England and Wales County Court (Family)

IN THE BRIGHTON COUNTY COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 and THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF CB (A CHILD)

		26/02/2014

1. This is the final hearing of an application in respect of CB, a little boy aged 3 by WSCC for a Care Order issued on 16 August 2013 and a Placement Order issued on 9 January 2014. The allocated social worker is AM. The local authority is represented by Ms Fenn.
2. CB is a child of dual heritage. His mother is M who is represented by the Official Solicitor who acts as her litigation friend and has instructed Wannops LLP to act for her. She has been represented by her advocate, Ms Ellis, at this hearing. M has not attended the hearing although I am satisfied that she is aware of it. M is a Chinese citizen resident in the UK and is aged 34 years. Her primary language is Cantonese but I am told by the father and it is clear from the records that she also speaks English to a good standard. In any event, she has had the benefit of an interpreter when necessary.
3. His father is F who has attended court and is represented by counsel, Mr Bergin. F is a white British man aged 56 years.
4. The mother and father live together at the father's studio accommodation in Newhaven in breach of his tenancy. I am told by the father they are not in a relationship despite living at the same address since September 2013.
5. CB is represented by his Children's Guardian, Mr Julian Shinn, and his solicitor, Ms Imogen Bell and counsel, Mr Ager.
6. CB was removed from his mother's care on 19 July 2013 by the police and placed in foster care. This was initially by way of a section 20 agreement and subsequently pursuant to interim care orders from 20 September 2013.
7. The local authority seek care and placement orders in support of their care plan for adoption outside of the birth family. The care plan is supported by Mr Shinn.
8. The Official Solicitor, on behalf of the mother does not oppose a finding that the threshold criteria are met or an order being made. His statement dated 10 January 2014 predated sight of the application for a placement order but it has been confirmed by Ms Ellis that he does not oppose the application.
9. The father opposes the care plan. He seeks CB's immediate return to his care or after a parenting assessment although he does not accept that this is necessary.
10. I have read the court bundles and heard from JH, Social Worker, AM, Senior Social Worker, F and the Guardian. I am grateful to the advocates for their assistance throughout the hearing and their closing submissions. At the conclusion of the hearing on 13 February 2014, I reserved judgment, which I hand down in draft format and have listed a short hearing on 28 February 2014 to deal with any amendments to the judgment and approve the final order.
11. The final threshold document is not opposed by either parent. In essence, it alleges neglect of CB's emotional needs as a consequence of the mother's conduct and by implication a failure to protect by the father. In addition, there are cross allegations of domestic violence. I am satisfied that the threshold is established by virtue of the matters set out in the document and that there was a failure to protect CB's welfare by both parents. I appreciate that the father has difficulties with his responsibility for events but in my judgment I find that he did not protect CB from emotional harm and has no genuine insight into his behaviour and the impact of his inability to focus on and prioritise CB's needs.

