England and Wales County Court (Family)

IN THE BRIGHTON COUNTY COURT

IN THE MATTER OF [THE CHILDREN ACT 1989]
AND IN THE MATTER OF CM (A CHILD)

		25th February 2014

1. I am concerned with CM born on [on a date in] 2006 – he is therefore 7 years and 10 months old and is the subject of these care proceedings. He is represented through his Children's Guardian Mr S. by Miss Taylor.
2. His parents are Mrs LM,("The Mother") and Mr KM,("The Father"), represented by Miss Wilson and Mr Stevenson-Watt respectively.
3. The Local Authority, West Sussex County Council, represented by Miss Golden, apply for a care order in respect of CM with a care plan which is for long-term foster care with a care plan for contact between CM and his parents and extended family to which I shall return in due course. The parents oppose the application.

THE BACKGROUND

4. LM and KM are married and both have parental responsibility for CM. In June 2013, there was a joint visit by police and social services which saw the initiation of proceedings.
5. There has been involvement with Children's Services since 2008. Against a background of increasingly serious concerns for CM's welfare, including the concern that CM was being inappropriately medicated by his parents, and a very real and obvious deterioration in CM's presentation, where he was seen sobbing at school on an almost daily basis, a police raid took place on the family home and a number of pills were discovered thought to be Ritalin and Melatonin – some with American labels. A serious situation developed at the family home when the mother was out of control and the father rushed to school to get CM. When he arrived, he fell and broke his leg, requiring surgery. The concerns were such that a police protection order was sought.
6. An interim care order was made on the 12^th June 2013.
7. CM was medically assessed. After he was removed from the care of his parents he was placed with foster carers who have experience of children with additional needs. Contact currently takes place with his parents once a week, supervised, for 1½ hours. It was previously twice a week, but was reduced because of worries about his behaviour before and after contact. He also sees his paternal grandmother once a week, supervised, and has had contact to his paternal grandfather and his wife. Sadly CM's current foster carers, J and G, with whom he has thrived have felt unable to offer him long-term care. Were I to make a care order they are willing to continue to look after CM until a long-term placement is found.
8. The case has not been capable of conclusion on the 26 week track due to the late filing of evidence and the non-availability of an expert witness. CM's maternal aunt and uncle had been positively assessed as Special Guardians for CM but sadly they withdrew on the 22^nd October 2013, which also prejudiced an early conclusion for CM.
9. That is the short background to the proceedings. The deeper history relating to CM is set out at great length in the papers. There is long record of involvement with the family both with the Local Authority and with the health service and the chronologies should be read alongside this judgment.
10. The medical chronology goes back to CM's birth and runs to many pages. There is a very extensive social work chronology which I appreciate is not accepted in its entirety by the parents, which I describe as a catalogue of escalating concerns from the time of the initial referral to the Local Authority in September 2008 to date. The evidence is extremely dense and complex, but ultimately the issues and patterns which emerge are very clear.
11. I summarise them as follows: the parents began seeking medical help for CM when he was very young. When he was only 5 months old he was admitted to hospital with diarrhoea and the reason given for his admission was his mother's anxiety. These were the origins of a pattern of behaviour by the parents which is clearly established on the evidence. They sought treatment and referrals time and time again. Time and again CM was referred to specialists. Time and again the referrals were not followed through, and when they were, those who saw CM were presented with a history given by the parents which was, I am satisfied, coloured by their own anxieties and beliefs about the nature of his problems. The net result was that CM was seen throughout his life by doctors and specialists, and diagnoses were made on the basis of the reports given by the parents, who have proved adept at researching medical conditions on the internet and ascribing a condition to CM, seeking treatment or medication for that condition based on their conviction that he was suffering from some identifiable problem.
12. At the root of this anguished quest by the parents was CM's behaviour. It was at times extreme, and also violent. At times it still is extreme and violent, and as recently as 10^th January 2014, CM attacked his male foster-carer. He went to claw his face, kicked him in the face with the sole of his foot, and tried to bite, punch and kick him. He had to be restrained in a very dramatic fashion. He then went for the foster-carer's head, pulling his hair and ear and saying that he would pull his eyes out and pull his face off. At school in September 2012 he was excluded because he launched such a violent attack on a female member of staff that she suffered a suspected fracture to her arm. These outbursts of uncontrollable rage and violence are lessening, but these are examples of the uncontrolled forces that overtake this little boy and pose such a huge challenge to those caring for him.
13. CM's behaviour had been too much for the parents. He had presented them throughout his time in their care with extremes of behaviour and they had reacted as they thought best with what on any analysis were extreme measures at times. To their way of thinking, CM had a medical problem and if that was the case it would explain what was going on.
14. In the summer of 2008 the Health Visitor's notes record that the mother asked for a visit as she was finding it difficult to cope with CM's behaviour, which was aggressive and hitting out, and was reporting that she suffers from ADHD.
15. Mother has regularly been reported as having told others that she is suffering from some form of serious medical problem, or that CM has suffered some extreme medical problem.
16. I have seen a letter from Dr McEntagart a consultant clinical geneticist, dated 31^st December 2013. In that report Dr McEntagart records the mother as having a diagnosis of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. Further she records that the mother is undergoing treatment for Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.
17. When this was explored with the mother in evidence she explained that she had looked it up on the internet and had told her GP that she thought she had Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy and had sought a referral for that.
18. As regards any treatment, she said that there had been a referral to Dr R, an adult psychiatrist, to look further into this issue, but that had not taken place yet. She is not therefore undergoing any such treatment at present, nor is there any formal diagnosis that I am aware of other than the mother's self diagnosis from her internet research. This encapsulates the problem she presents as an anxious medical historian who bases her researches on the web.
19. Returning to CM, in 2009, the mother reported her suspicions that he had ADHD. The Health Visitor discounted the possibility of ADHD and the concern that he might have autism in November of that year. In January 2010 the parents sought a second opinion and a diagnosis of autism. CM was referred to a specialist, Dr Jonathan, but the appointments were not kept. In May there was a referral to Children's Services which on any reading was highly concerning: the note reads:

Referral to CS. CM seen sitting in M's lap front of car unrestrained. M says she gives in as CM screams in the back. Some time ago CM seen to bite F in crotch, F smacked CM around the head x3; neighbour heard CM screaming "don't hit me"; CM strangled another boy at his birthday party; M had said in Jan 2012 CM was due in hospital for a twisted bowel. Later said she had cured it with Actimel; subsequently M said GP had diagnosed 25% ASD and GP had signed benefit forms, M said CM had ADHD and not ASD; later it wasn't ADHD but insomnia; CM no bedtime routine and appears to rule the house, family always unwell.

