England and Wales County Court (Family)

IN THE CHELMSFORD COUNTY COURT

		Priory Place, New London Rd CM3 1FD
		5th March 2014

Conventions used in anonymising this judgment include: M for mother F for father C for child

HHJ Murfitt:

1. This case concerns C a young baby born on 4^th September 2012 who is now aged 1year and 5months. Her mother is M who is aged 35 and her father is F who is aged 55. They are married and so both have parental responsibility in relation to her. Both parents were born in Pakistan and are practising Muslims. They are also cousins. F is a British Pakistani national, and having lived in Britain since he was a young man, he speaks fluent English. He is a successful businessman, and by a previous marriage he has four adult sons and two adult daughters, three of whom live in England, in the Southend and Luton area. M is a Pakistani national and she first came to this country upon her marriage to F in December 2011. She was previously married in Pakistan and sadly experienced two stillbirths before that marriage ended in divorce as a result she said, of her first husband's violence towards her. She speaks very limited English, and she has accordingly been assisted throughout these proceedings by an interpreter. C is M's only child, and F's seventh. Both parents are practising Muslims and C is accordingly of British Pakistani Muslim heritage. F's son K shares the marital home together with his wife S and their baby Fk who is close in age to C.
2. On the day after C's birth at Southend University Hospital, the Police obtained a Police Protection Order in relation to her under 46 Children Act 1989, in circumstances which I will mention shortly. Two days later on 7^th September 2013 the Southend Borough Council issued the present application, by which they seek a final care order in relation to C. An interim care order was made on 11^th September 2012, and therefore for most of her life to date C has been living in foster care.
3. The reasons for the Local Authority intervening in C's family life are set out in the threshold document dated 26^th November 2013, and it is accepted by the parents that C was at risk of significant harm attributable to her parental care when protective measures were first taken in relation to her on 5^th September 2013, by reason of the matters set out therein.
4. Taking matters in chronological order, Southend Social Services first involvement with the family came following the report of an incident of Domestic Violence made by M to the Police on 11^th July 2012 whilst she was pregnant with C. On that day she went to the Police Station to report that her husband had slapped her around the face, pulled her hair, and punched her in the stomach. A safe location was found for her to stay in, but she chose to return to live with her husband in August 2012, suggesting at the time that it was the first incident of violence. She has since retracted her allegations of violence altogether, and has maintained throughout these proceedings that she made the allegation up to punish her husband for his insensitivity towards her, and effectively to save her marriage. Social workers found it difficult to obtain a consistent account of the events which led her to make the report in the first place.
5. Prior to her return home M went to stay with some relatives in London and missed two ante natal appointments at Southend University Hospital on 19^th and 26^th July 2012. Following her return to the family home, social workers attempts to contact her proved difficult. Meanwhile Police checks were undertaken by the Local Authority which revealed that F had been categorised as a 'high risk offender' by reason of a conviction for battery imposed on 24^th March 2008 in relation to an incident between him and an ex partner, also entailing criminal damage, and breach of a non molestation order. There was also a conviction for harassment in relation to his ex-partner imposed on 12^th February 2010, which led to an indefinite restraining order being made in May 2011. In the light of this discovery the Local Authority was understandably concerned that M's allegations of violence against her husband may be true, notwithstanding her retraction.
6. Soon after her birth, C was noted to have dysmorphic features including asymmetry of the mouth, an imperfectly formed right ear, an abnormal upper right eyelid, and growth inside her right nostril. The opinion of Consultant Geneticist Dr Kumar is that it is likely that C has a condition known as 'Goldenhar Syndrome', the main features of which include hemifacial microsomia. As a result of her post natal difficulties in feeding, C needed to be fed through a naso-gastric tube for a period of time after her birth. A renal scan also revealed that she has only one kidney. In addition C has congenital hypothyroidism for which she will require to take medication for the rest of her life.
7. On the 5^th September M absconded from the hospital with her new born baby, and was located by Police by a phone box in Southend High Street. In her evidence she said she was frightened by something the hospital interpreter had said which led her to believe that the social services intended to take her baby away from her, and so she had taken a taxi from the hospital intending to go to her solicitors in Walthamstow. However she said when she was dropped in central Southend which she was then unfamiliar with, she did not know whether she was near her solicitors or not. After bringing her back to the hospital, the Police reported that they had to physically prevent M from leaving hospital with C on two further occasions, although she said on those occasions that she had only left the ward to fetch some tea, and next to ask the officers when her husband would be arriving since she believed they had called him. In these circumstances the Police obtained a PPO. M's actions in removing baby C from the medical supervision and care which she was receiving, clearly placed C at a serious risk of harm at that time, not least because of her baby's need for gastro-nasal feeding which had yet to be established, and which neither of the parents had been trained to undertake. In view of the number of medical conditions C was born with, there was also concern that the baby's health needs were not understood by her mother. Ironically it seems it was M's fear and uncertainty that the Local Authority intended to remove her baby which prompted her to leave the hospital with C, whilst it was also that very action which undoubtedly prompted the Police and then the Local Authority to commence the proceedings when they did.
8. The matters which I have mentioned formed the threshold for the Local Authority intervening to protect C, and the parents conceded at an early stage that the threshold was made out in September 2013, in that C was likely to suffer harm attributable to her parents' care at the time when the Local Authority took protective steps and instituted the proceedings. The Issue now remains as to whether C continues to be likely to suffer significant harm in the future care of her mother and father if a final care order is not made, or whether C's paramount welfare demands that she is placed outside her family in the light of the considerations in s1 Children act 1989
9. It will be noted that these proceedings have been unresolved for an unusually long period of time. This is principally because by April 2013 all parties were agreed that a phased rehabilitation of C to her parents' care should be undertaken. HHJ Harris had directed a parenting assessment by independent social worker Yasmin Hossain which was completed 8.2.13. In addition a multi-disciplinary psychiatric assessment of the parents by Consultant Child Psychiatrist Dr Anjum Bashir was directed and was filed on 12.12.12. At that time both of these professionals supported the rehabilitation of C to her parents' care, and so it was that a rehabilitation programme was duly approved to take place over a proposed 8 week period commencing from 1st April 2013. Contact between C and her parents was introduced for extended periods of time in the home on three and then four days of the week, practically supported by Punjabi/Urdu speaking family support workers. Thereafter the programme was increased to include three days from 10.30am until 4pm and two overnight contacts from 4pm until 11am each week from 3^rd May 2013. Initially the plan progressed very well, and at the looked after children review on 16 May 2013 the Independent reporting officer's report noted that C "is said to have a very good routine, she is very settled with her family." The report went on to record that the allocated social worker Binesh Kappan "shared that as contact is going very well and the parents are receptive to advice given, it seems likely that C will return to the care of her parents, and he also provided a date for the planned rehabilitation for 27^th June 2013, and the Local Authority will be seeking a supervision order."
10. However in June 2013 the parents' relationship with their family support worker and social worker broke down, in circumstances which I shall refer to later in this judgment, and the rehabilitation plan was halted by the Local Authority. Although it was suggested on behalf of the Local Authority and the Guardian during the hearing that the Local Authority did not abandon the rehabilitation plan until September, I am satisfied that it was within approximately a month of the looked after child review on 16^th May 2013 that the Local Authority had reached the conclusion that they would not support any continuation of the rehabilitation plan. This is apparent from the first paragraph of a position statement prepared on behalf of the Local Authority on 17^th June 2013 wherein it was plainly stated that "The Local Authority no longer supports the reunification plan previously set in place for the child to be returned to the full time care of the parents in the future."
11. Pursuant to the rehabilitation plan C had been spending time with her parents on five days of the week including two overnight occasions, however from the beginning of June the Local Authority determined that overnight contact should be withdrawn. In the 17 June position statement the Local Authority proposed that supervised weekly contact might continue on 4 weekly occasions within the family home. No amended care plan was filed, but in the light of this turn of events the parents applied to the Court for a contact order under s34(3). At the hearing listed before DJ Shanks on 9 August 2013 the Local Authority reiterated that it did not support the resumption of the rehabilitation plan and that it proposed reducing contact to twice per week pending the final hearing. Whilst criticising the Local Authority for failing to file an interim care plan or the updated report of Independent Social Worker Mrs Yasmin Hossain as had been previously directed, the Court made no other contact orders in relation to C apart from timetabling addendum reports from Mrs Hossain and Dr Bashir and giving detailed directions for the matter to be concluded in a 5 day final hearing commencing 21st October 2013. Since the autumn of last year the enduring pattern of contact between C and her family has continued to entail supervised contact of two hours twice a week supported by an interpreter at a Local Authority contact centre.
12. Unfortunately DJ Shanks's timetable was not complied with by the Local Authority as detailed in the recitals to the orders which I made on 4^th October 2013, and 11^th October 2013. Once received the addendum reports of Yasmin Hossain dated 18.8.2013 and Dr Bashir dated 27 .9.2013 expressed conflicting opinions as to whether C's needs would best be met by placement within or outside of her family, and thus it was the final hearing came to be replaced by a professionals meeting on 21^st October, whilst the final hearing was re-listed for seven days between 10^th and 20^th December 2013. In the event I heard oral evidence from some ten witnesses (including Mrs Hossain via video link from India, and Dr Bashir who attended in person, as did three of the family support workers) over a total of 12 days concluding on 28^th January 2014. This was followed by lengthy written submissions from each party which were provided in the first week of February.
13. In the care plan filed on behalf of the Local Authority dated 1.10.13 the Local Authority confirmed that it would be seeking final care and placement orders in relation to C, and in a case management order of 11.10.13 I gave directions for any application under s22(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to be filed and served by 22 November 2013, and for that application to be consolidated with the care proceedings subject to the provision of a report covering all matters specified under rule 29 of the Family Procedure (Adoption) Rules 2005. I directed the Guardian's appointment upon the issue of that Placement application, and in that event, gave permission for her to provide a single report dealing with both applications. Although neither the Placement application nor the Rule 29 report were filed in accordance with those directions, the Guardian Sue Johnson indicated her support for the care plan and the making of both final care and placement orders in her final analysis dated 8 December 2013.