Background

12. There is limited information available as to the background. The mother has not engaged at all with the proceedings and her medical records have not been disclosed. In relation to the father, he refused the offer of an assessment in September 2013 but did agree to participate in a viability assessment January 2014. In addition, the local authority prepared an Initial Assessment in 2011 and two Core Assessments in 2012. The father's medical records have been disclosed. These documents are the main source of information in respect of the history.
13. M was seen by Dr Royston, the court appointed Consultant Psychiatrist, on 5 September 2013. He confirmed that the mother lacked capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and signed a certificate of capacity to that effect dated 17 September 2013.
14. The father is a qualified teacher but has not worked for many years due to ill health. He was diagnosed with either Post Viral Syndrome or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in 1988 and does not appear to have worked since 2005 bar a short period of employment with Marks and Spencer during the Christmas period in 2010. He is dependent upon benefits and currently lives in accommodation for the over 55s. This has an occupancy restriction of one person. M has lived with him since September and as a consequence the landlord is threatening to evict him from the property. F told me that he felt unable to exclude M by way of injunction proceedings and has circumvented possession proceedings by giving notice to quit. If CB is returned to him he will initially be given emergency bed and breakfast accommodation. He is in receipt of benefits, one of which is Employment Seekers Allowance, which replaces the old disability benefit. This benefit is time limited and will revert to Job Seekers Allowance.
15. The father has had some contact with his extended family. He has a cousin who he visited with CB from time to time in 2012. The paternal family are aware of these proceedings but are unable to offer support to the father in caring for CB and do not put themselves forward as potential carers for CB.
16. In brief, the parents met in February 2009 when the mother was visiting the UK to study English. They cohabited within a month of meeting one another. It is unclear when they separated but certainly on the basis of the father's account they lived together save from December 2012 to September 2013.
17. Prior to CB's removal in July 2013, he was cared for primarily by his mother save when she was absent in China from September – November 2011 and January – August 2012. During this time CB was cared for by his father with some support from the local authority and the father's cousin, AP.
18. The mother has two older children who live with their father in Hong Kong. She came to the UK in 2003 with her husband who is Chinese but also, I understand, a UK citizen. The children were born here and after their parent's separation they were taken by their father to China. The mother is estranged from the children. She has tried to locate them which was the purpose of her trips to China. Some of her daughters' paternal relations live in Kent. They have not been approached by the local authority in these proceedings. I am told that enquiries will be made if I make the orders sought by the local authority for the purposes of life story work. There is no other information available in respect of the maternal family.
19. As already noted, the family have been known to the local authority since June 2011. There have been three assessments:

(i) Initial Assessment dated 27.10.11 – 06.11.11;
(ii) Core Assessment dated 02.08.12 – 28.09.12;
(iii) Core Assessment dated 07.12.12 – 12.02.13.

