England and Wales County Court (Family)

IN THE CANTERBURY COUNTY COURT

		18th March 2014

JUDGE SCARRATT:

1. The local authority applies for care orders and placement orders in respect of KK, born on 5^th January 2012, and KH, born on 25^th January 2013. KK therefore is aged just two years and KH just one year. They are currently in foster care and have been there since April 2013, almost one year, awaiting the outcome of these proceedings. The boys' mother is Miss K, "the mother", and the maternal grandparents are Mr and Mrs H, "the grandparents". Both grandparents are disabled and are confined in the main to wheelchairs. Mrs H suffered a stroke and can only walk very short distances with the aid of a stick; her hearing is severely impaired. Mr H suffered from polio from an early age and in 1998 was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy. He cannot walk or, as reported to the social worker in her original viability assessment, hold things. The boys' fathers have not engaged in these proceedings and have played no part in these proceedings nor in my deliberations. The two fathers have not engaged in any meaningful way with the local authority within these proceedings. Mr K disengaged in December 2012 or thereabouts and no longer attends the supervised contact with KK or indeed court hearings. All attempts by the local authority to engage him have failed. Despite the efforts of the local authority to locate and engage Mr J, KH's father, he did not wish to be made a part of these proceedings, nor engage with the local authority in their work. The mother does not now seek the return of the children to her care. She supports the application of the grandparents (her parents) to care for both boys. The children are represented by a guardian, Miss Perrin. She supports the local authority's applications for care and placement orders. This has not always been the case as in her report, dated 13^th September 2013, she supported then a further assessment of the grandparents. The final report of the guardian dated 28^th March 2014 does not support rehabilitation of the children to their mother's care or placement of the children with the grandparents. She recommends that both boys are placed for adoption.
2. I have heard oral evidence and submissions over the best part of three days: oral evidence from Miss Dixon, an adult social worker, Miss Lent, the social worker in this case, the mother and the grandparents, as well as from Mr Simmonds, the independent social worker and the author of the assessment of the grandparents, and the guardian. I have read the court bundle. In reaching my decisions I have taken into account all of the evidence before the court, both oral and written. If I do not mention parts of the evidence in this judgment it is not because I have ignored it or forgotten it, it is simply that other parts of the evidence are in my judgment more relevant and informative.
3. The case is not straightforward and I have taken a few days to consider the issues prior to giving this judgment. I have, though, managed to give this concise judgment within one week of hearing submissions on the basis that I appreciate how important it is for the parties, especially the grandparents, to know the outcome as soon as possible.
4. I will deal the background facts very shortly, taken from the neutral outline from the local authority. The family has been known to the local authority since February 2012 following a referral received from the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital in respect of KK. KK was admitted to hospital with an injury to his left arm. He was six weeks old at the time. An x-ray was taken and showed that he had suffered a fracture to the wrist. There was said to be a small bruise to the right side of his forehead. On 16^th March 2012 Dr Stephen Chapman, the consultant paediatric radiologist at the Birmingham Children's Hospital, concluded that the injuries sustained were either caused non-accidentally or were injuries which the parents wished to conceal. The mother was noted to have suffered postnatal depression following KK's birth. The cause for KK's injury could not be explained by either parent and as a result he was placed in local authority care pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act 1989. KK remained in a foster placement until 18^th May 2012 when he was returned to the care of his mother as she had moved to live with her parents, Mr and Mrs H. This decision was made after a child protection conference held in May 2012. During this time at the maternal grandparents' home it is right to record that there were concerns in respect of the mother's care of KK. Following KH's birth in January 2013 the mother and the children moved to hostel accommodation. Observations were made by the social worker that the mother's mood was low and she expressed a lack of connection towards KH. At the mother's request KH went to live with his grandparents for a week or so. The mother's anti-depressant dosage was increased and the mother began to re-engage with mental health services. However, upon KH's return to the mother's care, Social Services reported the downturn in her parenting of both children, for example she was neglecting the care of the property in which the children lived as well as neglecting the needs of the children. KK was already the subject of a child protection plan from May 2012 under the category of physical abuse due to sustaining the fracture I have already mentioned. KH was added to this plan in August 2012. At the conference in 20^th February 2013 an additional category of neglect was added to that plan. The local authority issued an application for interim care orders in respect of the children on 16^th April 2013. They were uncontested at the first appointment in April 2013. The matter was transferred by the Justices to this court on the grounds of complexity. The guardian supported the local authority's applications. At the allocation hearing on 24^th April 2013 it was directed that viability assessments be carried out in respect of the grandparents, a maternal aunt and uncle and a family friend. The court also directed a psychiatric assessment of the mother be carried out by Dr Judith Freedman together with a parenting assessment. The parenting assessment ruled out the prospect of rehabilitation of the children to the mother's care. It concluded that she had an understanding of a child's needs and what is expected of a parent to meet those needs but that she did not have the ability to apply and act upon this knowledge, despite the high level of support provided to her. It is, I sat at this stage, to the mother's credit that she has reached the very difficult decision, no doubt considering this assessment and all of the evidence, that she is not in the position to care for her two sons. I commend her for this decision, which cannot have been easy for her to make. She now, of course, supports her parents in their application to care for the boys in their home. The viability assessment of the maternal grandparents concluded that they were not viable options as long-term carers for the children. I will come to further assessments later in this judgment. The maternal aunt and uncle did not continue to put themselves forward as prospective carers and there was a negative assessment of the family friend.