20. The entry and the events preceding the entry conveniently encapsulate the ensuing matters contained in the ever-growing chronology of concerns. The themes by this time are established. The parents seek a diagnosis but do not always follow through referrals. There are frequent medical appointments and a variety of medications are administered. CM continues to behave in violent and challenging ways, both to his parents and towards other children; his father in particular reacts with excessive physical force; both parents employ extreme techniques to seek to control him such as wetting his face and smacking him. The mother in particular exaggerates or fabricates medical symptoms both about herself and about CM, and both parents regularly give in to him instead of setting appropriate boundaries, the lack of which is a very significant feature.
21. In addition, some of CM's most fundamental needs were going unmet to his serious detriment. He was clearly in need from an early age of support with his speech and language, but referrals were not taken up – the father told me they were defeated by the paperwork involved, but that is not acceptable as this need went unaddressed for a very long time.
22. Ultimately the quest for a diagnosis for CM has dominated the medical evidence. I will later summarise the long route that has lead to the most recent conclusions as to what it is that has been at the root cause of CM's difficulties and what are likely to be his abiding features. What is clear is that the distressing story of CM and his development whilst in the care of his parents is resolving itself into a very different picture since he has been parented in a safe, insightful and consistent way by his very experienced foster-carers and he is changing and making real progress.

THE ISSUES

23. The local authority say that as between the available options for CM, namely long-term foster-care with very experienced carers or a return to his parents, the only viable option to meet his highly complex needs is long-term foster care.
24. The mother and father ask that CM be returned to their care with a supervision order or even a care order in place if necessary and oppose the care plan as it relates to contact. Both of them say that they have already made changes and have finally understood what is required of them and are willing to do anything to have their son home. They both genuinely believe that they are now able to parent him differently after this terrible experience of the care system, and assert that I can rely on their word and the evidence of the improvements in their abilities to look after CM from what has gone on in contact. They tell me that the home conditions are much improved and I do accept that. They believe that their plans and good intentions for the care of CM will be carried through and they tell me that they have family support which they believe is sufficient. The mother says in her statement that she has sought counselling to deal with her issues. She says in her statement that she is seeing Dr Rikaby in March to begin hypnotherapy, but she told me in evidence that she had been referred to Dr Rikaby for suspected Munchuasen Syndrome by Proxy and that the hypnotherapy was to help with her telling lies and exaggerating. I remain unclear about what will actually be provided for her.
25. The Guardian's firm opinion is that CM's needs are best met through long-term foster-care, given the depth of his present and future needs and the need for very able carers who can provide him with the necessary level of consistent and safe parenting. He believes that CM would be at further risk of significant harm if he were to be returned to them.
26. The Threshold Criteria are now agreed in this case. There has been a long dispute over their contents: in November one of the reasons the IRH was adjourned was because the parents indicated that they were on the point of agreeing the threshold criteria, but it has taken until now for that to happen. I approve the agreed threshold as representative, on the evidence, of the causes of the extremely significant harm suffered by CM and the legal test that confers jurisdiction on me to pass to the next stage of decision making is met. I have concerns about that document. I observe that the measure of the harm and the depth of the problems in this case are very profound.
27. In particular, having heard the father's evidence, I remain concerned that he continues to minimise and justify some of the things which he says he has agreed to. For the record, on this particularly lean set of headlines, I have taken into account the father's agreement given upon instructions, but if it is the case that in reality he does not fully agree with what is contained in the document, and does not fully appreciate that these matters are relied upon to establish the fact that on an evidential basis CM suffered and was at risk of suffering significant harm at the relevant date, nevertheless I am satisfied that on the evidence the threshold criteria are fully made out as drafted to the requisite standard.
28. For the record, the headlines of that document are as follows: -

a. (i) CM's parents have at times been confused as to the dosage of prescribed medication to be given to CM, e.g whether the dosage of Methylphenidate (Ritalin) should be 20mg or 15 mg

(ii) The parents have increased the dosage of Melatonin ( herbal) given to CM from 2 mg to 4 mg without proper medical approval.

b. CM has displayed extreme behavioural difficulties which following the

parents' description to professionals has led to misdiagnosis of ASD and ADHD

c. The parents have missed some medical appointments for CM

d. The parents have, on occasions, used inappropriate methods of physical and verbal chastisement which, because of a lack of understanding at the time of CM's difficulties and complex needs, may have exacerbated his behavioural and attachment difficulties.

e. The physical state and cleanliness of the family home has been noted to be of an unacceptable and unhygienic nature at times

f. CM has witnessed incidents of domestic abuse between his parents

g. CM's parents have both endured adverse childhood experiences which have rendered them unable adequately to consistently meet CM's complex emotional and behavioural needs.

29. I must therefore decide which placement out of the available options best meets CM's welfare, and if the option is for a return to his parents whether a Supervision Order is required and if not what the level of contact for CM should be.

THE EVIDENCE

30. The Social Worker for CM who has reported in the case and prepared the final care plan, Mr P-W, is on long-term sick leave. Instead the Team Manager Ms B has given evidence in support of the Local Authority's case.
31. I have read the papers. I have an addendum care plan provided by the Local Authority which has modified the original care plan. I have heard the oral evidence of Sylvia Duncan, consultant child psychologist, of Miss B the team manager, Miss HB the senior Social Worker who prepared a comprehensive parenting assessment, the mother, the father and the Guardian Mr S.
32. There is a great deal of written evidence which has not been challenged. I have read the papers and the extensive contact and foster care notes, and the lengthy medical records which appear in the bundle.
33. Because of the length of the records I do not intend to give more than a starred summary of the trajectory of CM's medical history beyond what I have already touched upon.
34. Genetic testing revealed that he has a deletion on chromosome 16, a feature shared with his mother. This may have implications for his development in terms of cognitive difficulties and other potential long-term difficulties. It is not however associated with behavioural difficulties although I note that the parents may have sought to make a link with this feature and CM's behaviour.
35. In brief, moving through a very concerning volume of referrals and missed appointments, of visits to specialists and varying diagnoses, the medical issues relating to CM have now begun to come towards full circle. I can begin with the report of Dr Perera of 7^th March 2013. On that occasion he provides a diagnosis on Axis II of Autistic Spectrum Disorder with disorganised/disorientated attachment style, ADHD, Specific Reading Difficulty, Moderate or mild leaning difficulty, on Axis III chromosome deletion syndrome, on Axis IV "only child of parents living in impoverished circumstances who have genuinely struggled to met his complex needs without outside help until the safeguarding referral had been made.
36. He goes on to say "I did consider a diagnosis of conduct disorder but I have noticed significant improvement in his behaviour since he had been at the BC, where his developmental needs have been more clearly identified. I also considered a diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder but there is no clear evidence of severe parental neglect though they will have to improve their skills parenting with professional help given that there is now much better understanding of their son's complex needs"
37. Dr Atkinson, Consultant Community Paediatrician undertook a developmental assessment after CM had been placed with foster-carers for 8 weeks, and reported in 8^th August 2013 that CM was functioning about a year behind his chronological age but she thought that this conclusion might be related to his early experiences of life and emotional trauma. She reported that he was a child "craving love and affection and who requires boundaries, praise and encouragement".
38. Dr Perera later reported on 25^th June 2012. He reviewed his previous diagnosis in the light of further information about the parents and the unreliability of their accounts, and wrote as follows:

"It is most likely that the effects of poor parenting upon CM has been subject to emotional abuse, physical abuse and neglect by his parents, who have not adequately engaged with social services in the previous year in order to improve their parenting skills. Furthermore they have repeatedly sought diagnostic assessment from Dr Sue Shah at the Child Development Clinic, Dr Mohammed Twaij Community Paediatrician at the Child Development Centre, and myself......A diagnosis of ADHD cannot be made safely because it relied on a lot of the history given by KM and LM. As a consequence of the child rearing he has experienced..... CM has developed a disorganised attachment style....A diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder cannot be made at this time."

39. Dr Perera was prepared to review his opinion in relation to ASD at a later date and also advised that CM should not be given medication.
40. The parents have not challenged this very comprehensive report and I have no reason to go against his thorough review and analysis of CM's difficulties and their origins.
41. I heard from Ms B the team manager, She is at some disadvantage as she has not been as directly involve in the case as Ms JB and Mr P-W. However I was satisfied that she was sufficiently familiar with the case to give evidence in their stead.
42. The Social Workers' reports are very full indeed. Mr P-W has provided a very clear and focussed analysis of the evidence. He was not able to speak to his reports but Ms B is clearly familiar with the case. She has updated me as regards the current situation in terms of finding a placement for CM. As well an in-house search the Local Authority has 37 providers and five potential placements have been identified. That is encouraging.
43. CM was excluded from his primary school in September 2012 because he attacked and injured a teacher. His current placement at the B is short term. As regards his schooling it is recognised that there may be a gap. One appropriate school locally will not have a place for him until September. His proposed statement of special educational needs is very detailed. It will be of real assistance and will be a key analysis in terms of finding the right school to match his extensive difficulties. There are a number of potentially suitable schools in the area but if he were placed out of area it would assist him in receiving the right level of education services. However there may well be a gap, possibly until the start of the next school year in September before he goes to a new school, and I must trust that he receives the appropriate level of specialised schooling before then so that the structure from school he requires is not removed.
44. I heard from the Guardian who has prepared two analyses and who is clear in his recommendations that CM's needs should be met in an appropriate and skilled foster placement long term. His opinion is that CM would suffer further harm if returned to his parents' care and he has not been deflected from that view having heard all the evidence.
45. I find that his evidence was fair to the parents but wholly focussed on CM's needs. As regards contact he told me that in future it would have to be seen from CM's shoes and he felt that quarterly contact was right for at least 2 years, but if it was wrong for CM it should reduce. His concern was for CM to be able to settle without any harmful disruption. He was heartened by the progress in finding a placement for CM and that costs were not seen as a problem because in his view it is vital that CM reaches his potential. He felt CM was able to cope with change as long as it was spelt clearly out to him and he was given a clear narrative. He also saw the role of the IRO as very crucial in this case.
46. Sylvia Duncan is a Chartered Clinical Psychologist whose experience in the field of assessments of children and families and is very extensive. She has pulled together the complex threads in this case, many of which have required professional "untangling".
47. If ever an expert was "necessary", this is a case where that criteria could never be questioned, given the difficulties. Miss Duncan reported on 24^th September 2013 and her addendum report is dated 25^th October 2013. Her evidence is very extensive, and the overview she provides is based on an extremely thorough approach to her investigations – she spoke at length to the people who know CM best; his parents, his school, the social work team, the geneticist and the Guardian, and met of course with CM himself.
48. She does not believe that CM can in any circumstances be returned to the care of his parents and in this case her expertise and her evidence is pivotal.
49. Having heard her cross-examined at length on behalf of the parents, when nothing that they could advance and challenge made any impact upon her well-reasoned views, I am clear about the reasons why she takes the view that they cannot meet his needs.
50. She puts side by side in her report the categories of concerns and behaviours. These can be illustrated briefly as follows:

a. The issues concerning CM's "medicalised" life and the parents' anxieties and beliefs about his difficulties which were clearly discordant, disproportionate and generated by deep anxiety, leading in turn to CM being affected by that anxiety

b. The issues as regards his behaviours and troubled reactions at school which clearly show the extreme feelings and difficulties besetting him in that context, often resulting in aggressive and very violent behaviour

c. The dramatic changes noted in him by the school and others after he was placed with his foster-carers which is very strongly evidenced, as is the anxiety generated as he anticipated contact. In addition, there is clear evidence of his positive response to clear boundaries, structure, certainty and routine.

d. His communication difficulties, his difficulties with his peers, his issues surrounding food and eating and his difficulties coping with change.