20. The initial assessment was triggered by a referral from the police in relation to the mother's whereabouts. This was after she had gone to Hong Kong/mainland China in 2011. The father asked the police to confirm whether she had boarded her flight and the police attended his address. They were concerned about the situation and made a referral to the local authority. Whilst the mother was away, the father did not know her whereabouts and was unsure whether she would return. He told the social worker that he was worried that she had post natal depression. He said things were difficult at home given the shortage of money and their social isolation. There was a problem with his accommodation as it was a tenancy in the mother's sole name and as she was not occupying the property, the father was due to be evicted.
21. The assessment noted the father's isolation and although he was managing CB's practical care there was concern about the stress he was under in respect of their accommodation. He was due to be evicted on 28 November 2011. A referral was made to a family support worker to support the father but he declined further help as the mother returned on 11 November 2011 and the case was closed.
22. The Core Assessment in August 2012 came after a number of requests for help by the father in July 2012 after the mother had been away since January 2012. Once again he did not know where she was or if or when she was coming back. The local authority records indicate that the father asked for respite care for CB and said that he thought that he may be better off in foster care in order to experience family life. The father denies the use of the word "respite" but accepted in evidence that he may have discussed alternative care arrangements for CB with the social worker. He told me that he wanted CB to have the same advantages he had as a child, namely, a conventional family life with both parents and a stable home environment.
23. The father accepts that whilst the mother was away he had support from his cousin, AP. She has filed a manuscript statement in relation to her concerns about the father. The local authority does not seek to rely on the contents of her statement other than as confirmation that she did help the father from time to time with CB. I have not attached any weight to the statement beyond the father's admission that AP supported him by having him and CB to stay occasionally and on two occasions of 4 – 5 days each she looked after CB to give the father a break.
24. The core assessment did not have any concerns about the father's emotional warmth and general care of CB, the issue was housing as before and the father's ability to cope with the stresses of caring for CB on his own. The father has a long standing diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome which affected his energy levels and despite the father taking advantage of local children's resources he found it difficult to cope. Once again a referral was made for additional support through a family support worker, which the father declined as the mother returned in August 2012 shortly before the conclusion of the assessment.
25. The core assessment in December 2012 was triggered by concerns in relation to the mother's mental health. The local authority received an anonymous call on 7 December 2012 from a caller who was obviously familiar with the family circumstances. The caller said that the mother had told the father to leave and he had told her that the mother was hearing voices. He said that he had been contacted by a mental health nurse who was concerned that the mother was not answering the phone or engaging with the service. The health visitor also reported a call she had received. She said the caller was a woman who was concerned about mother's mental health. She reported that mother was not eating or feeding CB. The social worker made an unannounced visit on 12 December 2012 and did not find anything of concern. The mother denied any mental health problems. A further visit was made on 18 December, which was also unremarkable.
26. I note an entry in the father's medical records on 7 December 2012 when he told his doctor that he thought the mother had mental health problems. The history given by the father to his doctor was that he felt she had mental problems with strange comments for example someone is trying to read her mind and she felt that he (the father) was trying to control her and kill her. He said this had been going on for 2 weeks and she refused to take the medication she was prescribed in China. The mother had told him to leave the flat. The father was in a hostel in Eastbourne and she had stopped his contact with CB. The doctor advised him to take charge of CB.
27. This entry is in stark contrast to the father's evidence in chief when he told me in terms that the mother was fine and he did not detect any signs of mental ill health until July 2013 when CB was removed by the local authority. He said the only thing was that she was somewhat low in mood which he ascribed to the loss of her older children. He referred to one occasion when he was using a knife to cook with that she gave him an odd look but that was it.
