IMPORTANT NOTICE
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child and members of his/her family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so would be a contempt of court.

Case No: MA16C00297 &
MA16Z00531

IN THE FAMILY COURT at Manchester 
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 
AND THE ADOPTION & CHILDREN ACT 2002

Manchester Civil Justice Centre
1 Bridge Street West, Manchester. WC2A 2LL

Date: 4th December 2016

Before:

HIS HONOUR IAIN HAMILTON CBE 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:

TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL  	
Applicant	
	- and -		
	 
KH	
1st Respondent	
	-and-		
	
AC	
2ndRespondent	
	-and- 		
	
ISH
(a child by her children's guardian, Gill Pearson)	

3rdRespondent	

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

Ms Janice Wills (Counsel) for the local authority
Ms Joanna Moody (Counsel instructed by Pluck Andrew Solicitors) for the mother
Ms Sarah Kilvington (Counsel instructed by Bromleys Solicitors) for the child

Hearing dates: 14h, 15th , 16th & 17th November 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Introduction

1.	I am concerned with the interests of the child who is a girl to whom I will refer as ISH for purposes of anonymity who was born on the 15th April 2016 and is now just 7 months old. I will refer to the parents and other family members by their initials. Her mother is KH and her father is AC and to whom I will refer for convenience where appropriate as the ‘mother’ and the ‘father’ without intending any disrespect to either. The mother and father are not married. They are not in a relationship since they separated in December 2015. It was a short lived relationship since they had only met in the summer of 2015. The father does not have parental responsibility for ISH. He has played no effective part in these proceedings and has not been present or represented throughout this hearing.

2.	The mother has three other children all of whom have been made the subject of care and placement orders. Her first child was LH born on the 15th August 2004 who was made the subject of care and placement orders on the 30th October 2006. Her second child, LH2, was born on the 29th September 2010 and made subject of care and placement orders on the 24th March 2011. The third child was JJH who was born on the 27th August 2014 and made the subject of care and placement orders on the 26th May 2015.  

3.	The father has two other children both girls who were born respectively in May 2005 and December 2008 and who live with their mother. It is understood that the father has some contact with them. There has been no local authority involvement with these girls. 

Applications

4.	The applications before the court made by the applicant local authority, Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, are for a care order in respect of ISH pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act 1989 in an application issued on the 18th April 2016 and for a placement order pursuant to section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 which application was issued on the 1st September 2016. 

Circumstances leading to the proceedings

5.	The mother has had historical involvement with another local authority as well as this authority and the Court in relation to her previous children since 2004 as indicated above. The concerns that lead to the previous proceedings included: domestic violence; maternal drug and alcohol misuse; maternal mental health difficulties and a chaotic lifestyle. 

6.	The mother was assessed in both sets of care proceedings in 2006 and 2010 by Dr Graeme McGrath, Consultant Psychiatrist.  He assessed the mother as having emotionally unstable personality traits, traits of borderline personality disorder, symptoms of paranoia and depression.  Dr McGrath concluded in 2011 that despite the mother having had prolonged therapy very little had changed. Dr Jennifer Ashcroft, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, also assessed the mother in 2010 and concluded that "she is emotionally unstable, demonstrates behaviours typical of Borderline Personality Disorder and has symptoms of paranoia and depression." 

7.	The child, JJH, was born in 2014 and was the subject of care proceedings issued by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. Within these proceedings a further psychological assessment was undertaken by Dr Ashcroft. This report dated 14th November 2014 of Dr Ashcroft concluded as follows in respect of the mother:
		(1) She has not made any significant changes in terms of her mental status. 		She continues to present with significant symptoms of personality disorder;  
		(2) Her account in places was different to other recordings; 
		(3) Her engagement with various services seems very recent; 
		(4) Her relationships have been turbulent and she will find it difficult to 			maintain any future relationships in a positive way; 
		(5) She has not accessed the recommended therapy from the previous 			proceedings;
		(6) She has been unable to completely abstain from using alcohol and drugs 		which would be a pre-requisite to accessing any therapy. KH in fact presents 		with a dependency on alcohol and/ or drugs. 

8.	Dr Ashcroft’s recommendations were that KH needed to abstain from substance misuse, undertake the Freedom Project and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Dr Ashcroft stated: "KH requires stability (not just emotional, but geographical and social). She should demonstrate she can comply with expectations, being open and honest with professionals. Attending therapy may not, therefore, in itself be sufficient. She needs to demonstrate, over a significant period and I would suggest at least 6 months, that she can reliably abstain from alcohol and drugs, attend for therapy and be generally more reliable in behaviour and verbal conduct."
 
9.	Within the proceedings a Professionals Meeting took place on the 4th December 2014 in which Dr Ashcroft discussed the mother's dishonesty with her having minimised her drugs intake. Her recommendations were that the mother needed to stop self medicating with drugs and alcohol. Following on from abstinence the mother would need to access CBT for a period of 12 sessions. Following the 12 sessions, and provided the mother can evidence that she is abstinent from drugs/alcohol, it would be necessary to see that there has been no police involvement, she has stability in her residence and is living in the same place. The timescales on this period of stability would be at least 12 months. 
  
10.	The mother informed the local authority that she was pregnant in September 2015. Based on its knowledge of the mother from previous involvement it was decided to undertake a pre-birth assessment. It concluded that a further pre-birth assessment was required closer to the birth of ISH. 
 
11.	ISH was a premature baby and remained in hospital for several days following her birth. A pre-birth assessment was being completed when ISH was born on the 15th April 2016.  The application for a care order was issued on the 18th April 2016. 

Progress of proceedings

12.	On the 19th April 2016 the magistrates granted an interim care order in respect of ISH. The plan of the local authority had been to place ISH with her maternal aunt, AB, on Thursday, 21st April 2016. However, the local authority was notified by Staffordshire Social Services that they had undertaken an initial screening of AB and had concerns about her property because, amongst other things, it was mouldy. As a consequence, ISH remained in hospital for a further night whilst these concerns were discussed with AB. A visit took place immediately and while it was clear that AB had made efforts to clean the areas affected by the mould it was still evident elsewhere.  Consequently, ISH was moved to a foster care placement on the 22nd April 2016. 

13.	As the local authority was unable to place ISH with AB it applied for an urgent hearing which took place before the magistrates on the 25th April 2016.  The Court, after hearing evidence from the Social Worker and AB, decided that the mould would create a significant risk to ISH and that she could not be placed there. The local authority also made the parties aware at the hearing that the current placement was only a bridging placement and ISH would be moved to a foster to adopt placement, in line with current guidance. ISH was moved to a foster to adopt placement on the 27th April 2016 where she has remained.

14.	There was a Case Management Hearing on the 5th May 2016 before the magistrates when directions were given for alcohol and drugs testing of the mother and for the local authority to undertake assessments of the mother, father and the maternal aunt, AB. Placement order directions were given and the matter listed for an Issues Resolution Hearing on the 31st August 2016. 

15.	At the IRH on the 31st August 2016 the magistrates agreed to transfer the matter to a District Judge for final hearing after being informed that it was estimated to take 5 days with there being 7 witnesses to be called. The local authority position was that it was contending that ISH should be adopted while the mother sought to have her placed in her care albeit subject to a care order. The father was not present at the hearing and had not instructed his solicitors or participated in the proposed local authority assessment. The Parenting Assessment which had been completed in respect of the mother by the key social worker on the 19th July 2016 was negative. The Special Guardianship Assessment of the maternal aunt, AB, as a prospective carer for ISH was negative. The mother had indicated that she intended to make an application for an expert psychological assessment by Dr Jennifer Ashcroft in light of the fact that she was then undergoing CBT. The local authority needed further time to issue its placement application as the Agency Decision Maker had required further information before being able to make a decision. Consequential directions were given for the filing of the mother's application for assessment and extensions of time for the filing of the local authority placement application and the guardian's final analysis report by the 22nd September 2016.
 