51. Sylvia Duncan has reviewed the available medical evidence and the conclusions of the geneticist in order to provide a picture of the developmental issues which CM is facing: the chromosome deletion is associated with cognitive impairment, developmental delay, impaired communication and social and language skills and possibly dysmorphism. The outcome for CM is difficult to gauge and will ultimately depend of the level of severity. It is relevant that it is not a condition with associated behavioural problems.
52. As regards the issue of autism, she notes the discrepancies between the parents' reports of CM's behaviour, and external reports. Ultimately she reports that CM does display some autistic features, but the question is whether he suffers from autism or quasi-autistic features resulting from attachment difficulties. In her view the areas of significant recent improvement suggests that his problems are influenced by environmental factors – indeed she is optimistic that there is scope for improvement if, crucially, CM gets the right level of education in the future. I have seen his draft Statement of Educational Needs which means that CM will need a high level of support to achieve his potential.
53. Miss Duncan reports that CM wants to go home to his parents but that he is ambivalent about this because he has clearly also said that his mother scares him. He has expressed his wish to go home to his Guardian as well and this comes as no surprise. Indeed in contact although concerns about what has been happening in that context have been brought to my attention, the parents are generally warm and loving and clearly doing their very best to make the experience as positive as possible for him. Sylvia Duncan recognises the loving aspects of the relationship she has observed.
54. She suggests that CM's difficulties have been impacted upon by his parenting and environment because things have improved so much since he was removed from his parents' care. She sees that there is probably scope for further improvement as a result. His unpredictable parenting was more or less the antithesis of what he needed and that the parents' preoccupation with their own needs and interests made them unavailable to CM a lot of the time. She described the parents and CM as more or less living separate existences when they or he would withdraw from each other. Because of his attachment difficulties he needs to live in a place where anxieties are reduced as much as possible
55. The portrait of CM which emerges very clearly from this report and all the evidence is of a little boy who is now cheerful with a sunny personality, who is engaging and endearing. HB describes his needs as complex and enduring. He still shows signs of insecurity, and continues to have outbursts, though this is improving. It is clear that he is and is likely to continue to be a complex child with identifiable behaviour and developmental difficulties. Sylvia Duncan is crystal clear that CM requires reliable and predictable care in order to develop a sense of security, and in her view his early care has been the antithesis of what was needed for him – indeed his phenotype means that he is more sensitive than other children to a lack of calm and a contained emotional environment.
56. She told me in evidence that the parents have made some small changes, however there has been no fundamental change in their capacity to meet CM's huge needs.
57. The intensive observations of this expert and her clear conclusions have provided me with what I consider to be a reliable, focussed and insightful view. I find she has balanced her opinion and weighed up the positives against the negatives, and I have set it against the other evidence with which it chimes consistently.
58. I rely upon her evidence and that of the Guardian for the best part of my understanding of CM as he is now, and his needs. Of course his parents know him and brought him up, but Sylvia Duncan is of the view that neither of them has really grasped the complexity of his needs, nor that they are equipped to react to them given their own very specific needs.
59. I note that she was concerned about the thin threshold document, and she said that she felt that that document did not cover the breadth and depth of the case, leaving the seriousness of the issues unconfirmed. I acknowledge that comment, because the case is hugely complex, but the threshold can be seen as a jurisdictional tool. I fully accept the gravity of the concerns evidenced in the case, with which the lean threshold document conforms.
60. Turning from the portrait of CM which I now have, I turn to the evidence in relation to his parents to complete the central family triangle.
61. To piece together an understanding of the parents I have heard from both of them, I have read the statements they have obtained from extended family, I have read the reports emanating from CM's school about them, I have read the reports of the social workers, and heard from the team manager Ms B. I also heard from Miss HB a senior social worker who undertook a parenting assessment tailored with elements of the PAMS model. The parents did not find her easy to work with and Mr Stevenson-Watt puts it that they experienced her as supercilious towards them, however to their credit they did complete this work.
62. I have seen that the parents feel that they did not get the right kind of support. In fact I do not accept their view of that. What I do believe is that they have found it incredibly challenging to engage with social services because they have felt very anxious, defensive and have to a fairly high degree resented the interventions they have had in their lives rather than seeing them as positive. They have, I find, not wholly seen the need for the type of parenting work provided by the Family Intervention Team although they have clearly wanted help. It is clear that their first port of call for answers and cures has been the medical profession. There were clearly significant barriers and the Family Intervention Team work which was planned to help them was not taken up to any real extent by the father (who clearly had issues with the work, whatever his explanation for not attending and completing the course). The mother did engage but did not go to all the sessions required and in my view where advice and support has tended to reveal her deficiencies and require a shift in her thinking and behaviour she has found it at times overwhelmingly difficult to accept.
63. Miss HB undertook a comprehensive parenting assessment of the parents, and has prepared an addendum exploring the issue of future contact. She took photographs of the family home which I have seen and which clearly indicate that at that time things were on top of the parents in terms of their ability to keep the house safe. There is a very pretty garden, however. I do not intend to repeat much of it here. They have challenged her report and its contents, which explores many aspects of the parents' thinking and reactions to the situation and is a fundamental piece of evidence in the case which the parents do not accept. When I read the assessment I see that despite that view they were to their credit able to participate in the work much of which would have been very painful for them, and they managed to spend a great deal of time with her for the purpose of the work.
64. I find her report to be sophisticated, and I understand how the parents might feel that it goes over their heads or that they have been misrepresented. However I do not agree with them. The information is in my view very comprehensive and it was done in a way which made every allowance for any limitations of understanding they might have. Its conclusions are of course very difficult for them to hear where they are negative and these are parents who have for a long time been defensive when challenged by professionals and who are not in any way sophisticated themselves.
65. She has identified and reported upon the significant components of CM's make up, and those of his parents, including an overview of the real difficulties which they both experienced in their earlier lives. The mother was able to open up to her to the extent that she acknowledged that some of the things she had reported to others had not been true, for example she had told JB that she had been in care, but was now able to say that that was not true. Hers is a very sad story.
66. I consider this evidence to be key in relation to the outcome and should be read in its entirety by anyone considering this judgment in future. Much of what it reveals was noticeable in the evidence of the parents themselves, in particular their "limited acceptance and recognition of the harm caused to CM".
67. Her views about contact were that there had been some improvement, but a "lack of embedded learning, praise, picking up on cues and a lack of real understanding of what was going on for CM". In her view they had a very poor understanding of his emotional needs. She had concerns about some things which happen in contact for example that the father has told CM to tell the Social Workers that he wants to come home, and has told him to pull his socks up or he won't come home. Father does not agree that he has said all of the things referred to, but I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to find that he has not been attuned to CM's emotional needs at all times during contact and has said inappropriate things to CM, and not grasped the implications of what he has said for CM.
68. She makes similar observations to Sylvia Duncan. She describes CM as a highly aroused, anxious boy, and the parents as anxious and unable to put themselves in his shoes, because they are so wrapped up in their own issues. She too predicts serious harm if he is to return home. She described the parents as egocentric, and reports that they clearly believe that CM's problems are not their fault.
69. The challenge to HB's evidence has not been successful. She was thoughtful and fair in my judgment and her conclusions are based on research and experience.

THE PARENTS

70. The parents are now, at the door of the court, and perhaps for the first time, prepared to concede that they "have both endured adverse childhood experiences which have rendered them unable adequately to consistently meet CM's complex emotional and behavioural needs".
71. It is however their case that they have now made the changes required of them.

