Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 147 (B)
Case No: ZE24C50318
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT East London
(Sitting at Croydon)
Date: 21st May 2025
Before :
DJ Keating
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
|
London Borough of Sutton |
Applicant |
|
- and –
|
|
|
A mother |
1st Respondent |
|
- and –
|
|
|
Rosie (by her Children's Guardian) |
2nd Respondent
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hearing date: 16, 19, 20 and 21 May 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment Approved
This judgment was handed down orally on 21st May 2025 and subsequently by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
The judgment has been anonymised. 'Rosie' is not the child's real name.
DJ Keating:
Rosie, who is 9, is a lucky girl, because her mother, M and M's family all love her very much indeed.
I have carefully read and listened to all of the evidence before me. I agree with Social Services that Rosie has suffered significant emotional harm and impaired social and intellectual development which is due to the care that she received from M before the Court case began. I do not believe that M intended to cause any harm to Rosie.
I have also decided that it is in Rosie's best interests that she should continue to live with her aunt, G, and G's husband, H. Everyone agrees that they have done a good job caring for Rosie since last July, and that if Rosie wasn't going to live with M, that is the best outcome.
I have decided that Rosie should be made the subject of a care order.
I agree with Social Services' care plan, which includes regular and important contact arrangements so that M will be involved in Rosie's life.
I do not see that any form of contact order is needed.
Introduction
1. The London Borough of Sutton ("LBS"), represented by Ms Croxford, applied for a Care Order on 25.7.24 in respect of Rosie who is now 9 years old. An interim care order has been in place since 31.7.24, since when Rosie has lived with her maternal Aunt G and her husband H ("G & H"). Before 31.7.24 L lived with M and her Maternal Grandmother ("GM"). For some time before the Court case began Social Services had worked with L and her family, considering that GM was a helpful support to M and a protective factor for Rosie. In the months before the Court case, though, Social Services had become worried that there were tensions between M & GM and that GM had 'stepped back' within the home. The evidence before me is that Rosie had not arrived on time to school for almost six months until her aunt took her one day in June 2024, and that school and Social Services and M's family were all beginning to worry that Rosie's care might not be good enough.
2. Rosie's mother is M who is represented by Ms Hasan. M has been assisted by an intermediary at the final hearing. We began with a Ground Rules hearing, and agreed what M would like to be called. The advocates were reminded of Toolkit 13 in the Advocates' Gateway toolkits. Sample questions were provided by the advocates for social services and Rosie so that the intermediary could work through them with M before she gave evidence.
3. Rosie's father is J who does not share PR for her, but who is not aware of these proceedings pursuant to an order of HHJ Major.
4. Rosie is represented by Mr Wallace, who takes his instruction from Rosie's Children's Guardian, Jayne Paxton ("CG").
5. LBS has concluded, after assessments, that Rosie should not return to the care of M. It has positively assessed G & H as able to care for her. As a brief indicator of their commitment to Rosie, they moved from another part of the UK to London in August 2024 so that Rosie could continue to attend the same school after the end of the summer holidays last year. G was pregnant at the time, and G & H had a baby in late 2024. G & H do not wish to be appointed as Special Guardians for Rosie, and so LBS asks the Court to make a Care Order. I have read a thoughtful letter from G & H in which they explain their reasons for preferring a Care Order. It is clear that they feel that communication with M can be difficult, that M tends to shout and swear and sometimes to hit out at people if she does not get her own way, and that M can sometimes fail to stick to an agreement that had been made. They do not feel able to supervise direct contact between Rosie & M.
6. On Rosie's behalf, CG supports the LA plan and application.
7. M dearly wants Rosie to return to her care, supported if need be by a Supervision Order. She agrees that if that is not possible, Rosie should live with G & H, but in that case she would like contact to be monthly rather than 6 times per year as LBS proposed. GM has stated in writing that M & Rosie cannot live at her home. M's written evidence to the Court is that if Rosie returned to her care she would be moving out of GM's home. She says "I have a few places that we can move into at the conclusion of the final hearing. These places are local so that L can still attend the same school." M told me that she could raise a deposit and had seen potential properties to rent.