16.	The adjourned IRH was listed for hearing before District Judge Stephens on the 30th September 2016. At that hearing the timetable for the proceedings was extended to 32 weeks and the matter was allocated to me to hear as a Deputy Circuit Judge commencing on the 14th November 2016 since no District Judge was available to hear the matter until January 2017. After hearing that Dr Ashcroft could complete an assessment of the mother by the 2nd November and would be available to attend at court to give evidence during the week of the 14th November, the District Judge granted the mother's application for the expert assessment. The father's solicitor remained without instructions and she was accordingly excused attending further hearings. The local authority was given permission to file a further statement by the 8th November 2016 in the event its care plan changed following the assessment by Dr Ashcroft. A direction was made for the mother to file her final statement by the 9th November and the guardian to file her final analysis and placement report by the 10th November 2016.   The matter was listed for final hearing before me on the 14th November 2016 with 5-day time estimate. 

The parties’ positions

17.	The local authority position is that it seeks a care order for ISH based on its care plan which is predicated on the basis that she should be placed for adoption. If the court approves the local authority plan and makes the care order, the local authority invites it to proceed to deal with the placement order application, to dispense with the mother’s agreement to adoption and make the placement order. If the placement order is granted, the local authority proposes to reduce the contact between ISH and the mother and AB to once weekly for a period of three weeks, and then reduced to fortnightly for two sessions and then a final contact being offered separately to the mother and AB. ISH will not have to change placement as she is already placed with concurrent carers who have been matched with her. The children's guardian supports the local authority’s plan for ISH and the orders which are sought. 

18.	The mother remains opposed to the local authority plan. She wishes ISH to be placed in her care under whatever order might be appropriate. Her case is that something other than adoption will do for ISH and invites the court to consider adjourning the matter for 3 months in order to enable her to demonstrate continued stability and abstinence from cannabis use. Although the orders made previously record that the 'threshold criteria' are agreed I was told by Ms Moody for the mother that whilst the threshold had been conceded for the making of an interim care order she challenges the 'threshold criteria' for making the care order. 

19.	I heard evidence from the two key social workers, Gemma Crook and Karen Varcoe; a psychologist, Dr Ashcroft; the mother; and the children's guardian. At the conclusion of the submissions on what was day four of the hearing, I indicated to the parties that I would take time to prepare a judgment which I would hand down in type script by no later than the 5th December 2016. I have listed a hearing on the 12th December 2016 to deal with any issues which might arise on or from the judgment on the understanding that if no such issues arise that hearing should be vacated with the final orders being drawn. 

20.	In fairness to the parties but particularly the mother, I took the view that I should inform them of the clear decisions at which I had arrived and which would be confirmed in my judgment. I confirmed that my decision was to grant the care order on the basis of approving the local authority plan for adoption. It followed from that that I would dispense with the mother’s agreement to adoption and make the placement order. This is the judgment.

Legal Framework

21.	A care order or supervision order may only be made on the application of a local authority if the Court is satisfied that the “threshold criteria” under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are established. Section 31(2) provides that:

“A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied – (a) that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm; and (b) that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him; ……...”

22.	Section 31(9) defines “harm” as meaning ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development and “development” as meaning physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development and “health” includes both physical and mental health.

23.	If the threshold is established, the court then has to pass on to the ‘welfare’ stage with a view to considering what, if any, order is to be made. Consideration of this requires me to have regard to section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and to treat the child’s welfare as paramount and to apply the ‘welfare checklist’ or relevant parts of it in arriving at my decision. 

24.	The “welfare checklist” is set out in section 1(3) of the Act and requires the court to particular regard to:
(a)	the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);
(b)	his physical, emotional and educational needs;
(c)	the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;
(d)	his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;
(e)	any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
(f)	how capable are each of his parents, and any other person or relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;
(g)	the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.”

25.	An order should only be made if I consider that making an order is better for the child than making no order at all. If the court considers that an order is necessary it should go on to consider the range of options available to it, which include where appropriate private law orders under section 8, Special Guardianship Orders under section 14A as well as supervision or care orders under section 31. Before making a care order the court has to consider the local authority’s proposals for contact with the child and has to have considered the local authority’s care plan for the child. Since the care plan is one of adoption and the local authority is seeking a placement order in the event of a care order being granted on that premise, I am bound to have regard to the welfare checklist as set out in section 1 (4) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 (see paragraph 28 below) at this stage.
 
26.	The court should only make such order as the facts require, and only then in compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality set out in Article 8 (2) of The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. 

27.	If, however, I approve the local authority plan and conclude that a care order should be granted in accordance with the local authority application, I then have to go on to consider the application for a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

28.	By virtue of section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the child’s welfare throughout his life is the court’s paramount consideration. The court also has to have regard to the ‘welfare checklist’ set out in section 1 (4) of the Act. The matters to be considered are: -
(a)	the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings;
(b)	the child’s particular needs;
(c)	the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of his original family:
(d)	the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which are relevant;
(e)	any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
(f)	the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the relationship is relevant, including –
(xcviii)	the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of it doing so;
(xcix)	the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise meet his needs;
(c)	the wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives or of any such person regarding the child.

29.	Section 21 Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides that a placement order shall not be made unless the child is subject to a care order or the court is satisfied that the conditions for making a care order are met and only then if either the parents have consented to the making of such an order or, in the event that no such consent has been given, if the parents consent should be dispensed with. 

30.	Section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides that the court may only dispense with parental consent either if the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or the welfare of the child requires consent to be dispensed with.

31.	I have reminded myself of the guidance from the Supreme Court in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and the Court of Appeal in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 to be applied in cases involving care applications for children in respect of whom the plan is for placement for adoption. These authorities in line with the many other recent Court of Appeal cases dealing with care proceedings revisit and restate the key principles which underpin public law proceedings and provide a reminder that adoption for any child who has had to be removed from its parents’ care by state intervention must be seen as being the last resort "where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do" (Re B para 198). 

32.	In Re B-S we are reminded that there must be evidence from the local authority and the children's guardian to address all options which are realistically possible and should include an analysis of the arguments for and against each option. There must also be an adequately reasoned judgment which should demonstrate that the court has undertaken a global, holistic evaluation of the options for the child’s welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each option.

33.	Ms Moody for the mother helpfully referred me to Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625 in her written submissions and quoted from paragraph 20 with regard to the process of analysis by the court when faced with a stark choice between a return of the child to her mother or adoption. Lord Justice McFarlane said that in such a case he would
“question the judge's decision to analyse the issues in the case first under the welfare checklist in CA 1989, prior to making a care order endorsing the care plan for adoption, and before moving on to conduct a second analysis using the welfare checklist in ACA 2002. There was one issue in this case: should the child be returned to the mother or go forward for adoption. That is an adoption question to which the factors in the 2002 Act directly apply. In the circumstances it was necessary, and necessary only, to analyse which outcome was to be chosen, by giving the child's welfare paramount consideration throughout her lifetime through the lens of the welfare checklist in ACA 2002, s 1(4). There was no need to conduct a preliminary, lower level, analysis using the CA 1989 checklist or to make a care order in the middle of the judgment; if the adoption plan was ultimately chosen then a care order would readily be justified and made at the conclusion of the hearing.”

	In the same case at paragraph 51 of the judgment, the President, Sir James Munby, 	said 
		"Where, in an application for a care order, the plan is for adoption, the court 		must have regard not merely to the ‘welfare checklist’ in section 1(3) of the 		1989 Act but also, and even if there is no application for a placement order, to 		the ‘welfare checklist’ in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act: see also In re C (A 			Child) (Placement for Adoption: Judicial Approach) [2013] EWCA Civ 1257, 		[2014] 1 WLR 2247, [2014] 2 FLR 131, paras 29-31. 
and at paragraph 52 that 
		"At the end of the day, of course, the court’s paramount consideration, in 			accordance with section 1(2) of the 2002 Act, is the child’s welfare 			“throughout his life.”
	