5. Dr Freedman conducted a psychiatric assessment of the mother and concluded that she suffers from chronic depression and anxiety. This and her personality disturbance is longstanding. Dr Freedman opined that if she decides to make use of her medication and to seek psychotherapy it is likely that her symptoms would decrease in intensity. The most likely form of relapse would be a worsening of her depression and/or anxiety and this would impact negatively on her ability to parent. Her prognosis for achieving lasting change in the next one to two years, the doctor opined, with combined treatment and medication and psychotherapy is good. It is based on her deciding that she needs help, which when the report was written she had not yet done. In respect of how the mother's condition affects her ability to care for her children, Dr Freedman concludes that it is likely that the combination of disturbed personality traits and chronic depression and anxiety has affected her ability to maintain stability in her relationship with the children. At times the mother becomes preoccupied with anxious doubts and self-blaming beliefs, such as that she is not doing enough for the children. When she is in this state of mind she does not function to her full potential as a parent. Her condition causes her to be confused, do what is good and bad for her and for the children, her judgment about others is impaired and this affects her ability to protect herself and her children.
6. The grandparents sought a further assessment by an independent social worker, Miss Parry. I allowed this application on the basis that all avenues needed to be explored when the local authority was seeking to place both boys for adoption outside of the birth family. It was supported by the guardian. So despite the negative viability assessment by the social worker, Miss Lent, it was determined that the court would be assisted by a more detailed assessment in respect of the maternal grandparents. Miss Parry in her report dated 28^th October 2013 concludes that despite the fact they are loving grandparents they lack the necessary insight and ability to deal with the emotional difficulties that their own daughter, the mother, experienced whilst growing up and continues to experience. Miss Parry was concerned that they would not have the capacity to meet the emotional needs of the children as they grow up. There was also concern raised in respect of the grandparents' support network and in respect of their own physical capacity to cope with their grandchildren, given their own physical difficulties and reliance upon outside care. At the final hearing, which was originally listed to commence in December 2013, I determined that there were still gaps in the evidence insofar as the viability of the grandparents was concerned. I did not consider at that stage that the court could in fact reach a fully considered decision as to the final placement of the children. Miss Parry's evidence was, in my view, based on really quite minimal contact with the grandparents and I was keen to ensure that the court had all the available information, as well as ensuring that the grandparents felt they had been treated fairly. I allowed the grandparents, therefore, the instruction of a further independent social worker, Mr Terence Simmonds, to undertake a further assessment of the grandparents. This would be their third assessment within these proceedings. This was a difficult decision bearing in mind the length of time the boys had been in foster care at that stage but it was essential, in my judgment, to do justice to all of the parties including the children having regard to the draconian nature of the orders sought. That report dated 24^th January 2014 concludes that although there are some positives in respect of their care of the children, overall the grandparents currently lack the capacity to fully manage the specific emotional needs of the children to a good enough standard. The report is careful to deal with the abilities of the grandparents separately and reflects on whether either of them is able to compensate for any deficits in the other's parenting. Concerns are raised in the report about the grandparents' ability to implement effective boundaries and to be able to offer a sensitive parenting style that will be responsive to the children's needs, both now and in the future. An intensive parenting programme is recommended if the children are to be returned eventually to the grandparents' care. The report sets out too positives observed by Mr Simmonds. I shall return to this assessment and Mr Simmonds' oral evidence later in this judgment.
7. So the position is, at this final hearing, that the grandparents continue to seek the placement of both boys with them and challenge the (three) viability assessments of the social worker, Miss Lent, Miss Parry and Mr Simmonds. Neither the social worker, nor Miss Parry recommended that the children should be placed with them and Mr Simmonds concludes that the grandparents' parenting styles do not meet the needs of the children at this time.
8. I note the agreed threshold document dated 18^th April 2013. I am satisfied on the evidence that the threshold criteria are indeed met on the evidence before the court. That being the case, the issue, a stark issue indeed, is whether or not the boys should reside permanently with their grandparents, their mother agreeing that she is unable to parent them herself, or remain in care and be placed for adoption. No one else puts themselves forward for an alternate and viable option. That therefore is the issue for the court to decide. I am concerned with the welfare of each child. Their welfare is paramount. I am bound to decide this case on that principle. I have the Welfare Checklist at section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 in mind as well as the paramountcy principle enshrined in section 1 of that Act.
9. Because the care plans are for non-consensual adoption I pay special regard to a number of recent cases and decisions and the principles enunciated therein. In Re B (A child) [2013] UKSC 33 it was made clear that where non-consensual adoption is contemplated, the court should approve a care plan for adoption where nothing else will do, where no other course is possible in the child's interest. In addition, the court must be mindful of and consider the Article 8 rights of the parties and must make a decision that is proportionate in all the circumstances. In Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965 it was directed that the court should not take a linear approach to ruling the parents out; there must be a:

"Global holistic evaluation and a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weight its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared side by side against the competing option or options."

In Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 the same points were made again and analysed by the Court of Appeal. The case reiterates the need for, "Proper analysis, argument, assessment and reasoning." It also requires consideration to be given to the provision of assistance and support, which would allow a child to be placed with its parents or, in this case, the grandparents. In Re LRP (A Child: Care Proceedings Placement Order) [2013] EWHC 3974 Fam further directions were given as to how Re B-S should be approached and applied. Consideration must be given to:

"All of the realistically available competing options. The realistic as opposed to the fanciful options. It is worth reiterating that the focus should be upon the sensible and practical possibilities rather than every potential outcome, however far-fetched."

It emphasised again that adoption was a last resort and that all realistic competing options should be looked at and assessed. Furthermore and eloquently the court discussed the nature and benefits of adoption if no other realistic option was found to be available on the facts of a particular case.

"The advantages of a placement order are many and obvious. Prospective adopters are required to submit themselves to a rigorous and very thorough assessment process over many months. Those who satisfy the selection criteria are ordinarily of the highest calibre. They may be confident they expect to provide extremely good parenting to any child who is matched with him in all areas of his/her development. The overwhelming probability is that they will be able to provide her/him with the priceless gift of a happy, secure and stable childhood from which he/she will derive lifelong advantages."