28. During cross examination, he agreed that he had told the social worker that the mother had heard voices and subsequently in answer to my questions agreed the contents of the entry in his medical records. He also confirmed that the mother had taken some medication in China (he did not know what it was) but stopped taking it here. He felt that the medicine had stabilised her mood. Nevertheless, he told me that the mother's care of CB was exemplary and was unable to explain in any satisfactory manner why he told me that she did not have any mental health problems before July 2013. Unfortunately, I am driven to conclude that this was a deliberate lie in order to minimise the mother's condition and as a consequence his failure to protect CB. This is compounded by his failure to take active steps to ensure CB's wellbeing when the mother refused contact. I appreciate that the local authority were reassured by the mother but they did not have the benefit of the father's concerns which he shared with his doctor but did not report to the local authority. This is consistent with his attitude towards the mother both before and during these proceedings. He appears unable to enforce boundaries with her ultimately at CB's expense.
29. The mother refused to allow the father any contact with CB until he sought the assistance of CB's nursery and the local authority in restoring contact. CB's first contact with his father since December 2012 was via the nursery in May 2013. In his final statement, the father accepts he should have been more proactive in pursuing contact with CB. He says that he was concerned contact would cause the mother pressure and he wanted her to support contact.
30. In the meantime, there were reports of concerns in respect of the mother's mental health, financial difficulties, CB's presentation at nursery in inappropriate clothing for the weather and poor diet. He was described as watchful of his mother when she became animated about her financial difficulties. The mother did not take CB for audiology and speech therapy appointments.
31. The mother was evicted from her accommodation in June 2013 as she was heavily in arrears with the rent. A police report dated 27 June 2013 noted that the mother and CB were camped outside on the balcony of her flat with an eviction notice posted on the front door. They were given emergency bed and breakfast accommodation by the local authority but had to be moved due to the mother's aggressive behaviour towards staff and other residents and her inadequate supervision of CB. He was left to wander alone in public areas aged 2 ½ years.
32. On 17 July 2013, the mother and father arrived with CB at his nursery and met with the social worker who explained their concerns about the lack of supervision. Neither parent appeared to be able to focus on CB and there were further complaints in the evening about the mother's failure to supervise CB.
33. There were discussions between the social worker and the father on 16^th and 18^th July 2013. The then allocated social worker said that when the father was asked whether he could care for CB, he told her that he could only do so over the weekend but not in the long term. The father said this was not the case. He said he would stay with family for the weekend but denied having said that he could not look after CB in the long term. The case recordings were produced during the hearing and it appears that the father and social worker had agreed that his accommodation was inadequate beyond a few days' stay. He knew that he could approach the housing department for assistance and said he would discuss this with his solicitor. Thereafter, the discussion appeared to focus on the mother's housing and financial needs without further reference to the father's ability to care for CB. I have heard from the social worker and the father on the issue and it seems to me that it was clear to them both that the father was not in a position at that point to care for CB but that he would take advice and pursue housing with the local authority. As far as I am aware, the only steps the father has taken since that time in relation to housing is to give notice on his current accommodation in order to avoid possession proceedings.
34. On 19 July 2013, the mother left CB strapped in his buggy in the hallway of the bed and breakfast accommodation. The manager said CB was distressed, crying and calling out for his mother who shouted at him and told him he was going to stay there until 1.00 pm, it being 12.20 at the time. The manager pleaded with the mother to let CB into their room but she refused. The manager used her key to go into the room but the mother was adamant that CB could not come in until 1.00 pm. The police were called and ultimately removed CB under their powers of protection and he was placed in foster care.
35. On 9 August 2013, the Community Mental Health Team undertook an initial assessment of the mother which showed clear psychotic symptoms. When she was seen by Dr Royston, he considered that her condition appeared to have deteriorated since that assessment. The mother has not engaged with the Mental Health Team and has not made contact with her solicitors since 14 October 2013.
36. CB has been assessed by Dr Shute, Consultant Paediatrician. In October 2013, the conclusion was that CB presented with a disordered social communication profile which required further evaluation. In December 2013, some improvement was observed in his speech and language although it was considered that he could meet the criteria for an autistic spectrum disorder. Dr Shute did not consider it appropriate to confirm the diagnosis given his early history and the impact this may have had on his development. He moved to another foster placement in January. He is the only child in this placement and has made good progress to the extent that the social worker and his Guardian believe that he will be able to make positive attachments if he moves to another permanent placement pursuant to the care plan.