	This accords with the approach I propose to adopt as described at paragraph 25 above.

The Evidence

Gemma Crook, social worker 
34.	The first witness from whom I heard was Gemma Crook who was the former key social worker from April 2016 until she left the local authority on the 15th September 2016. She had been responsible for writing the two SWETs filed in the proceedings at pages C1 and C108 of the bundle and had undertaken the Parenting Assessment of the mother at C44. Although now working for a different local authority since September 2016 she had had the opportunity to read and consider the psychological report of Dr Ashcroft and the mother's statement.

35.	In her initial statement, Ms Crook set out the history of the previous proceedings at C4 to C13 quoting extensively from the parenting assessment undertaken in 2014 and describing in some detail the psychiatric and psychological assessments in respect of the mother undertaken by Dr McGrath, Dr Golding and Dr Ashcroft as well as outlining the history of various referrals for mental health services from 2004 onwards. She noted that the mother had not accessed the CBT therapy which had been recommended. She detailed issues in relation to the mother's historical and current drug use and raised a concern as to how truthful the mother was being in asserting her abstinence in respect of alcohol and drugs given her past difficulty in working openly and honestly with professionals. She also commented on the mother's inability to implement what she had learnt from her attendance at the Freedom Project given the unhealthy relationship she had so quickly entered into with ISH's father, AC.

36.	Within the Parenting Assessment it was evident that Ms Crook recognised and acknowledged a significant number of positives in respect of the mother, her relationship with ISH and the changes she was making within her life. However, in her conclusion she observed at C59 that 
		"…these changes are recent and although there are positives to this that the 		level of stability and the length of time that was suggested to (the mother) to 		refrain from substance and drug misuse and stability following CBT input has 		not been achieved and would not be achieved within ISH's timescales"
and
		"…changes…are untested, they are recent and despite the recommendations 		from the previous proceedings…. she engages very quickly with a male he did 		not know…"
and 
		"(her) propensity to engage in unhealthy and abusive relationships remains a 		concern and this is evident in her engagement in the relationship with (AC)."

She concluded by saying that she did 
		"..not feel that (the mother) has had the  necessary recommended Cognitive 		Behavioural Therapy input and stable lifestyle and period of stability from 		alcohol and drugs necessary to be confident that (she) can maintain the 			changes to date, therefore does not feel that (she) is in a position to care for 		ISH and meet her needs now or within her timescales."

37.	When her final statement was completed on the 12th August 2016, Ms Crook recorded that the mother had commenced CBT but had only completed two sessions. She was informed by the counsellor working with the mother that the remaining sessions could take 3 to 4 months to complete at which time the local authority might wish to have a reassessment by the psychologist who had recommended the need for therapy. She observed that the relatively short periods of abstinence from alcohol and drugs compared with her previous 20 year long standing use of alcohol and drugs was a concern and remained largely untested. Significantly, she was mindful of the advice which Dr Ashcroft had given in the previous proceedings in 2014 that "there would need to be evidence of 12 months of sustained change following on from (therapy)." [C113] 

38.	She considered at C116 that
		"The work and sustaining abstinence would greatly exceed the timetable 			which ISH requires."
and that 
		"The work which (the mother) has begun is in its infancy and is balanced 			against a backdrop of long standing drug and alcohol misuses, and ten years 		of previous proceedings."
and 
		"A long period of delay… of proceedings to allow (the mother) time to 			demonstrate change would not be in line of the interests of ISH..."

39.	In her oral evidence, Ms Crook confirmed that she had been aware of the mother's long history of alcohol and drug abuse and that she had her three previous children removed from her care. The mother had not addressed the recommendations made by Dr Ashcroft in the 2014 proceedings. although the mother had attended the Freedom Project Programme during the proceedings in 2015 Ms Crook said she had concerns that she had not taken on board the issues or advice she would have been given in the Programme in light of the speed with which she started the relationship with ISH's father given his history. It had been a problematic relationship. Ms Crook expected that the mother would have had more insight given that the project is intended to empower women with regard to their vulnerabilities within relationships. The mother became pregnant very quickly and did not recognise the risk. She said the mother had not been honest about how the relationship started.

40.	She considered that the mother's dishonesty was an issue as she was aware that the mother had not been honest about her drug use in the previous proceedings relating to JJH. This created difficulties in relationships with professionals and her cooperation with social workers with them not being able to trust her. When first involved with the mother Ms Crook said she was unaware of whether she had abstained from alcohol abuse as this was untested. Although the mother asserted she had stopped using cannabis on the 29th February 2016 Ms Crook was not aware of any conversations she had with the local authority around this at the time.

41.	At the time of ISH's birth the mother had not started work to address the issues arising from the repeated recommendations made as a result of the assessments done within previous proceedings over a period of 10 years and, accordingly, it was the case that ISH was at risk of significant harm. The harm she was at risk of would be emotional abuse. There was a lack of clarity around the relationship with the father and the potential impact on ISH. 

42.	There were risks around the mother's ability to care for a baby. Although Ms Crook acknowledged the mother had made some small steps to recovery her view was that the mother needed a period to be able to demonstrate change and her ability to manage her emotional regulation and wellbeing.

43.	She was aware that the mother had accepted misusing cannabis in September and October and was concerned about the lapses which showed that she had not been able to sustain abstinence over time. She was aware that the mother had not mentioned the cannabis use to Dr Ashcroft when she was assessed and this gave rise to concerns about her openness and honesty. It was of concern that the mother had this relapse at the time she was doing a Relapse Prevention Course.

44.	Under cross-examination by Ms Moody for the mother, Ms Crook confirmed that by April 2016 the mother had achieved stability of residence for over 12 months, had informed Children's services of her pregnancy, was engaging with ante-natal services and demonstrating a willingness to work with the local authority. She said the mother had made preparations for the arrival of the baby. The mother had completed the Freedom Programme and not had involvement with the police since 2013 nor been in a violent relationship since then. She had not been in a relationship with AC since December 2015 and there was no evidence of her living a chaotic lifestyle.

45.	The local authority concern was that no CBT work had been done by the mother. Ms Crook said that the issues were about her emotional regulation and dysfunction and a need to show that she could manage herself better. Despite the positives and the acknowledgement that the mother had referred herself for help with Lifeline etc to tackle her drug use and related issues, the local authority had, based on the report of Dr Ashcroft from 2014, concluded in July 2016 that ISH could not be placed in the mother's care as she required to demonstrate many more months of abstinence, stability and engaging with the local authority and the support groups she was involved in. 

46.	While she conceded that she had had discussions with the mother about what options might be available which could include further testing out over a 6-month period and had also discussed those with the children's guardian she was adamant that was never going to be the local authority's care plan for ISH.

47.	In response to Ms Kilvington for ISH, Ms Crook said that this case was not about the mother's parenting skills or her ability to care for ISH in contact or when stable. It was about her functioning and ability to provide consistent good enough care for ISH. It involved the mother showing what she had learnt and what she had been able to implement in respect of what was known about her past difficulties and whether she could be trusted to signpost difficulties she was experiencing. 

48.	There were concerns about the speed with which she commenced her relationship with AC after completing the Freedom Programme and that she was not able to demonstrate change in the pattern of her relationships. The CBT had been completed within the context of these proceedings but should have been done years ago. Even so she understood that the mother had not fully engaged with CBT as she had not done the required homework or adopted relaxation techniques. Worryingly the mother had resorted to using drugs again having completed CBT which showed she had not implemented what she had learnt. Her lack of honesty remained a concern as evidenced by her failure to share the information about her drug relapse with other professionals at the hearing on the 30th September 2016 and that she failed to tell Dr Ashcroft about her lapse when she was seen to be assessed by her. It was worrying that the mother could not identify the trigger for her relapse. Ms Crook considered that lifestyle issues were still very much a live concern for the local authority because of the impact on ISH.

