England and Wales County Court (Family)

Case No : DP13C00069

IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT

Date: 7.4.14

Before :

HHJ Lynch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Claire Sheldon for the Applicant

Rachel Mellor for the 1^st Respondent

Stephen Thornton for the 2^nd Respondent

Nick Howcroft for the 3^rd Respondent

Michael George for the Children

Hearing dates: 31 March to 3 April 2014

Judgment handed down: 7 April 2014

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. In these proceedings I am concerned for X (aged five), Y (aged four) and Z (aged one). The mother of all of the children is AB. The father of X and Y is CD and Z's father is EF. Both fathers share parental responsibility for their children with the mother. The other significant people in this case are GH and HH, the paternal aunt of X and Y and her partner, who are currently caring for X and Y.
2. I should say at the outset of this judgment at times I have referred to “the parents” meaning AB and EF. I confess this is for my ease due to the need to prepare an anonymised version of this judgment for publication and I mean no disrespect to CD in his role as father of X and Y which I obviously acknowledge.
3. Looking at the chronology, there were concerns about the family from when X was very small when the mother was in a relationship with CD. Looking at the chronology there were concerns about the home in which they were living, issues of cannabis use, and issues of domestic violence in their relationship. The local authority was involved under a CAF and stepped down their involvement in April 2012, whilst noting there were still some outstanding issues.
4. The local authority’s involvement with AB and EF began in August 2012 after a referral was made to Children’s Social Care by AB’s midwife expressing concern that she was in a relationship with EF, a man with a known history of violence. In response to the referral, a pre-birth assessment was completed and the children were made the subjects of child protection plans in January 2013, followed by the PLO process in March 2013. As part of the child protection planning, it was recommended that EF attend the W Project to manage his emotional regulation. He attended one session but the service was unable to work with him as he stated that he did not have any issues with anger. Over the period of time the local authority carried out this work EF was in work full time working very long days. There are references in the recordings to EF not having as full involvement as would normally be expected as a result of his work.
5. Local authority involvement with the family continued with the intensive family support team undertaking work within the home to improve routines and boundaries, and domestic violence services did some work with AB. A psychological assessment was also carried out on behalf of the local authority by a child psychologist, Larry Anderson, looking at attachments within the family unit. The assessment by Mr Anderson, which involved both parents, was positive and reports from nursery suggested that the children’s behaviour had stabilised. Given the progress made the children were removed from child protection plans and PLO on 16 and 18 September 2013, with the situation to remain monitored on a Child In Need basis. It is clear from the minutes of a PLO meeting on 20 March 2013 that the plan had always been to put in intensive family support and then to pull this out and see if the family could sustain the improvements. I am not entirely sure when but around this time EF ceased to work, due to being depressed, and became part of daily life in the family home.
6. Within a matter of weeks the local authority began to receive further referrals that were of concern. A referral to a children's centre for the mother to access activities and courses was closed down on 2 October as they had not been able to gain contact with the family. Then on 5 October Z was taken to A & E by ambulance, and both ambulance staff and hospital staff were very concerned by EF’s aggression towards both staff and AB. The local authority visited the family home on 10 October and have what seems to been a difficult discussion with the couple, EF suggesting that Social Care could not just turn up. They were not able to elicit from EF whether he was in fact still working although the social worker said they wanted to try to offer support.
7. On 22 October an anonymous referral was made to the NSPCC stating that EF shouted at the children and that both they and AB were scared of him, as well as allegations that EF was selling drugs from the family home. Again the local authority visited to talk to EF. The following day there was a discussion with school who were expressing increasing concerns regarding X who was having frequent periods off school and Y off nursery. When they tried to discuss this with EF he was argumentative and rude.
8. Then on 24 October Y’s nursery made a further referral reporting bruising on Y. A section 47 investigation was undertaken and a child protection medical noted a large number of bruises, many accepted to be accidental but including bruising to the face that appeared to be from a grip hold and further bruising to the torso and groin. The only explanation given by AB or EF was the children play fighting or Y being clumsy. The parents’ response to the local authority investigating was to accuse them of harassment, of seeking to psych them out, failing to tell them what the concerns are and failing to offer any support. The parents were told that care proceedings would be initiated. The following day EF contacted the department complaining about the team manager and requesting a change of worker.
9. The local authority decided as a result of the escalating concerns to put matters before the court. On 29 October 2013 an application was made for interim care orders in respect of all three children, those orders being made for the first time on 6 November 2013 and having been renewed regularly ever since. The children were removed from the care of the parents. X and Y live with their paternal aunt and her partner, in respect of whom a positive special guardianship assessment has subsequently been completed. Z is in foster care. AB and EF have contact with X and Y three times a week, supervised at a local family centre, and five times a week with Z. CD sees X and Y once a fortnight, supervision alternating between his sister and a contact worker.
10. These proceedings first came before me on 13 November when directions were given including the instruction of the psychologist who assessed the parents. Drug and alcohol testing was also directed. The case was timetabled through to this final hearing at that point and the only hearing since has been the issues resolution hearing.
11. The local authority has filed a recent amended schedule of findings sought but the question of threshold has not been agreed. I shall therefore return to this later in this judgment. I remind myself that the question of threshold has to be looked at as at the date protective measures were instituted, which I take here to be the issue of proceedings.

The Issues and the Position of the Parties

12. In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter, as well as certain documents handed in during the hearing including a letter from GH and HH, X's school attendance record, a social work summary prepared for a review conference on 18 September 2013 and the social worker’s notes of a conversation with staff at The substance misuse project as well as a letter from them regarding EF. I have heard evidence in court from the social work team manager, Helen Cliffe; IJ, acting head teacher at X's school; Dr Naomi Murphy, a forensic psychologist who assessed AB and EF; AB; EF; and Diane Andre-Brown, the guardian. I have also heard submissions from all parties.
13. The local authority has assessed AB and EF. Ms Cliffe concluded it would not be in the interests of any of the children to return to the care of the couple. In respect of X and Y, the assessment of the paternal aunt and her partner was positive and the local authority recommend special guardianship orders to be made in their favour. The local authority also proposes the making of supervision orders for twelve months to support the placement, particularly in relation to contact. Assessments of another paternal aunt and a family friend were negative and there are no possible family options for Z. The local authority plan for him therefore is the making of a care and placement order with a plan that he be placed for adoption. Their plans are supported by the guardian.
14. AB and EF oppose the plans for all three children and wish them to be returned to their care. They do not accept that the children have suffered any harm in their care or would be at risk of suffering harm in the future. They take the view the local authority has always been set against them and was not open to the possibility of them caring for the children. They make the point that as recently as early September 2013 the local authority stepped down its involvement as it was content with the children's progress, only to seek interim care orders the following month.
15. CD does not oppose the making of special guardianship orders in respect of X and Y to their carers. He does not seek to care for the children himself and is confident they will be well cared for by his sister and her partner. His contact only restarted in January 2014 following a breakdown in arrangements after a private law contact order was made. His contact has been going successfully on a fortnightly basis since it resumed. The plan is for his contact to be reduced to six times a year in school holidays. He would have liked to have more contact than that but is content to leave matters in the hands of his sister. He would be concerned if X and Y returned to the care of their mother and EF as he fears his contact will break down again.