37. Contact was arranged for both parents. The Children's Guardian was anxious at the outset that the father should have a high level of contact with CB up to 5 times per week. Bizarrely, the father did not agree with that level of contact and wanted it on a fortnightly basis. He said that he was told by a friend who was a retired head teacher that less frequent contact would be better for CB. He said it would be less confusing for him to see his father fortnightly rather than for him to come in and out of his life on a very regular basis. The father maintained this view despite being advised by the professionals that CB would benefit from frequent contact to support their relationship. He stopped attending contact after 6 September 2013 despite the local authority funding his travel arrangements and an agreed schedule of contact drawn up in the order dated 20 September 2013. The father refused to attend 1:1 supervised contact organised at the contact centre. He wanted contact to take place at a venue with other children, such as a church run family centre. He told me this would allow him to observe CB and his development whilst also being able to spend time with him. The local authority refused the father's request and the Guardian was equally opposed to the father's plan. In evidence, the social worker and the Guardian explained that they thought that a contact at a centre with other children present along with the father would be extremely confusing for CB particularly given the upheaval CB had already experienced. I agree.
38. The next contact was on 20 December 2013 although CB saw his parents briefly at his medical appointment on 14 October 2013. The local authority again sought to persuade the father to take up contact after the session on 20 December but although he initially appeared to be willing to do so, he emailed the social worker in January cancelling all contact until this hearing. He thought it was unfair to CB to start contact again if he ultimately did not return to his care.
39. It is extremely sad that the father was unable to commit to the contact arrangements despite his objections. I note that there were positive observations of his interaction with CB, which are consistent with earlier recordings during the assessments in 2011 and 2012. I have no doubt that it would have been to CB's benefit to have had regular contact with his father.
40. Unfortunately, the mother's contact was equally unreliable. She did not attend from 3 September 2013 and although she did attend on 20 December she became distressed and aggressive to the social worker towards the end of the contact. This was shortly after the father had asked the social worker about a meeting and then left the contact centre without saying goodbye to CB. The mother's behaviour was such that the social worker called the security guard. CB did not react to events at the time but was distressed on his way home with the foster carer, repeatedly saying, "mummy crying', "mummy shouting", "mummy sad again". I find that whilst the parents' obviously wanted to see CB at contact they were unable to remain focused on his needs. The father explained his early departure as an attempt to minimise CB's distress. I find this explanation to be misguided and not child focused.
41. The local authority wanted the father to engage in an assessment of his capacity to care for CB. This was keenly supported by the Guardian and the court. The programme for the assessment is set out in the statement of JAH, Senior Social Worker. She wrote to the father with the details of the assessment on 24 September 2013 but unfortunately he replied on 26 September that he would not be at home for her visit or "available at present to undertake the course you propose." [B88] He has told me that he was unwell at the time but has not filed any evidence in support of this assertion. He told me that he had a great deal to do with solicitors' appointments and his housing situation but nothing directly related to a specific health problem outside of the diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome, which he has been anxious to assure me that this has been of limited significance over the last few years.
42. Ultimately, he did agree to a viability assessment in January, which consisted of an interview with the social worker at his home address. The interview took place in the community lobby of the property as the mother was still in bed in his flat. I asked him why he did not ask the mother to leave to allow them some privacy for the interview. He was unable to provide a satisfactory answer other than to say that he thought the community area was preferable in any event.
43. The assessment balanced the positive and negative features of the father's care of CB. It recognised his ability to show CB warm and loving care and that he had a theoretical understanding of a child's basic needs. Nevertheless, he was unable to appreciate the impact upon CB of the failure to attend contact, the mother's abrupt and lengthy absences and her declining mental health. The father stated that he wanted the mother to be fully involved in CB's life and did not accept that he needed to impose boundaries as evidenced by his failure to ensure that she left his property leaving him free to concentrate on these proceedings and ensure that he was able to care for CB. The father was unable to accept advice from the local authority, for example, in relation to contact and there was no evidence from the assessment that he was prepared to change his approach. In conclusion, the assessment was unable to recommend the father as a carer for CB or a further assessment of him.