Dr Jennifer Ashcroft, Consultant Clinical Psychologist

49.	I heard from Dr Jennifer Ashcroft, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, on the second day of the hearing. Steps had been taken to obtain more detailed information from Lifeline in respect of what discussions etc had taken place about the drug relapse in September and also to obtain additional documents from the mother's medical records at F32 to F99 in the bundle which the parties and Dr Ashcroft required time to consider. In her report at E33/4 Dr Ashcroft had helpfully set out the conclusions from her reports of the 1st December 2010 and the 14th November 2014. 

50.	In the section of her report dealing with the Psychometric Assessment of the mother and Possible Diagnoses, Dr Ashcroft commented on consideration of Clinical Syndromes that 
	"these three concerns, alcohol and drug misuse, and adjustment disorder with 	anxiety, were also apparent in the results in 2014. Although more recently she 	may have abstained, these test results do suggest that a possibility of relapse 	remains. An insufficient time has elapsed to ensure that she will not return to 	her former habits." [Para 5.39 @ E54]

In respect of Personality Disorders, she said that the mother's personality configuration composed of Antisocial Personality Style and Histrionic Personality Style. She observed 
	"The antisocial traits were also apparent in 2014 test results. I am 	mindful 	that (from the validity scale results) KH appears to have 	been presenting 	herself in a somewhat over positive way in the testing above. That may be 	responsible for the result indicating ‘style’ rather 	than disorder. The 	histrionic characteristics have been described above and are typified by her 	over dramatisation, her rather shallow emotions. The narrative also indicates 	a rapidly shifting emotional 	style, which might be expected given her earlier 	diagnoses of 	emotional instability personality disorder. 
	
	It may be that she is trying to improve her psychological state and 	emotional 	control but it remains, from these results, that there is still 	evidence for 	emotional dysregulation." [para 5.41 @ E54]

51.	In her Opinion Section Dr Ashcroft addressed the questions which had been put to her in her instructions and made a number of significant observations among which are –
	"Her coping skills therefore, in my opinion, continue to be relatively poor and 	the current MCMI IV test results also indicate that." [para 	6.2.6 @ E55]
and
	" However, her MCMI IV test results continue to indicate, as part of her 	psychological profile, the possibility of alcohol and/or substance 	misuse. 	These results may represent historical use.  However, it remains that 	they still appear a psychological issue for her. For example, they fit in with 	her style of life, friendship patterns, and are in accord with her anti authority 	and unconventional attitudes." [para 6.3.2 @E56] 
and
	"I would suggest that the possibility of relapse remains and it would take a 	significant time before we can be sure that she will not relapse. In particular, 	if her mood is down and she is feeling anxious or unwell, and believing that 	her medication does not work for her, she may be more likely to relapse." 	[para 6.3.3 @ E56]
52.	She commented that 
" if she had insight she would have properly planned and adhered to the suggestions and the time line suggested after the last proceedings. She tends to leave things rather late, or attend therapy and then not adhere to the advice given." [para 6.5.2 @ E57]
and 
" It seems she did not plan her life in a way to maximize positive 	outcome, in terms of her chances of caring for a child. Given her antisocial characteristics, she may not wish to adhere to social convention, to the advice of professionals." [para 6.7.2 @ E58]
and she concluded that she 
"continue(s) to be of the view that she needs to show that she has sustained change for an appreciable time before professionals can be sure she will not relapse into drug and alcohol misuse, or associate with people who may pose a risk, even an indirect risk, to the child." [para 6.8.1 @ E58]

53.	In reply to Ms Moody, Dr Ashcroft said that in her assessment of the mother she found that little had changed and that the results remained broadly the same from all the assessments of the mother in the previous proceedings. The main issue was her emotional instability which alcohol and drug use aggravated. She had a poor coping style. She suffered from a cluster of dysfunctional emotions and issues and Dr Ashcroft said she had described a host of problems within her report.

54.	She said that the mother had not evidenced a motivation to change her life and that in her experience the mother had always been able to acknowledge her mistakes but that had not stopped her repeating them. None of what she had done to address change had been done in the right place, time or order or with a long term objective or plan. She considered that the mother had struggled with the relationship between her mental health and emotions throughout her entire life and said that she thought had never been in a good place throughout her whole life. All her relationships were likely to be difficult because of her emotional difficulties. Her personality profile did not suggest someone who was emotionally normal.

55.	Her experience was that what the mother says and what she does is not always the same. In respect of her cannabis lapse which the mother had not disclosed to her in the assessment, Dr Ashcroft raised the question of whether she is taking other drugs because the professionals just do not know what she is doing because she can be extremely believable. She makes bad choices and is anti-authority and likes doing her own thing. She said the mother does relapse and fights and fails. She considered that the mother is not going to put into practice what she should have learnt because she does not know why she relapses. 

56.	She considered that the mother was not able to work openly and honestly with anyone. If ISH were to be placed in the mother's care, Dr Ashcroft considered that 24-hour monitoring by Children's Services and other agencies of the mother would be required. Viewed in the context of when the mother had relapsed in respect of drugs, she observed that the underlying issues may be her personal preferences. She concluded her evidence by saying that she was not confident that any support could be given to the mother to enable her to care for ISH at present. 

Karen Varcoe, social worker 
57.	Karen Varcoe had taken over as the key social worker for ISH on the 6th October 2016 as was confirmed in her statement at C143 which had only been completed and filed on the 16th November. Ms Varcoe had undertaken the Special Guardianship assessment of the maternal aunt, AB, at C60 and had done the Addendum to that report at C121 and had a knowledge and understanding of the issues in relation to the mother and ISH before she was allocated as the key worker. In her statement she confirmed that the local authority had held a planning meeting on the 3rd November 2016 after receiving Dr Ashcroft's report. Since the local authority considered that Dr Ashcroft's report supported its concerns, the decision was made that placement remained the only option available for ISH.

58.	Ms Varcoe confirmed that she did not meet with the mother face to face in her brief involvement to date but spoke to her on the telephone on the 7th November 2016. She confirmed the discussion she had with the mother's key worker at Lifeline. In her consideration of the CBT which the mother had completed she had expressed her concerns that 
	"despite completing CBT (the mother) has, within one week of completing 	her 	CBT and whilst undertaking a relapse prevention course, misused 	substances 	again and has either not been able to implement the CBT strategies or not 	been willing to. One of the core issues in this case is that 	(the mother) is not 	able to demonstrate a 	sustained commitment to change in her behaviours and 	in my professional opinion this supports that view." 	[C146]
59.	In light of her discussion with Lifeline and consideration of what the mother said in her statement about a 'small relapse', she observed that in her professional opinion she viewed it as "more significant than a 'small relapse'." [C147] She concluded by observing that she continued to have "concerns about (the mother's) honesty, her ability to work with professionals and her understanding of the necessity to work in an open and honest way with professionals." [C147]

60.	In her oral evidence Ms Varcoe said that listening to what Dr Ashcroft had said in evidence reinforced for her the decision made by the local authority in respect of its adoption plan for ISH. In response to Ms Moody she was unable to say why she had made reference in her assessment of the maternal aunt to the mother's "excessive alcohol use in pregnancy is not yet manifest” but said no one had drawn it to her attention. She agreed that it had been unacceptable not to make contact with the mother until as late as the 7th November following her allocation as the key social worker. She had not been told that the mother had tried to contact her in October. 

61.	In response to Ms Kilvington, Ms Varcoe confirmed that the issues in the case related to the mother's personality dysfunction through her emotional instability which had been exacerbated through alcohol and substance abuse. One of the main concerns was around the mother's honesty. In respect of the risk to ISH it was to her emotional and physical safety with the challenge being how to manage that risk in light of the mother's honesty given her capacity for telling believable lies. She was not confident the mother would seek her out if she had a relapse and said that when she had spoken to her to ask for an update the mother had not mentioned the relapse and told her that things were going well.