The Evidence

16. The local authority's case was set out in the evidence of Helen Cliffe. She is a team manager and currently has responsibility for this family. As I understand it she also supervised other workers who had some involvement during the period where the local authority worked with this family under Child Protection Plans. She prepared the initial evidence for the court when care proceedings were commenced including the assessment of the parents. She spoke of the deterioration since the stepped down plan. She spoke of her concerns that X and Y did not react as one would expect when the parents were highly aroused, seeming to be used to this. X’s school attendance had dropped to 75% and Y had had spates of reported sickness leading to her missing nursery. The local authority was concerned at the dysfunctional family dynamics and the aggression.
17. Ms Cliffe was clear that for her the case is not one of capability. In her written and oral evidence she acknowledged the parents had given good parenting at times and she did not seek to resile from the progress of the family shown in the very positive assessment by Larry Anderson. She said in her initial statement : “The Child Protection planning and the Public Law Outline process for the nine-month period it was in place clearly evidences parental capacity to provide the children with what is expected. This is a matter of sustainability and the parents recognising their own risk factors in parenting their respective children and proactively engaging with services in times of stress. The history of each parent's respective parenting is extensive. The cyclical nature of chaotic parenting places all three children at ongoing risk of significant harm….” In her oral evidence she was clear that whatever services were put in place the risk of harm would return if the children were in the care of the parents.
18. What was also clear from the local authority's initial evidence was that it took the view that further assessment of the parents should not take place. The plan was for assessments of family members but if not placement outside the family. Hair strand testing of the parents in relation to drug and alcohol use was also sought. This approach was consistent with the way local authorities are now told to “front load” care cases but I accept the message it gave to the parents was that the local authority had made up its mind. However at the first hearing before me the local authority agreed to update its assessments, an approach requested by the guardian, and also agreed to the guardian's proposal for forensic psychological assessments of AB and EF.
19. Looking at Ms Cliffe’s final statement, in that she very much reflected on the evidence which had been gathered since the beginning of the proceedings when reaching a final conclusion. She placed understandable emphasis on Dr Murphy's assessment of the parents and the result of the drug and alcohol testing and she looked at the evidence from the updated parenting assessment and contact as well. She acknowledged that the parents had taken steps to put in hand some of the matters raised by Dr Murphy. However she remained of the view that the children could not be returned to the care of AB and EF. I should say I found Ms Cliffe a considered witness, open and thoughtful in her evidence.
20. It is certainly clear to me that the relationship Ms Cliffe had with the parents was a difficult one, something she acknowledged. In her oral evidence she said she would not underestimate the impact of the involvement of Social Care on the parents given that they both had a history with the agency. She said she had tried hard to research particularly EF's background in advance of them first meeting for his assessment as she knew his childhood would be an issue for him. It was also very clear that she had made an active choice to minimise social work involvement and use independent agencies such as the intensive family support team and Larry Anderson. Whilst tailoring the service to this family she says said there did still have to be certain things which were social work led such as meetings. She felt that they had done everything they could to put in services in an appropriate way. She said she would have no confidence in the future that the parents would work with the local authority, despite what they had said.
21. Ms Cliffe was concerned about the impact on X and Y in particular of the care they had experienced. She spoke of how she felt they struggled to regulate their emotions which could impact on their ability to function and to access services around education. She felt this was improving in the care of their current carers although it was still an issue.
22. I learned more about the children from the statements from their nursery and schools. IJ, the acting head teacher at X’s school, gave evidence as well as filing a statement. He explained how X’s school attendance in the first part of September prior to the meeting on 18 September was 100%. He was very clear that matters changed significantly after that meeting. In court he gave me a copy of the attendance record which showed a significant change in terms of attendance and late arrivals from that point onwards, with attendance dropping to 75%. He spoke of absences due to coughs, colds and diarrhoea, an optician’s appointment for which no letter was produced, as well as late attendance. In passing I should say the mother in her evidence said children had to be off school if they had diarrhoea for forty eight hours thereafter but I note the absences due to diarrhoea seem to have been single days. It was put to IJ that children coming up from nursery often get bugs. IJ accepted that but said he would still view 95% as acceptable attendance. He said even children with no experience of nursery and just starting in school would not have attendance as low as this, even if they had had a significant illness like chickenpox.
23. On 17 October X was late for school, the explanation being that the baby was sick over him and he had to get changed. On arrival X said he had not had breakfast and said EF had been shouting at him and his mother. On 25 October there was another incident of concern. On that day IJ said EF dropped X off at school. He said when X arrived he was very agitated, hyper-vigilant and appeared scared by EF's presence. After EF left X needed comforting and reassuring. His teacher said to X “E is gone now” and X calmed down. X told his teacher the police and social workers had visited the house night before and EF was “fighting with them”. He went on to say he had not had breakfast that morning as his mother and EF were shouting. Puzzlingly, EF accepted he had taken X that morning whereas AB protested there had never been a morning when EF had done the drop off, clearly not the truth. It left me with no confidence at all when she then said there was never a time she and EF had shouted at each other.
24. Overall IJ said X was an anxious child who needed more adult support and attention. He accepted children who had come from a different nursery needed more attention anyway but X’s needs were still more significant. He said X was behind expectations in most areas, particularly making relationships and also managing feelings and behaviour.
25. Looking at the statement of KL, Y's nursery nurse practitioner, she too talked about Y's absence from nursery, including I note 30 September. On that date neither child went to school. X's attendance record shows him off school sick whereas Y was off because her mother was waiting for a washing machine to be delivered. Y missed nursery from 16 to 23 October, six days spread over a weekend, due to being unwell. KL said it was unusual because Y would not normally miss so much. Then on 24 October Y was brought in by her mother who quickly said she had a bruise on her chin due to falling off her bed having been wrestling with her brother. She said the social worker had already seen it, which I know is true. When KL looked closely at Y she found a number of injuries on her face and torso. She was so concerned Y's social worker was asked to come to the nursery and Y was taken for a medical.
26. KL is someone who also knew X because he had been at the same nursery. She said in her statement to the children did sometimes hit each other at nursery but that Y was no clumsier than any other child and bruising had not been noticed before. She said in her statement “I found that the children found it difficult to express their anger and if something went wrong they would shout, rant and rave and be louder than most children.”
27. Also amongst the local authority’s evidence were contact notes as well as a collective statement from four workers at the family centre where Z’s contact takes place. They noticed a number of contacts with Z missed or ended early, EF having missed quite a few more than AB. He had also missed a significant proportion of X and Y’s contacts. It is clear from the notes and the statement that both parents were capable of looking after Z practically but concerns were raised. They said EF did not like Z to be messy or spill anything on him and if he did that could cause anxiety for EF. An example of this appears in the recording for the contact on 29 January when Z got upset having his nappy changed, causing EF to get anxious and flustered. EF took himself out of the room and on his return told Z he was spoiling contact. When Z was sick he told him to stop it, becoming yet more stressed. Eventually he ended the contact early, blaming Z for that. The worker recorded on putting Z in his car seat he was “physically shaking”. This really is worrying, showing how badly EF copes when stressed and how that could impact on a child. Equally I set that against a number of other notes of positive contact, albeit in the context of many contacts being missed by him due to other commitments and being stressed. EF in his evidence spoke of at times just needing to stay in his room when he was stressed, that that was better than going to contact, which really troubled me in terms of how that would work were the children in the household with the parents.