10. This case law and the principles set out therein are at the forefront of my mind when considering the competing claims in this matter. All parties have addressed me on the law in final submissions and I have looked at all the authorities presented to the court. The oral evidence was heard over a day and a half. It is not necessary, in my judgment, to set out the oral evidence in detail. I intend to refer to salient and relevant parts only. Miss Dixon, the adult social worker for the grandparents, had not seen the grandparents' care of either of the children but she confirmed that adult and children Social Services were quite separate entities within the local authority and that her adult department would not provide services to meet the needs of the children if the boys were placed with the grandparents; that would be a matter for Children Social Services. She could not assist how the grandparents would cope with the boys if they lived full-time with them as she had not seen them caring for them and she accepted that it was the grandmother herself who had told her that she would be able to cope if the boys were so placed. She, Miss Dixon, accepted that she infact had no first hand knowledge of the grandparents' parenting skills.
11. Miss Lent, the social worker, conducted the negative assessment of the grandparents. She was concerned that if the grandparents were to undertake an intensive parenting course prior to the children being placed with them, a suggestion of Mr Simmonds, that such a course would be outside the timescales of the children. I heard details of such a course at the Maudsley from Miss Lent, which if undertaken would not be fully undertaken before the end of 2014. Another such course, run by Iris in Brighton, was discussed in court and details have been obtained. If commenced in mid April a report can be made available in mid June. If the grandparents engage well, further work would almost certainly be necessary. Again, Miss Lent thought this to be outside the children's timescales, especially if there was to be ongoing work beyond June 2014 and the information received suggests that that would be the case if progress had been made by the grandparents, although some consideration might be given to placing the children with them whilst the ongoing work took place, although it would have to be "very carefully considered," the director of Iris suggests in her information supplied to the court by email. Miss Lent gave credit to the grandparents for the recorded instances in the chronology when KK was seen happy and contented in his grandmother's care and that there appeared to be some attachment on his part. She agreed partially that the grandparents could in fact meet the boys' physical needs. Mr Simmonds opines that they can. She herself had reservations about this and pointed to the fact that she had observed the grandmother doing most of the practical parenting and taking responsibility. She accepted that their assistance from Adult Social Services would continue whatever but that if help was required from Children's Social Services it would have to be assessed as and when required. Miss Lent confirmed that the mother had been compliant with the local authority during its involvement in the case, especially the fact that the mother had not disrupted placement for the children and had engaged with services, including the assessment offer. Miss Lent in answer to questions from the guardian considered, when balancing risk, that the risk was too great to the boys if they were left in the grandparents' care as things stood and even taking account of a parenting course because the end result was an unknown and that that risk was greater than that resulting from their removal from their birth family.
12. The mother was emotional when giving her evidence and I can understand this, taking account of her decision not to seek the return of the children to herself. She told the court of a happy childhood, as she saw it, but accepted that she went "off the rails" (her own words) when she was a teenager, a difficult teenager, she told me. She was bullied at school and felt that she couldn't tell her parents about this, agreeing that it would have been easier if she could have spoken to her mother about the bullying. When she was living with KK and her parents they shared the care of KK equally, she said. She thought her mother might struggle once the children became bigger. Mother confirmed that she felt supported by her parents when she lived at home, although she was taken to Dr Freedman's report in cross-examination which detailed her terrible ordeals during her early to mid teenage years: depression, the victim of bullying, a sexual assault at 16 by a stranger and a rape at 18 by another stranger as well as self-harming and violent relationships with controlling men, A and then Mr K. She admitted to Dr Freedman that she was, "drunk most of the time from 15 to 18," and took drugs from age 16 to 21. She told the court with reference to these ordeals she suffered during her teenage years and the fact that it did not appear that her parents had in fact been supportive that she thought her parents could learn from these mistakes, as she put it, and that they would not make such mistakes again.
13. Mr Simmonds opined that the grandmother has the potential to be able to parent both children. He was concerned about her parenting style. It needed to be significantly warmed up, as he put it, especially in relation to KK, who has avoidant attachment difficulties. He would not place either of the children with her until she had undergone an intensive parenting course such as the one run by Iris in Brighton. Such an intervention, he said, was necessary, indeed essential, if the children were to be placed with the grandmother. As for the grandfather, he opined that his particular parenting style was not in fact going to change ever within any reasonable timescale and certainly not within the boys' timescale. He described the grandmother as brittle and irritable and quickly aroused by irritation. As the children grow older he thought this would be increasingly frustrating for them if they were living together. He pointed to the perpetual air of tension in their household and the problems that that may cause. Although not always damaging to the children, when coupled with highly critical parenting further difficulties would arise and impact upon the children, especially as these children require a high degree of nurturing and warmth, especially KK who has withdrawn into himself and requires positive intervention by his carers. Mr Simmonds was positive about his second observation of contact. The first observed contact was a disaster by all accounts and described as such by the grandparents. He concludes that the grandparents could cope physically with the care of the boys. His concerns, he told me, were emotional. It was possible, he said, if the grandmother underwent a course such as Iris in Brighton that she may be able to parent the children at some point in the future, pointing out that she had only ever cared for KK in any event. He would be looking for evidence that she could sustain and maintain change to her parenting style. He was optimistic of initial success if the grandmother underwent such a course, that was his experience in other cases, he told the court, but sustaining improvement was more problematical. Mr Simmonds thought observations of KK being a happy child with the grandmother not correct. He did not see this happy, bubbly personality now that was described in the social work chronology. He thought the positive observations of KK with the grandparents in the chronology just did not fit with their parenting style, which he had observed intently. He concluded that the best chance of KK being loved unconditionally was by him being placed with the grandmother if that was at all possible – but only after a successful intervention programme with evidence of clear and sustained change by her.
14. Mrs H gave evidence and told the court that if she was able to undertake a parenting course she would be able to deal with her grandchildren emotionally, as she put it. She told me how she and her husband were always there for their daughter during her terrible teenage years but she acknowledged that perhaps she had got it wrong, something she appreciated when she commenced the Incredible Years learning programme a few weeks ago in February. She described realisation of her own shortcomings as a parent as recent and described how she now listened more and what she had learnt in the two sessions of the Incredible Years programme she had attended thus far and she gave me various good examples in the witness box. Mrs H in cross-examination said that she would do what is required of her to have her grandsons live with her although she did not think she had in fact done anything wrong. To the guardian she said that she did struggle to understand the local authority's concerns and she acknowledged that perhaps they had got things wrong as far as Miss K was concerned, for example, that they had not shown her sufficient love and that it could be because she was lacking in warmth. She accepted that she may require some assistance with shopping if the boys were to live with her and in the park, playing, as they got older.
15. Mr H saw his role as a joint carer and he considered KK to have regressed since being placed in foster care. Nevertheless, he was prepared to undertake an intensive parenting course too and attempt to change his parenting style, notwithstanding Mr Simmonds' view that this parenting style could not be changed within the boys' timescales. He wanted to do this, as did the grandmother, ie the intensive parenting course, because they both love the boys and both wish the boys to remain within the family.