THE FATHER

72. I will begin with Mr M. He provided me with a lovely photograph of CM, and there is no doubt that he cares deeply and desperately for his only child. He told me with pride how he and CM enjoyed their time at home together when they constructed a fabulous model railway and enjoyed gardening together and playing on the computer. He is proud of CM's gardening skills which he passed on to him.
73. Mr M has a raft of diagnosed health difficulties and his mobility is limited. There is no need to rehearse the nature of those difficulties here save to say that they obviously prevent him from being an active parent to a young and explosively energetic child. Sylvia Duncan describes him as "an absent father" during contact, meaning that he was not engaged and not active. He is dyslexic. Dr Gary Taylor undertook a cognitive assessment of him which indicated that due to memory difficulties it is more difficult for him to process complex information or perform more complicated reasoning tasks.
74. He does not feel that they got the appropriate level or type of help with CM's needs from the Local Authority. He told me he would accept any help from them now "to keep them (i.e. Social Services) happy".
75. His parenting style and approach to discipline has been very negative. He knows this and thinks however that he has changed and now understands that this was not good for CM. He has been very slow indeed to understand how his punitive handling of CM may have affected him and also slow to understand that he should not always give in to CM's demands. He told me that CM is "allergic to the word no". Yet at the same time he says that he knows he needs boundaries. In contact he has given into CM's demands. HB found that he did not demonstrate a good enough understanding or ability to pick upon CM's cues and join in the sessions as fully as he could have.
76. I find that in his evidence he had a tendency to see CM as the cause of the problem. He told me "If I said he had done wrong, he would cause an argument". He also found it difficult to agree that his chastisement of CM had been inappropriate, although he did accept that for the purpose of the threshold. His concession is limited but I am satisfied on all the evidence that they way Mr M dealt with CM was not appropriate parenting for this child, with his needs, and it must have been frightening for CM to have been handled by both his parents in what I find was a punitive fashion.
77. Mr M has my sympathy because he clearly has many unmet needs of his own. He suffered a very serious injury and was close to tears as he told me about it. He said he would like counselling for this. I had no sense that he was able to understand the need for real and lasting intervention to deal with his underlying difficulties. I am also clear that he is still not able to identify CM's needs and the reasons for the work which was offered to the family. I believe he has experienced it as very intrusive and difficult. He loves CM profoundly.

THE MOTHER

78. Mrs M in evidence was prepared to make concessions as regards her own difficulties. She too is of course desperate to regain the care of her son. She clearly believes that she has made the necessary and appropriate changes which will enable her to parent CM adequately now. She loves CM profoundly.
79. I have seen the medical evidence filed in the case about her. She has a history of depression but according to her GP she did not use the medication in a beneficial way, choosing instead to take her prescribed medication in short bursts rather than for the longer recommended periods. She was referred to counselling in October 2010 but did not take up the referral. He states that she did not have formal diagnosis of ADHD but had been referred for further investigations by Dr Perera.
80. She was referred to Dr Jain for her own suspected ADHD but he did not make that diagnosis and has discharged her from his clinic. She said in a statement that she was due to start "counselling on 10^th January through Dr Rikaby" but I am unclear about what she thought that was for or what the nature of it was. She has not to my knowledge yet had counselling.
81. She has had one session of hypnotherapy and says that a further referral to hypnotherapy is going to happen to help her deal with her lying and exaggerating. I have already described her evidence in relation to her self-diagnosis of Munchausen by Proxy. It is clear to me that Mrs M is able to say what she thinks I want to hear, but the truth and accuracy of her evidence is hard to evaluate. Her understanding of the gravity of the situation however was in my judgment still at its very beginning.
82. She told me that she was in a better place now, and was much stronger and more able to meet CM's needs. She was able to tell me what changes she had made and wants me to accept that she has now understood what is needed for CM - a calm approach. She was able to tell me what she would do for example if he had a violent outburst, but I am sorry to say that her evidence did not convince me that she has made any of the real and vital changes to the deeply damaged aspects of her personality. She is absolutely genuine in her belief that she is now able to parent CM, but I find that there is a gulf of understanding between what she believes she can do and the reality of what CM actually needs.
83. That highlights the dilemma in this case: there is an abundance of love for CM, but a dearth of parenting ability and understanding of his needs.
84. She has found the intervention of the local authority unwelcome and intrusive. By way of example at a meeting on 20^th March 2013, which I accept was very emotive for the parents, she described her reaction as follows in the email she sent complaining about their treatment: "Once home I had enough of being told what I could and could not do – I took a diazepam to calm myself but it made me spaced out". On another occasion she was told by the social worker that an appointment had been made for her to see Dr Perera at 5.15 in the evening. Her reaction was that that was not fair as it was her tea time". I appreciate that at that time things for the family were coming very much to a head and I am sure they found the whole experience overwhelming, but my impression is that until very recently, perhaps until just before this hearing, the parents have been reluctant to accept that intervention was necessary.
85. Mrs M denies that many of the professional recordings put to her are accurate and truthful. Some of them she said she believed had been made up by the Social Worker.
86. She denied purchasing Ritalin for CM on the internet - ( Mr M told me that it was not possible to do so, but I am not convinced of that). However the police did not take the matter any further as regards the medication found at the family home and in my judgment it is not safe to make a finding about this.
87. I felt that like Mr M she did think that CM's behaviour was somehow his fault. For example she told me about an incident where CM had tried to strangle Mr M when he was driving. It was hard to escape the conclusion that she blamed CM for what was happening and was not able to be objective about his behaviour.
88. Mrs M was very controlled as she gave her evidence, to her credit, given the emotions engaged here. She flatly denied ever seeing her husband ever hit or scream at CM, or kick or restrain him. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. She denied hitting him herself, but accepted that she smacked him. She also denied flicking water onto him she said she used a cold flannel on him because he gets a temperature when he has an outburst. However she has also said that the social workers advised them to flick water on him. I found Mrs M to be an unreliable witness – she recognises her own issue with the truth.
89. I express my sympathy for the parents who face an enormous uphill struggle to change their basic personalities. Neither of them has undertaken any significant intervention to address these long-standing difficulties. I know how hard they have tried to improve their home, and how hard they have tried to make contact a good experience for CM and all of that is to their credit.