14. In addition to care and Placement orders the care plan dated 1.10.2013 had proposed there should be both letterbox contact and one occasion of direct contact between C and her parents each year. Having been directed to file their final evidence and care plan by 22^nd November 2013 an amended plan was lodged on 26 November 2013, and this deleted the previous reference to direct contact between C and her birth family, however the plan did not include any further narrative explanation or analysis in respect of that change .
15. Surprisingly whilst the final care plan dated 26 November 2013 referred to the fact that the case was to be presented to the adoption decision maker on 3^rd December 2013, no Placement application or Rule 29/Annexe B report was in fact filed by the Local Authority either in accordance with the directions given by the Court on 11.10.2013, or thereafter during December. FPR 2010 rule 14.9 places a mandatory duty on the Local Authority to provide notice and written reasons of any request to dispense with parental consent to an adoption, and my directions provided for this to be done by 22^nd November 2013. Further by paragraph 13(12) of the order the consolidation of the two applications was expressly made subject to provision of the rule 29 report. Nevertheless by the date on which the final hearing began, neither the application nor its supporting documentation had been filed or served. Notwithstanding that the Court was advised at the outset of the hearing that the application and report would be attended to directly, during the first 7 days of the hearing between 10^th and 20^th December 2013, it was not.
16. The hearing was then adjourned part-heard to January 2014 for a further three days, yet even in the intervening time the Court Office had received no documentation in relation to the proposed placement application, nor was it available by the time the hearing resumed on 14^th January 2014, or over the next three days. Despite question being raised as to its absence, no explanation was offered by the Local Authority. For their part F and M firmly indicated their opposition to both such applications, and sought the return of C to their care. Ultimately it was not until 27^th January 2014 that the application for a placement order in relation to C was received in the Court office and issued together with an Annexe B report dated 13 January 2014 and a statement of facts dated 18^th December 2013. These items were then served on 28^th January 2014 which was the twelfth and final day of the hearing, and quite some time after the parents' oral evidence had been completed. No explanation for the lateness of service was proffered either in Court or within counsel's final written submissions received on 3^rd February 2014. It also follows that the Guardian's final analysis dated 8 December 2013 was completed without sight or consideration of the documents filed in support of the placement application. Even had I been able to reach the conclusion that a placement order was appropriate for C by the end of this lengthy hearing, I consider it would have been wrong to make the order in the light of the Local Authority's flagrant disregard of the rules and the Court's directions, which underpin the most basic requirements of natural justice in ensuring that parents faced with the ultimate order dispensing with their consent to the adoption of their child, receive adequate service of the documentation relating to the placement application in the proper way. It ought not to need repeating that placement orders are amongst the most draconian of orders that can be made in relation to a child, and service of such applications and their supporting documentation ought not to be treated as some superfluous afterthought within the related care proceedings.
17. I am also surprised that the Guardian did not consider the omission worthy of any particular comment. Not least since this is a case in which there is a fundamental divergence of opinion being expressed in the supplemental reports of the two instructed experts, namely the independent social worker Yasmin Hossain and Consultant child Psychologist Dr Bashir, as to the capacity of C's parents to meet her needs, and as to the merits of any further attempts being made towards rehabilitation. In short Mrs Hossain supported the making of a final care order and placement of C in a substitute family, whereas Dr Bashir considered that therapeutic input for the family is likely to enhance the family's ability work in partnership with the professionals, and allow the safe rehabilitation of C to her family's care, which he considers to be in her best interests. Neither the professionals meeting organised by the Guardian in advance of the final hearing, nor further cross examination in oral evidence served to lessen the firm differences of opinion held between these two independent experts instructed in the case.
18. Three viability assessments were carried out by the Local Authority on other family members. Two assessments in relation to F's adult sons (C's half brothers) were positive, but were discontinued after they informed the Authority that they were unable to care for C in the long term. A third in relation to Mrs PA (another paternal relative) was positive but concluded negatively when the Special Guardianship assessment was commissioned, due to concerns about her health, and her lack of insight into the concerns raised by Local Authority in relation to C's parenting. More recently a fourth extended family member Mr AH together with his partner Ms AA were proposed and assessed as Special Guardians, but their assessment concluded that they were unsuitable to care for C's needs after it emerged that AH had an historic conviction for violence against a minor.
19. During his oral evidence C's allocated social worker Mr Binesh Kappan outlined that despite a search of national data by the Local Authority's adoption team, there exists no Asian family able or willing to take a child with C's disability. He observed that 99% of Asian Muslim couples typically want a child without health needs. However he added that C's foster carers (who are white non-Muslims, but familiar with C's needs having looked after her since birth) are willing to be long-term linked to C under a care order. He said he had discussed the possibility of a special guardianship or adoption order with the female foster carer, as well as her right to oppose any special guardianship package, but that she would have to be assessed under the regulations as to her capacity to meet C's needs throughout her upbringing. It was noted that a possible obstacle to the foster parents' approval as C's long term carers may be that they and C's family now know each other, and continue to live in the same geographical area.
20. Whilst the final care plan and supporting evidence refers to the Local Authority's intention to pursue a "robust adoption plan" the possible placement of C with her foster carers in the longer term was not referred to as an option. In her oral evidence the Guardian Mrs Johnson indicated that it is a "standard question" which she said she usually puts to any carer who has been a foster parent for some time. In this case Mrs Johnson said in her oral evidence that she had asked the female foster carer if she had considered taking on C's full time care in the future, and that she had responded that she had considered it, but had not mentioned it to the social worker, being aware of the 'cultural issues'. She indicated that if a better cultural match should not be available for C, then she would be willing to consider adopting her.
21. It is apparent that a plan for C to remain with her foster carer was not one which had been considered until after completion of the Guardian's final report on 8 December 2014. In the tabular "Pros and Cons Analysis" included within that report, 'special guardianship' is not an order which has been considered, and it is argued under the option of 'long term fostering' that this will not provide the stability and permanence that C needs to reach her lifetime potential. A similar tabular analysis appearing in the Annexe B report complied by the Local Authority as recently as the 13^th January 2014 does include consideration of a special guardianship order, but only in respect of C's extended family members, whilst under the option of 'long term foster care' it is recorded only that the foster carers "may inform that they are not able to meet C's long term needs" and that "there is no guarantee that C will have a consistent foster carer." The evidence as to the likely availability of a permanent alternative home for C outside of her family is presently therefore in a state of some uncertainty.
22. In paragraph 3 of the final written submissions dated 27.1.2014 and filed by Miss White the Guardian's representative, the principal issues of concern which inform the Local Authority's case are succinctly summarised thus: "(i) The father's history of domestic violence and unresolved issues of allegations of domestic violence in the current relationship between the parents; (ii) An inability of both parents to fully understand and therefore meet all of C's medical needs; (iii) An unwillingness or inability of each of the parents to work in partnership with professionals who have sought to put in advice, guidance and assistance to support the return of C to her parents' care; and (iv) Despite stated good intentions, a lack of practical support from extended family members or any other support network".
23. On behalf of the parents it is submitted that the evidence supporting the first of Southend Borough Council's concerns relating to domestic violence all predates the commencement of these proceedings, and was taken into account by the Local Authority as well as the instructed experts when they concluded that this should not preclude C's rehabilitation to her family between April and June of last year. This point has some force to it, nevertheless I have also re-considered the evidence on its own merit since the risk of violence between her parents represents one of the aspects of prospective harm which C may be at risk of suffering, to which I must have regard under s1(3) (e) of the 1989 Act as well as s1(4) (e) of the 2002 Act.
24. Prior to his marriage to M, F was involved in a live-in relationship of some 5 years with a Ms MJ, until an Ex Parte non molestation order and non-communication was made in the Bow County Court on 20^th February 2008 for one year. Following this F was convicted of battery and criminal damage and a community order imposed as a result of damaging a door which he forced open, and as a result of grabbing his partner's jaw and pushing her against a wall during an argument on 24^th March 2008. Although F pleaded guilty to this offence it is fair to say he minimised his responsibility somewhat by referring to the level of physical contact as having been very small and involving no injury, and attributing his guilty plea to advice he had received that even the slightest touch would be an assault. There is some suggestion that this order was replaced by an undertaking, and that this was also breached. Although F recalled that he had given an undertaking, he denied having breached it. The papers disclosed within the Court bundle did not include a copy of an undertaking or any order consequent upon a breach of one either. I note that in December 2008 (two months before the non molestation order expired) F was involved in a serious road accident in which he sustained head injuries as well as fractures to three of his four limbs and his ribs. Another non-molestation and non-communication order was however made on 15^th October 2010 following an inter partes hearing. This arose as a result of numerous unwanted love letters and bunches of flowers which F continued to send to Ms MJ between July and August of 2010, and which also resulted in his conviction for harassment on 12 July 2011 when a fine and an indefinite restraining order were imposed upon him prohibiting him from contacting Ms MJ or going near where she lived. F accepted that he did send these items, but said that he did not think his communications were wrong at the time because they were not abusive. Within his multi-disciplinary psychiatric assessment of F Dr Bashir noted that F was clear and open about having missed his ex-partner when he was unwell following his road accident, and Dr Bashir considered that his disinhibited behaviour would be an expected consequence or result of his brain injury.
25. On 11^th July 2012 M attended Laindon Police Station to report through an interpreter that during an argument with her husband earlier that day, over her wish to telephone her family in Pakistan, he had slapped her around the face, pulled her hair, and punched her in the stomach. Although the Police recorded that she had no visible injuries, they noted that she was pregnant and due on 4^th September, and that she also expressed concern for her health having suffered two previous miscarriages. In assessing the level of risk to the victim the Police interview covered a list of 29 specific pre-prepared questions designed to elicit further details such as the frequency of any abuse, and whether it entailed any threats from the perpetrator or others. In response to these questions M agreed that arguments with her husband were a daily occurrence and that this turned to violence 2 or 3 times a month, and was increasing in frequency, and that the abuse from her husband had also included threats to kill her, and that she was afraid of others in the house including her stepson and his wife who were unhappy that their father had remarried.