28. Overall the workers said Z appeared more relaxed in his mother's company than his father's, and that he could appear quite subdued when being held by his father, often looking away and giving no facial expression. They concluded “The overall stability of the contact sessions appears to depend on parent’s mood that day. Often, if EF arrives in a happy, upbeat mood, so is AB, which impacts on Z's mood and on contact….. However, if EF arrives low in mood, AB also seems low and very quiet and this impacts on Z and how the contact goes - an example of this would be that Z will prefer to stay around AB when EF does not seem in a positive mood and EF is less able to deal with situations such as trying to change Z's clothes if he has been sick.” They also spoke at times of contact being cut short by parents because EF was getting upset at something Z was doing and not being able to get back from that. I have to say that statement from the family centre very much was borne out by the contact notes which I read. It was clear there could be some lovely contact but the concerns raised by the workers were evident in the notes.
29. The level of missed contacts did surprise me. The mother accepted out of fifty two contacts offered to her with X and Y between mid November and mid March she had missed twenty. She had only missed four of Z’s. I acknowledge the pattern of contact she was faced with was demanding, effectively five mornings with Z and then three afternoons with the older children, and I do understand she had to fit other appointments in. The focus though on Z’s rather than X and Y’s I find surprising. EF acknowledged he had in particular missed a very significant number of X and Y’s contact sessions, thirty seven out of fifty two, attending more of Z’s. He said this was due to other commitments and also to times when he felt the children were ignoring him in contact which led him to question why he would go when it made him feel bad. That did trouble me, his focus on himself rather than the children. It also did not fit with the mother who was very clear the children did want to see him despite what they had told other people. She asked them about this, as she put it to me saying to them “why when you have told me you want to see him and you love him to bits”. I think this shows her focus on being a family unit with EF, meeting his needs ahead of those of her children.
30. The other witness from whom I heard in respect of the parents with very direct relevant evidence was Dr Naomi Murphy, a consultant clinical and forensic psychologist. She had been commissioned at the request of the guardian to carry out an assessment of the parents, looking at issues around risk. She prepared two separate detailed reports and gave oral evidence. Before I look at her evidence in detail I am going to look at the drug and alcohol hair test results as they are relevant to Dr Murphy's assessment. The test results cover the period October 2013 to January 2014. The alcohol hair test in respect of the mother was not suggestive of chronic excessive alcohol consumption. In respect of EF blood test results record “biochemical evidence of excessive alcohol ingestion”. However in the hair testing, ethyl glucuronide was detected in his chest hair but not fatty acid ethyl esters. The testing company then says that as the hair test was of a chest hair sample the results could not be compared with standard test results and therefore could not be used to determine whether he had consumed alcohol to a chronic excessive level, a singularly unhelpful result. I shall come back later to EF's evidence but he certainly accepted using alcohol over this period, particularly at a high level around Christmas which was a stressful time.
31. Turning to the drug test results, in respect of AB they showed cannabis in each of the three periods tested, the level being described as high in each period. Amphetamines were also found in each period, the highest being the last which covered the beginning of December 2013 to the beginning of January 2014. Codeine too was found in each of the three periods, this coming from prescription medication which AB takes. EF’s drug test results showed use of amphetamines and cannabis, both at high levels. Metabolites of cocaine (low levels) were also found in his test results which it was said could be attributed to the use by him of having used cocaine or him having been exposed to it by others in the vicinity smoking it. I should also mention here that the results did not entirely corroborate what Dr Murphy was told, for example EF saying he had not used cocaine for seven months previously and suggesting amphetamine use was a past recreational pursuit. Likewise his estimate of his alcohol use did not mirror the results which were more like that described by AB.
32. Turning back then to the reports of Dr Murphy, I got a very real sense in her report of the difficulties the parents have faced in their own childhoods. I am not going to go into great details here but EF experienced extreme violence from his father caused to him, his mother and brother. After his parents separated he was pushed from pillar to post and spent most of his time living with an uncle who was an alcoholic although clearly a very significant person in his life. He was taken into care when he was nine and had bad experiences, including being in an approved school. As a child he was convicted of arson and received a significant sentence. He has a history of drug use going back to his childhood and was honest about this, acknowledging that of all substances he has a weakness for alcohol. He has an extensive criminal history although not it is accepted in the last three years. He was violent to his ex-wife who obtained an injunction against him which he broke. He has a diagnosis of personality disorder dating back to twelve years ago when he was in prison. He has sought assistance from his doctor in reducing his use of alcohol on four reported occasions and also raised concerns upon occasion about his aggression and use of illegal drugs. Dr Murphy noted that though his GP had referred him to a specialist support he did not attend an appointment offered by a drug and alcohol team in 2008.
33. Of the impact of his childhood on him Dr Murphy said: “EF’s childhood history of trauma and neglect has had a profound impact upon his personality development and thus impacts upon his interpersonal relationships, his ability to regulate his emotions, his cognitions and his level of impulsivity (as dealt with under personality disorder). EF’s strategy for managing his history of trauma is to avoid reflecting upon it and to avoid any reminders and this can require considerable effort to control his life in order to keep intrusive thoughts out. Paradoxically, his failure to resolve his history of abuse and neglect makes him hypersensitive to these themes and he presents as hyper-vigilant and therefore more likely to arise at erroneous conclusions that he is at risk of harm or abandonment than someone who has not been traumatised. This demand for emotional energy places the psyche under considerable strain leaving little space for coping with other stressors in life.”
34. Dr Murphy agreed with the previous diagnosis of EF, saying he would meet DSM-V diagnostic criteria for personality disorder, in particular anti-social personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. She acknowledged an improvement in his presentation in terms of antisocial behaviour but said the improvement had occurred as a consequence of being in a relationship in which he is relatively happy with the threat of losing his child hanging over him.
35. Dr Murphy described how EF had a history of intense relationships where he fluctuates from feeling very strong positive emotions to very strong negative emotions. She noted he has a history of impulsive behaviour. She said: “EF finds it difficult to acknowledge or articulate his emotions and has a tendency to try and avoid them through use of substances or anti-social behaviours including violence and other impulsive behaviours. When he is unable to avoid strong negative affect which makes him feel vulnerable, he becomes overwhelmed and has few resources to cope thus he experiences emotions at their extremes, for instance, feeling hopeless rather than sad or enraged rather than angry. Consequently, those around him will be subjected to extreme mood states which may fluctuate rapidly and be difficult to predict and lead to inconsistency in parenting style. Because EF cannot cope adequately with his own emotional state using internal resources, others will have to cope with his use of external ‘resources’ which may mean exposure to inebriation or aggression or violence.”
36. Dr Murphy accepted that from what she had seen the relationship between the couple was in many ways positive. She saw EF as dominant but did not gain the impression that was because he intimidated AB. She described the relationship not as one of balanced equals but one in which there is one dominant competent partner who needs to be needed and to whom it is functional to look after others and where there is a second partner who is more passive and enjoys an absence of responsibility. That accords with my impression of the couple as I saw physical affection and reassurance during the hearing. Dr Murphy was asked whether the lack of reported incidents of domestic violence represented change. She said she could not be confident that AB would report incidents but she accepted it was possible the relationship had not yet included domestic violence. However she said this did not guarantee a change that will be maintained and was in fact more likely to suggest that EF was currently feeling relatively contained. She said personality is relatively stable and unlikely to change. EF's domestic violence is driven by his personality functioning suggesting that unless his personality disorder is addressed he will remain at risk of using violence in the future.