16. The guardian did not alter her views as set out in her various reports when giving oral evidence. She maintained that the risk to these very young children was extremely high because of the parenting styles of the grandparents, as observed by the local authority and two independent social workers, as well as by herself. She commented upon the grandparents' documented poor working relationship with the local authority and her fear that the grandparents would not be able to sustain benefits learnt in any parenting course (however intensive), as well as the brittle nature of the grandmother's character and her irritability generally; all these factors, she opined, would impact considerably on the children's emotional and physical stability. She wanted to see a high level of parenting skills by the grandparents now. Learning was not sufficient. There had to be an automatic response triggered by an event. That was absent. She used the example of Mrs H feeding too hot food to one of the boys without checking the temperature of the food. She considered that the grandmother did not really understand or see why she should go on an intensive parenting course. She was just going to do it because she had been asked. Some contact that she had observed had been good and she acknowledged the grandparents' love for the children and their entirely proper motives for opposing the applications before the court. In short, the guardian considered the risks too great for the children to wait to see whether their grandparents could sustain and maintain change, following, for example, the Iris, Brighton course or similar intensive parenting course. She told the court that she had undertaken a proper analysis in respect of the risks for the children if adopted and if not adopted and returned to their birth family. She accepted that there was no analysis of the boys' relationship with their grandparents but pointed to the clear evidence in the chronology of the various observations of contact. She accepted, too, that there was no specific evidence of the children being unhappy with their grandparents. She was keen to hear the grandparents' oral evidence in any event before she gave her evidence and finalised her views. That she had done.
17. I commence my consideration of the evidence on one basis, namely that the children should be placed with their own family if at all possible. I have already referred to the law in a little detail and of course I remind myself that placing children outside of their birth family is a last resort. It is accepted by the local authority and the guardian, indeed everyone, that both children are very much loved by their mother and by their grandparents and no doubt their wider family. The local authority and guardian submit that the positive advantages of the placement of the children with the grandparents are outweighed by the risks. They point particularly to the evidence of Mr Simmonds, whose overall conclusion was that although he identified some positives in respect of the grandparents' care of the children, overall they lack the capacity currently to manage fully their specific emotional needs and this applied especially to KK. He suggested intensive parenting programmes such as Iris, Brighton. Mr Simmonds stresses the need for the grandparents to maintain and sustain any changes they make through such a course. The local authority and guardian both submit that for the grandparents to successfully undergo such a programme and prove that they could maintain a sustained change would be outside of the children's timeframes, they having already been in care for almost one year. They rely on Mr Simmonds' evidence in particular that the children could not be placed with the grandparents now and that they would not be able to provide good enough parenting due to their inappropriate parenting styles, not being able to meet the boys' individual needs, especially KK, and Mrs H's lack of warmth, her brittleness and irritability. Certainly Mr Simmonds stressed the first contact session he observed when he witnessed a lack of basic parenting; the grandmother admitted to being irritated and distracted and no doubt she was nervous. She herself described that contact session as a disaster. The grandparents' ability to adapt to the ever-changing needs of the boys is questioned by the guardian particularly and Mr Simmonds noted how they coped rather better with one child when KH attended only the second part of one contact session. He told the court that when the grandmother's positive parenting of one child went up, her parenting of the other child went down. The local authority questions whether the grandparents could properly parent KK with his particular needs when exercised with parenting the younger KH. The grandfather, he opines, cannot change his style and the local authority submit that he was unable to articulate what support he would be able to provide other than, for example, "love and making them laugh." The arguments against placing the children with the grandparents are supported, the local authority and guardian submit, by the grandmother's responses in her oral evidence; the fact that she did not really feel that she needed to change her parenting in any substantial or fundamental way, that there was room for improvements and that they have had difficulties working with professionals, who they consider to be critical of their ways. I pause to say that the grandparents' difficulties in working with professionals is manifest in certain of the emails that have been sent to the court for my attention by them following the close of the evidence.
18. The local authority and guardian both submit too that the court has to take account of the way the mother was parented by her parents, these grandparents. The grandmother accepts that initially she was not there for her daughter during the crucial teenage years, when, as described by the mother, she came off the rails. She then appeared to have a change of heart, denying that she knew that Samantha had been bullied at school, was having inappropriate sexual relations at 16 and on suicide watch at age 17. The local authority relies particularly on the mother's evidence that she felt she could not confide in her mother at that age and that generally the grandmother has little or no insight into her daughter's difficulties during these important and formative years or indeed into her own dysfunctional parenting, as the local authority describes it.
19. The grandparents assert their good emotional care of KK when he lived with them and rely on the references in the chronology and papers generally to his attachment to them; for example, he is described as developing his own identity and having a bubbly personality. The grandfather asserts that KK's development has deteriorated since he left their care, for example in his speech. Asked the question whether they are able to parent the boys, they assert and the evidence tends to support their assertion, that they are able to parent them physically with assistance, as now, from Adult Social Services. Mr Simmonds does not rule them out as parents on the basis of their physical disability on the basis that they are entitled to assistance from Adult Social Services and if the children were living with them some form of assistance may be forthcoming from Children's Social Services as well. The social worker was rather more circumspect in her evidence, having observed the grandmother doing most of the practical care when KK lived with them. She considered that there were (in fact) some difficulties with their physical care and this might increase as these two very young boys became older and more demanding, a view (indeed, a concern) expressed by the guardian. As I say, accepting Mr Simmonds' evidence, the grandparents with all their disabilities and lack of mobility are not ruled out as potential carers on the basis they would be unable to physically care for their grandchildren. The grandparents in submissions also assert that the local authority is able to provide support and should do so and if there is a very good chance that such support would bring about a pivotal improvement, adoption is not a proportionate response. The guardian and the local authority are criticised for not providing adequate analyses in relation to adoption, notwithstanding several reports from the guardian and three assessments of the grandparents. In my judgment this criticism ignores the proper analysis of placement options and the effects of such on the family and the children found in the social worker's most recent statement dated February 2014 and in the final care plans for each child. I read that evidence together with the evidence in the Guardian's several reports and in the three assessments of the grandparents. It was essential too for the court to hear the grandparents' oral evidence when the level of insight into their own needs in terms of parenting and in terms of the concerns of the local authority could indeed be assessed.
20. As far as mother's very considerable difficulties as a teenager are concerned, the grandparents rely on Dr Freedman's diagnosis of mother's significant difficulties of her own at that time. It is said that she was not neglected by her parents and that the local authority and the guardian are making too much of this aspect of the case.
21. I have paid especial attention to the details of the Iris, Brighton intensive parenting course. I set out some important features of it here, the provider having been sent essential papers in this case prior to a response which I sought during the course of this hearing. I now quote a few paragraphs from an email received from Iris by all parties following submissions:

"Both Mr and Mrs H demonstrated in their changed scores between Mr Simmonds' first and second observations that they were able to make changes. It is difficult for me to ascertain that the first observation was unusually bad or whether they were able to utilise advice and guidance to increase their scores so significantly in the second session. If the latter, this offers hope that they would be able to use the model to increase their child-centred interaction and develop a warmer tune relationship with the children. The model is behavioural but time and again we have observed that when parents or carers start to act on the instruction and guidance given and see the difference this makes to the child and the way the child responds to them they begin to feel differently themselves and differently towards the child. This can set in motion a positive cycle, which leads to an internalising of the skills sought so that they are not just doing them but believing and feeling differently so that their interactions with the children are also different but become part of them rather than something they do. The model uses high degrees of praise to encourage and therefore Mr and Mrs H may engage better than they have with some of the professionals as they would feel less criticised. Nevertheless, there can be no guarantee of change. Indeed Mr Simmonds considers it unlikely that Mr H will achieve the necessary change.

As stated earlier, from the reports seen both Mr and Mrs H are starting from a very low level and in the dysfunctional range of parenting it is extremely unlikely that change of the type I have discussed above could be effected in the six sessions that I have given a cost estimate for. We could undertake an assessment of Mr and Mrs H as outlined in my earlier email. We could start in early mid April subject to a suitable venue being identified and complete within eight to ten weeks to file a report in early June. This report would be able to demonstrate how Mr and Mrs H were working with the model, if they can remember and utilise skills and changes from one session to the next and whether they are able to build and increase their child centred responses and decrease their child directed behaviours. It would also be possible to begin to see whether they value these changes and therefore might start to internalise them. Conversely, it would also identify if they were unable to make use of the model or if the pace of change would be too slow to be realistic in regard to the children being placed in their care. At this stage it would therefore be possible to identify if further work is needed or not. Even if they engage well it is very likely that further ongoing work would be necessary beyond this to be used as an intervention for therapeutic change rather than a brief assessment tool.

If it was decided to place KK and KH with Mr and Mrs H it might be possible for this to happy alongside the more therapeutic way, so they need not be in foster care until it was fully completed. The timing of this will need to be very carefully considered. There would need to be a degree of professional confidence that Mr and Mrs H had made sufficient progress that there would be no slippage if the children lived with them as this would be extremely detrimental to both KK and KH. It might be several months or longer before such confidence could be expressed and it is not possible to be definitive about a timeframe at this juncture."