26. On 12^th July F was arrested, and when asked for an explanation in interview he conceded that he and his wife did have arguments in their marriage. He maintained and that his wife had said to him on many occasions that the British police always side with the woman in cases of domestic violence, and that she had threatened to accuse him of this and then divorce him, indicating that she believed she would then be entitled to half of an insurance payout he had received. F said he had never laid a hand on his wife and had never been violent to her, and that there had been three other people at home on the day, who could confirm that nothing had happened before she had stormed out saying she was going to the Police. He also suggested that she might want to get back with her ex husband and bring him over to this country.
27. Six weeks later on the 28^th August 2012 M went in to the Police station to sign another statement in which she retracted her previous complaint stating that she wanted to get back with her husband, that no one had forced her to retract, that she had made the decision on her own, and that she would not support a prosecution, even though she understood her husband might still be charged and she might be ordered to give evidence against him. In the event due to lack of evidence, no further police action was taken beyond a referral to social services at the time of the complaint.
28. In her written statement of 18^th October 2012 M maintained as she has done throughout these proceedings that she lied to the Police, and said the things she did as the result of listening to other people, to prevent her marriage breaking down. She said she was afraid that her husband was going to leave her for MJ, and believed at the time that if she made a false complaint to the Police it would deter him from doing so. She says she tried to explain to social workers who came to see her at the time of C's birth that her husband had been using MJ's name rather than hers on a daily basis and was afraid that her husband's former relationship with MJ which had led to the break up of his first marriage, might do the same to hers. She denied that they had argued over her calling her family Pakistan, stating that her husband had in fact bought her a mobile phone and calling cards so she could do so. Whilst conceding they had minor arguments like other couples, M firmly denied that F had ever hit her or threatened to kill her, and confirmed her relationship with her step son K and his wife was also a good one.
29. I asked Dr Bashir during his oral evidence whether he did not think it perhaps counter intuitive for M to have reported her husband to the Police if she wished to save her marriage. He did not. He explained that given her unsuccessful first marriage and her husband addressing her as his ex-partner M had become paranoid, and somewhat isolated, since she was not socialising when she first entered the country, and was therefore exploitable. He said that F's inappropriate use of words, whilst unhelpful, were also more likely to be due to poor word finding and impulsive speech rather than a romantic drift towards his ex-partner. Back in December 2012 Dr Bashir noted that F was insightful that the name "MJ" comes out when he is distracted and less vigilant.
30. He said that M had explained that a relative had advised her that going to the Police was the way of teaching your husband a lesson in this country, and that here you might get half the property on any divorce. In her oral evidence M was particularly tearful in repeating her regret time and again for having lied to the Police. She said that in Pakistan when a spouse makes a complaint to the Police the authorities usually require the couple to undertake mediation, and it was evident that she considered herself primarily responsible for the Local Authority's intervention in her family's life because of what she had done.
31. It is not possible to make any satisfactory findings on the evidence as to whether or not M's complaint against her husband was wholly or even partially true. However it is notable that apart from those original allegations made by M there is no other evidence of domestic violence within the parents' relationship. Over the course of the last 17 months it is fair to observe that the couple have been heavily monitored by numerous professionals including social workers, medical staff, and four family support workers who have spent extended periods of time in their company (approaching 120 hours in all) both within the family home and outside of it. On behalf of M it is submitted that although there are a limited number of references to normal tensions within the family home, the contact notes are otherwise littered with positives about how the mother and father get on well, work well as a team and support each other in difficult circumstances. That is true, and whilst it is clearly important to bear in mind that the history points to F having the potential for domestic violence, this must be balanced against the contrary evidence which does not indicate that such potential has manifest itself in this marriage, in any discernable way such as to present a significant risk of harm to C. F can be fairly criticised for being controlling and overbearing at times, not just domestically, but to the world at large. He is used to running a large dry cleaning business with a number of outlets, and being much older than M with 6 adult children of his own, he doubtless considers he has greater experience of parenting than does his wife. I accept that as a young and a new mother, who has lost two children prior to giving birth to C, M is generally cautious and conscientious in her approach to parenting her daughter, but the evidence also indicated that she is capable of asserting her own considered view to her husband, and to the family support workers who worked with her, no doubt helped by the role which they were instructed to undertake in assisting to empower her generally. I do not doubt that M may well defer to her husband's experience and 'louder' demeanour, but I discerned no evidence of a violent or controlling relationship, during the twelve days over which I observed them in Court. On one particular occasion during the evidence when M was asked to comment on some photographs of C, which she was told had been provided to counsel by her husband in order to illustrate C's appearance on a particular date, I noted that she was able to assert that her husband was wrong if he believed they had been taken on that date. Her recollection of C's age in the photograph was careful and considered, and I noted that having listened to what his wife said, F was able to accept it.
32. It was also Dr Bashir's professional observation that in his sessions with the parents they did not present as a discordant couple, but rather on the whole they showed much mutuality, partnership and comradeship. He observed that this might arise from adversity and a common mission, however he also noticed that each showed a respect for the other. He was criticised for having a lack of insight into the risks of domestic violence, but responded that the evidence of the parents' improved relationship came not just from his own examination of how they dealt with each other in his sessions, but from their relatives and from 120 hours of Family support workers' reports. They openly admitted that they argued, and he accepted that it is hard to say where 'normal' starts and ends in that regard. However he observed that from a child's perspective it is the intensity rather than the frequency of arguments which matters more to children. He opined that seeing your parents have an argument is not out of the ordinary, rather it is the model of showing cruelty to a partner then following it by saying "I love you" which can compromise a child's development. Coming from a consultant psychiatrist who has been involved in medico-legal work since 1989, I found Dr Bashir's observations in relation to the nature of the parents' relationship both insightful and deserving of weight.
33. In her addendum report dated 6^th September 2013 the independent social worker Mrs Hossain set out the strengths and concerns she had noted in the parents ability to meet C's needs under the subheading "Analysis and Opinion". These were informed by her observations of the family made between 1.20pm and 4pm on 16^th August 2013 when she had visited both parents with C in the family home. Additionally she gleaned information from family support worker Fatima Abbas who was present, as well as the foster parents' diary, and other information provided by the Local Authority which she had read.
34. Under 'strengths' Mrs Hossain noted that M was now less reliant on her husband than she had been 5 months ago, and demonstrated a good degree of independence, and significant confidence in her own abilities. It was noted that she was now in greater contact with other ladies in the community as a result of attending ESOL classes as well as two child centred groups with C, and that she was making excellent progress with her spoken English. Mrs Hossain noted both parents to be very affectionate towards C both verbally and in terms of their tactile affection. It was clear to her that both of them take great pleasure in talking about their daughter and narrate her achievements with enormous pride. She also noted that C shows a very good attachment to both parents. Mrs Hossain observed that C recognises her parents as "special", in that she delights at seeing them or hearing their voices, and that she generally looks around for them, and visibly and audibly 'lights up' when they enter the room. It was Mrs Hossain's view that M has a good ability to provide a good standard of basic care to her daughter, and that great attention is paid to hygiene washing and care routines, with advice being followed to ensure she is not exposed to an unclean environment. The bedroom which the parents shared with C was also described as a quiet and pleasant environment, whilst a variety of stimulating toys were observed within the home, and the parents were noted to engage and sit playing with C at her level on the floor.
35. Mrs Hossain next set out in her report the aspects of concern to her in relation to the parents' care. Her first concern formed a key aspect of the Local Authority's wider concern that the parents are unable to understand and therefore meet all of C's medical needs. To begin with Mrs Hossain expressed her concern that F had denied having had C's dietary routine explained to him by the social worker or foster carer, and this, Mrs Hossain felt, was in contrast to the advice about dietary intake and routines which she understood the Social worker Mr Kappan and family support worker Ms Abbas had given to them. She nevertheless noted that F did have the sheets provided by C's dietician, and that the family support worker had noted a recent discussion about this indicating that F did have some understanding of its importance. In his oral evidence F refuted that he had complained about the adequacy of any explanation of C's dietary regime, and acknowledged that he had received all of C's diet sheets and discussed them with C's dietician.
36. Even so, Mrs Hossain expressed her concern that the parents were not able to follow a dietary routine for C 'cohesively'. A schedule of meals which the parents had given to C between 13 August and 4 September was prepared, and Mrs Hossain was concerned that the meals were not being given to C in a routine way, that is to say with breakfast, lunch and supper being given at set times, with snacks in between. She noted that the times when lunch or snacks were given would vary. She also observed that the parents had been advised that C would usually be fed in the foster home at 5pm, so that if the parents fed C a heavy meal late in the afternoon, her meal at the foster home could be disrupted. Mrs Hossain noted three occasions when C had been fed after 3pm, and she therefore expressed her concern that the parents' failure to adhere to consistent routines would directly impact on C's health and welfare in the future.
37. In oral evidence Mrs Hossain was asked to consider a report made by the family support worker when the parents visited the dietician with C on 16^th September 2013. This records that the Dietician assessed C and said she was doing well, and that her height and weight was good for her age. On that occasion C's dietician considered a diet plan sheet which the parents and foster carer had been asked to complete over the previous two weeks, and the dietician expressed her pleasure that C was being given a variety of foods including pulses pilchards and vegetables. Evidently she also said that she was impressed that both the parents and carers were providing C with a good two-meal diet and a good range of snacks. There is also no reference to the foster carer making any complaint about C's dietary routine at this meeting, although she was present.
38. The dietary schedule prepared by Mrs Hossain had covered the period from 13 August to the 4^th September and she therefore surmised that perhaps the dietician had been provided with a subsequent schedule when improvements may have been made. It was suggested on behalf of the parents that a similar variety of foods and routine had been replicated in those two weeks.