37. In terms of how his personality type would affect his parenting, Dr Murphy said “EF appears quite fragile and I would hypothesise that he is himself hypersensitive to criticism since it evokes strong feelings of shame which he would be unable to cope with and would also trigger fear of abandonment. EF’s difficulties in talking about his emotions would make it difficult for him to express anxiety that he is about to be left or betrayed and so contribute to acting out his emotions behaviourally rather than simply stating that he feels insecure. Within relationships with children, this may mean that feelings of inadequacy are triggered by disobedience or perceived disobedience/disrespect and this would be exacerbated as a child becomes more autonomous and more capable of dissenting.” Again this chimed with comments I have read in the contact notes in respect of Z. Dr Murphy said it is really important for a child's development that their caregiver can respond in an attuned way to displays of distress but EF's inability to tolerate negative emotion would suggest that he would find this task difficult if not impossible. She said her own experience of him was when he is anxious he seems hostile, intimidating or frightening and this seems to be a common experience of EF. She said she thought it inevitable there would be occasions within the home where he would be experienced as frightening by children as long as he avoids addressing his difficulties in coping with his emotions.
38. Dr Murphy was of the opinion that EF required long-term psychological treatment which would take at least twelve months. She recommended particular types of treatment which may be most suitable. She was clear there needed to be a period of abstinence from alcohol and drugs, particularly as she pointed out the psychological treatment would be likely to destabilise EF in the short term. She acknowledged the difficulties there would be for EF in facing up to this work. She said “If EF is to engage in treatment in a meaningful way he will need to be able to muster up enough curiosity about himself and the courage to tolerate experiencing emotions he has long avoided and risk being harmed or rejected.” She acknowledged he had sought out a referral for treatment during the course of her assessment. She said if he could start the work a review at four months would enable a more accurate understanding of whether he could use such opportunity to address his childhood trauma. In her oral evidence she expanded on this to say that the four-month period would need to be counted from when he had ceased to use alcohol and illicit drugs due to those masking the feelings he needed to confront. She said would it be inappropriate for Z to be in his care until after that review period to make sure he had engaged in a meaningful way but importantly that he had not destabilised to a degree that would increase his risk.
39. Turning to the assessment of AB, again Dr Murphy went through the problems she had faced as a young person and how she began using cannabis at the age of fourteen, drinking alcohol at fifteen, using amphetamines slightly later. Dr Murphy was clear that AB too had to face up to difficulties from her childhood including problems in her relationships with both her parents. She said “AB’s childhood history of trauma and neglect has had a profound impact upon her personality development and thus impacts upon her interpersonal relationships, her ability to regulate her emotions and her cognitions (dealt with later in this section). AB’s strategy for managing her history of trauma and neglect is to avoid reflecting upon it and to avoid any reminders and this can require considerable effort to control her life in order to keep intrusive thoughts out. Moreover, her inability to integrate and accept awareness of her parents deficits makes it difficult to be aware of her own vulnerabilities and acknowledge her own deficits in parenting.” She said AB “generally avoids experiencing emotions which make her feel vulnerable and chooses not to reflect upon information that would make her connect with such affect, relying upon substances as a pathological means of maintaining this strategy by facilitating avoidance of thought/reflection and feeling. Impairment in her capacity to cope with emotion would inevitably impact upon her ability to respond to her children’s emotions especially those which cause internal conflict such as those which arise in relation to her own actions or challenge her romantic relationships”.
40. In terms of her relationships, Dr Murphy noted she had tolerated a relationship with CD which was characterised by extreme violence. As I said, Dr Murphy acknowledged there may not yet be violence within the relationship of the parents. However she said “I think there is still a high risk that AB will maintain a relationship with a man who is aggressive or violent for a number of reasons: she minimised the extent of EF’s violence towards a former partner and does not appear to have been curious about his violence towards other women or his children; AB was aware that the relationship with CD was likely to be damaging to children when she was in the relationship and yet chose to maintain it, she finds it difficult to discuss the effects of violence on children, her current relationship seems predicated upon the belief that she is to some degree defective or inadequate and needs a partner to support her and she has not engaged in any work which will address the underlying, personality driven motivation to persist with an unhealthy relationship.” She said AB showed signs of having a dependent personality and she feared that her need to maintain a relationship would override all other considerations.
41. Looking at how this might impact on the children Dr Murphy concluded “Even if EF is not violent as AB and EF both assert, my own brief contact with EF indicates that he has the potential to be experienced by others as aggressive and intimidating. Living within an environment where one parental figure presents in such a manner is likely to expose the children to very strong negative affect such as fear, sadness, anger, loneliness and shame which is unlikely to be matched with an attuned response and thus cause emotional difficulties. AB’s inability to stand up and protect either herself or the children is likely to cause the children to be angry with AB and role model conflictual, tense relationships as to some degree normal.” Dr Murphy acknowledged that AB had undertaken work with a domestic violence worker and that she believed she would now take action if she was assaulted, but Dr Murphy felt this highly unlikely. She said the theme of abandonment has a major significance for AB, leaving her unable to end a relationship of her own volition no matter how bad that relationship was, and that would include her relationship with EF. Dr Murphy also expressed her concern about AB's inability to cope without misusing medication and illegal drugs, looking at the history of AB's cannabis use in particular.
42. Turning to psychological treatment, Dr Murphy was of the view that AB did require this over the medium to long term to deal with the impact her father's abandonment had on her and her behaviour in relationships and that this would be likely to take six to nine months. Again the issue of her needing to abstain from cannabis use was relevant as Dr Murphy said otherwise it would be difficult for any therapist to facilitate increased tolerance of emotion in her.
43. I have set out Dr Murphy's views in quite some detail here because the local authority and guardian rely on them but also because for me they seemed very germane to the core of this case. Her evidence gave me a much clearer understanding of the problems the parents face, let me be clear not of their own making, and the work they will need to undergo to make themselves emotionally well again.
44. Looking at the evidence of the parents, AB and EF were clear that they do not accept the children have suffered harm in their care or that the children would be at risk of suffering harm were they returned to their care. They point out that the local authority had stepped down its involvement with the family on 16 September 2013. They do not accept that any of the events thereafter should have led it to issue proceedings. The parents understandably sought to rely on the very positive assessment of Larry Anderson in July/August 2013, Mr Anderson having seen them together with the children when Dr Murphy did not. I have read that statement and, as the social worker and guardian acknowledged, it is clearly very positive in terms of the care he saw the parents give the children and of the attachments he witnessed. Mr Anderson also was clear that the parents had been able to take on board suggestions he had made and work with him. Ms Mellor said in her submissions no one had sought to say how his conclusions were different to the current position. I remind myself though this was done at a time when EF was in work and was not particularly depressed. EF spoke in his evidence of his depression being recurrent and I note he did not seek any medical attention, that not being his way of dealing with things. It seems to me perfectly possible that this is why Mr Anderson saw a different picture to that which began to re-emerge after the step down in September.