KH (the mother)
62.	In her evidence the mother confirmed that she had filed three statements dated the 28th April [C32], 23rd August [C127] and the 9th November [C139]. In her first statement she said she had "made significant progress since the last proceedings" and was "in a different place. My life is no longer chaotic. I am much more settled." She had not touched alcohol for almost 12 months and stopped using cannabis 2 months ago. She attends Lifeline for support for her substance abuse. She sees her drugs and alcohol worker regularly and attends groups. She has lived in the same property for 18 months. She had attended the Freedom Project. Although she had started a relationship with AC she had ended the relationship when she became aware of his background. She acknowledged that she had not started to undertake CBT and set out the difficulties she experienced in trying to start it. She dealt with the local authority threshold as it was in its application form and accepted that it was crossed for the purpose of making an interim order. She took issue with the document as a whole and the local authority proving that she was a continuing risk to ISH.
 
63.	In her second statement she contended that she had been told by the social worker, Ms Crook, in a telephone conversation on the 28th July that the local authority was planning to rehabilitate ISH to her care. She had received a further telephone call on the 8th August when the social worker had told her the plan had changed and the local authority would be applying for a placement order. 

64.	In addition, she set out details of what was happening with her CBT and said that would be completed by the 12th September. She described the work she was doing through Lifeline with reference to her having started a 12-week course called CARM (which included dealing with addictions and denial) and an 8-week course called APPLY which focussed on issues to do with relapse. She was enjoying both courses and considered that the people at Lifeline were friendly and supportive.

65.	Having acknowledged that the local authority was right to have commenced the proceedings and said that she did not seek to minimise the local authority's concerns she set out the basis of her opposition to the local authority plan for ISH. She had done her "absolute best to turn things around" and that her "road to recovery had started before these proceedings and I am committed to ensuring it continues". [C133]

66.	In her last statement at paragraph 6 at C140 she says
		"I would wish to be honest with the Court about a small relapse I have had 		lately. 	I pride myself now on my ability to be frank and open; something 		which I did not do before. During the month of October 2016, I have used 		cannabis on several occasions. I have smoked one or two spliffs on my 			own. I cannot really say why I have done this. There doesn't seem to 			be any particular reason, for example, I have not just smoked cannabis on 		really bad days. I have been open with my Lifeline worker Dave Duggan 		about my relapse and I sought advice from him straight away. Dave has 		told me not to "beat myself up" about it because a relapse in relation to 		alcohol would have been much worse. Words cannot express how 			disappointed I am with myself. I am committed to stopping once and for all. 		I would reassure the Court that I have not relapsed in any other ways; I 		have not touched alcohol or any other drug. The fact I am able 	to be 			honest with the Court and professionals about this matter goes some way, I 		hope, to showing that I have changed in terms of my truthfulness."

67.	She considers that she has benefitted from CBT and confirms that ISH's room is decorated and ready for her. She has looked at activities which she could do with her and refers to having a Surestart Centre close by. In addition, she says 
	"I have remained single since I separated from ISH's father. I have no 	intention of getting into another relationship. I appreciate that it was 	something of a farce to complete the Freedom Program and then go out 	with someone else inappropriate, which is what I did. Quite frankly, I used 	to end up in relationships with such horrible men because they used to give 	me alcohol and drugs. I would get as much out of them as I could. Now that 	I no longer drink alcohol or use cocaine, ecstasy and amphetamines, I have 	no need for such people in my life and I promise the Court that I will avoid 	such relationships again. I do not want those people in my life, even just as 	friends. I certainly do not want them in ISH's life." [C141] 

68.	 She said that she was told at the court hearing on the 31st August that Ms Crook was leaving the local authority. She met the new social worker Ms Dougherty, at court on the 30th September. She did not know Ms Dougherty was not continuing as the social worker until she was told at contact at the beginning of November.

69.	She described what she did at contact with ISH and what a positive relationship she had with her foster carers. She spoke positively of a parenting course she had been on following self referral and also the APPLY course to recognise the signs of relapse. She had graduated from the CARM course on the 2nd November. She now enjoyed a good support network with her family and said it was better than it ever had been. 

70.	In respect of her relationships she said she did not intend to commence another. She went on to say that she had been to her GP for contraception just in case she found another partner. She did not want her current situation to arise again and did not want to sit in another courtroom to fight for her right to be a parent.

71.	She had given up cannabis 7 months ago when previously the longest she had gone without using it was a period of 4 weeks. The only thing she could point to explain the lapse was the receipt of a letter informing her that JJH had been adopted. She said she had been got onto by a group of lads sitting on the wall outside the shop when she went out to get milk at about 7.30pm. She had taken the cannabis and sat at home for an hour or more before she had it. She told her worker at Lifeline the next day. In reply to being asked why she had gone on to have cannabis again after that her reply was "because I got away with it." She said she had a couple of joints each time. She stopped talking to her support network and engaging with groups. She had told her solicitor about the lapse at the end of October and subsequently told her family. Her mother was, she said, devastated. despite this lapse she considered that she would be a perfect mother for ISH.

72.	In reply to Ms Wills, she was able to describe the harm for ISH the local authority was concerned about as being people she associated with putting her at risk, or her getting hurt if there was domestic violence or if she was under the influence of drugs she could be hurt if she was clumsy or could suffer from neglect by not being fed. She had seen the harm caused to LH. She knew how important it was to comply with the recommendations which had been made for her. She did not say Dr Ashcroft was wrong in her opinion and agreed that she had not been able to achieve what was needed and she was almost at the beginning. She agreed that ISH had been at risk of significant harm when the proceedings were started.

73.	She conceded she had lied to her GP and the Social worker team manager about her drug use after the relapse but said she had not lied to her worker at Lifeline. Although she did not tell her CBT counsellor she nonetheless maintained she had told the truth. She said she did not think to tell her barrister about it at the court hearing on the 30th September. She went on to say that she did not tell her support network about being tempted to start using again because they would have talked her out of it. She had said she "made an active choice to use it". She had chosen to do so because she said she was still being told she was not good enough to care for ISH. She had known she had to stay abstinent. 

Gill Pearson, children's guardian 
74.	The children's guardian, Mrs Gill Pearson, has known the mother for some time having represented JJH in the care and placement proceedings in respect of him which concluded in May 2015. Within these proceedings she has prepared three Case Analysis Reports dated the 4th May 2016 [E1-12], 30th August 2016 [E13-30] and 10th November 2016 [E65-73].

75.	Her report of the 30th August was prepared for the IRH before the magistrates which was before Dr Ashcroft was instructed to further assess the mother and before the local authority's placement application was issued. Within the Summary/Analysis section of the report commencing at E24 the guardian acknowledged that the mother had made progress since the previous proceedings although such progress was not apparent until around October 2015. The mother had maintained abstinence from cannabis use since March 2016 and had managed her emotions well when she had been told that the local authority plan had changed from one of potential rehabilitation to one of adoption. There were no concerns around the mother's home conditions or her ability to meet ISH's needs within the confines of contact. She confirmed that there had been no concerns around these issues during the previous proceedings relating to JJH.