39. In my judgment the points raised by Mrs Hossain in relation to the parents' capacity to ensure C's dietary needs are met, transpired to be of rather less concern than they might once have seemed to be, in the context of C's general health and development. During the adjournment over Christmas, and after Mrs Hossain's evidence was concluded, questions were put to C's dietician Mrs K Monk by letter. In her replies dated 8 January 2014 she wrote " a child does not have to have breakfast lunch and dinner, with snacks in between. They could get the same nutrition from 6 smaller meals. This was not being achieved with the foods offered in July 2013, however the food diary presented at the review appointment on September 2013 indicated a better intake of nutritious foods and the components of a better diet were now included. If C was being fed less often then there would be fewer opportunities for her to achieve adequate nutrition, however it could still be achieved. Conversely if she were to be offered foods more frequently than advised it could lead to 'over nutrition' and result in excessive weight gain. However as stated previously some children prefer to take smaller meals more frequently. It is all about dietary balance and providing a range of nutrients from a variety of foods from the core food groups". If C's dietary balance was imperfect in July 2013, the evidence indicates that it was rectified thereafter, whilst all the reports which I have read indicate that C has continued to gain weight and height and that there have been no concerns about her physical development. In a report dated 6^th December 2012 Consultant Paediatrician Dr Margarson observed that many babies with Goldenhar Syndrome have poor weight gain in the first year of life, and it was for this reason, although C was feeding well, that Dr Margarson referred her to the dietician expecting that she may benefit from taking milk with a higher calorie content. During the course of the hearing it was confirmed that at December 2013 C was discharged from dietetic care, her weight and diet being that of any other normal child of her age.
40. Due to the fact that she has only one kidney C needs to be provided with a regular intake of water to prevent infection. A concern was voiced by the Guardian when she visited to observe the parents with C on 24.10.13, that F was so preoccupied in talking with herself, that he did not feed his daughter any water for the first hour. On the other hand when assessed by Dr Bashir, the parents evidenced a responsible appreciation of their daughter's need for regular water intake, as they did when observed by their family support workers, who logged the parents regular provision of drinks such as milk and water as well as snacks throughout their written reports, and during their oral evidence. The weight of the evidence does not suggest that C has suffered any significant harm from lack of liquid intake to date, and the evidence does not satisfy me that C would be likely to suffer significant harm in the future from parental neglect of her dietary needs in respect of food or drink.
41. It was back in 6th December 2012 when C was only three months old that Dr Margarson prepared her report in relation to C's condition and her likely future medical needs, at the Local Authority's request. That report details that C was referred to a consultant endocrinologist at Great Ormond St. Hospital so that the results of her regular blood tests could be monitored, and her daily medication for hypothyroidism adjusted when necessary. The report states that she was also referred to a Consultant ophthalmologist due to concern that her visual maturation may be delayed. In addition due to concerns that C has conductive hearing loss in her right ear, she was referred for a specialist paediatric hearing assessment. At that time it was thought likely that she would require input from a speech and language therapist in the future as well as input from a teacher for the deaf. Dr Margarson also listed a number of other congenital abnormalities that might be expected to occur as a result of C's Goldenhar syndrome. Whilst she stated that most individuals are born with normal intelligence, she observed that learning difficulties may occur in about 13% of cases, whilst language problems as a result of deafness, and swallowing difficulties may also arise. She noted that plastic surgeons would now be able to improve the appearance of C's face and that she would be likely to need ongoing orthodontic treatment.
42. Bearing in mind that it is the Local Authority's case that the parents are unable to understand and therefore meet C's complex medical needs, repeated requests were made on behalf of the parents for a current report from Dr Margarson updating C's medical needs in the light of her development over the intervening year. The parents do not deny that their daughter does have complex and varied medical needs, but they are adamant that they are able to manage them. During his oral evidence social worker Binesh Kappan stated that Dr Margarson had prepared an 'adoption medical report' which he had read and which indicated that C was doing much better than had been originally feared. However for reasons which remained unclear the Local Authority was unable to produce that document or indeed any other up-to-date paediatric overview of C's medical needs. A copy of one letter written by Mr Kappan to Dr Margarson was produced, which requested comments on C's progress and current prognosis, but it was only written on 6^th January 2014.
43. One document entitled "Looked after children review health assessment" which was completed by nurse Diana Cattermole on 18 November 2013 was produced. This indicated that C has good physical health, that she is meeting her developmental milestones, and presents as an emotionally balanced and stable child, who is happy and settled in her foster placement. The annexe B report provides some further details about how C is now making different speech sounds and conversational noises and has been heard to say 'dada'. Her physical development is said to be showing progress and she is able to hold onto a support in order to stand and showing signs of walking without support. Since her birth it is noted that she has not been admitted to hospital for any reason pertaining to her health needs and disability. When he re-assessed the parents in September 2013 Dr Bashir concluded that the parents were well able to meet C's medical needs and he found no evidence that they either had not or would not work well with the various medical professionals involved with their daughter.
44. Dr Bashir said he was impressed at C's developmental progress, indicating that she would have less difficulty than either he or Dr Margarson had initially envisaged, and that despite the 13% who experience a more difficult cognitive recovery, 'C's prognosis for cognitive recovery is pretty good'. He agreed that she would continue to need endocrinology input due to her thyroid malfunction and single kidney, and that her lip and hearing may be affected. Apart from that he opined that C's intellectual and physical development should reach normal levels, she now has trunkal control and her walking is improving with a stroller. He observed that the parents derived much gratification from stimulating their daughter that they had aspirations for her education and to provide her with safe care, and he considered that their positive influence on C during contact was considerable.
45. Whilst there was no evidence to suggest that the parents had failed to manage C's daily medication appropriately, criticism was levelled at F for refusing to allow C to be immunised for TB until he had taken advice. At the time he said he had been concerned that C was too young for the vaccination, and on his behalf it was submitted that F did no more than many a responsible parent who seeks to be fully informed first. Since C was later immunised, and there was no evidence to suggest that C's safety was endangered by the delay, I think the submission ventured on his behalf was fairly made.
46. With regard to C's potential need for plastic surgery to her face in the future, it was suggested that because of their unconditional love for their daughter F and M are somewhat blinkered as to C's facial deformity, and do not appreciate the impact it may have upon her self esteem, if surgery is not undertaken to improve her appearance as she grows older. Whilst not denying that she may need facial surgery the parents have expressed that they will 'wait and see' whether C will need this in the future. In this respect the Local Authority and Guardian expressed particular concern that the parents gave C a very short hair cut following a looked after child review and surmised they may have deliberately arranged to shave her head in order to reveal her deformed ear, having heard that the Local Authority proposed that C be adopted. It was Mr Kappan's evidence that before it was cut, C's hair had been long enough to cover the deformed ear and provide a 'cushion' for her head in the event of any fall. The Guardian referred to this allegation in paragraph 20e of her final analysis detailing that 'whilst she screamed, C's head had been completely shaved by a barber', and that the parents had failed to provide any reasonable explanation for their actions. However in her evidence the Guardian accepted that this account had been provided to her by Mr Kappan the social worker, and that she had not seen C for herself between May and October 2013. During the hearing a number of photographs of C were produced by Mr and M. One group were clearly taken at a birthday party which was said to have been taken on 4 September 2013 which was C's first birthday. In these she has short slightly wavy hair which reaches down to the top of her right ear lobe but which does not cover her disfigured ear at all. Another group of pictures which appear from C's general face shape to have been taken when she was of similar age, show her with shorter more closely cropped hair which is still thick and dark enough to cover her head, and which does not appear to have been 'shaved'. These were said by C's parents to have been taken respectively on 19^th September and during October 2013, that is to say within days or weeks of her haircut. In the light of what has been written about C's facial disfigurement, I was also surprised to see how little her facial deformities presently appear to diminish the appeal of C's lively and attractive young face, in both sets of pictures. In the light of those pictures I am afraid I did conclude that Mr Kappan's criticism of the parents' disregard for their daughter's appearance, had been significantly overstated.
47. In his September report Dr Bashir stated that he could find no evidence that C would be at risk of physical or emotional abuse if returned to her parents' care. He said that he had gained the impression that the parents had a high regard for medical opinion and anything that the hospital advised. He considered it 'largely unlikely that they would not go to C's medical appointments'.
48. In her report the Guardian expressed her concern that the parents 'minimise' the seriousness of their daughter's medical condition and refuse to acknowledge her disabilities. This was in part due to her feeling F did not appear to accept that C may need plastic surgery in the future when he replied "we will see". I have referred to my findings in relation to this to this above. I also note around the same time as the Guardian was making her assessment, Dr Bashir was making his, and it was the latter's observation that the parents had a good understanding of their daughter's medical conditions. In weighing those two differing impressions I think it must be right to give greater weight to those of Dr Bashir if only because his medical qualifications give him a more informed basis upon which to do so.
49. On the other hand the Local Authority was critical of F's decision during the rehabilitation programme to miss a dietician's appointment in favour of going to the airport to collect his wife who had just returned from a brief visit to Pakistan after her brother had been taken gravely ill. In evidence he explained that he did not request another family member to collect his wife so that he might attend the appointment, only because he considered it important that he should go himself, just in case his wife should be detained for questioning at immigration control. As the husband he considered he would be best placed to assist resolve any problem at immigration, particularly since his wife's English was limited and this was the first occasion on which she had re-entered Britain since their marriage. In my judgement it may be easy to underestimate problems which are not generally experienced by the indigenous population at passport control, but which are a worrying reality to those who are not, and I do not think that this single missed appointment can be magnified into a general indicator that the parents would be likely to avoid attending C's health appointments in the future.
50. Another occasion on which concern was expressed about the parents' motivation to seek medical attention for C occurred on 14.5.2013. At the time C was having overnight staying contact with her parents as part of the rehabilitation plan. When the Family support worker Shagufta Arif arrived at 8.00am she noted that C was smiling but looking poorly with a runny nose and a cough. Her mother said that C had been unwell through the night and that she had only been able to get her to sleep by holding her in her lap. Ms Arif recorded in her note F's comment that C had appeared healthy in the morning, but said that she had nevertheless proposed that it may be best to take C to the hospital. She noted that F had suggested waiting till 10.30 as C would be returning to the foster carers soon. Ms Arif then indicated that she wished to telephone the social worker Mr Kappan for his opinion. She noted that F explained this to his wife when she came into the room, and that M replied: "we could take her to the hospital". Ms Arif then spoke to Mr Kappan on the telephone and he evidently advised that he thought it best if the parents took C to hospital. Ms Arif next noted that when she returned to the room M observed that C did not have a temperature anymore, and Ms Arif rejoined that she would rather not take the risk as C was not able to keep her eyes open. Her note next recorded that F duly arranged for a cab which took them all to hospital.