THE LAW

90. The local authority must prove its case. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. I am satisfied that the threshold criteria are met, and my remaining task is to examine how CM's welfare which is paramount will be best met in future. I must apply my mind to the requirements of the welfare checklist pursuant to S 1 (3) CA 1989. I must consider what orders are needed and have regards to the need for proportionality and to the rights which are engaged here to family life.
91. No-one has sought to address me at all on the law, but I have of course reminded myself of recent authority, and of the need to take an holistic view of CM's welfare, based on all the evidence, and to weigh carefully and systematically the competing options available for him.

SUBMISSIONS

92. Counsel for both parents have done their utmost for their clients and their submissions have been measured. Mr Stevenson-Watt relies upon CM's stated wishes, perhaps overlooking the fact that they are clearly evidenced as ambiguous. He advances the case that there would be a great deal of family support, and that despite the grandparents'' age they are fully committed to offering as much support as needed. He has advanced an inventory of support to bolster CM's placement at home, and is clear that should that be the outcome his client will engage and will seek treatment for himself. Miss Wilson echoes his submissions and advances the changes the mother has made and the fact that she now says she knows that there is no medical cause for CM's behavioural problems, as if that were the breakthrough. She advances the risk of placement breakdown.
93. In reply Ms Golden reminds me that Sylvia Duncan believes that the risk of breakdown if CM was placed at home would be greater than if he were placed in foster-care. Miss Taylor reminds me of the essence of the Guardian's concerns that the parents have not made the changes necessary to meet CM's needs.

THE OPTIONS

94. CM's needs are very great. His parents have a variety of difficulties and unmet needs themselves. It is his right to be cared for by his family if that is at all possible. I must therefore weigh what are the only two options in the balance – the pros and cons of each have been explored in evidence and I have ample information before me.
95. In my consideration of the options I have of course borne in mind that CM's welfare is paramount and of course had regards to S1(3) CA 1989 which I have woven in to my analysis below, with a baseline of CM's very particular characteristics and needs.
96. Mr P-W the Social Worker has provided an analysis exploring to some extent the all-options check-list for CM, including adoption as possible outcome, one however which no-one wisely pursues here given his age and the unlikelihood of a placement being available for him.
97. There is no written information as regards the possible outcome of a placement at home in terms of what provision might be offered but this has been fully explored in evidence.
98. Turning first to the option of long-term foster care, with the supports outlined in the amended care plan, the benefits to CM would be as follows:

a. I am assured that the search for the right family where he would be the youngest child by a long way or placed on his own is not limited by resources. It is acknowledged that at present there are a number of children with similar needs to CM for whom the LA are seeking a specialised placement, and it may be that the search would need to be widened, though I agree that a placement in this area would be to his great advantage. The Social Worker Miss B is confident based on her knowledge of the case that it will be possible to find a suitable foster-family for CM by April.

b. CM has thrived and changed in a very significant way since he has lived away from his parents. He is well-cared for and has settled extremely well into an experienced home where he is given consistent parenting and proper boundaries. He appears to be able to adapt well to changes when he is given clear explanations about what is going to happen. He adapted very well to life with his current carers and that is a good pointer. It is likely that he would adapt to new carers.

c. CM will need a home where his needs are given the highest priority over and above those of his carers, something which he has now enjoyed. He will need attuned and sensitive parenting by people who can offer him consistent support in all areas: his schooling, his social life, interventions with regards to his developmental and any medical needs, and who can accept and implement professional advice when it is needed. It is likely that he will have more chance of achieving his potential according the Guardian if that kind of care is available to him.

d. His proposed statement of Special Educational Needs will be a useful tool and would give his carers a clear picture of how his educational needs will need to met in future. He would need adults who can work closely with his school and import an enhanced understanding of CM into that arena to help him realise his potential.

e. There would be a need for an appropriate level of support from Children's Services tailored to CM's needs and to supporting his carers, and that support would enhance his progress. CM would have the benefit of work to help him make sense of his history and circumstances in the form of life story work which hopefully would give him a clear and understandable idea of his place in the world.

f. He would be likely to receive more consistent, attuned and insightful parenting than he received in the care of his parents. The structure, boundaries and consistency he needs must be a priority for him to ensure that he does not revert to the emotional chaos which previously characterised his life to a great extent.

g. If the parents were able to support him, his experience of them in contact might well be excellent and therefore his own relationship with them might take on a more positive and meaningful character than their care of him provided. There would be less scope for mixed messages to be given to him once finality had been secured.

99. The detriments of long-term foster care for CM can be viewed as follows:-

a. He would lose the chance of being brought up with the love of his parents and his extended family.

b. He would lose the regular warmth and affection he receives during contact and the link with his family would be seriously diluted if I agree to the reduction of contact proposed by the local authority and supported by the Guardian. However if the parents are able to work with professionals and learn about CM's needs and situation, there is some flexibility proposed as the case progresses, though clearly CM's own needs would dictate the path of contact in the future.

c. He would on either scenario lose the good relationship with his current carers. If he were to go into long-term foster-care, there would be a double loss for him of regular contact with his parents and family, and the care he currently receives. Such losses cannot be underestimated.

d. Given CM's challenging behaviour, as well as the vagaries of the option of long-term foster-care, there is a risk that his placement will break down, perhaps more than once. That risk however needs to be balanced against the risk of a breakdown were he to be placed with his parents which on the evidence is the greater risk. The view of the Guardian is that the parents would be extremely anxious about the possibility of breakdown and that in itself would affect their care of CM, and his view is that the risk is higher than the risk which would be run if her were to be placed in long-term foster-care. Were a foster-placement to break down the care plan would allow for planned and supported change. Were a placement back home to fail, that might not be the case. It would be utterly devastating for CM and his parents.

e. A placement in foster-care would not meet his express wish to go home but this is not a full reflection of his ambiguous and complex feelings. . His experiences of parenting at home as evidenced however highlight the difference between love and good parenting and I am satisfied that he did not receive good parenting when he lived with his parents.

100. Turning to the option of a return to his parents the benefits would be:-

a. CM would be at home and loved by his parents with support from their family members, as was previously the case.

b. This would match his wish to go home which he has expressed to Sylvia Duncan and the Guardian. He is nearly 8 years old and that is an important feature, but it is qualified by the nature of his experiences at home and his expressed fears.

c. The parents say that they would parent him differently now. The home is clean now. The question is whether they have made any of the changes in understanding and parenting which led to CM's removal. They say that have, and were that to be the case, it would be right for CM to go back home.

d. The parents' relationship appears to be strong and supportive now on their account, but there have been issues of domestic violence, witnessed by CM in the past which they ascribe to the stresses they were under when Mr M went bankrupt and the business was lost.