That is from the email from Iris Brighton.

22. I am struck by the fact that it is "very likely" that further ongoing work will be necessary, even if the grandparents engage well because they start at a very low level of dysfunction in respect of parenting skills, as described in the email. This chimes with Mr Simmonds' evidence of their lack of parenting skills currently and the fact that they must maintain and sustain that which they have learnt following such a course. It is in fact not possible to say when or if the children could be placed with the grandparents, if further work following the initial ten weeks was proposed. It all depends on the engagement of the grandparents and whether any change for the better can be sustained and maintained. The risk to these children in these circumstances and in my judgment is manifest. They have been in foster care for almost 12 months; KH for almost all his life and KK for just under half his life. I have to balance very carefully the risk to them of remaining in foster care awaiting the outcome of any parenting course and any follow up in the event that the grandparents engaged well (an indeterminable length of time at this stage) against the risk to these boys of placing them now permanently outside of their birth family. I accept on the evidence that with some support the grandparents are able to physically care for these children, notwithstanding the grandparents' very serious disabilities, although as the children grow and their needs change it may well be that they will require more assistance and day-to-day care. It is their emotional care which the court is most concerned with, the day-to-day emotional care of two very young boys, one of whom, KK, is in a state of emotional withdrawal/avoidant attachment, as diagnosed in the paediatric assessment which I have looked at. I note the reported incidences of KK being content in the care of his grandparents and some attachment, as well as incidences of emotional warmth on the part of the grandmother. These are, I find, at odds with the observations of Mr Simmonds in particular. His response was that he had conducted an in depth assessment of the grandparents and he had reached a different conclusion. He had no information as to the expertise of the reporting officer in respect of those incidences, he emphasised. I am sure that there were incidences of some emotional warmth between grandmother and the boys but I note Mr Simmonds' expert assessment that the grandmother fundamentally lacks emotional warmth - she needs warming up emotionally, as he put it - and also the fact that Mr Simmonds emphasised several times that these children need a high level of nurturing and warmth and that these grandparents cannot provide that without undergoing an intensive parenting course, the outcome (and length) of which is unknown. I accept and prefer the evidence of Mr Simmonds.
23. Mrs H came over whilst giving her oral evidence just as described by Mr Simmonds and the social worker - as brittle and irritated; I take account of the fact that she was nervous and upset whilst giving her evidence and was having problems with her hearing aid. I regret to say this as she clearly loves the children and wants the best for each of them. She struggled, in my judgment, to see what the concerns were about her daughter's parenting of the children and of note, in my judgment, she did not appear to think that she, herself, really needed to change her parenting style in any fundamental way. There was, I regret to say again, an element of lip service when she accepted in evidence the need for an intensive parenting course. Of equal if not of more significance was her attitude to her own parenting of her daughter and the terrible ordeals she, the mother, endured during her teenage years. I ask myself rhetorically - where were the parents when Miss K was being bullied at school, sexually abused by strangers, including a rape, and in an abusive relationship all between the ages of 16 and 19 leaving aside the question of the daughter's (admitted) addiction to drink and drugs or so it seems during those years? I fully accept that the mother has problems of her own, identified by Dr Freedman, but I find the fact that the mother felt that she could not confide in her own mother in respect of, for example, the bullying at school very troubling indeed.
24. I find on the evidence that the grandmother and the grandfather too both lack insight into their own daughter's difficulties and, importantly, into their own dysfunctional parenting of their daughter, the dysfunctional parenting identified by Dr Simmonds in his report. The local authority and guardian's submission that history is a good indicator of future care is, in my judgment, supported by the evidence in this case. It is of very great concern to the court when dealing with the welfare of these two very young children. Both boys but especially KK have suffered the emotional setbacks as described by the guardian during their short lives. Before they can be cared for by the grandparents the grandparents have to:

(1) engage successfully in an intensive parenting course of indeterminate length,

(2) maintain and sustain that which they learn, and

(3) the developmental setbacks and attachment difficulties would need to be addressed in respect of both boys, as opined by Mr Simmonds in his report.

Meanwhile, the boys would remain in foster care until their grandparents are ready to commence parenting. Mrs H may have the potential to care for the children with the support of her husband and Mr Simmonds may well be correct when he said in evidence that the best chance for KK to be loved unconditionally is by his grandmother but in my judgment and having read the details of the parenting course envisaged it is all, in fact, too uncertain. I am not convinced at all that such an intensive parenting course would be successful, having seen and heard the grandmother give evidence and taking account of the body of evidence surrounding the history of the grandparents' parenting of their daughter, nor that the grandmother in particular would be able to maintain and sustain any change in her parenting style. I have had the very real benefit of hearing her in the witness box and I regret to say that there was manifestly a lack of insight into how she parented her own daughter and how she had to change if there was to be any chance of her parenting her grandchildren. Her recent enrolment with the Incredible Years programme may well assist her with some skills and I hope it does but it is too little too late for these boys. I have also had the benefit of three independent assessments, none of them positive and all critical of parenting style.