51. During the hearing there was an issue about whose idea it had been to take C to the hospital first. M had indicated in paragraph 36 that it was she and her husband who had decided to take her, whereas Ms Arif was positive that it had been her idea. I note that in her contemporaneous note Ms Arif records that her own suggestion to take C to the hospital was made whilst M was out of the room, and that M's first remark after speaking to her husband and upon returning to the room was: "we could take her to the hospital". In the final submissions made on behalf of the Guardian it is said that the family support worker argued that "the parents refused to take C for medical attention". My note did not indicate that Ms Arif went that far in her evidence, but if she did, then it was not recorded in her contemporaneous notes, which in general I consider likely to have been more reliable than her recall so long after the event. After listening to the parties' evidence I did not find the dispute about who first suggested taking C to hospital served in anyway to support the conclusion that the parents were unmotivated to seek help for their daughter. Nor did I find that the family support worker's notes or the contact diary supported the contention that M or F "refused to take their daughter to hospital".
52. The next area of concern identified in Mrs Hossain's report related to the parents' capacity to work constructively with professionals, and it is this aspect which forms a central and probably the most significant concern informing the Local Authority's case. Mrs Hossain noted that whilst she had felt positive about the parents' levels of co-operation with herself and Dr Bashir when they were first assessed, she considered on reflection that she may have been over-optimistic in this regard. This was in the light of what she described as F's angry tirades against the social worker Mr Binesh Kappan which frequently punctuated his discussions with her during her second assessment. F articulated his firm belief that the social worker was deliberately sabotaging C's placement at home, by instructing family support workers, contact workers, and other professionals including the Guardian to write misleading negative reports. Mrs Hossain described F's anxieties in this regard as "obsessive and paranoid", and she expressed her "serious doubts and a concern about the couple's ability to work with professionals" as a result. She noted that: "F and M project blame on every individual who question(s) criticise(s) or offer(s) advice to the point when it is not only exhausting but places C at risk of harm. Both parents are very challenging with F particularly having a tendency to be vocal loud and very angry. They display very rigid views and any advice is seen as criticism".
53. Referring to the notes of Fatima Abbas a Family Support Worker, Mrs Hossain also referred to occasions during August when M seemed to be co-operating well but then at times seemed not to want to take advice; or, after doing well in following advice about how to hold or feed C, she was seen to slip back into her old ways, giving the indication that she did not like being nagged.
54. Mrs Hossain's fourth concern is similar to her third in that it relates to the parents antagonistic approach to the Local Authority personnel, which she concludes leads them to be extremely manipulative, and in F's case impulsive. One Example she cited was F's contention that a family support worker Shagufta Arif had "hit" his wife at the children's centre on 20^th May, whereas in her notes Ms Arif recorded she had only "tapped M on the shoulder" to draw her attention. However the parents told Mrs Hossain that they had taken their solicitor's advice about bringing an assault claim against Shagufta Arif, as a result.
55. Undoubtedly the most contentious example cited by Mrs Hossain of the parents antagonism towards professionals and/or manipulation, relates to the parents' account of a meeting which took place at the family home on 29^th May 213 attended by Social worker Mr Binesh Kappan, an interpreter Shabir Sethi, Family Support worker Shiara Khatun, and the Guardian Sue Johnson. The parents informed Mrs Hossain that Ms Khatun had physically examined M's stomach to check if she was pregnant. This they said had been at the instruction of the Guardian after the latter had remarked on the size of M's belly, and asked if she was pregnant. It is not in dispute that the Guardian did drawn attention to the size of M's stomach, and did ask if she was pregnant. It is not disputed that F rejoined that his wife had a problem with a hernia about which she had seen the Doctor, and that she may need an operation soon. However the Guardian firmly refutes that she gave any instruction to Ms Khatun to examine M's stomach, or that M was in fact examined by Ms Khatun on that day. The Social worker Mr Kappan, confirmed the Guardian's account as did Ms Khatun in a written statement which she was asked to provide on 11.0.13.
56. In their oral evidence M and F emphatically held to their account. A family member PA who was present at the time in adjacent room caring for C throughout the meeting, also gave evidence that she had seen the examination take place through the door which was ajar. F maintained he had later asked Ms Khatun why she had examined his wife's stomach, and that she had told him that she had done it because the Guardian had told her to do so. He therefore concluded that she had only later signed a statement denying this when asked to do so by the local Authority, in order to safeguard her job.
57. Following this meeting M visited her GP Dr Siddique in order to obtain 'proof' that she was not pregnant, stating that during a visit from the social work department on 29^th May a support worker had examined her stomach and she had been told she was pregnant and needed to see her GP as she has quite a large abdomen. Having examined her, the doctor confirmed in a letter dated 6 June 2013 that whilst M has some excess of fat over her girth, there were no signs of pregnancy and a urine test had reported negative. The Guardian Sue Johnson was particularly aggrieved that this letter appeared to show that the parents had been able to 'manipulate' a medical professional into accepting their account, since within the letter the Doctor had observed; "I have no other ways of collaborating [sic] this information but I do find it highly irregular that a non-clinically trained individual should examine a person and I have asked her to report this to the appropriate authorities". I will return to my findings in relation to the events of 29^th May 2013 in due course.
58. In my judgment there can be no question but that the relationship between the parents and the social work professionals involved with the family (including the Guardian) took a serious turn for the worse following the looked after child review on 16^th May 2013 when, as indicated above, the working relationships had been sufficiently positive for all those present to conclude that a return of C to her parents under a supervision order, ( and with gradually reducing levels of supervision,) would be effected during June. This is not to say that in the early days of the Local Authority's involvement with the family, they had not found F quite difficult to work with. The minutes of an induction meeting which took place on 27^th March 2013 illustrate how Mr Kappan had had to spent some time explaining the role of the family support workers, and how F could not treat them as 'friends' coming into his home, and how he must appreciate that the Local Authority was in charge. Nevertheless it is also apparent that once the rehabilitation plan was underway, a productive working alliance was forged which was largely reflected in the family support workers notes which began at the end of March. It is accordingly necessary to examine the events which took place shortly before and following the positive looked after child review of 16^th May, to the extent that they shed light upon the possible reasons for this dramatic change, a change which ultimately led the Local Authority to abandon any hope of the rehabilitation plan succeeding.
59. I accept (as was submitted on behalf of M) that the notes taken by the family support workers show that the basic care provided by the parents is very good. Each family support worker agreed that the home was clean and tidy and that the parents have a warm and loving bond with C. family support worker Ms Arif also agreed that the mother was cooperative and listened to advice, and noted on 20^th May that she 'just gets on with being a mother'. It is apparent that during her work Ms Arif also reassured the mother about how well she was doing on numerous occasions, one particular example being on 3^rd May 2013 when the mother had become upset having misunderstood the timetable for rehabilitation was much slower than she had believed it to be. In her statement prepared for this hearing on 5^th July 2013 Ms Arif was however rather more critical of their levels of co-operation.
60. I have already mentioned the circumstances in which F and M together with family support worker Shagufta Arif visited hospital with C on 14^th May 2013. At the hospital appointment Ms Arif narrates that the doctor had asked F how much liquid C had drunk, and when he had replied "7 ounces" she had interjected and said " That's incorrect she had 2 ounces". She added that " the father was very rude and snapped at me for speaking". Having listened to the oral evidence of Ms Arif and F on this matter I have no doubt that each of them thought they were correct, and that F felt humiliated as a result of being contradicted by Ms Arif in front of the doctor. Although it was implied that F may have been attempting to mislead the doctor, I am satisfied in the light of the information which was recorded in C's feeding diary that he was not. F had correctly totalled the liquid which his baby daughter had been given since 6:00am that morning, whereas Ms Arif, who had only arrived at 8:00am, had simply calculated the amounts which she had observed being fed to C since the time of her arrival. It was also apparent that Ms Arif was unaware of that discrepancy between her own calculation and what appeared in C's feed diary, until it was pointed to her out in cross examination, and so it is probable that she did not appreciate that there could be any justifiable reason for F's sense of grievance over what she had done.
61. In the ensuing week a series of individually small events served to consolidate the friction between them. On 20th May when Ms Arif arrived at the family home shortly before 2pm, F advised her that his wife was out shopping, and so they left with C for the Sure Start centre without her. When M arrived at the centre some 15 minutes later, Ms Arif noted that she snatched up C and hugged her close. It is evident she felt some suspicion about where M had been, when she said she had been out shopping for a jumper nappies and baby monitor. A little later after Ms Arif had noted the contents of her bag, M admitted that she had not got the monitor because her English had not been good enough to find one. Ms Arif then cross questioned her as to where she had been, suggesting that her clothes looked as if she had been out in them all night. Whilst Ms Arif described M as being 'snappy' with her on this occasion, I suspect that impression may have been mutual. On the following day the 21^st May Ms Arif recorded that M was 'snapping' at her again whenever she asked an innocuous question. She said when she greeted C or sought to show the child physical affection by kissing her, her mother would move C abruptly away. She stated that M did not look at her when replying to questions, and seemed annoyed and moody, pretending not to hear on a couple of occasions. Because of this Ms Arif noted that she found her difficult to approach or work with.
62. Although Ms Arif sought to maintain in evidence that she was a 'professional' who took such ups and downs in her stride, I am satisfied that her reactions was very much more emotional than she was prepared to admit on this occasion. She had by then become accustomed to sharing their family life at quite an intimate level, including participating in their meals. In my judgement she was sufficiently hurt by M's rejecting behaviour at this point, that she abruptly departed the family home that day, leaving C without the supervision which she was contracted to provide. Notably she did not mention this in either her notes or her statement, not was this departure mentioned elsewhere in the Local Authority's evidence.