101. The detriments would be:-

a. The parents might struggle as they did previously without their needs being addressed. The evidence of the Guardian and Sylvia Duncan and HB is that he would be at further risk of significant harm if this happened. The view of Miss Duncan which I accept is that his enormous anxieties are met by parental anxiety and not contained – the more anxious he becomes the more aggressive he becomes and the more anxious the parents become the more resistant CM becomes and he lashes out – she described this as a vicious circle. She told me that it was likely that he would regress if returned home. Given his significant progress that would be extremely detrimental to his development. HB confirmed that in her view if he went home "conditions would probably deteriorate again within a short period of time and become unacceptable without professional intervention".

b. There would be a need for an extremely high level of support, possibly daily. The parents say ( I believe that they sincerely mean) that they want any support they are given, but in the past they have found the intervention of the local authority unacceptable and challenging.

c. In addition there would be a need for orders in my judgment given the level of need and risk were that to happen. A vicious circle would arise if a care order were to be made as the local authority would need to be satisfied that such a placement was, under the regulations, appropriate and safe. Their view is that it would not be and therefore CM would not be placed at home. A supervision order would not have the teeth of a care order, and the local authority would not share parental responsibility with the parents in a case where on any analysis the parents have struggled to such a degree and put CM's health security and safety at risk to the point that it is likely that he has been damaged by the experience.

d. There would I accept be a real risk of a placement at home breaking down which would be a devastating outcome for CM and his parents. Any support from their family would have to be not only robust, but at a greater and more attuned level than it was prior to CM being taken into care. There would need in my judgment to be a high level of supervision and engagement with the local authority by the extended family, and they would be required to be vigilant and if necessary report any return to previous damaging behaviours by the parents.

e. The parents would both need to successfully engage in appropriate treatments for themselves whilst caring for CM. To date the mother has accessed one session of hypnotherapy and is signed up for more. She has diagnosed Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy in herself. Of course that is not a valid diagnosis but were that or any similar syndrome with an up-to-date title proven to be the case, it would have the most serious implications for CM's safety in her care if it were to be unaddressed. It is right that there are references to the mother fabricating illness and the chronology reveals the patterns of anxiety and medical referrals which were so detrimental to CM in the past. There would be a significant risk to CM if he were exposed once again to the fruitless medical quest his parents embarked on.

f. The parents are extremely anxious and the underlying reasons for this have not been addressed. The father is not a well or active person and his mobility problems mean that much of the physical care and managing of CM would fall to the mother. In the past she has been overwhelmed by the task of keeping the home clean. As CM grows he will be physically and emotionally challenging. His educational needs will need to be supported skillfully and patiently and his social needs will require tactful and appropriate handling by those caring for him. He will need carers who do not resort to physical punishment and who are able to explain things to CM in a way he understands. In my judgment he needs the care of people who are very resourceful and who accept and understand the need to access support from professionals, things which to date have sadly been largely beyond the parents.

g. Were the standard of parenting CM requires to dip on any front it would be harmful. He requires carers who are constantly available for him and who can weather his storms and outbursts in a detached and appropriate way, without being overridden by their own emotions, without resorting to inappropriate physical or verbal chastisement and without finding themselves emotionally challenged and completely stressed out as these parents have been when he loses control. He needs in my judgment specific and consistent messages and handling so that he feels increasingly safe and contained. CM has put himself and others in danger. It is lucky that so far no one has been seriously injured during one of his outbursts. He needs carers who do not give into his demands to keep the peace and who can help him to understand where he stands and why. Without that, he would be lost to his own overwhelming feelings. Sylvia Duncan states that his aggression is a reaction to his parents' anxieties. If that occurred again when he was in their care there would be a risk to those caught in the emotional storm of huge damage – to CM because he would be back to his most distressing behaviours, and suffering emotional damage and the risk of serious physical harm, and to the parents because they would be so seriously anxious about what was happening and also at risk of physical harm from him.

h. CM's mother has not addressed her underlying difficulties with telling the truth. The importance of accurate reporting in relation to CM is vital. She was convicted in relation to a false allegation of rape when she was 18. I know that this was a long time ago. The press report indicates that her psychological problems and an "intense imagination" were relied upon by her Counsel in mitigation. She said that she was a child who because of her upbringing sought and craved attention. She was seen as high risk and in need of psychiatric help and she was given a non-custodial sentence on condition that she sought help for her mental health problems. I note therefore that the traits still identifiable in the mother have been present for many years.

i. Her family say that she lied as a teenager; there are many examples of her reporting medical issues about herself or about CM and even about Mr M. The father says she exaggerates. M Primary School reported that she made very unusual statements about CM's health and were worried she was prescribing and administering medication herself. She was reported to have told parents that a teacher was dying of a brain tumor and she had visited him in hospital. This is a very long-standing and deep seated problem and of course the implications for CM if she were to resume caring for him are that it might all start again, leaving a trail of confusion as to where the truth lies. Dr Perera reported that on 25^th June 2013 he was given unreliable evidence by the mother about the history. He has stated: a diagnosis of ADHD cannot be safely relied on because it relied a lot on the history given by Mrs M. He reported that the parents could not be trusted to meet CM's needs "because of their own psychological and self-reported physical health problems." He was obliged to review and amend his diagnoses because of the unreliable history he had been given and as a result CM does not have medication.

j. CM's parents have been very resistant to advice and intervention in the past though they say that this has changed. It is hard to see how they would cope with the necessary degree of intervention in their lives. They have had issues with JB, whom F describes as "superior" and about whom a complaint about rudeness was made, and with HB, who it is said was supercilious towards them. I make no findings but there is a pattern of them objecting to social workers and work, of not fully engaging and of becoming defensive when challenged. This would make the situation very difficult if not untenable and it is likely that similar difficulties would arise in future.

k. Despite their concessions, I have not yet heard anything which makes me think that they really understand that, as Dr Perera stated, their parenting was having a severe impact on CM's emotional and behavioural difficulties. Without that understanding, or a real understanding and commitment to changing their ways radically, CM would be at risk. They have in the past, due to their anxieties and inability to meet CM's parenting needs appropriately, resorted to medical help for explanations, and intervention by way of medication for CM's problems. He does not need medication. It would be detrimental to him if the parents' issues as regards his medical needs were to re-emerge and in my judgment without further work and real acknowledgment and understanding of this anxious perception and approach to his health that dynamic is at risk of returning

