children’s parents pose if they were to have unsupervised or unscheduled contact.  The London Borough of Lewisham needs to advise the grandparents on how to respond to any requests by either parent for unscheduled or unsupervised contact.  But having heard from the grandparents I am satisfied that they will comply with the written agreement to that effect.  
52.	I accept that the improvement in the parents’ and grandparents’ relationship is recent.  The courts have to be very alive to convenient rapprochement between parents and grandparents in this way.  Quite rightly this was explored with the grandparents in cross-examination.  But I am confident, having heard them give evidence, that the grandparents will seek help from the local authority if it is required.  As the father’s solicitor submitted very realistically, in her submissions, Mr R has sat in court for three days.  He is a man who has a history of anger difficulties.  If his support for the grandparents was false and his previous description of them was true Miss Holland invited me to consider whether or not Mr R would have been able to sit here for quite so long, and I agree with her.
53.	The local authority evidence did not contain the analysis which is required in relation to each potential placement or order.  It did not contain evidence to satisfy me that adoption is the only necessary and proportionate order.  When I set out a summary of his oral evidence I set out that the social worker had not considered whether the boys could be placed with the grandparents under different types of orders.  This is very surprising in light of the recent Court of Appeal line of authorities on this very point.
54.	I consider that the special guardianship assessor was wrong to extrapolate conclusions from the chronology that the grandparents had not taken up family therapy in the past.  She said it “wearing her social work hat” she claimed, extrapolating conclusions that they could not have taken up family therapy from their responses in her own interview with them.  The special guardianship assessor acknowledged that there were gaps in the Hackney chronology, for example, there was not a reference to the family therapy being offered, but she concluded that meant that the grandparents had not taken it up.  She was quick to interpret negatively the Hackney chronology, both what it said and what the potential gaps were.
55.	The guardian has looked holistically at the different options.  I thought she was balanced in her approach.  I have no hesitation in preferring the professional recommendation of the guardian to that of the allocated social worker and special guardianship assessor.  The latter have given very little regard to the manner in which the nephews went to live with the grandparents and the limited support provided thereafter, as I have repeated in this judgment.  They have failed to consider the positive outcomes of the B’s other children.  They preferred to concentrate on the difficult recent history of the nephews as the social worker himself set out in his own statement which I have quoted.
56.	Importantly the local authority appears not to have looked holistically at the options and asked itself the vital question, is adoption really the only safe, necessary, proportionate option for the boys given that it will deprive them of their birth family?
57.	When I asked the social worker about his plans for contact to the grandparents if the adoption plan was approved he said this:  “Normally under a care order the local authority does not encourage contact with birth families, but it is the one thing that was not looked at at this point in time.”  I am quite surprised that it was not looked at at this point in time, bearing in mind section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act, but in fact it now does not matter because that is not an order I am going to make.
58.	There is a certainty that I heard from committed, loving grandparents who want the best for their two grandsons.  It is a certainty that this is a couple who have been together for over 25 years, facing numbers of family problems.  There are risks to the placement with the grandparents.  There is a risk that the recent improvement in the parental relationship may not be sustained.  I do consider that, with help, this relationship between the parents and grandparents can be worked upon.  I am satisfied that the grandparents will seek support and maintain support and accept support from the local authority if necessary.
59.	Placement for adoption is most uncertain, either whether a placement can be found for adoption, as to how long that placement search would be and there is the potential for two boys, age 4 and 3, with developmental delay, with some behavioural difficulties although those have improved more recently, being found a placement together for adoption.  As a result of the orders that I am going to make today I can assist in providing some certainty for these two little boys.  Their welfare undoubtedly requires they move to live with the grandparents under a special guardianship order.
60.	As to contact with the father it is agreed that there should be a risk assessment by the local authority before there is any consideration of contact.  The fact that he accepts there should be a risk assessment is a good indicator.  The local authority’s own evidence says that he has shown insight into the local authority concerns about the children.  Again, a good indicator.  The grandparents, I am confident, will be able to manage contact, but I am equally confident that if they are not able to manage it they will seek assistance.
61.	Those are the reasons for the decision which I have made.  Since the matter was last before me on 31st January the local authority has filed and served an amended special guardianship support plan which was provided to the parties as well as a written agreement signed on 4th February.  I know that the parties want to have some further discussions about this and I will rise so that that can happen.
[Judgment ends]