63. On the 23^rd May the social worker Mr Kappan arranged a meeting at the family home to discuss what had happened between parents and their support worker Ms Arif. He asked Shagufta Arif to attend as well in order that she might translate what M might have to say. I accept the submissions made on behalf of M that this placed both women in an extremely awkward position, with Ms Arif having to translate M's grievances against herself, and vice versa. It was a poor professional judgment, which did little to enhance their working relationship. When M suggested that her solicitor would send him an email, Ms Arif noted that Mr Kappan replied: "I do not care about any solicitor, I want to know what happened this second…so tell me, and also Shagufta will be translating everything". F pointed out that the issues were about Shagufta, and he was getting her to translate, and Mr Kappan rejoined that she was a family support worker and they would not be paying for anyone else to translate. A measure of the anger and upset felt by Ms Arif is reflected in her note where she states Mr Kappan told her not to reply back, and just to translate, which led her to reply: "I am trying to do my best, but it's very hard because it feels as a personal attack" and shortly after that she left the room in tears saying she had to get out.
64. It was at this point that overnight contact was terminated. In his evidence Mr Kappan said this was because there was no Punjabi speaking family support worker available, although when there was, it did not resume. As a temporary measure family support worker Shiara Khatun was supplied by the agency, although her Punjabi was limited, she could understand a little Urdu and she began work on 29^th May and continued until she was replaced on 7^th July. The 29^th May was the occasion of the meeting at the family home with the social worker and Guardian when remark was made upon the size of M's stomach, and question was raised as to whether she may be pregnant. In her oral evidence Ms Khatun was asked if anyone had requested her to physically examine M then or at any other time. Ms Khatun paused to reflect before responding "no I wasn't asked." In responding to questions concerning M's account of her stomach having been touched, Ms Khatun replied that she "did not remember" touching M's stomach, but she did remember that her stomach had protruded, and that she had looked pregnant. She did not consider her relationship with the family had been impacted in any way as a result of that meeting.
65. In commenting upon her observations within the family home she said she could not remember any time when the kitchen and home environment was not clean and tidy. She said that the parents had kept C clean and that their hygiene standards were consistently good. She noted that they took out the communication book upon C's arrival in the morning, and regularly looked at it, and that since M wanted to know what the routine to follow was, she would ask her to translate it. She confirmed they had been consistent in their feeding and nappy changing, and had responded appropriately when C had a teething problems or an eye infection. In relation to C's routine of feeding she noted that M was able to work out for herself when milk or solids should be given and gave them appropriately to C, including on those occasions when she was worried that the foster mother had not written the time of feeding C in the book. She said she observed mother and daughter together with and without F and she did well, and the couple interacted well together with their baby and as between themselves. On one occasion when they noted that C was not keeping her fluids down, she confirmed that the parents took their daughter promptly to hospital, and she went along too and saw that they were calm, co-operative and communicated well with the medical staff. She also accompanied them to weaning classes at the Summercourt centre, and noted M's interest in ESOL classes for English and counselling. In June she considered it a positive step when she was instructed by Mr Kappan to employ more observation and less intervention so as to 'empower' M, and give the parents more autonomy, and it was her view that overall the parents had been consistently co-operative. Although it was the Local Authority's contention that the parents' relationship with each of their family support workers became difficult, I did not find that the evidence supported any breakdown in the parents relationship with Ms Khatun, and accept that she ceased to work with them when a suitable alternative worker who could speak their language more easily was eventually found
66. With regard to the meeting on 29^th May I heard the oral evidence of Mr Kappan, Ms Khatun, both parents and their relative Ms PA and finally Sue Johnson the Guardian. I make it clear at the outset that I do not accept that the Guardian instructed anyone to undertake a physical examination of M on that occasion, nor do I accept that M was physically examined in the rough manner which she, her husband, and Mrs PA portrayed. I do think it likely that when Mrs Johnson drew attention to the size of M's belly (which may have been particularly visible in traditional Asian dress) and questioned whether she was pregnant before the assembled company, she probably engendered a particular sense of shame and embarrassment in M, not least because of the male presence in the room. Ms Khatun's response in evidence that she "did not remember touching M's stomach" struck me as rather ambivalent, and it seemed to me entirely possible that in turning to observe M's stomach after attention had been drawn to it, Ms Khatun may, however unwittingly, have made contact with her clothing and bare skin in doing so. It is unlikely that M would have understood sufficient English to know whether or not Mrs Johnson had made any request of Ms Khatun at all. However it is quite possible that she may have discerned that some remark about her stomach had originated from Mrs Johnson, and so determined that the Guardian should be blamed for the humiliation which she considered had been dealt her. In doing so, I think she decided to exaggerate her alleged physical injury and the story grew in the telling. I did not find either F or Mrs PA's account of having witnessed any physical examination of M, particularly credible and consider they were simply repeating an account given to them which they had resolved to support.
67. This particular allegation engendered a very great deal of attention in the oral evidence, and I accept that the Guardian has been justifiably vexed if not outraged by the fact that it was made. On behalf of the parents I was reminded (as in criminal cases) that a Lucas direction is appropriate, and that it should be born in mind that an untruth may be told for many reasons, and does not necessarily prove that everything else the individual says is untrue. In the case of Y(a child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1337 (3 October 2013) The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal in a case which Lady Justice Macur hallmarked as having been "Hijacked by the issue of the mother's dishonesty". She went on to observe that "Much of the local authority's evidence is devoted to it.  The Children's Guardian adopts much the same perspective.  It cannot be the sole issue in a case devoid of context." In particular she was critical that "No analysis appears to have been made by any of the professionals as to why the mother's particular lies created the likelihood of significant harm to these children and what weight should reasonably be afforded to the fact of her deceit in the overall balance."
68. In this case I have particularly born in mind the level of weight that should reasonably be accorded to the fact of the parents' deceit regarding the issue of M's alleged physical examination at the Guardian's behest. The lie cannot be said to have had any direct impact on C, and it is difficult to see how the telling of it was likely to have gained the family any material advantage in these proceedings. However it has substantially impaired the capacity of the professional social workers to trust the family, particularly since they apprehend that they might be on the receiving end of similar untrue allegations in the future.
69. As a result the guardian articulated the view at paragraph 16 of her final analysis that "throughout these proceedings the family, although F in particular, appears to have led a campaign to discredit any professional who questioned their parenting capacity. The extent of this has now become such that I am concerned it has become all -consuming to the family. It is my view that this has caused them to lose focus on what this case is about – the welfare of C". Conversely it was put to the Guardian that in fact it is not the family who have become consumed by this allegation but rather she who could no longer objectively assess the welfare of the child because she had become blinkered by what she perceived to be a personal attack on her professionalism and integrity.
70. I will return to my conclusions in relation to the Guardian's viewpoint in due course, however in considering the parents capacity to work in partnership with the professionals who have been working to advise guide or assist them in seeking the return of C, the evidence must be considered beyond the point of this particular event as well.
71. In their written evidence the parents express their opinion that they considered the social worker Binesh Kappan to have been against them from the start and bent on C's adoption. F suggested that this may be because Mr Kappan is Hindu and anti-Muslim. I do not accept on the evidence that the parents suspicions are correct on either count, and it is plain if only from the minutes of the looked after child review in the middle of last May that Mr Kappan was both positive about the parents and supportive of progressing the plan towards reunification of C with them. Both parents indicated that they felt patronised and condescended to, or at times treated contemptuously. In F's case I have little doubt that he felt as sense of affront to his self esteem when Mr Kappan made it clear to him to him that it was he (on behalf of the Local Authority) who was 'in charge' back in March 2013. Equally I accept that this may have been a vernacular expression necessary to make F understand the role of the Local Authority now that it was sharing parental responsibility under the interim care order. It may well have helped had there been a little more transparency over the marital relationship between Mr Kappan and the family's previous social worker, since when the parents discovered it for themselves it only served to foster further mistrust, however unreasonably. Equally I do consider that the Local Authority's practice of using the family support workers as interpreters when difficult information had to be shared, was unhelpful and contributed to the strain. In her written analysis at paragraph 23 the Guardian observed unequivocally "I entirely disagree with the suggestion by the family that the Local Authority has acted in any way inappropriately" and "No criticism at all should be directed (at) the Local Authority". However during cross examination she was constrained to admit that it was "possibly not best practice" to have used Shagufta Arif to interpret after she had walked out on the family, adding that she had "rarely met a case where there had not been some mistakes"
72. During the course of the hearing, a copy of the Independent Reporting Officer's report complied following a looked after child review meeting on 18.9.2013 was produced. It was on this occasion that the Local Authority decided to inform the parents that their plan was to arrange for C's adoption outside the family. This was notwithstanding that the social worker Binesh Kappan was away and could not attend. Moreover the Guardian was not present and said she did not recall being invited. In addition no translator had been pre arranged to assist M. Instead of re-scheduling what was likely to be a particularly emotional meeting for the parents, those present decided to telephone the Family support worker (Ms Fatima Abbas) whose day off it was, and ask her to translate the proceedings remotely by mobile telephone to M, who was understandably utterly distraught. When asked in her evidence if she thought it appropriate for such a significant meeting and decision to have been translated to the mother over the telephone, the Guardian Sue Johnson initially conceded "perhaps not" adding that she had not previously understood that the support worker was not present with the parents in the home at the time. Mrs Johnson subsequently went on to agree during cross examination it had been "outrageous" for the Local Authority to have gone ahead with the meeting in the absence of the allocated social worker, an interpreter, the Guardian or the family support worker. I do consider that the Local Authority's handling of the parents has, at times, done little encourage or foster the sense of 'partnership' which they complain is lacking. I am sorry to observe that some aspects of the conduct of this hearing have also added to that impression. I have made certain observations in relation to the service of the Placement proceedings, as well as the failure to serve any update Paediatric evidence in respect of C, and the very late production of looked after child review minutes during the hearing was also unhelpful.
73. With regard to the parents' ability to work in partnership with the family support workers, the evidence which I heard from them broadly supported the parents' case that they had they had a productive and positive working relationship with each of them, save in the last two or three weeks of Shagufta Arif's input during May 2013, when that relationship broke down.