Relevant Law
12. These provisions are commonly called the threshold criteria. In brief, it means that Rosie must have suffered or be likely to suffer significant harm because of poor parenting.
13. If I am satisfied that the threshold criteria are made out I must go on to consider section 1 and decide what is best for Rosie. At this stage, her welfare is the main consideration.
14. The Human Rights Act applies to these proceedings. In Article 8 there is a right to family life. Each individual family member in this case has that right. A child should normally be with her parents, or one of them, and if not then with the wider family. These rights must be balanced. In Article 3 there is a right that no one shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. A local authority may therefore have to act to protect children within its area. In a democratic society any intervention into family life must be necessary and proportionate.
15. There must be a strong reason to justify removing a child from her parent , but if such a reason exists then it is the child's welfare which must be the paramount consideration. Where the maintenance of family ties would harm the child's health and development, a parent is not entitled under Article 8 to insist that such ties be maintained.
Evidence
"M presents with a complex clinical profile due to her neurodiversity (ASD, ADHD), mental health and personality traits (EUPD), where she manages herself through self-harm and substance misuse. Although she is awaiting an assessment for ADHD, in my professional opinion this may not improve her overall functioning; however, the process may be beneficial and supportive, perhaps increasing insight. Currently, she is prescribed psychotropic medication to manage her moods and help with sleep. Although compliant, her medical records document she is finding her medication of little benefit in reducing her symptoms. Currently, she is struggling with emotional dysregulation, episodes of self-harm, sleep and managing daily routines."
And
"I have no doubt that M loves Rosie and is motivated to care for her; however, I am concerned that she presents with limited insight into her difficulties, with little appreciation of how they impact her ability to parent. In my professional opinion, the actual risk of harm to a child can be reduced by factors such as a strong social network, high levels of insight into areas of difficulty, a readiness to parent and a supportive partner. In M's case, her situation is slightly complicated since she views her family who are also her support network as undermining, obtrusive and providing little positive reinforcement for independent parenting".
"has an established diagnosis of Childhood Autism which is a hereditary neurological condition present throughout an individual's lifespan. It is evident that her neuro-diverse challenges have impacted her ability to function across different areas of her life, which inevitably would have caused anxiety and low mood. I note from the clinical interview that M reported she struggles with getting Rosie to school because she herself struggles to sleep and consequently wake up on time. The challenge of ensuring Rosie gets to school on time is further compounded with Rosie also resisting."
"In my professional opinion, with limited insight into how her mental health, neurodiversity and personality can impact her ability to parent, there remains a risk to Rosie. There is no doubt [M] loves her daughter and does not view herself as a risk. However, in my professional opinion, in the absence of specific psychological intervention there is a high probability she will continue to have episodes of emotional dysregulation. Her level and degree of risk is associated with unresolved conflicts that she has not managed to work on and find alternative ways of coping. ... In order to mitigate the risks, [M] would require some psychological intervention, support and monitoring from professionals. This is because her ability to identify risk and mitigate them is significantly reduced. It is highly probable in the absence of the above that she will find herself in similar situations without new learning of alternative coping methods."
20. There is no written evidence before me that the psychological intervention that Dr Rajput referred to has been undertaken, nor what impact, if any, it has had. I am pleased that M has found the time that she has spent with a Farm therapy centre helpful, but the report I have deals mostly with the potential role of J and the impact that he might have on M and says very little that addresses Dr Rajput's concerns.