I am very conscious that removal from the birth family is an option of last resort. I am very conscious of my duty to look at all the options globally; that I have done. Contrary to criticism of the guardian and local authority by the grandparents, I find they have done too. I am not at all persuaded the children's welfare will be promoted by having them wait even longer than they have already to see whether their grandmother can change her parenting style sufficiently so they can be safely and effectively parented. There is, in my judgment, much evidence to suggest that such change will take a long time a coming, if at all. I have already dealt with my grave concerns as to the parenting of their own daughter and my finding that history in this case is a good indicator of future care. My task is to evaluate all the options, as it was said in Re BS, undertaking a global, holistic and multifaceted evaluation of the child's welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons of each option. I have performed a balancing exercise. I have compared the option of the children remaining within the family with the grandparents with the only other option, which is permanent placement outside the family by means of adoption. The timescales for change by the grandparents, especially the grandmother, I find are wholly outside the timescales of these two very young children (leaving aside how these grandparents might cope physically with these boys as they become older and more demanding). They require security and nurturing in a permanent placement as soon as possible. This will deal to some extent with their development setbacks, a matter that cannot be left. The information from Iris, Brighton only confirms my view that even if the grandparents engage by the middle of June, many months would elapse before a judgment call could be made in respect of their sustaining and maintaining improvements and whether these children could be moved safely into their care. The simple fact is that at present the grandparents are unable to provide warm, nurturing and suitable parenting for the ever-changing needs of the children during their minority to a good enough standard. That is, I find, the evidence in this case.

25. I prefer the evidence of the professionals in this case to that of the grandparents where it conflicts. There is no evidence before the court that, on the balance of probabilities, it can conclude that there is at least a good chance that they, the grandparents, will be able to achieve and more importantly sustain and maintain the necessary changes needed in their parenting styles in order to afford these particular children the care they need and all (importantly) within the children's timescales. The children have been in foster care since April 2013, a fact I have repeated more than once in this judgment because it is, in my judgment, so very important. Further delay to a decision being taken in respect of their permanence in my judgment can only have a detrimental effect on their emotional wellbeing (having due regard as to how they present now) and I have regard to all the details of a protracted intensive parenting course in reaching that conclusion. The children require stability and permanency. The timescale for achieving that is already overdue, in my view. They cannot wait in the hope, for that is what it is, that at some time in the future their grandparents might be able to change their parenting style to accommodate the children's very clear emotional needs. In my judgment, the prognosis for the grandparents being able to achieve sustainable change is poor at best and not at all within the children's timescales.
26. I am satisfied that the professionals in this case and indeed the court have conducted a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated and compared. The mother commendably has appreciated that she is unable to care for the children. No other family members or friends are available. I have been concerned in the main in this case at looking at the grandparents' case, the positives and negatives, as against removing the children from the family. There are no gaps in the evidence; Mr Simmonds' report is more than comprehensive and although the guardian accepted some criticism from the grandparents' counsel, her reporting of various analyses, taking all of her reports together, is for want of a better expression, Re BS compliant. The realistic, competing and available options are placement with the grandparents or placement outside the family. In my judgment, these children with all their attendant difficulties cannot wait for the grandparents to prove that they can parent and nurture them properly with emotional warmth and importantly sustain the same. Whilst the disadvantage of making a placement order is that the children will be deprived of being brought up within their birth family, in my judgment this is in fact the only realistic option for them which will promote their welfare. Placement orders will provide them with almost immediate security and permanence, which can only promote their welfare not just during their minorities but also throughout their lives. I have the Adoption Welfare Checklist as set out in the Adoption Act well in mind. For all these reasons, threshold not being in dispute and which I find proved in any event, I will make care orders and placement orders in respect of each of these children. I approve the care plans for adoption and I dispense with the consent of the mother in respect of the placement application, the children's welfare requiring me so to do.
27. I appreciate how upset the grandparents will be with this decision, as will be their mother. They all love these children very much and only want what is best for them. I hope that when the dust settles, if it ever does, that they might be able to appreciate that the court's decisions are in the best interests of each of these children and are made with one objective: to promote their welfare, as paramount as it is, throughout their lives. I very much hope that they are able to meet with any prospective adopters in due course, if that is their wish. This is the judgment of the court.
------------------------