74. There was a somewhat surprising divergence of opinion between Mrs Hossain and Dr Bashir as to whether the feedback of the family support worker who succeeded Ms Khatun namely Fatima Abbas was supportive or critical of the parents, and she was accordingly called to give evidence for herself about this. In answer to questions on behalf of the Local Authority she indicated that she found that the family proved to be challenging at times, and also that the Mother did not take her advice at times, and agreed when it was put to her, that she had decided to work for another family. In cross examination however she agreed that she had worked with the family from the 16 July until 19^th September 2013 and that she stopped work on the day following the looked after child review when she had been asked to interpret by phone, because the family's contact with C was then moved from their home to a contact centre, and so her services were no longer required.
75. Ms Abbas' general observation was that the family had made good progress over the 4 months that she worked with them. She had worked on encouraging them not to carry C so much, and they had allowed her to crawl around which led to her muscles improving. It took time, but on the whole she said they were co-operative. She said they might disagree on ideas but were able to discuss and resolve these. She firmly refuted having said words to the effect that 'they may not be able to follow advice for the sake of their egos' adding she would never use words like that. She also disagreed that she had criticised M for not dressing her daughter in age appropriate clothes, or that she had remarked on Mother's ability to go through a 'checklist'- another word she said she would not ordinarily use. She added "I'd say the Mother was doing really well". She confirmed the parents were consistent and appropriate in their use of the high chair and playpen, in taking C regularly to the centre, and in following the list of foods provided for her by the dietician. Ms Abbas confirmed that M was also consistent in attending to her daughter's hygiene, and that she would check for signs, and offer appropriate solutions, if her child was distressed. She said she had no concerns that the parents would demur from taking C to a doctor and expressed her confidence that they would be likely to ensure the child was seen to if needed. She accompanied M to English classes and to Sure Start and baby weaning classes. Even if initially uncomprehending of something, she said the parents would come round, and were generally keen to take advice on how best to care for their daughter, and also enquired about other courses they might undertake. Phone calls she said had been a distraction to begin with, but M had learned ultimately that they should only be taken after 4pm.
76. In the course of the 4 months she referred to having heard one argument between the parents, when they were in one room and she was with S and C in another, and S closed the door. She discerned that each parent was blaming the other for the situation they were in with the care proceedings, and that this was a stressful time for them. She said she did not see any manipulative behaviour, nor did she find them angry or rejecting of her, even though they had their own views. She agreed she had later made a report of the argument to Mrs Hossain on the instruction of Mr Kappan (since the argument had happened after Mrs Hossain's visit). After the argument she noted that M was a bit 'snappy' with her, but she added Punjabi dialects are abrupt, and she saw it as a cultural thing, and did not take it personally. She refuted other comments attributed to her by Ms Hossain such as the parents being "sub cultural normal" (which she said was not a term she would use) and she also denied having described F behaving in a way that might be described as 'consistent with other men of Pakistani heritage'. Ms Abbas observed that the couple had a good relationship and got on well with the wider family. She saw S around the house and she would pop in with her baby Fk who is of similar age to C and the children related happily and played well together. It was also her observation that S and M got on well, whilst S also gave Ms Abbas space to do her work. Ms Abbas also recalled F's other sons and his daughter coming round to the house to celebrate Ede, that an uncle also visited and that F's brother also called to ask about C. This detail contrasts with the Local Authority's concern that there is a lack of practical support from the extended family. True it is that none of them are suitable or able to put themselves forward as alternative carers for C, but in terms of ordinary extended family relationships the evidence indicates these are alive and well, and I am not persuaded that their assistance would be withheld were it to be asked for by F or his wife.
77. Ms Abbas did agree that in early August she had said that she was concerned that F was manipulative towards herself. She said that at the time he was trying to impress her with things he said, but she had not thought he was impulsive just manipulative. Nevertheless She confirmed she had not felt it necessary to complain to the Local Authority about their care of their child since as she put it: 'that was fine'. In acknowledging that F was eager to please and to impress, she added that she could understand why he would strive to keep her on side given the stress of the care proceedings. Nevertheless she said she liked to think her relationship with the parents was consistently good, and confirmed that it was never acrimonious.
78. One observation made by Ms Abbas which I found particularly insightful came when she described how she would give the parents time to reflect on her suggestions. She said she would put forward an idea and lay out why she thought it was a good one, and then give them time to think about it. As she put it "They are the parents. I am just a family support worker. They reacted how I would expect a good parent to react". It is not difficult to surmise that the element of mutual respect inherent in that approach was likely to have been key to the results which she observed. She said she understood the reservations they were likely to have, given that she came from nowhere into their family, and she tried to treat them with respect.
79. She also described how both parents would work in shifts with C, with one doing the practical work whilst the other was supervising C, and she made it clear to both of them they should ignore her because as their family support worker she was not there to do childcare, which they understood.
80. Although her view was that the parents were doing really well and that their care was certainly "good enough" Ms Abbas conceded that it had been "disastrous" on the day when the independent social worker Mrs Hossain came round to see them for the purposes of her addendum assessment. She said "It was like I had stepped into another family home. It was an entirely different day" She expected the parents to have various activities lined up with C, but they simply went to the Child Centre with her. She said she was aware how anxious and worried they were, and that they knew how important it was to have a positive report. There is some consensus that just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong on the occasion of Mrs Hossain's visit. Not only did F spend inordinate periods of time emphatically sharing his complaints about the social worker Mr Kappan with Mrs Hossain, but M chose to take a phone call whilst C was in her stroller, with the result that she did not immediately notice when C's leg became caught in the structure of the stroller. Then when this was noticed, C was hastily lifted from the entanglement by one rather than both arms, which might well have caused her injury, although fortunately it did not. In contrast Ms Abbas said even on occasions when the parents had ignored her during her work, she had never seen anything which caused her concern for C's safety or wellbeing save on this one occasion when the independent social worker visited, and C's leg was caught in the baby walker.
81. In cross examination Ms Abbas was questioned on behalf of the Guardian about the fact that her uncle is a friend of F's. Ms Abbas acknowledged that she understood that they had been friends for many years adding "I do not know how close they are". She said she became aware that F knew her uncle when she started working with the family, because F had told her that he recognised her. However she said she had not since discussed it with her uncle. The inference raised was that Ms Abbas may have been suborned into giving more positive evidence on behalf of the family than was warranted on account of this connection. I considered the possibility but rejected it. If it were true I think I think it unlikely that she would have robustly denied that she had made a complaint against the social worker when F alleged that she had, early on in her assignment. She would also have been less likely to have made an early request to change jobs as a result of this, and to have complained to Mr Kappan at that stage about F being 'manipulative'. In the event Ms Abbas said that the Agency had required her to give a week's notice, and then told her to think it over before quitting as they considered her capable in her job. She did so, and said that on reflection she decided to continue working with the family because (as she put it) "there are highs and lows in any job." Overall I found Ms Abbas an honest witness who was striving to be accurate, and (unlike Mrs PA for example) I did not derive the impression that her evidence was driven by any misplaced familial or other loyalty.
82. In my judgment an element of the difference in feedback obtained by Mrs Hossain and Dr Bashir from Ms Abbas may be explained by the fact that in the months between August and September when each expert respectively undertook their assessment, the improvement which Ms Abbas had observed in the parents care was consolidated. I note also that Mrs Hossain described a direct conversation of 'only a few moments' with Ms Abbas. Ms Abbas was not sure how much longer she spoke with Dr Bashir, but she confirmed that on both occasions the parents had been out of earshot when she did so. Overall she gave a number of examples of the parents' willing responses to her suggestions and how they put them into practice, and she confirmed that she saw a great improvement in M's general confidence between August and September.
83. Ms Abbas agreed that it had been completely inappropriate for the Local Authority to ask her to communicate to M over the telephone their decision to proceed to adoption, and then to require her to supervise on the following day. Yet she confirmed that the parents nevertheless behaved appropriately towards C. Ms Abbas said she saw no evidence that C was at risk of abuse or neglect by virtue of her parents care, and agreed (when it was put to her) that C would have been safe in their care. I found Ms Abbas' evidence balanced and carefully given. She had the advantage of being older and possibly more experienced than Shagufta Arif, and she was an articulate and impressive witness. More than any of the professionals in the case she was able to provide the Court with a vivid picture of the day after day experience of observing this mother and father parenting their daughter within their home. That is not to diminish the necessarily more limited observations made by the independent professionals such as the Independent Social Worker, the Guardian and Dr Bashir. Their background knowledge of the files and respective levels of expertise should of course to equip them to discern more over shorter periods. However in taking a balanced view of the conflicting evidence which supports their differing opinions I consider firstly that Ms Abbas' evidence lends more weight to the conclusions that Dr Bashir had reached rather than those of Mrs Hossain. Secondly the views of a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist currently in charge of two multidisciplinary therapeutic centres, as well as a child and adolescent ward in Basildon hospital, cannot simply be dismissed as 'naïve', as was suggested during the hearing on behalf of the Local Authority and the Guardian.