21. At page C54 of my bundle is a letter from GM to the solicitor for the local authority. It isn't dated but refers to the Court hearing on 31.7.24 in the past sense but says that she will try to speak with someone before the hearing on 14.8.24, so it appears to have been written between those dates. Although it is not formally a witness statement GM sets out her views in clear and firm terms. Her views have subsequently been confirmed by the professional assessments. I note that GM said in her letter that M,
"cannot see the significant support the family provide and have provided over the last 8 years that has allowed Rosie to stay with her, M continually states that she doesn't want the family to interfere in her parenting style - though we as a family are not able to condone her abusive approach and the impact that has on Rosie, and on the family as a whole."
I heard oral evidence from the following witnesses:
22. Dr Helen Keen - A specialist social worker who conducted a parenting assessment between September and November 2024 together with a colleague, Lisa Luff.
23. In her written report, Dr Keen concluded
"[M] has struggled to meet Rosie's basic needs. She has had a lot of support from ...[GM], so I could not assess how [M] would have coped on her own with shopping, preparing meals and doing laundry for Rosie, because they have always lived with [GM]. I am worried because [M] could not help Rosie to get into or keep healthy routines, such as going to bed on time and getting ready for school, even with the support of [GM]. This became a problem when [M] did not want her family to help her."
24. And that M's ability to meet Rosie's emotional needs was
"the area that worries Lisa Luff and me the most. [M] blamed her family for the reports that Rosie has been self harming. She could not see that her actions as a parent could have made Rosie feel insecure and frightened. M told me that Rosie is her 'baby' and that she dresses, feeds, showers with and co-sleeps with Rosie quite often. [M] did not show an understanding that Rosie, as a child who is nearly nine years of age, needs to develop a sense of independence and of being separate from her mother. [M] also ignored Rosie's repeated requests at contact that she bring food for them to share. I worry that this could have made Rosie feel that her needs are not important to [M]. I was concerned that M's response to Rosie saying how hungry she was, was that she (M) also gets 'hangry' (on 10.10.2024)."
25. Dr Keen identified other worries that she had about M's parenting capacity and said that
"M is not able to understand the extent of the problems that she experiences and the gaps that she has in her parenting skills. M and Rosie have always lived with GM who has provided a lot of support in terms of a lovely home, regular meals, and a well-ordered household. However, once M wanted to be responsible for getting Rosie to school and did not want her mother to interfere with the way she parented Rosie, there were serious problems that arose. These were that M struggled to get Rosie to attend school and to keep to a healthy routine. M became angry and frustrated with Rosie and hit out at her and verbally abused her when she could not manage Rosie's behaviour. Rosie reacted to these lack of boundaries and her mother's unpredictable behaviour by showing her distress through self-harming and saying that she wished that she was dead. M was unable to understand her daughter's feelings and did not feel that she needed to change the way that she parented Rosie. M felt that if the school changed and her family left her alone, everything would be fine".
26. Dr Keen concluded by recommending that Rosie,
"cannot be cared for safely by M".
27. Dr Keen stuck firmly to her assessment and recommendations. She denied having had conversations with M that M set out in her witness statement, and in particular she denied that she told M that "no parent will ever pass the assessment". She did not accept that M could have misunderstood any conversation to have said such a thing, either, pointing out that M had engaged well with the assessment, whereas if M has genuinely understood that she had been told that a parent could not 'pass the assessment' she doubted that M would have engaged as she did. That has such strong logical force that I felt that I could give real weight to Dr Keen's evidence on that point.
28. Dr Keen also told me that GM had sent her an audio recording, which she had provided to the then social worker, in which M could be heard screaming at Rosie, calling Rosie the c-word. Dr Keen worried that this sort of experience would be repeated in future for Rosie if she returned to M's care.
29. In response to questions from Mr Wallace, I was struck by her description of how an exercise to see how M was able to structure play with Rosie was attempted. M was invited to try 9 different tasks with Rosie, to see how she could engage Rosie in games. The task normally took an hour. Dr Keen described how M ran through the tasks in under 15 minutes, with Rosie saying after 20 minutes that she was bored and wanted to go and play, M saying 'off you go'.