76.	However, against those positives she noted a number of negatives and observes -
	"It is concerning that (the mother) made a referral for CBT in October 2015 	whilst still using cannabis …………She acknowledges that she had fully 	understood that she was supposed to have achieved abstinence prior to 	considering such a referral. I would suggest that this indicates that (she) was 	trying to tick off CBT on her list of things she needed to engage with rather 	than engaging with the therapy for her own personal development. (She) 	seems to have endeavoured to effect change when she found out she was 	expecting ISH. This was also evident in the last care proceedings in relation to 	JJH." [para 8 @ E25]

and with reference to the views of Dr Ashcroft expressed at the Professionals Meeting in December 2014
		" if (the mother) were to engage with and complete Cognitive Behavioural 			Therapy there is no guarantee that this would be successful in affecting 			change in (her) behaviour and choices. Dr Ashcroft opined that she would 		want to see (the mother) implement her learning, achieving the necessary 			changes and sustaining these for at least a 12-month period." [para 9 @ E25]
and 
		"An example of (the mother) being unable to implement her learning and 			achieve the necessary changes after completing a course is exemplified by 			(her) completing the freedom program in 2015 but then embarking 	on an 			abusive relationship with AC within months of finishing the course.	 She 			acknowledges that she remained in a relationship with him after finding out 		the extent of his criminality. She reports that her relationship with AC 			progressed quickly, that he used to supply her with weed and the relationship 		was abusive. Concerns in relation to (the mother's) propensity to rapidly 			emotionally invest in new intimate relationships were evident in the care 			proceedings pertaining to LH2." [para 10 @ E25]
and 
		" (She) advised me during my recent visit with her that she had three 			boyfriends during the last care proceedings involving JJH. However, she did 		not disclose these relationships within the life of those proceedings. It is 			therefore difficult to determine whether (she) is being honest now when she 		reports that she is not in a relationship." [para 11 @ E26]

77.	The guardian's conclusion in respect of the mother is set out at paragraph 14 on E27 when she says 
		"The evidence in relation to (the mother) is that she is in the early stages of 		addressing long term substance misuse of drugs and in view of her history it is 		possible that she could revert to misusing drugs or substitute alcohol for drug 		use. (Her) propensity for engaging in abusive relationship is still highly 			concerning.	Until (she) has shown that she has evidenced the 
		recommendations made by Dr Ashcroft it is my professional opinion that the 		probability of (the mother) subjecting ISH to significant risk of harm in the 		future is highly likely. ISH would be at high risk of neglect. It is my view that 		the risk of significant harm to ISH could not be managed if she moved to her 		mother's care under a Care Order and with a robust safeguarding plan in 			place."

78.	In her final Case Analysis Report in respect of the placement application which was prepared following the assessment by Dr Ashcroft and after the mother's statement referring to her "lapse" had been served the guardian remained "strongly of the view that ISH would not be safe if returned to the care of (the mother)." [E66] She has highlighted relevant parts of Dr Ashcroft's report, commented very briefly on the mother's third statement and undertaken an analysis of the relevant welfare checklist under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 before concluding with her recommendation that ISH be made the subject of a placement order.

79.	In her oral evidence she confirmed that the evidence she had heard which included the mother as well as Dr Ashcroft consolidated her position and highlighted her concerns. Her recommendation was not changed. She considered that the mother had no better level of understanding in respect of her relationships and whilst she had been aware of what services etc she needed to access and what she had to do she had deliberately not engaged. A lot of what Dr Ashcroft had said about the mother resonated with the guardian's experience of her. What the mother had told her about having relationships with three men during the proceedings relating to JJH seemed to be almost an act of self-sabotage and resonated with Dr Ashcroft's view. 

80.	She considered the mother was manipulating and she was concerned about the mother's acknowledgement of telling the "partial truth". This posed difficulties for anyone working with her since she was believable in what she says.  While she acknowledged that the mother was an engaging and likable character and had many positives which she had highlighted in her second report she was of the view that if ISH was placed with her there was a strong probability that she would be at high risk of harm. The mother herself had described the risk which the guardian considered emanated from her personality dysfunction with not being able to regulate her emotions which was compounded by illicit substances. This was a repeated pattern.
  
81.	She could not agree with the adjournment of the proceedings for a 3-month period as had been suggested by the mother as this would be ignoring the expert advice of Dr Ashcroft.

82.	In response to Ms Moody the guardian said she did not consider that the mother had lost all hope of having ISH returned to her when she had relapsed as was clear from the fact that she pursued the psychological assessment. She did not consider that the relapse had been a "wake up call" for the mother since the evidence indicated it was a choice which she had made. The delay of three months which was being suggested to give the mother more time was not sufficient. ISH's welfare needs should be the focus and delay was not in her interest when she had already spent the whole of her life in care proceedings. 

Discussion 

Threshold Criteria 

83.	When I gave the parties my decision and a summary of the reasons for it on the 17th November 2016 I said at paragraph 10 
		" When I was first able to read the papers in this case I was troubled by the 		threshold criteria as pleaded within the local authority’s application since it 		failed to identify what the actual risk of harm to ISH was from the facts 			alleged………… I raised the matter with counsel at the commencement 			of the hearing and was assured that it would be dealt with. Having said that, I 		made it clear yesterday that after hearing all the evidence I am satisfied as to 		the threshold at the time of the commencement of the proceedings. Ms Moody 		has addressed this issue in her helpful written submissions. I will deal with it 		in my judgment and had indicated that I do not now require the advocates to 		prepare a separate threshold document although Ms Wills tells me she has 		now prepared one which I will consider when I see it."   

84.	There was a lack of clarity about the way in which the threshold criteria were set out in the local authority's application form which I found unhelpful. Subsequent to giving my decision, I received what was a revised draft threshold criteria prepared by Ms Wills. Since neither Ms Moody nor Ms Kilvington have had the opportunity to comment on the revised draft threshold it seems that it would not now help for me to try to specifically address that. I will identify the factual findings I have made coupled with the concessions which Ms Moody has set out in her submissions which in my judgement clearly establish that the threshold criteria were met at the time of the commencement of the proceedings.

85.	At paragraphs 5 to 9 inclusive above I set out the circumstances leading to the proceedings including some detail of the previous proceedings and the psychiatric and psychological assessments which had been undertaken in respect of the mother and the recommendations which had been made by the experts. Within each set of previous proceedings there was a cluster of difficulties affecting the mother which gave rise to concerns regarding her capacity to provide safe care for the children and which led to the decisions that they should be placed for adoption. The difficulties included poor mental health issues which were exacerbated by misuse of drugs and alcohol coupled with involvement in domestically violent relationships and lack of appropriate support networks. In addition, her own experiences of childhood were identified as significant factors as was her chaotic lifestyle and lack of any stable home environment.

86.	The written and oral evidence of Ms Crook, Dr Ashcroft and the guardian dealt in some detail with the mother's past difficulties. I find that their evidence shows that the mother had a very lengthy history of alcohol and drug abuse spanning something approaching 20 years against an untested assertion that she had stopped using cannabis just two months before the proceedings commenced. It is clear that each intimate relationship which the mother has had has involved either domestic violence, alcohol or substance misuse and the evidence shows that she engages in risky relationships which progress very quickly with no thought for the consequences. The evidence also shows that she has been diagnosed with several mental health issues but had failed to access recommended treatment. She was dishonest with the professionals in the previous proceedings and within the pre-birth assessment was dishonest about her relationship with AC. 

87.	The mother's concessions as set out by Ms Moody were that – (1) She had not accessed the CBT identified as being necessary; (2) she had only stopped using cannabis two months previously set against the long history of cannabis misuse; (3) She had quickly entered into a relationship with AC who was not an appropriate partner, had fallen pregnant to him in a very short time and separated when only 12 weeks pregnant; and (4) she had been dishonest with professionals about how the relationship with AC had started. 

88.	These concessions marry up with the findings I have made and, I find, clearly demonstrate that the mother posed a real risk of causing ISH significant harm in the form of neglect of her physical and emotional needs, and, as the mother herself conceded, being hurt if there was domestic violence or if she was under the influence of drugs. Based on the history in respect of the previous children and its continuing concerns about the mother’s lifestyle issues including drug use and lack of any therapy the local authority rightly commenced these proceedings with a view to safeguarding ISH's welfare.

Welfare considerations 

89.	I heard oral submissions from Ms Wills and had the written submissions from Ms Moody and Ms Kilvington which have been very helpful. I am grateful to all the advocates for their assistance throughout the hearing which has been both sensibly and sensitively handled by them. 

90.	When I first read the papers my initial thoughts were that with all the changes in her circumstances she ought probably to be given a chance to care for ISH. Since then I have spent three days hearing the evidence which has profoundly changed my view.