84. I consider Dr Bashir identified correctly that the parents' level of trust in medical professionals is very different to that which they have in social workers, and that it was substantially after the reunification started that events arose which lead to that mistrust. In September 2013 Dr Bashir proposed that any risk inherent in the damage to the parents' working alliance with professionals could be reduced, and significant progress made towards rehabilitation via one of two working models. Model (a) entailed another assessment over a defined period of 12 sessions with a therapist to support the parents and the Local Authority towards forging a working alliance, with a further prognosis being provided. The other model (b) entailed placing C with her parents with long term monitoring to support them. He opined that if the Court concluded that the risk of harm to C was so significant from this poor working alliance that a return of C to her parents could not be countenanced unless the problem was addressed beforehand, then the assessment model (a) should be preferred. If on the other hand there is a risk but the Court does not consider it is likely to lead to significant harm for C, then a return to her family under longer term supervision under model (b) was to be preferred. As he put it the 1^st model stalls the reunification plan whilst the second does not. The second outcome would entail placing C at home under a supervision order. He opined that this would be more productive than a threat which can be disempowering in respect of your child. Asked if C is safe to go home now, Dr Bashir replied that with the safeguards he was suggesting in place, his view is that she is safe, but without those safeguards the risks remain. It was put to him that now after 15months there could be no case for C waiting any longer, and he replied that in his view the whole trajectory was positive in terms of C's growth, development, and attachments with relatives, and that she is temperamentally an easy child. At the parents' level he observed that their commitment remains and their attachment. What was stalling was what they describe as a 'misunderstanding' and which might be termed a 'paranoia' that they are not treated fairly and that their child will be taken from them. The result is that they tread water carefully and the social workers feel they cannot work with them, and they all feel "stuck". He described the issue which arose after the Guardian raised M's possible pregnancy as a "counter-productive dynamic" and expressed the view that it was possible the professionals were forgetting C in all of this, and becoming obstructed by that issue. The whole point he said should be: Can C be safely parented? And: Where might she have the best experience? Here, he said, the long term view is important.
85. To my mind Dr Bashir alone provided compelling professional evidence as to C's emotional developmental needs during this hearing. He urged that it should be born in mind that this child has had regular contact with her parents of never less than twice a week and sometimes five times a week since birth. As a result he observed that she has developed a deep attachment to them. He said that if the hostility between the parents and social work professionals could be reduced, it is a better outcome for C to be with imperfect parents than with perfect adopters, simply because of her attachment to her parents and the love she gets from them. He refuted the suggestion that his opinions were all based on what the parents had told him, clarifying that he had read all the court papers, gained information from the contact supervisors and relatives in addition to the parents, as well as undertaking his own assessment of them as parents with their child. He repeated that it is an important aspect of child welfare to recognise that C is approaching an age of strong identity formation, where the bond of her first year becomes deeper, as do the basics of developing an identity with her family. He conceded that it is likely she will have losses coming to her, whether from loss of her foster parents or her parents, and that this will affect her ability to attach to a new family. He confirmed that he saw nothing over four contact sessions which could be described as detrimental to the child. He said that there was considerable evidence not just from his own observation but from a large body of contact notes that say these parents are able to stimulate C, that they have aspirations for her education, and to provide her with safe care, and he did not consider she would be at risk of abuse.
86. I agree with Dr Bashir that whilst the parents and social workers had a common goal, it could be seen that co-operation levels were high despite the intensive package of interference in their family life, and that continued until a series of events in May led to an engendering of mistrust. Dr Bashir was not moved throughout his cross examination (or within the professionals meeting which he had found to be similar experience) from his view that such risks as exist for C in this case can be managed and reduced. His suggestion of the need for a therapist to assist in this endeavour, is also informed by his expert knowledge of the likely impact upon F's memory and functioning of the frontal lobe surgery which he underwent following his road accident, as well as what he assessed as M's cognitive deficits. He said it is necessary to have regard to their unique presentation and impairments and that lecturing won't work, but helping them reflect and understand through therapy will.
87. I found Dr Bashir's observations compelling and I too reached the conclusion having heard all the evidence, that as Dr Bashir observed, these parents have strengths that can be enhanced, and weaknesses that can be managed. It is important to give weight also to Dr Bashir's professional opinion that now that C's attachment to her family has blossomed, it will be more difficult for her to attach to a new family than to return to her own, and that there are greater risks to her welfare inherent in closing the door to her family through adoption. Dr Bashir did not consider that C would necessarily need social work involvement or assistance throughout her life given her intellectual level, although he did not rule the possibility out.
88. I have given very careful consideration to the views expressed by Sue Johnson the Guardian whom I recognise is an experienced and committed Social worker herself. In the end I have not been persuaded by her view, predominantly because I consider it right to accord greater weight to Dr Bashir in his assessment of all C's needs, and her parents' capacity to provide for them. However there were also some instances where Mrs Johnson's critical observations of the parents handling of their daughter was in some contrast to the observation of contact supervisors who were observing the same presentation. An example was a game of 'peek-a-boo' which she observed F playing with his daughter using his wife's scarf to cover C's face. Whilst her impression was that this was 'deeply distressing' to C, the observation of the support worker (as contained in her contemporaneous note) was that both father and child were laughing at the game. In relation to C's dietary needs Mrs Johnson was reliant on the matters which Mrs Hossain raised in her report, and she was unaware that C had in fact been discharged from the dietician's care by the time of this hearing.
89. Whilst I do not accept that Mrs Johnson is a Guardian minded to just go along with the Local Authority without forming her own views, I do think in this case her views were very significantly coloured by the vexation and outrage which she felt as a result of the parents falsely accusing her of directing the support worker to examine M's belly for pregnancy, thereby impugning her professional integrity. It was clear to me from her evidence that these sentiments had been exacerbated by the GPs letter in so far as it appeared to lend any credibility to the story, although the doctor had observed that the information he had been given was uncorroborated. My view is that the Guardian gave disproportionate weight to those events in assessing the risk that the parents' untruth might present for C in their ability to meet her future needs. My conclusion in that regard is supported by the fact that in her position statement filed on the 8^th August 2013, the Guardian provided some indication that had mind had been conclusively made up, stating that "The Guardian supports the proposed reduction in contact since it appears the Local Authority are no longer proposing that C remain in her family" and that " sadly the parents have not been able to maintain any sustained period of commitment thus leading the Guardian to agree with the Local Authority that time has run out and that alternative plans for C must now be made" Crucially, neither she nor the Local Authority had then received either of the addendum reports from the two instructed experts in the case, which were not completed until 19^th August and 27^th September respectively. It follows that her decision and theirs had then crystallised without the benefit of properly analysing the content of either assessment.
90. I agree with Miss James' observation in her submissions on behalf of the Mother that in some ways Dr Bashir's evidence reflected the principles enunciated in Lord Templeman's judgment in Re K D (A minor) (Ward: termination of access) [1998] 1 AC 806 when he said " the best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parents is wise or foolish rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child's moral and physical health are not endangered. Public authorities cannot improve on nature. Public authorities exercise a supervisory role and interfere to rescue a child when the parental tie is broken by abuse or separation. In terms of the English rule the court decides whether and to what extent the welfare of the child requires that the child shall be protected against harm caused by the parent, including harm which could be caused by the resumption of parental care after separation has broken the parental tie".
91. Dr Bashir's evidence encompassed all aspect of the welfare checklist in s1 of the Children Act to which I must have regard in making C's welfare my paramount consideration. In so far as C can be said to have discernable wishes and feelings in the light of her age and understanding, it is reasonable to assume that she would not wish the attachments which she has formed with her parents to be broken. In my judgement her emotional needs include her need for those attachments to be nurtured and preserved, since on the evidence it is now not likely to be easy for her to lose them and forge them elsewhere. Her physical including medical needs have been well rehearsed above, and I am satisfied overall that these parents are capable of safely providing for those needs to a good enough standard, even if there have been occasions when they have been less than perfect in that regard. I bear in mind the likely effect of any change of circumstances for C if her attachment to her parents is to be ended by placement away from her family. These include the harm to her emotional development from the break, as well as the difficulty she may have in forging such attachments elsewhere. What such change of circumstances may practically entail for her, remains as I have indicated earlier in this judgement, an uncertainty. On the other hand there is a significant body of information to indicate that a change to living in her parents' home would be a change with which she would now be sufficiently familiar that she may be expected to feel settled and relaxed there. C's age, her Muslim heritage, her particular characteristics as an easy child, but one with significant facial deformities and other medical needs, all underscore the importance for her of nurturing the positive support of the parents who love her unconditionally, rather than embarking on the difficult search for others who may be unable to provide what they do. In my judgement the harm which C has been at most risk of suffering relates to the deterioration in her parents relationship with the social work support team that she is likely to need around her to assist with practical provision for her particular needs for some time yet during her childhood. But as indicated I agree with Dr Bashir that this risk is capable of being managed and reduced, in order to enhance the parents' capacity to meet all of C's needs including that one.
92. In considering the range of powers available to me I do not consider that a care order represents a proportionate or necessary means of achieving that end. This is a case in which the observations of the EHCR in the case YC v UK at page 2012 [55 EHRR 967] are particularly apposite; As detailed in Ms James' final submission the Court emphasised that: " family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and …. Everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate to 'rebuild' the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing'.
93. I do however consider that there is a risk that C may suffer significant harm in the future if the Local Authority do not play their part in supporting the measures which have been recommended by Dr Bashir as a better means of rebuilding the working alliance. I will make a supervision order in the hope and expectation that a fresh start and chapter can be commenced. Without seeking to criticise Mr Kappan's abilities in general, I do think it is likely to assist if the Local Authority give consideration to whether another person may be better suited to directly working with the family to bridge the existing mistrust and encourage change. I say this because having formed a professional conclusion against rehabilitation, common sense suggests it will be less easy for him to now support it, or (and this is equally important) for the parents to trust that the commitment is there. I consider it important for the Local Authority to reflect upon facilitating the therapeutic support which Dr Bashir has recommended as a means of rebuilding the working alliance between C's social worker, F and M. I would hope that the Authority may be able to liaise with Dr Bashir directly to ensure that the resources employed are appropriately tailored to this family's particular needs, in C's interests. I will ask the Local Authority (after they have had an opportunity to reflect on this lengthy judgement) to file another care plan to accompany this supervision order, outlining the services and resources they will provide in this regard.
94. Finally I consider it will be helpful, since I am not making a care order, if I conclude with some observations with regard to the timetable for returning C to her parents care in a manner which is likely to best suit her needs in all the circumstances. I hope that the parents will both appreciate that after this period of time living with her foster parents, C is also likely to feel some sense of loss in leaving them behind, and that a programme of agreed shared care between the two homes over the next two week period may help to make the transition from living in one home to the other a smoother one for C. I consider that a broadly equal division of days and nights between the two homes would be appropriate for the first eight days, followed by an increasing number of nights being spent in her parental home until it comprises the whole week by the beginning of week three.

HHJ Murfitt

5^th March 2014