30. Dr Keen noted how, as M's family allowed M to take on a greater parenting role, Rosie's school attendance had declined, and she had begun to fall behind her classmates at school and contrasted that with how her attendance has markedly improved since moving to live with G & H, and how Rosie had begun to catch up again with the rest of her class as a result. That was an important and telling example, in my view.
31. Marco Angelino, Rosie's social worker, who was able to praise some aspects of M's parenting - for example, her having thought about private rental properties for her and Rosie to live in if she returned home and having participated in Farm Therapy. He was calm and stuck clearly to his written evidence and views. He told me how Rosie had progressed in the care of G & H, and that no professionals who had seen Rosie considered that Rosie needed assessment for possible neurodiversity. He explained that Dr Rajput, who had recommended such assessment for Rosie had not met her and had based their recommendation on M's description of Rosie. In Mr Angelino's view, M had sought support for Rosie which focussed on Rosie having a need, whereas he considered that the need arose from the way in which M was parenting Rosie. In his view, the problem was that Rosie had experienced parenting from M which had been neglectfully and which had been verbally and sometimes physically abusive. He could not be shaken from his view that since moving to live with G & H, Rosie had not required the school to intervene to get her to school, something M had asked the school to assist with more than once.
32. He confirmed that the revised contact plan, if approved by the Court would be for Rosie to see M once in each school holiday, with an extra occasion in the school summer holiday, in autumn (as Rosie & M's birthdays were close together then), at Christmas, for Mother's Day and that Social Services were willing to consider other wider family gatherings as and when they arose.
33. Stephanie Dalton, Rosie's former social worker, who confirmed that she had received the audio recordings described in the letter from GM which set out GMs concerns. M called out from the well of the Court that she did not want to listen to the recordings. Ms Dalton described the content of the recordings as being of M in a dysregulated state, and Rosie crying. When asked what 'dysregulated' meant, Ms Dalton explained that M could be heard shouting and swearing, and there being no sense that M was in control of the situation, being calm, or being able to hear what Rosie was saying.
34. SD's recollection was limited because some of the events happened before she became Rosie's social worker, in which case her knowledge came simply from reading the relevant records, and some happened afterwards. But she remained clear and consistent in the accuracy of her recollection - for example, about witnessing M slapping Rosie on 11.7.24, the incident which M said was just her swatting away some flying ants from the back of Rosie's head. She also remained clear and calm and consistent when challenged, for example, about an occasion when Rosie injured her wrist. SD was questioned by Mr Wallace on behalf of Rosie about that, and was clear and firm in her recollection that M struck Rosie instantly after Rosie struck M. Each of Rosie & M were instantly distressed and M said "it's not what you saw". I was left with the clear impression that SD had a clear view of what had happened, a clear recollection of what she saw, did not believe the tale M then told about flying ants and considered that she had seen M strike Rosie as a reaction to Rosie striking M.
35. M - M found giving evidence very upsetting at times. She told me that she had never used the c-word in Rosie's presence. There is, littered through the case, numerous examples of this - not least in the recording that Dr Keen told me that she had listened to. M agreed that Rosie had begun to copy some of her behaviours, and I see that Rosie has been noted to use the c-word at school, to school by telephone and so on. I simply did not believe M's denials about having used the c-word in front of Rosie.