45. Looking at matters which led the local authority to begin proceedings, EF acknowledged that at hospital on 5 October he was particularly worried about the terrible situation Z seemed to be in. He said he was panicking and accepted there were lots of arm gestures and raised voices. He said the emergency in hospital staff all misinterpreted this as it was in no way meant to be aggressive. I have to say though what is clear from the recording of these incidents is emergency and hospital staff were very clear that what they saw was worrying, however EF meant it to seem. Again, his behaviour was seen as different to that exhibited by other anxious parents which, as Ms Cliffe identified, would not normally lead to a referral to EDT.
46. Then on 22 October, when the local authority went to discuss the referral the NSPCC had received with the couple, EF said he felt was being unfairly accused. He accepted because he felt threatened he became agitated with the social workers, particularly Ms Cliffe. He acknowledges there were raised voices in the presence of the children which he regretted. However overall he denied being aggressive in the presence of the children and denied the children had any reason to be scared of him.
47. Turning to Y's bruising, AB did not accept there should be concerns about this which she had explained to the local authority as being caused by the children play fighting and Y falling off the bed. EF agreed with this explanation. He said on many occasions the couple had told the children for jumping off their beds or even the windowsill. He acknowledged X by being older might use too much force on Y when play fighting. He was clear neither he nor AB had grabbed Y’s face to cause any of the bruising.
48. AB acknowledged difficulties in her relationship with social workers, she said as result of the allegations made which led to the proceedings being started. She felt right at the beginning of the care proceedings the local authority had been clear that the children would be removed and they had made up their minds. She accepted in the respect of the heated discussions with the local authority on 24 October that the children would have heard what was going on when social services and police came to the house and this would have upset them. Despite all this AB and EF said they would work with the local authority if they need to following this final hearing.
49. Looking at AB’s relationship history, she accepted there was violence in her relationship with CD but denied there was in her relationship with EF. She says she had involvement with a domestic violence worker and from what she had learned would not remain in such relationship again. She says she and EF argued but no more than that. She could see EF would be perceived as the louder of the two of them but she did not feel dominated. EF’s evidence very much echoed that.
50. In terms of her alcohol use, she said in her statement of 6 December 2013 this was not a particular problem. She said prior to proceedings she would only really drink on a night out but rarely at home. She accepted she had smoked cannabis for a number of years but denied smoking in front of the children. She said prior to that statement they would have smoked as a couple £40-£50 W of cannabis per week. She accepted she had used amphetamines if she went for a night out at the weekend maybe once or twice a month. She denied having used any since early November. From her oral evidence I found it very hard to get a precise picture about what she was saying of her current consumption but it seemed to be the cost had reduced to £30-£40 per week, with her using about half. She, and indeed EF, said they had been advised by their workers not to stop immediately as it could make them extremely paranoid but instead to reduce gradually. The goal for both of them was to stop eventually.
51. AB was clear she had taken on board the recommendations of Dr Murphy. In respect of her drug and alcohol use she had said in her December statement that she had engaged with The substance misuse project and she repeated this in her final statement. I was shown a note confirming she went to her initial assessment session in fact only on 20 February 2014, an earlier session having had to be cancelled, and she had attended one session since. Two other sessions had been cancelled by the project. She said it was extremely difficult to organise sessions around all her contact sessions but she said she would keep going.
52. She had also taken steps to see a therapist who she is funding privately due to the length of the NHS waiting list. She said she had had four sessions with him which she felt had been beneficial.
53. In her final statement AB said she and EF were seeing Relate in relation to their relationship. This in fact turned out not to be accurate. They had contacted the organisation and arranged an appointment which did not happen. They do not have another session booked because they cannot afford the cost of this but say they would be happy to go.
54. EF too has filed several statements in these proceedings. He does not seek to avoid the problems he has from his past and his poor criminal record. He admits domestic violence in his relationship with his ex-wife which led to him losing contact with his older children. Following a conviction in 2010 for assault on her he said he attended an IDAP course as part of his probation requirement. He felt this had helped him to learn about the harmful effects of domestic abuse and how he could cope better with his behaviour and feelings in stressful situations. He was clear his relationship with AB was completely different, as he described it in his statement “a close, loving and mutually supportive relationship”. He did accept though that the couple argued, “clashed” as he described it, although he said not in front of the children whilst they may have heard it. He said it happened because he was depressed, out of work, running out of money, worried about the decorating the house needed, and things like that. Also the authorities were coming to the house which was stressful.
55. In terms of his drug and alcohol use, in November 2013 EF said he was a social drinker and would drink a few cans of ordinary strength lager with friends and family at home in the evenings. At the weekend he would share lager with friends and could drink at ten to twelve cans of lager each throughout the day. Alternatively when he was working he would go to the pub with friends drinking up to six pints of lager. He acknowledged in the past alcohol issues had been a serious problem for him but not now, although it seemed to me his alcohol use had gone up now he is not working. In terms of his drug use, in November last year he said he was a regular cannabis user and agreed with the estimate of £50 per week being spent between the couple. He explained cannabis had calmed down his mood over the years, meaning he was not as on edge and was much better now with people around him. He thought it helped him with trusting people although this was the opposite of the effect Dr Murphy said it would have. He said he took amphetamines occasionally when out socially with friends and had last used on 8 November. Cocaine he said he had not used for more than three or four months. I was certainly left with the very clear impression that drugs for EF were something he would turn to when stressed despite what Dr Murphy had said about the negative impact of them and alcohol.
56. EF like AB said he had taken on board what Dr Murphy had said and was trying to address those issues. He could see that people may experience him as being anxious and having a slight “edge” which could come over as being aggressive or hostile. I do note though the evidence of the social worker, medical and emergency staff who have seen something considerably more aggressive, however it was intended. EF was clear he was turning his life around, having abstained from criminal activity for almost three years and having avoided domestic violence in his relationship with AB.
57. EF said he had self-referred to the substance misuse project regarding cannabis and alcohol use. In terms of his engagement with them I saw a letter from the project which confirmed he had attended three out of eight possible appointments, reporting he had not been to the others due to different commitments and appointments with other agencies. In his evidence he admitted one session he failed to attend, rebooked, and then did not go to the new date as he was stressed. He acknowledged he had yet to begin therapy, having not been able to identify anyone with the requisite skills, although he had referred himself to the B Project who would address issues relating to anger management. Despite that EF did not accept the children could not come home until he was well into his therapy as recommended by Dr Murphy.
58. I do not want to overlook CD in this judgment although he did not give evidence before me and the issues that I am addressing in this judgment largely do not affect him. He came back into the lives of his children in a meaningful way as a result of these proceedings being issued, contact as I have said having broken down for reasons on which he and AB do not agree but I was not asked to go into. Within these proceedings he did offer to care for the children and was assessed along with his current partner. The assessment was negative and he has not sought to challenge but it is very clear he wants to continue to be part of the lives of his children. I heard from his counsel that he would be content to work with the level of contact the local authority proposes, namely six times a year in school holidays, and to see how things work out over time with the children in the care of his sister.