91.	I should say at the outset of what follows that I was impressed by the open and straightforward way in which Ms Crook gave her evidence. It was clear to me from her statements and the Parenting Assessment which she undertook that she had a good knowledge and understanding of the issues for the mother from the previous proceedings. She properly acknowledged the positive changes the mother had been able to achieve but rightly remained focussed on the issues which remained of concern to the local authority even though she was not always able to clearly articulate the implications or consequences of the evidence she was confronted with. Those issues led to the plan for permanence for ISH being put before the court in August in her second statement. Although she had not been involved in the proceedings since she left the authority in September the plan for permanence remained as she had proposed despite the assessment by Dr Ashcroft. She was aware of Dr Ashcroft's assessment and was also aware that the mother had accepted misusing cannabis in September and October.  I accept her evidence.

92.	Dr Ashcroft's evidence was in my view compelling. She is a very experienced and competent psychologist with substantial clinical and forensic experience. She had a very clear and complete knowledge and understanding of the mother and the previous proceedings which she had been through having herself been involved in assessing and reporting on the mother in the last two cases. Her analysis of the issues was both detailed and clear. She recognised and gave the mother credit for the some of the positives she has achieved but was very clear that she was not confident that any support could be given to the mother to enable her to care for ISH. I have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.

93.	Dr Ashcroft found that little had changed and the results from her assessment were broadly the same as all the previous assessments. The primary issue was the mother’s emotional instability which had been aggravated by her past alcohol abuse and drug use. Her attendance at CBT was not evidenced by a motivation to change her life and she had not applied what she should have learnt. Dr Ashcroft said that the mother had always been able to acknowledge the mistakes she had made but that had not stopped her from repeating them. None of what she had done to address change had been done in the right place, time or order or with a long term objective or plan. She considered that the mother had struggled with the relationship between her mental health and emotions throughout her entire life and said that she thought had never been in a good place throughout her whole life. All her relationships were likely to be difficult because of her emotional difficulties. 

94.	Her experience was that what the mother says and what she does is not always the same. In respect of her cannabis lapse she raised the question of whether she is taking other drugs because the professionals just do not know what she is doing. She said the mother does relapse and fights and fails and considered that the mother is not going to put into practice what she should have learnt because she does not know why she relapses. She considered that the mother was not able to work openly and honestly with anyone.

95.	The guardian, Mrs Pearson, was an impressive witness who gave her evidence well and who had clearly thought through and analysed the issues in a comprehensive way as set out in her reports and amplified in her oral evidence. She has also known the mother for some time having been involved in the proceedings for JJH was clear and insightful in her evidence about the mother’s difficulties. She considered that there was a strong probability that ISH would be at high risk of significant harm if she were to be placed with the mother. She was clear that she did not support the idea of an adjournment to give the mother more time to consolidate her position. She said to do so would be to ignore the expert advice and would not achieve anything. She articulated her view based on what the mother had said in evidence that the cannabis relapse was a choice which the mother had made. She was clear that she did not consider delaying the proceedings to give the mother more time was in ISH’s best interests.

96.	The mother has undoubtedly made some significant changes in her life since the last proceedings in 2014/15 and said she was in a different place. Her life is no longer chaotic and she has settled and moved on. She has been living in the same property for almost two years, has not used alcohol for almost 18 months, had completed the Freedom Programme, had not been involved with the police or domestic violence in relationships and was not now in a relationship. She has completed a course of CBT and had abstained from using cannabis from the 29th February until the 20th September when she had a lapse. She had referred herself to Lifeline before the proceedings begun to seek assistance with her cannabis use and had participated in a number of groups and built and used support networks through Lifeline. All that is very positive and very much to the mother’s credit. 

97.	She has a warm and affectionate relationship with ISH and made a real commitment to her contact. Within the confines of supervised contact, she has shown an ability to meet ISH’s needs. Nobody involved in the proceedings doubts the love she has for ISH or her desire to be able to care for her. It is to her credit that she has been able to be on good terms with ISH’s foster carers in difficult circumstances for her. She is, as the guardian acknowledged, a likeable person. She has also to her great credit conducted herself throughout this hearing with a calm dignity although she was at times understandably somewhat tearful and distressed at times when giving her evidence. 

98.	In her oral evidence the mother acknowledged that she knew how important it was to comply with the recommendations made to enable her to parent a child. She conceded that she had not been able to achieve what was required and was almost at the very beginning. Despite that she asserted that she believed she could keep ISH safe. It was apparent to me during her cross-examination by Ms Wills that the mother did not understand what it truly meant to be open and honest with professionals when she asserted she had told the truth to her CBT counsellor about her drug use. As Ms Kilvington set out in her submissions, the evidence shows that the mother had not been honest with her drug worker, the social worker, her GP, her CBT therapist, Dr Ashcroft or the court and her lawyers about her drug use.

99.	The lately acquired information from Lifeline coupled with the mother's own concessions clearly demonstrates that what had previously been described as a 'lapse' was considerably more than that and, in my judgement, fundamentally undermined the mother's asserted commitment to change or her ability to do so in ISH's timescales. In my view, the most telling part of the mother’s evidence was when she said she did not tell her support network about being tempted to use cannabis again ‘because they would have talked me out of it’ and her admission that she ‘made an active choice to use it’. Given the circumstances and timing of her decision to return to cannabis use at a time when she had support and help available to her through Lifeline and the groups she was attending including her CBT counsellor this fundamentally undermines, in my judgment, any possibility of placing any trust in her to be able to safely care for ISH either now or in the future. 

100.	In her submissions on behalf of the mother Ms Moody asserts that the mother’s case is that something apart from adoption will do in this case and she invites me to consider adjourning this matter for 3 months in order to enable her to demonstrate continued stability and abstinence from cannabis. Ms Moody raises for consideration issues relating to FDAC type cases as a justification for the mother’s contentions that something apart from adoption will do in this case. At the time of hearing this case was already in week 32 and FDAC type approaches to cases should, when relevant, be adopted at the commencement of proceedings to achieve outcomes within children’s timescales and not this late in the day for a baby who has already spent her entire life in proceedings. I make the observation that had this been an FDAC type case, I am confident that the mother's lapse in respect of her cannabis use and all that is now known about it and its degree and the mother’s ‘choice’ which she consciously made would have resulted in the court concluding that the mother had failed to do all that was necessary to maintain necessary progress and led to the process being brought to an end and an adoption plan being confirmed.

101.	The evidence of Dr Ashcroft and the guardian clearly shows in my view that, as Ms Kilvington put in her well articulated submissions, "the mother's underlying issues of emotional instability, which have underpinned her personality throughout her adulthood, remain at large for her to contend with. She has unregulated behaviours, behaviours compounded with substance abuse: she does not exercise the tools currently to lessen those behaviours and accordingly the risks the risks they present to her and more importantly her ability to parent." The mother's own evidence largely confirmed that and what Dr Ashcroft identified as her self-defeating behaviour which might reflect "a personal preference" of long-term lifestyle choice. 

102.	Taking all the above into account I come roundly to the conclusion that the mother sadly lacks the capacity to be able to care safely for ISH either now or within the foreseeable future. I have asked myself if she could be helped to care for ISH if she could be given other assistance or support from the local authority as Ms Moody suggested and raised in her criticisms of social work practice. Ms Crook candidly conceded in reply to Ms Moody that the local authority had not offered help or support to the mother because the mother had already referred herself to Lifeline for help and support with her alcohol and drug issues which was the service the local authority provides. The evidence shows that by all accounts the mother was engaging well with the service and the various support groups provided through Lifeline. The mother had accessed CBT. The local authority had properly undertaken a pre-birth assessment and a Parenting Assessment within the proceedings as well as undertaking an SGO assessment of the maternal aunt and making proper provision for contact with ISH for both the mother and the maternal aunt. It is difficult to see what other help or support the local authority could have given to the mother. It might have been different if she had openly and honestly sought help when she started her 'lapse' with cannabis in September but she clearly chose not to seek any such help or support. Taking all that into account I come roundly to the conclusion that no other help or support could have been given and reject the criticism of the social work practice made on the mother's behalf.  