36. On 2.1.23 Rosie went to hospital with a sore wrist. Rosie & M told the hospital that Rosie had hurt it cartwheeling. Rosie told the school on 6.1.23 that M had hurt her wrist and asked her to come up with another explanation: they came up with cartwheeling to explain Rosie's injury. In her first statement gave an account of how Rosie hurt her wrist while cartwheeling. In her final statement she referred to the account given in her reply to threshold. In her reply to threshold M said "Rosie did cartwheel and M tried to help Rosie holding her arm and accidentally twisted her arm. M does not agree that she did this intentionally to hurt Rosie." M adopted her accounts as true without qualification. Ms Dalton was cross examined by M's barrister on the basis that M did not accept that she hold told Rosie to make up a story. In her oral evidence M finally admitted that this was a lie. She maintained that she had not meant to hurt Rosie but accepted that she had in fact done so. There had been no cartwheeling. M tapped her reply to threshold and accepted that it was not, on this point, true. That was a lie, and one that persisted. By encouraging Rosie to lie, she would have cause Rosie fear and confusion. Rosie would have been left feeling that she could not be confident that she could tell people about being hurt at home in future, and that would have made her feel less safe at home than she should. That was all emotionally harmful to Rosie. M maintained that the physical injury to Rosie was not intentional, and there is no evidence before me that it was. M explained that she was terrified that if she and Rosie told the truth she might lose Roise. I can understand that fear, and it is a powerful one. But the fact remains that M lied about this, and maintained her lie until she was forced to admit the truth because under cross examination it had become obvious that she was lying. Whilst that does not mean that I must conclude that M has lied about anything else, it does reduce the confidence I have about her evidence when it conflicts with other reliable or contemporaneous accounts. I understand that M knew that she was struggling to care for Rosie, and that her family and later on social work professionals were getting worried about that, but that means I bear in mind when assessing M's denials of other disputed matters that she has an acknowledged reason to have denied things that she thought might result in criticism of her parenting of Rosie.
37. M did not accept that she had struck her sister N on 3.4.24 in a way that had left a mark, but under cross examination accepted that she had caused her hand to connect hard with N's face which might have caused a mark. The other family members present were clear in their recollection that there was a mark, although all the evidence on that point is hearsay - which means that I did not have any first hand oral evidence from anyone who was present apart from M. Nevertheless, I am clear on the evidence before me that M did strike N and caused a mark. M's attempt to downplay that was a combination of her tendency to minimise anything she thought she might be criticised for and a lie.
38. The Police have been called to the family home more than once. One such occasion was 23.6.24. M denied that she had dragged Rosie out of the garden. The Police record shows that GM clearly alleged to the Police that M had done so. Rosie is recorded by the Police as having said that she had been scared "when her mum had an episode" and that M had pulled Rosie by the wrist which had hurt a little bit. The Police saw no red marks on Rosie's wrist.
39. M also accepted that she had locked herself in the bathroom for a while: the family had been concerned that she might harm herself with a razor blade, so that was why the Police had been called. M denied in her oral evidence that she had a razor in the bathroom or that she had said that she did or threatened to harm herself, but eventually accepted that other family members might have believed that she did. The significance of that, to me, is that Rosie was present at a time when M was unable to contain her emotions and locked herself in the bathroom, and that the other adults present became so concerned that they felt the need to call the Police. That must have been a very frightening time for Rosie, who must have been aware not only of the disturbance, conflict and upset, but also that the adults present were so worried that her mother might hurt herself with a razor that they called the Police. I note that in her response to threshold M had said "She wasn't holding a razor to her throat (which is accepted as an error; MGM just saw her with it in the bathroom threatening to hurt herself". That is inconsistent with M's oral evidence. As I listened to Ms evidence I was struck again that M appeared to be trying to minimise and deflect anything that might seem like criticism of her. She told me that in fact she and Rosie had been playing a came called 'ragdoll' where Rosie lay limply and pretend to be a ragdoll who needed to be supported by M to walk to the bottom of the stairs. That account is inconsistent with the contemporaneous Police record and the recollection or recounted recollection of everyone else present. I do not believe M's account. I suspect she lies about things as a defensive mechanism, because she is worried that Rosie might be taken from her care. I see that GM told the Police of 23.6.24 that she thought M was worried about that possibility.