102. I am quite satisfied on all the evidence that the possibility of a return home for CM is not an option, where the minuses so greatly outweigh the pluses, which I can safely endorse for the following reasons and findings:-

l. CM's identified needs are very great. His emotional needs have not been met and will best be met by consistent, caring, skilled carers who are available to him. Sadly his parents have not been able to meet those needs in the past and whilst I know that they have strived in contact to understand and meet his needs, nevertheless their own unaddressed needs and lack of insight into his means that they are unlikely to make the radical changes he requires to be safely parented at an emotional level. His physical needs have not been met – he was living in conditions which limited his enjoyment of the available space. In addition his physical safety is at risk during one of his outbursts and unless they are properly contained and supported he may harm himself or others. His difficulties compound the risks and he has needed and will need appropriate medical and professional attention and support. This has been a major issue. He is not now medicated but he has been through the medical mill, and any future interventions will need to be absolutely appropriate. He will need help with any eating issues in order to be kept safe and healthy. Any developmental delay will need appropriate input and support. His educational needs and his identified difficulties need attuned and skillful support, as do the social aspects of school life and friendship.

m. Sadly his parents have not been able to understand these needs and nothing that I have heard from them convinces me that they have grown sufficiently in their understanding to allow them to recognise those needs and meet them in the way CM requires. Neither of them have in any real sense addressed their own needs and serious issues and in reality I do not think that they have as yet really understood that such a need exists. They feel that they have done what is needed themselves.

n. The evidence is that this is just not the case despite their genuine beliefs. I find as a matter of fact that the parents are unable to meet CM's complex needs, because they are so overwhelmed by their own deep and unaddressed difficulties that he would be at risk of significant harm were he to be returned to their care. It is overwhelming evidence and the local authority have proved their case.

103. I find on all the evidence that the only way forward for CM to receive safe and steady parenting which is likely to see him realise his potential immediately, is to remain in the care of the Local Authority. They must not fail him. He has done very well so far which is a good pointer, and I am reassured by and record that there is a "money is no object" approach here which is also vital. The Independent Reviewing Officer needs to bear in mind that I approve the care plan because I have to invest confidence in that assertion, and were resources for CM to become an issue, were he not to receive the very best attention during the perilous journey into long-term foster-care, then he would have been let down by a hollow promise to the court.
104. As for the care plan as regards contact, the level proposed is really minimal. Contact has stirred up behaviours before and after in CM and the care plan is prudent in my judgment at present because he will need to adjust to his permanent placement without too being upset – I believe it will have the best chance of holding if he can root himself firmly at first.
105. The parents have not always respected the need not to raise with CM in contact issues about his future which despite their explanations have been concerning. If contact is to succeed as it is hoped and intended they will need to be helped to see things from CM's point of view, something they have really struggled with. If they can do so I am sure that contact will become the beneficial experience which it is intended to be, and CM will enjoy his special visits and the way will be paved for a purposeful healthy and enduring relationship. Contact will be reviewed. I hope that the parents will engage with the Local Authority and listen and try to understand the things they will be told about CM and how he is doing so they can make the most of the experience and support CM. It will be hard but I believe that they will be capable of that.
106. I note that the Guardian was concerned about the initial regular provision of respite care because he believes that if that is a ready option it may undermine the need for the "glue to set" when CM is placed. He says, and the local authority agree, that provision for respite care and the introduction of future respite carers is an acceptable aspect of the care plan, but respite care should not be a ready option initially, rather an available provision in due course. CM has in this placement really enjoyed respite care. That is encouraging as regards his ability to make changes, but I agree with the view of the Guardian that in a permanent placement it should not be an early planned resource, rather something which may come in time when the placement is solid.

CONTACT

107. There is a lot of evidence about contact. HB and Sylvia Duncan observed it and reported in some detail about the dynamics. Sylvia Duncan said that this was probably the best time CM had spent with his parents. It has many positives and the parents clearly try their hardest to make it a good and loving experience for CM. They are criticised for a number of issues – that Mr M is not always engaged with CM, that they have said things to him which are potentially confusing or indicate promises which might not happen about going home, or that there are sometimes tensions between themselves, or that they are inconsistent – a recent example given was of the mother saying to CM that he could not have a pound, but then giving him one in exchange for a kiss. CM enjoys contact, but there have been times when he has not wanted to go or reacted to it in a challenging way.
108. In my judgment it is in his best interests for contact to happen and to be regularly reviewed to see if it is working for him. It will require some additional effort on behalf of the parents to support CM in the future in circumstances which they do not at this time agree are in his best interests. Sylvia Duncan took the view that as long as the parents were supportive of CM there should not be a break in contact to allow him to settle. She was clear that if the parents are unable to accept the situation then there may be an argument for no contact at all.
109. In my judgment that would be a very tragic outcome for CM. It is likely that the parents will find it very hard to accept and understand this decision, and I sympathise with them for what will be a profound blow. I know they have tried very hard. However they are going to have to heed the dire warning of Sylvia Duncan. It is going to be up to them to make sure that they work their hardest and overcome a lot of feelings to make sure that the things they say and do when they have contact with CM do not impact harmfully on him. They will have to leave a lot of their own feelings and issues at the door
110. It will take CM time, possibly years, to bed into a new family and that must be given the best chance of success. I notice that in a previous position statement Mrs M was hoping for contact 4 times a year. She now wants more, possibly because she has realised the bleakness of her situation where her hopes for caring for her child have been remote. They wish to have monthly contact.
111. Because it is so crucial that CM has the chance to settle and develop the strongest possible roots, I accept the evidence of the Guardian who has supported the increase from the original proposals that for now four times a year direct contact for his parents with indirect contact at birthday and Christmas. Two occasions will be contact just between themselves and CM, but two further occasions will be together with the paternal grandmother BF. She will have an additional visit once a year on her own with CM and there will be a further visit for the paternal grandfather and his wife, TM and LM, on their own, making a total of six visits a year. I note that there is no provision for any indirect contact between CM and his grandparents. I would see no harm to him from a similar arrangement for his grandparents to send a card to him on his birthday and at Christmas or he may feel that they have forgotten him. I hope this can be discussed.
112. I think that 6 family visits a year is likely to be the very maximum for now which will strike the right balance for CM and allow him to settle. The reviews will ensure that this is monitored and if necessary contact can be adjusted to meet his needs.
113. I have considered the need for an order and I am wholly satisfied that a care order is the right and proportionate order.
114. FINALLY, I am going to deliver a message to CM which does not form part of this judgment.