Threshold

59. In the light of the evidence I have read and heard, I am going to look first at threshold as this is not agreed. I accept that the relevant date here is the commencement of the proceedings but I do not accept that I am precluded from looking back to the period before that, even though the local authority stepped down its involvement in September. Harm is often cumulative and one has to look back across a child’s life to see how it has been affected.
60. I have been helpfully referred by advocates to a number of cases as to the nature of what amounts to significant harm. A commonly quoted paragraph is that of Ward LJ in Re M A (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 853 where he said: “given the underlying philosophy of the act, the harm must, in my judgment, be significant enough to justify the intervention of the state and disturb the autonomy of the parents to bring up their children by themselves in the way they choose. It must be significant enough to enable the Court to make a Care Order or a Supervision Order if the welfare of the child demands it”. That I have in mind as I approach the findings sought by the local authority. I am very conscious that any or all of the findings could be facts that are established but do not amount to a threshold finding.
61. The first finding sought by the local authority is that AB, EF and CD have each previously been involved in relationships that were volatile and aggressive and the children have on occasion been witness to volatile disputes either between or involving their parents. The very nature of these relationships has caused the children to suffer emotional harm in the past and exposes them to the continued risk of emotional harm in the future.
62. Both AB and CD accept there was violence in their relationship. From the evidence I have read it is clear the children’s behaviour was affected prior to AB and EF forming their relationship. It is widely accepted now that witnessing domestic abuse impacts on children’s emotional well-being, quite apart from putting them at risk of physical harm, and I am satisfied therefore they suffered significant harm whilst in the care of AB and CD.
63. Regarding AB and EF’s relationship, I accept there is no evidence of physical violence in their relationship. From what I have seen of them and read, there are clearly positives in their relationship and I accept that they feel they gain many benefits from it. Having said this, I am satisfied that they are the people described in Dr Murphy’s report. EF remains a man with significant issues and a predisposition to anger. He is loud and when under stress is unable to regulate his behaviour. This has clearly happened in the presence of professionals, namely Ms Cliffe and medical staff, and I have no reason to doubt that at times this surfaces in the family home. I note X’s reports to school of his mother and step-father shouting at each other, borne out by the anonymous report to the NSPCC (upon which I would not place reliance if it were unsupported in any other way). I note how X has presented in school, not just on 25 October. On that date I accept he had witnessed serious arguments the night before involving AB, EF and professionals and that that was a particularly stressful situation for the family. However it seems to be extremely likely that the argument continued before school, the parents still being stressed, causing more upset to X. The way he presented in school, Y’s lack of concern at the arguments when she was present, both say to me that these children have been affected by volatility and aggression in their home, not just when AB and EF were together. I note that X has asked that EF should not come to contact. I have considered if this was borne out of loyalty to his birth father after he had been reintroduced to the children. The first reference I found was on 16 December which was before the children had any direct contact with their father although X had spoken to him on the phone. Whilst I acknowledge it is possible that was a factor in X’s request, I put X’s comments alongside those he made to his school teacher. I am satisfied that in the home, as Mr George put it in his submissions, the children were exposed to shouting, arguments, aggressive and conflicted behaviour which caused emotional harm. I therefore make the first finding as sought by the local authority.
64. The local authority then turns to Y’s bruising. I am clear that I am not being invited to make a finding that any of Y’s injuries were non-accidental. The local authority however is concerned at the extent of her bruising, the particular nature of one of the injuries which were consistent with injury having been caused according to Dr Ward, the treating paediatrician, the fact that Y had been off nursery for about a week before they were seen, and the fact that the parents denied having seen virtually any of the injuries to her torso.
65. I have looked carefully at Dr Ward’s report and at the statement from Y’s nursery worker. I found AB’s evidence regarding what she had seen of the bruises very unconvincing. It is inconceivable that she would have left her daughter to bath and dress herself such that she did not see them. I think she knew they would attract the attention of professionals and deliberately kept Y off nursery, having been reluctant to let the social workers see Y either. I cannot know with any confidence how they were caused but I acknowledge the volume of bruising is troubling. The mother in her evidence accepted maybe the children had not been supervised as well as they might. EF in his statement said that the children had been allowed to play upstairs unsupervised despite having been known to jump off beds and windowsills. I do not think that it was only ten minutes the children were left for. I remind myself these are parents who misuse drugs and, in EF’s case, alcohol and I doubt they are always as available to the children as they should be.
66. I am satisfied therefore that Y’s bruises were the result at least of a lack of supervision. The question therefore is whether this is significant harm. Ms Mellor and Mr Howcroft both remind me of the breadth of parenting that must be tolerated as described in Re L [2006] EWCA Civ 1282. I accept that parents cannot supervise children all the time and that to require this would be a counsel of perfection. However the fact that the parents knew not just that the children fought in play but that they jumped off beds and window sills should have caused them to offer better supervision than they did. I think AB knew that when she kept Y off nursery. I am therefore going to make this finding but would reword it thus: Whilst in the care of AB and EF, Y suffered bruising to her face, neck, chin, torso and groin. The injuries sustained by Y are the result of a lack of appropriate supervision of the children, by either or both of AB and EF.
67. The next finding sought relates to EF’s drug and alcohol use. The local authority invites me to find as follows : EF has a significant history of drug and alcohol misuse which appears to fluctuate and for which he has engaged in only limited formal intervention to support abstinence. His use of alcohol was a significant feature in incidents of domestic abuse in his previous relationships and he admits to ongoing substance use in the form of regular alcohol and cannabis consumption. EF’s substance use whilst having the primary care of the children has the potential to impair his parenting capacity and thus exposes them to the risk of significant physical and emotional harm and the overall neglect of their basic care needs.
68. On the evidence before me this finding is made out. The test results themselves are of significant concern but I put alongside these the history given to Dr Murphy, EF’s own concessions and AB’s evidence. Alcohol is a disinhibiting factor and EF knows his own history of problems caused by this. I had no sense this family had a social world that did not involve the consumption of alcohol and, linked to that, the consumption of drugs, it having been explained that the reason to take amphetamines is so one can continue to drink without the full effect. I agree that consumption of alcohol, amphetamines and cannabis would have impaired parenting ability and exposed the children to risk of harm.
69. A similar finding is sought regarding AB, namely that AB has a significant history of drug use which has included the use of both illicit substances and prescription medication. She admits to ongoing substance use in the form of regular alcohol and cannabis consumption. AB’s substance use whilst having the primary care of the children has the potential to impair her parenting capacity and thus exposes them to the risk of significant physical and emotional harm and the overall neglect of their basic care needs. Again, for the same reasons as I have given regarding EF I would make these findings, save that I would not mention alcohol in relation to AB. Her alcohol tests did not show a chronic consumption of alcohol and I am conscious this included the Christmas period which I know the parents found particularly difficult. Whilst she clearly drinks socially at times I do not think alcohol is her “medication of choice”.
70. Next the local authority turns to the children’s basic care needs, seeking a finding that AB has failed to ensure the basic care needs of X and Y have been met in that she has failed to ensure their regular and timely attendance at school and nursery, thus impairing their educational and social development.
71. As I have said, the parents have clearly given the children good parenting over periods of time, evidenced by the local authority stepping down its involvement in September 2013. The social worker agreed this was a case where the issue was not capability but consistency over time. Looking at the children’s school attendance, I turn to the evidence of IJ and KL. It is clear that the children did not attend nursery and school consistently after the Child Protection Review in mid September. IJ was so clear as to the fact that the change happened at that point, when the parents I am sure felt they had proved themselves and could relax. In the past it seems attendance had been better, particularly evident from KL who was surprised at Y suddenly missing nursery in October prior to the bruises being seen. I do not think all these absences can be explained by illness and I find stemmed from the parents taking their eyes off the ball. It was clearly a time of stress in the household, with EF having lost his job and being around most of the time. He was depressed and drinking more which I am sure impacted on him getting up, and both parents were using cannabis which Dr Murphy said affected motivation. I am satisfied the children were missing school and nursery and this would over time have impacted on their educational and social development.
72. Again though, as with the bruising, does this amount to significant harm? If it had continued at the level it did I accept over time harm would have been caused. Children need to be at school consistently to benefit from education, to socialise with their peers and make friends, to get a sense of the importance of structure, and they are harmed if this is denied them. The family lived opposite the school but could not consistently get them to school on time. They had to be contacted by the school to find out where the children were. I suspect this all linked back to the problems in the household at that time, a situation I have every expectation would have continued albeit not every day or every week.
73. The final finding sought by the local authority within its draft threshold is that AB and EF have failed to co-operate with professionals in their enquiries and investigations consistently and have on occasions displayed a hostile and threatening attitude towards social workers and health professionals. Their behaviour and attitude raises concerns about their ability to work with Children’s Services and other professionals in the future openly, honestly and with commitment. From the evidence I am satisfied that this is factually true in relation to Children’s Services, given the social worker’s evidence about the difficulties in engaging the parents, the evidence of health professionals about their experiences with him, and even Dr Murphy who accepted she herself (as a woman experienced in working with violent individuals) did not feel threatened but could see how other professionals would experience EF. I am not sure it is true regarding other professionals given the engagement with the IFS Team and Larry Anderson. I also find it very hard to imagine the couple working with the local authority in a constructive way in the future, in part because until therapy is successful they, particularly EF, remain the people they are but also because of the significant effect the act of bringing these proceedings has had on matters.
74. What I am less sure about is whether this paragraph should properly be in a threshold document, whether as a direct result of this the children had suffered or were likely to suffer significant harm. I think the arguments witnessed affected the children but I have covered that in my first finding. I can see how lack of co-operation could have an impact but I am not sure in itself it would be significant. I would not therefore include this factual finding in my threshold document following on from this hearing.
75. Looking at threshold generally, Ms Mellor on behalf of AB submitted that overall the likelihood of harm was low. I do not agree with this. I think the risks inherent in the relationship between AB and EF are significant. I think harm has been caused and is likely to be caused in the future and the level of that emotional harm cannot be minimised. Domestic abuse takes many forms and is not confined to physical violence. To reduce the harm being done in the family requires therapy which in itself brings risks. I am entirely satisfied that the harm caused to the children and likely to be caused to them as a result of AB and EF’s alcohol and drug misuse and the aggression and volatility in their relationship is significant and meets the threshold for statutory involvement.