40. On 19.11.21 Rosie suffered a bruised cheek when a door was opened by M and hit Rosie. M says that was an accident which occurred as she was playing a chasing game with Rosie and pretending to be the Incredible Hulk. Once again, the evidence before me does not suffice for me to conclude that M meant to hurt Rosie. M accepts that she did cause a bruise to Rosie's cheek but maintains that this was accidental. Again, though, there is an inconsistency between M's account and the account recorded as having been given by Rosie or by the rest of the family at the time. I was not persuaded by M's account and had a clear preference for the recordings made at the time.
41. On 11.7.24 Ms Dalton and GM witnessed M strike Rosie on the back of the head. Ms Dalton told me that she saw Rosie strike M on her lower back, and M immediately hit the back of Rosie's head in response. GM also described that in her letter to the Local Authority, which is before the Court. M says that Rosie was upset because a neighbour had declined to let her play with their child, who had homework to do, and hit M on the bottom. By coincidence M said she then noted 2 flying ants on the back of Rosie's head and swatted them away. I have a very clear preference for the evidence of Ms Dalton's eyewitness account and the recollection of the GM as set out in her letter over the account of M. This was another example of M lying when she felt criticised.
42. I felt, as I listened to M's evidence, that she had a rather child-like quality in the way that she would tend to deny or deflect when she felt criticised about something. I note that both GM and G & H have expressed how difficult they find it to cope with the way in which M lies and deflects when something goes awry in the way in which Rosie is parented. It is, I suspect, a deeply ingrained characteristic of how M tends to deal with potential conflict.
43. M says that Rosie was being bullied at school and that was why she struggled to get Rosie to attend. She thinks Rosie should be assessed for ASD. The school note that since being in G & H's care Rosie has attended promptly and her attendance is now at a very high level. She has caught up. The school say they saw no evidence Rosie was being bullied, and this is not considered to be an issue for Rosie now. The school sees no need for Rosie to be assessed for ASD. I am not persuaded that M is right to blame the school or any issue there, when the evidence before me is that G & H have been able to get Rosie reliably to school on time.
44. The CG, Jayne Paxton, supports social services' plan. As to contact, she concludes her analysis in this way
"The issue of Rosie's future contact with her mother, I think, will be problematic. M refuses to engage with discussions around contact, as she is hopeful Rosie will return to her care. If the court decides for Rosie to remain [with] G & H and the contact is reduced, then this is likely to be very difficult for M to contemplate. Contact is not sustainable at twice a week, and I think this is a contributory factor to Rosie's emotional dysregulation. I agree with the plan for a gradual reduction in contact."
45. She remained clearly of the view that Rosie needed a Care Order to be made, and she agreed the care plan for Rosie to live with G & H. She was worried about the rigidity that a Court Order for contact might bring. She supported video contact, on loudspeaker, supervised by G or H, provided they were content with that, roughly fortnightly. Otherwise, she supported the amended care plan of social services. She told me that the support M would need to be able to care for Rosie would mean a live in carer (by which I took her to mean a team of live in carers, because otherwise there would be no one there when the carer was not at work), which would amount to parenting by the state. That is obviously unachievable, even if the unresolved questions that would arise could be resolved. Those unresolved issues would include whether M's home would have the space, how the inevitable conflict between M and carer would be resolved and what would happen if M asked the carer to leave, as she would be entitled to do. I agree that such a proposal in unrealistic.
What are the Findings of fact?
46. In 2015 the then President of the Family Division ruled, in a case called Re A [2015] EWFC 11, that it is for the local authority to prove, on the evidence before the Court those facts that it relies on to show that the circumstances relating to Rosie were or are as set out in section 31 of the Children Act 1989. At this stage, I simply determine whether social services can prove that any fact they have asserted but which M does not accept is true or not.
47. In the Family Court, whenever someone asserts that a fact is true, and that is disputed, the person who asserts the fact must show, on the evidence, that the fact is more likely than not to be true. If they cannot do so, the Court will conclude that the fact asserted is not true.