103.	Consideration of the other ‘welfare checklist’ apart from the mother's capacity to meet ISH's needs leads to the obvious conclusion that at age 7 months she is a young child who is not capable of expressing her wishes and feeling. She has the needs of any young child for a stable and settled family life and to be provided with appropriate physical care with love and affection and encouraged to develop to her full potential. She is a contented baby who is meeting her developmental milestones. She is currently dependent upon her carer to meet all her needs and has developed a good relationship with her foster carers with whom she has lived for all but the first 12 days of her life. Her attachment is to her primary carers. She needs a carer who can provide for her physical, emotional, social and other needs throughout her childhood and beyond. She is in a 'concurrent' placement which means that if she cannot be placed in the care of her mother then the plan is that she should be adopted by her current carers. 

104.	Given the findings made in respect of the mother's parenting capacity and taking into account the evidence of both the social workers and the guardian it is clear that the risk of significant harm to ISH lies in the impairment of her healthy emotional, social and behavioural development with some elements of risk of physical harm arising from the mother's lifestyle, relationships and drug and alcohol use coupled with her mental health issues. 

105.	It is within the context of those conclusions that I have to consider what order to make in respect of ISH. Since the care plan is one of adoption and the local authority is seeking a placement order in the event of a care order being granted on that premise, I am bound to have regard to the welfare checklist as set out in section 1 (4) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 as referred to above at paragraph 28.

106.	I have had the opportunity of reading and considering the documents in the placement application which is before the court which include a report from the guardian at E65-73. She addresses the welfare checklist in some detail and rehearses a number of the issues which I have already addressed above. At E69/70 she addresses the likely effect on ISH of having ceased to be a member of her original family and becoming an adopted person. I am content to endorse and adopt her views for the purpose of this judgment. She also addresses the issues of ISH's relationships with relatives at E72.  The reality is that the only significant family relationships which ISH has are with her mother and her maternal aunt with whom she has spent very limited time in contact. Her attachment is, as already noted above, to her foster carers. Given her age and the fact that she has lived with the current carers since she was 12 days old then it is unlikely that becoming an adopted person will have anything but a positive effect on ISH throughout her life.  

107.	There is no other member of ISH's family able to care for her. The maternal aunt was assessed as a potential carer by the local authority with a negative outcome. I have seen and read the SGO Assessment report of the social worker, Karen Varcoe. It is not an assessment which has been considered or challenged within the hearing since the maternal aunt (who I observe attended with the mother at court each day of the hearing to support her) did not seek to challenge the local authority's conclusion in respect of her. For my part on my reading of the report that seems to me to have been a sensible decision by the maternal aunt since, apart from one obvious error about the "impact…. of his mother's excessive alcohol use during pregnancy is not yet manifest…." in the conclusion of the report which Ms Moody drew attention to, the assessment of the maternal aunt and her capacity appeared to be sound and its conclusions wholly justified.
 
108.	Given that ISH cannot be placed within her own family this leaves the only viable option for her to be placed in the care of the local authority with a view to it providing her with the permanence she needs. As she is only 7 months of age the possibility of her being placed in long term foster care and subjected to the intrusion of statutory services throughout her childhood is quite simply not realistic. 

109.	This leads the local authority and the guardian to conclude adoption is the only viable option and that ISH should be made the subject of a placement order. If a placement order is made both the local authority and the guardian consider that there should only be indirect letterbox on an annual basis with her mother, father and half-siblings. In addition, the local authority proposes promoting direct contact between ISH and her half-siblings who have been placed for adoption. That, in my judgement, appears to me to be the right approach to adopt if a placement order is made.
Conclusion & Orders
Care application
110.	This is not a case which is in any sense finely balanced despite my initial thoughts on reading the papers. The evidence from the local authority, Dr Ashcroft and the analysis and assessment of the guardian clearly determines that there is no prospect of ISH being placed in the mother's care either now or at some time in the future. That conclusion is overwhelmingly reinforced by the mother's clear admission of having made a choice of going back to misusing cannabis and her dishonesty about that issue. The exclusion of any extended family member from consideration as a prospective carer left the local authority, the children's guardian and the court with only one truly realistic option for consideration which was a care plan to achieve permanency by adoption given ISH's age, her health and development and current circumstances.

111.	In the circumstances, bearing in mind that I have to treat ISH's welfare as paramount throughout her life, I have no hesitation in saying that I approve the local authority’s plan for her to achieve permanency through adoption. I have considered the local authority's proposals for contact which in the circumstances I find are entirely appropriate. Accordingly, I will grant the care order to the local authority.  The making of the care order is, in my judgement, given the circumstances of ISH as set out above necessary to protect and safeguard her interests and is a proportionate response to her circumstances. That then requires me to pass on to deal with the placement application.

Placement application
112.	I repeat that I have read and considered the relevant documents in respect of the application for a placement order. The children's guardian supports the application for a placement order. I have of course given specific consideration to the welfare checklist as it applies to the Children Act 1989 in approving the local authority’s care plan for adoption for ISH. I have in addition, as is clear from what is said above, also already had regard to the checklist in respect of section 1 (4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the issues which are relevant. I do not intend to repeat myself. 

113.	I am satisfied that, on all the evidence before me, adoption is in best interests of ISH. There is no other realistic available option and the reality is that, having ruled out the mother as a potential carer, nothing else will do so far as she is concerned. Her mother understandably, in the circumstances, does not agree to her being placed for adoption. The father (who has played no effective part in the proceedings) does not have parental responsibility for ISH and I do not accordingly have to consider dispensing with his agreement to adoption. I must therefore consider whether the mother's agreement can be dispensed with on the basis that ISH's welfare requires it. Having reached the conclusion that adoption is in her best interests then, in my judgement, it follows that I must dispense with the agreement of the mother to adoption in accordance with section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 because ISH’s welfare requires it. I, accordingly, dispense with her agreement to adoption. I make the placement order in respect of ISH confident that this is the best possible outcome for her since she will remain in her current placement and be adopted by her current carers. 

114.	Although the issue has not been canvassed on behalf of any party, I am conscious that it might be said that the making of a care or placement order may be a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of both the child and her parents. I have borne this in mind in my consideration of the issues before me since the making of a care order and a placement for adoption order is unquestionably a substantial interference with a parent’s right to respect for family life. In my judgement, such a step could only be regarded as interference in the child’s right to respect for family life if there was a real prospect of her being successfully rehabilitated to the care of a parent or parents within an acceptably short timescale. That is not the position for ISH and consideration of her Article 8 rights leads to the conclusion which will override the rights of her parents which I regard as a necessary and proportionate response to the circumstances in which ISH now is.
Orders
Care Order
115.	The orders which I make and will confirm on the 12th December 2016 (unless earlier informed that there is no intention to seek permission to appeal or any other issue in respect of this judgment) in relation to the local authority application under section 31 in respect of ISH are –  
(a)	A care order to the local authority, Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council.
(b)	The local authority may disclose copies of relevant documents in the   proceedings to the prospective adopters with whom it is proposed to match the child, ISH, for adoption.
(c)	The local authority solicitor shall provide a copy of this judgment to the Independent Reviewing Officer for ISH.
(d)	The mother's solicitor shall provide a copy of this judgment to Dr Ashcroft.
(e)	There be no order for costs save for detailed assessment of the Public Funding Certificate costs of each of the assisted parties.

Placement order
115.	In respect of the placement application in respect of ISH, I will make the following orders – 
(a)	I dispense with the consent of the mother to adoption on the ground that ISH’s welfare requires it.
(b)	The local authority may place the child, ISH, for adoption.
(c)	The local authority solicitor shall provide a copy of this judgment to ISH's adopters. 
(d)	There be no order for costs save for detailed assessment of the Public Funding Certificate costs of each of the assisted parties.