Decision

76. I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of X, Y and Z. I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family. The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare. In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders are “very extreme”, and should only be made when “necessary” for the protection of the child’s interests, “when nothing else will do”. The court “must never lose sight of the fact that (the child’s) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at least one of them” and adoption “should only be contemplated as a last resort”. I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] ECA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (supra) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the options for these children, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others should offer.
77. In reaching my decision I have taken into account that the children’s welfare is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I have to consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and the children as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. Having given very careful consideration to the orders I am going on to make, I am satisfied that those orders are in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of the children’s rights and are proportionate. I am conscious that I must have in mind the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child, particularly Z in this case.
78. I have to ask myself two central questions in this case, one in respect of X and Y and a different one for Z. For the older children the question for me is whether they should be rehabilitated to the care of their mother and stepfather, with or without statutory orders, or whether they should be placed with GH and HH. If the latter, no one disagrees that this should be under a special guardianship order. There is also the ancillary question of the level of contact they should have with their father and with their mother, and whether EF should play any part in that at this time. In respect of Z the options are more stark and the question more serious. I have to consider for him too if he can return to the care of his mother and father. If not the question is whether he should have the opportunity of being adopted, there being no other family option for him, no one suggesting at his age he should be placed in long-term foster care. My task is to balance the pros and cons of each of the options being presented to me. McFarlane LJ in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 said “What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.” In addressing this task I have considered all the points in the welfare checklist, in Z’s case the two checklists contained in both the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
79. A significant factor in relation to all three children is any harm which they have suffered or are at risk of suffering. I am satisfied that the children have suffered harm in the care of AB and EF and would be at risk of harm were they to be returned to their care. I am conscious that the parents without a doubt want that to be different but I am afraid we are a long way from the point when it might be otherwise. Given the evidence of Dr Murphy the reasons for the parents’ personalities are very clear and neither of them can be blamed for this. They are the product of their upbringings, EF in particular, and my heart went out to him as he said he would go anywhere, do anything, to be different. No one should have the experiences they had as children but I accept Dr Murphy’s evidence that until they fully engage in therapy, without the crutch of alcohol or illicit drugs, they are not going to be in a position to care safely for a child. The aggression, the arguments, will continue, fuelled by drugs and alcohol, and the children will witness this. X and Y experienced it between their parents and teaching them that the same can happen in another relationship cannot be healthy. They are now growing up with a very different experience of family, where people do not argue aggressively and where their needs are met. Were they to be returned to the care of AB and EF that would change. And the same is true of Z in his foster placement. He has not experienced as much of the aggression as his siblings but he has been in the house when volatile arguments have happened and the future risk of harm would be the same for him as for his older brother and sister.
80. I am satisfied that AB and EF are not able to meet the children’s needs at this time, much as I am sure they want to. EF made a heartfelt plea in his evidence when he said “I have a right to be a dad”. I agree with that but first he and AB have to be able to meet a child’s needs and I am afraid neither of them are able to do so now, much as I hope they will be one day once they have successfully become abstinent and completed what I am sure will be painful therapy.
81. I have considered whether there are resources the local authority could put in to assist the parents to meet the children’s needs, as was done last summer under the Child Protection Plan. I think we know a lot more now though than the local authority did then about the challenges this family face, the level of damage done to the parents, the significance of the drug and alcohol misuse, the aggression in the home. I acknowledge the local authority could fund all the necessary therapy but that in itself would not ensure a successful outcome. The parents have oversold in their evidence the extent to which they have already started tackling their problems. EF in particular has barely engaged with The substance misuse project and from his oral evidence I am unsure he really sees the value in the service. AB has done more but she too is a long way from being drug free, having on her own evidence cut down from cannabis use most nights of the week to using it five or maybe six nights. And Dr Murphy’s evidence was that even if the therapy were successfully underway and abstinence been achieved, the children could not go back whilst there was the potential for therapy destabilising the couple. I agree with the professionals therefore that there is no level of support which could be put in which could enable any of the children to go home now or in the near future.
82. I have considered whether I should adjourn these proceedings on interim orders to see what progress the parents make. However I have to think about timescales for Z in particular. He is already one and the clock is ticking for him if he is to find an adoptive placement. For me to wait therefore I would have to know that would not be for too long and that the likelihood of him going home was good. I am afraid I think we are too far off therapy being successful for that to be the case. Both parents need to become abstinent for the therapy to be meaningful and for progress to be made, although I do see that the simple act of being in a strong therapeutic relationship may in itself make abstinence possible. AB is in the early stages of establishing that relationship, EF has not begun the process. Similarly AB has begun engagement with The substance misuse project, EF very much less so, but the steps they have taken to abstinence so far are extremely limited. Given that there could not be a review on Dr Murphy’s evidence for three or four months from abstinence as opposed merely to calculating from the beginning of therapy, I am afraid this is simply outside Z’s timescales.
83. GH and HH I am satisfied are able to meet the needs of X and Y. From the assessment I have read of them and indeed from their own informal statement provided to the court, they are clearly child focused and have made a significant change to their lives to care for their niece and nephew.
84. I cannot ignore the harm that the children will suffer if they do not go back home though. X and Y are lucky in that they are in a placement where they can still have a relationship with each other and with their parents. Z, if he is adopted, will lose all of that. I have to consider the relationship which he has with his parents, his siblings, looking at the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to him of it doing so.