48. People sometimes tell lies when they give evidence. They might do so for one or more of many different reasons. Even if I decide that someone has lied about something, it does not mean that anything or everything else that they have said is a lie.
49. In Rosie's case, the Local Authority has prepared a written 'threshold' document which sets out how it says that Rosie's circumstances are as set out in section 31. In that document it seeks only to show that on the day that it made its application for a care order Rosie was then suffering significant harm. It does not seek to argue that Rosie was likely to suffer significant harm either at the date the proceedings began, or now. I offered the local authority the chance to revisit the threshold document (which was not prepared by Ms Croxford) and it chose not to do so. Given the expert reports before me that is a curious approach, in my view. It would not be fair for me to conclude that the threshold criteria are established because of a likelihood of harm but I might reach a conclusion about the likelihood of future harm when I come to weigh up what I consider to be in Rosie's best interests for the future.
50. In Re A, the Court explained at paragraphs 8-12 how the local authority should draft the document on which it said that the s31 criteria (often called the threshold criteria) are made out. In this case, the local authority has not done so. That has made this judgment longer than it might have needed to be. I would encourage those preparing such documents to re-read Re A.
Has the threshold been crossed?
What order is in Rosie's best interests?
the ascertainable wishes and feelings of Rosie (considered in the light of her age and understanding);
64. Rosie tells M that she wants to return home.
65. Before the proceedings began, GM said that Rosie told her that she wanted to live with G & H. She told the current social worker that she feels safe and secure living with G & H, but is sad that she does not live with M. She sometimes told the SW that she wanted to remain with G & H and sometimes that she wanted to live with M.
66. As no one knows precisely where M & Rosie would be living if Rosie were to return to M's care, that means that Rosie's understanding of what returning to live with M would be like is limited - I do not know whether she understands that this might mean not living with GM as well.
67. As Rosie is 9, she is unlikely to have the ability fully to understand how things will play out. She may not appreciate that even if things begin to go well, M may struggle to get her to go to bed or to school, or to cope well with the stresses of being a single Mum without the support of GM, and I worry that before long Rosie may experience quite a lot of conflict with M. Of course she says to M that she wants to go home - she loves M very much and knows that M loves her and would like her to come home. But in my view, the evidence suggests that Rosie has said different things at different times to different people about what she wants, and that means I do not think that I should place too much weight on any particular element of Rosie's expressed wishes.
her physical, emotional and educational needs;
68. Rosie has all the needs that a 9 year old girl has, but she also needs support to come with times of emotional distress, because she sometimes tries to hurt herself. She can be rude or aggressive to others and this can affect, for example, the willingness of other parents to allow their child to play with Rosie. In the 2023/4 school year her school attendance declined, and she was, from Dec 23 onwards normally late for school. This affected her educational progress and will have harmed her ability to make friends at school, because her classmates will already have paired up or gotten engaged in an activity before she arrived, and they will tend not to want to be disturbed or later to involve her. The improvement in her school attendance and attainment since living with G & H, even as they coped with the arrival and early weeks of their new baby is marked and important to Rosie.
the likely effect on her of any change in her circumstances;
69. Rosie loves M. M loves Rosie very dearly indeed. M has shown a real and consistent devotion to attending contact for Rosie. M wants what is best for Rosie. She does not agree with the professionals about whether she is able to care for Rosie well enough.
70. Rosie also loves G & H and has settled well into her care. Leaving their care would cause upset to Rosie.
71. It says a very great deal about the love M has for Rosie that she has been able to agree that if, despite her very clear wish to care for Rosie, the Court decides that isn't the best thing for Rosie, then she is equally clear and firm that it would then be best for Rosie to be cared for by G & H. It is striking that M had not tried to say anything negative about G & H and their care for Rosie. M has dealt with dignity with the Court case, and having to see Rosie with someone supervising her, and only being able to do so twice per week and the occasional family event. M should know that she gave herself the very best chance she could to show that she could parent Rosie by allowing Rosie to live with G & H whilst the Court decided what was best for Rosie.