The Law

44. Care proceedings involve two principal questions. First, are the threshold criteria for making a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 satisfied? Secondly, if so, what order should the court make?
45. Section 31 (2) provides:

"A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied (a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and (b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to

(i)  the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or

(ii)  the child's being beyond parental control."

46. As threshold has not been actively contested, this hearing has in reality concentrated on what, if any, order I should make.
47. In answering that question, I bear in mind the rights of the parents and CB under Article 8 of ECHR to respect for family and private life. Where there is a conflict between the rights of a child and a parent, the rights of the child prevail: Yousef v Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR 210.
48. Under section 1(1) of the Children Act, CB's welfare is my paramount consideration. Under section 1(2), any delay in making decisions concerning his future is likely to prejudice his welfare. Section 1(3) provides a checklist of factors to be taken into account when determining their welfare, and what order should be made.
49. On the application for a placement order, the court applies section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. On such an application, my paramount consideration is the child's welfare throughout their life: section 1(2). Again, I take into account the fact that delay in coming to a decision is likely to prejudice CB's welfare. There is, again, a checklist of factors to be taken into account, in this case set out in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act. In this case, the local authority seeks a placement order in relation to CB. I must have regard to the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of his birth family and becoming an adopted person; his background; any harm he is at risk of suffering; his relationship with his birth relatives. In addition, both section 1(3)(g) of the 1989 Act and section 1(6) of the 2002 Act require the court to have regard to the range of orders available and the court must not make an order under either Act unless it considers that it would be better for the child concerned than not doing so.
50. Under section 21(3) of the 2002 Act, a court may not make a placement order unless satisfied either that the parent has consented to the child being placed for adoption or that his or her consent should be dispensed with. Under section 52(1)(b), the court may dispense with the parent's consent if the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with.
51. These provisions have been subjected to analysis in a number of important decisions, and in particular by the Supreme Court in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and in a series of decisions in the Court of Appeal culminating in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. I have had those decisions firmly in mind at all points during this hearing.
52. In Re B, the Supreme Court, having reminded itself of the European jurisprudence, reiterated that the test for severing a relationship between a parent and child is very strict so that, in the words of Baroness Hale of Richmond at paragraph 198, it should occur:

"only in exceptional circumstances and when motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, when nothing else will do. In many cases and particularly where the feared harm has not yet materialised and may never do so, it will be necessary to explore and attempt alternative solutions."

As Lord Neuberger observed at paragraph 77, making a child subject to a care order with a plan for adoption should be 'a last resort' where 'no other course was possible in her interests'.