85. I do not doubt for one minute that when the children lived together they were a clear unit and that there would be a benefit to Z if that could continue. There is no placement however where they can be together and I have to then balance that relationship against the chance of an adoptive placement for Z. The guardian told me the local authority had given thought to the possibility of looking for adopters for him who would support sibling contact but that may come to nothing given the link back to the birth family. She acknowledged the loss for Z of his birth family, particularly his siblings, but she was clear in her analysis that she had to balance that against the need for him to have a secure and stable placement. I think it is regrettable that the children have had so little shared contact since they have been in care but sadly even if they had I think it would be very hard to prioritise that relationship now. I would ask the local authority to look for adopters open to the possibility of such contact, or as a minimum to good quality indirect contact, but I agree with the guardian that has to come second to finding him the right placement.
86. In reaching the decision I have over this hearing, I acknowledge it is not what AB and EF want. I do not doubt their genuine desire to be the best parents they can be to their son and to X and Y. However they cannot give the children the secure environment they need in which to develop. My task then is to find the next best option for them, to avoid any of them going through the grim childhoods AB and EF had and the vicious circle continuing.
87. The other factors in the checklists I am satisfied are of less significance than those I have dealt with above. The children are not of an age where their wishes and feelings are significant. Y and X have a more established relationship with their mother than Z and I am sure want to go on seeing her. I think their wishes in respect of EF need to be respected, hard though that will be for AB. The children are voicing that they do not want to see their mother and him arguing and at this point in time him staying away from contact is the best way that can be achieved. They also want to see their father, a person who is of significance to them and with whom they need to maintain a relationship. Whilst I cannot be sure why contact broke down whilst in their mother’s care, I am very confident that were X and Y to live with the Hs the children would be able to keep up a meaningful relationship with their father and his partner.
88. In terms of their needs, the children’s needs are the same as those of any other small child, for secure and stable homes, the best relationships they can with their family members, for warmth and love, for regular school attendance, and all the opportunities that being in a well-functioning family can bring. Sadly for Z the only way that can be offered to him is by way of adoption, given the lack of any possible family placement. I acknowledge that for him that means a change in his circumstances, unlike his siblings, but I am confident the local authority will manage that in the best possible way. Ms Cliffe has already shown her creativity in the way she tried to work with the family last year and I am confident she will apply the same skills to moving Z on in due course.
89. For X and Y then, balancing the options I have of return to their mother and EF’s care and staying where they are, I am satisfied for the reasons I have set out I should make special guardianship orders to GH and HH. No one invites me to make defined contact orders due to the need for this to be flexible over the children’s lives and I agree with that. I am sure over time the role the parents play in their lives will change, maybe EF will come to figure, and I am happy the responsibility for this can be left with their carers. I agree it would be sensible for a supervision order to be made, not because I have doubts about the carers but because I think all the family will benefit from some formal ongoing social work involvement after this very difficult time, particularly in respect to contact. I therefore endorse the local authority’s plans, described as “care plans” although there is not to be a care order, in respect of X and Y.
90. Turning then to Z, having carried out the balancing exercise that I must, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of him being returned safely to his parents’ care, and that his needs for stability and permanence can only be met in an adoptive placement. I am satisfied that the local authority’s final care plan for Z is proportionate and (in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002) in his best welfare interests. I therefore make a care order. I am also satisfied that Z’s welfare requires me to dispense with his parents’ consent to placing him for adoption, the word “require” here having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, “the connotation of the imperative”. I therefore make a placement order authorising the local authority to place Z for adoption.
91. There is one further direction I wish to make. I think it is hugely important for children who are not in the care of their parents and particularly where they are adopted that they have information available to them, through their carers, so they can make sense of their early life. This judgment, in setting out what I have read and heard in court, gives at least a summary of that start. It is important that it is easily available to those who will be bringing Z up in particular. I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment should be released by the Local Authority to GH and HH and to Z’s adopters so that it is available to them in future life.
92. Finally I also make an order for public funding assessment for all the respondents in this matter. I hope that my reasons as given are sufficient but if the advocates require any further detail to be given I would ask them to let me know.

FINDINGS OF FACT MADE

1. AB, EF and CD have each previously been involved in relationships that were volatile and aggressive and the children have on occasion been witness to volatile disputes either between or involving their parents. The very nature of these relationships has caused the children to suffer emotional harm in the past and exposes them to the continued risk of emotional harm in the future.
2. Whilst in the care of AB and EF, Y suffered bruising to her face, neck, chin, torso and groin. The injuries sustained by Y are the result of a lack of appropriate supervision of the children, by either or both of AB and EF.
3. EF has a significant history of drug and alcohol misuse which appears to fluctuate and for which he has engaged in only limited formal intervention to support abstinence. His use of alcohol was a significant feature in incidents of domestic abuse in his previous relationships and he admits to ongoing substance use in the form of regular alcohol and cannabis consumption. EF’s substance use whilst having the primary care of the children has the potential to impair his parenting capacity and thus exposes them to the risk of significant physical and emotional harm and the overall neglect of their basic care needs.
4. AB has a significant history of drug use which has included the use of both illicit substances and prescription medication. She admits to ongoing substance use in the form of regular alcohol and cannabis consumption. AB’s substance use whilst having the primary care of the children has the potential to impair her parenting capacity and thus exposes them to the risk of significant physical and emotional harm and the overall neglect of their basic care needs.
5. AB has failed to ensure the basic care needs of X and Y have been met in that she has failed to ensure their regular and timely attendance at school and nursery, thus impairing their educational and social development.