72. If Rosie were to return to M's care, she would be happy, excited and a little bit unsure, because it would be a big change for her. M & Rosie would need to find somewhere to live. If I decided that was best for Rosie, I would expect Social Services to help M to find a suitable and secure home for M & Rosie, though I know it might mean some temporary arrangements for a while.
73. However, I am very worried that all of the professionals who have assessed the case, and GM, all tell me that they think M would struggle to set and stick to boundaries for Rosie. I agree and think that before too long Rosie's school attendance would drop off. There is a relatively high risk, in my view, that Rosie would refuse to go to school at all, and I am all too aware of the very poor outcomes there can be for children across a whole range of measures, which can have lifelong adverse impacts on them. I worry that Rosie would become distressed again and in her distress her attempts to hurt herself would come about. I worry that in her teenage years, and in Rosie's case her early teenage years she would become beyond M's control and would be exposed to further significant harm because of that.
74. Whilst in M's care Rosie's school attendance and punctuality declined sharply, and M had to seek help from the school, the family and the Police to try to get Rosie, who was then 8, to school. That affected Rosie's progress at school. Some parents asked that Rosie not be allowed to play with their child because of the way that Rosie behaved, and at least some of those behaviours appeared to be copies of the way that M behaved. Since being in the care of G & H Rosie has attended school reliably and on time and caught up. I worry that if returned to M's care that progress would quickly be lost once more.
her age, sex, background and any characteristics of hers which the court considers relevant;
75. Rosie's family are Catholic, and Rosie had her first Communion shortly before the Court case began. She is 9 years old and near the end of Year 4 at school.
any harm which she has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
76. This is partly set out under the threshold findings that I have made.
77. Although LBS argued in its threshold document that threshold was established without seeking to argue that Rosie was likely to suffer significant harm if no order were made, I agree with Mr Wallace that I still need to consider that likelihood at this stage of assessing what outcome is in Rosie's best interests.
78. I note that M accepts that she swears, and that Rosie has heard her do so. In my view M has tried very hard to minimise the worries of her family, Rosie's school and the professionals about that. I see from the evidence that other parents have declined to allow their children to go to Rosie's house again or have asked the school not to allow Rosie to play with their child because Rosie is swearing. That was, in my judgment because Rosie was copying M's behaviour. For that to have got to the stage where it affects Rosie's ability to play with school friends or neighbouring children is a serious worry. It will have caused significant harm to Rosie's emotional, intellectual and social development. There would be a likelihood of further significant harm if Rosie lived with M, and I must weigh the risk of that likelihood when deciding what is in Rosie's best interests.
how capable each of her parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting her needs;
79. Rosie's father is not involved in her life, and it is unrealistic to think that he might be in a position to care for Rosie any time soon.
80. M has been carefully and robustly assessed in these proceedings. All of the professionals have raised real concerns about the ability of M adequately to care for Rosie. I have not seen any evidence that M had received the sort of therapy that Dr Rajput recommended. Going to Farm Therapy is a good thing but cannot be expected to achieve the aims that Dr Rajput had in mind.
81. M has been clearly and carefully assessed in these proceedings. All the professionals have said that they are very worried that M cannot safely care for Rosie. If I am to disagree with their expert evidence I must clearly set out the reasons for doing so. I cannot see any such reasons and I am drawn powerfully to the conclusions that their assessments are correct.
82. G & H have been assessed in glowing terms as able to care for Rosie, and they are willing to do so. They do not agree that a Special Guardianship Order or Child Arrangements Order could adequately secure the arrangement. No one disagrees with the assessments about G & H.
83. G & H moved from another part of the UK to London whilst expecting a baby to be able to care from Rosie and ensure that she did not have to change schools. Their commitment to Rosie could not be doubted.
the range of powers available to the court under this Act
Decision
Other matters
(ends)