53. This interpretation was reiterated by the President in his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Re B-S. The statutory language in the 2002 Act imposes a stringent test. What must be shown is that the child's welfare 'requires' parental consent to adoption to be dispensed with.
54. "Require" has the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, "the connotation of the imperative. What is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable". Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2 FLR 625, at paragraphs 120,125.

My Conclusions

55. Unfortunately, the mother is not in a position to care for CB. She was clearly unable to meet CB's needs prior to his removal from her care. Not only did she abruptly leave him for two lengthy occasions when he was very young but also failed to provide him with good enough care from December 2012 onwards. I find that CB suffered emotional harm in her care. He was not only neglected and left unsupervised and thereby exposed to potentially serious harm but also on the basis of the mother's conduct set out above, he would have been highly distressed which would have caused him significant emotional harm. I also find on the basis of the unchallenged evidence, that the mother had no insight into the damage that she was doing to CB. She was unpredictable and lacked empathy for her child. Sadly, there is no evidence that there is any change to this position. I agree with the Official Solicitor's conclusion on behalf of the mother that there is no realistic basis for opposition to an order being made.
56. In relation to the father, it was clear to me from his evidence that he loves his son. I believe that he understands that CB needs loving, nurturing care and stability from his parents but has been unable to provide him with this level of care on a consistent basis. He has been observed to be a warm and affectionate parent but nevertheless has not been able to maintain a commitment to the relationship both before and during these proceedings. He appears to have been able to access assistance from the local authority when the mother was away but refused to continue to work with them after her return on both occasions. I am extremely troubled by his behaviour given what he knew about her mental health. In my judgment, the father was well aware of the mother's mental health difficulties as he explained them to his doctor in December 2012. I also find that he lied to me initially about the mother's mental health until he was confronted with the entry from his medical records. For his own reasons, he did not tell the local authority about his concerns about the mother's mental health. I appreciate that he relies upon the local authority's positive observations of the mother's care of CB from December onwards. They did not have the advantage of his knowledge of the mother's behaviour. On my reading of the papers there were concerns about her care of CB, which would no doubt have increased if they had known about the father's concerns.
57. When I refer to the father's lack of commitment to CB, this is not only a reference to his failure to pursue contact from December 2012 – May 2013 but also his attitude towards the local authority and his failure to prioritise CB's safety. As I have noted he declined an assessment of the mother on two occasions and on the latter occasion in September 2012 he was aware that she had been prescribed medication for her mental health in China. He did not tell the local authority about his concerns for the mother's mental health when the mother refused to allow contact. He has not taken any steps to organise his accommodation or to remove the mother from his accommodation beyond finally giving notice to quit shortly before the start of this hearing. He has had barely any contact with CB despite the best efforts of the local authority and the Guardian. He declined the assessment offered in September 2013 and only consented to a viability assessment at the last minute.
58. Unfortunately, the father was unable to acknowledge any real deficit in his parenting as is apparent by his position that CB return to him forthwith. I found him to be a kind and intelligent man but completely lacking in insight in respect of his ability to meet CB's needs and the impact upon his son of the parenting that he has received from his mother and his father. He was unable to acknowledge to me the harm done by his failure to attend contact consistently and ensure that the mother was no longer a part of his household. I have no confidence that he would be able to resist her, if he was living with CB and she wanted to visit or stay with them. He told me she was an exemplary mother despite his concerns in December 2012, which led his doctor to advise him to take charge of CB.
59. The father has not explained to my satisfaction his failure to engage in these proceedings. On the evidence I do not accept that he was too unwell to engage with the proposed assessment in October 2013. In any event, the explanation he gave in evidence was that he had too many appointments with his solicitors and did not have sufficient time to attend the assessment. I do not find this to be a reasonable explanation for his failure to participate in the assessment. The demands upon his time were no greater than for many parents who find themselves in this situation but who are able to engage with the proceedings appropriately. Unfortunately, this is another example of his inability to focus on CB and prioritise his welfare.
60. I am equally unimpressed by his behaviour in relation to contact. His explanation for failing to attend contact shifted from his complaint in relation to the venue in September/October 2013 to a refusal to attend at all from January 2014. As I have already made plain this was without regard or understanding of CB's needs and entirely unacceptable. On the basis of his evidence, I do not believe that the father had acquired any insight into the damaging nature of his behaviour and the impact upon his son. Historically, he engages with professionals on his terms as demonstrated by his refusal to engage with the local authority after the mother returned from China in 2011 and in 2012. His attitude has not shifted in these proceedings. He is clearly unable to take advice from the professionals given the repeated concerns expressed by the local authority and the Guardian in respect of his attitude towards contact and his participation in these proceedings.
61. In my judgment the father is not in a position to safely care for CB and I cannot sanction a return home.
62. The father's alternative position is for a parenting assessment. There has not been a formal application pursuant to section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989 on his behalf. In his final statement, he makes it clear that he does not accept that there is a need for any further assessment of him, as it his case is that he has cared for CB satisfactorily in the past. Clearly, whilst I do not share his view of his parenting skills, I must balance the competing factors in relation to the application for an assessment and the consequent delay that would entail.
63. The social worker and the Children's Guardian do not believe that an assessment has any realistic prospect of success. They rely on the matters set out in my judgment and whilst they both acknowledge his ability to care for CB at times, they do not believe he has the capacity to deal with the challenges of a further assessment or, indeed, as a full time carer of CB. They both point to the need for permanency and the fact that CB has a desperate need for decisions to be made now. He has suffered constant upheaval throughout his life and if he is to attach to permanent carers successfully, he must have the opportunity to do so as soon as possible. If there were an assessment of the father this is likely to delay the final decision for another 4 months at least.
64. The advantage for CB is the prospect of being cared for by his parent. I do not underestimate that. I am unable, however, to support the father's application. I do not believe that he is committed to an assessment as is clear from his written and oral evidence. I agree with the social worker and Guardian that the overwhelming likelihood is that the assessment will not move matters on beyond the conclusions of the current assessment. Unfortunately, there is no sound basis for a significant delay to the final decision for CB. I refuse the application.
65. As set out above, CB's welfare is my paramount concern and fundamental to that is the right to be cared for by his parents, if at all possible. The local authority seeks a placement order in pursuit of their care plan for permanency outside of the birth family.
66. I accept that CB's wishes and feelings would be in the first instance to be cared for by his parents, if possible. He is not of an age to give clear expression to his views.
67. In respect of CB's emotional and physical needs. He has an urgent need for security and stability. The social worker believes he has an attachment disorder, which she hoped is resolving as a consequence of the care that he has received from his current foster carers. The Guardian echoes the social worker's concerns about his ability to attach albeit believes that CB does not have a fully developed attachment disorder given his progress with the current carers. They both advise in the clearest terms that they believe that he will attach to permanent carers and I am told that the local authority will also provide assistance through their Leapfrog programme, which provides support for children and carers in these circumstances. CB has impaired language skills, which are being addressed but his speech continues to be described as disordered. It is unfortunate that he missed appointments with the speech therapist when he was living with his mother.
68. In terms of the harm he has suffered, I have made clear findings that he has suffered significant emotional harm and that there is an ongoing risk of the same attributable to the care he would receive from both parents if an order were not made.
69. I have also found that neither parent is able to protect CB from harm and provide him with safe, stable and secure care.
70. There are no other persons available to care for CB within his extended maternal and paternal family. AP convened a family meeting and no one was in a position to offer to care for him.
71. The disadvantage of a placement order is that it will sever CB's family ties on a life long basis. It is an order when nothing else will do. The advantages of an order are that it will provide him with a life long family with carers who have been subject to a intensive process of selection and training and are dedicated to providing a secure and loving home. I cannot better the succinct and eloquent formulation of Pauffley J in LRP (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Placement Order) [2013] EWHC 3974 (Fam),

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

72. In the circumstances, I dispense with the consent of the father and the mother (if it was necessary) pursuant to section 52(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 on the basis that CB's welfare demands that I should do so.