England and Wales County Court (Family)

IN THE BRISTOL COUNTY COURT

		2 Redcliff Street, City.
		26th March 2014

IMPORTANT NOTICE

HHJ Wildblood QC :

1. This is an extremely sad case. Ten months ago a now sixteen year old mother with an IQ of 68 gave birth to a son whilst living at home with her dysfunctional family following the separation of her parents. She says that the birth arose from an act of rape by a lodger, the father of the child (who denies rape and has absented himself from the child's life). The mother, who was aged 14 at the time of the conception, loves her son with all the natural love that any parent could hold and he has remained in her care since birth, most recently under interim care orders. However, despite a truly exceptional level of services that the Local Authority has provided, the view of all those who have assessed the mother is that she cannot offer her son the care that he needs, even with an exceptional level of support, and that the only solution for the child is adoption.
2. Recognising as I do the intense pain that that solution would cause to this mother and her family and also the natural and legal need of a child to be brought up within a natural family unless there is genuinely no other solution (supported or otherwise) to meet his welfare, I have spent a long time examining this case to see if a thread can be weaved through it which, consistent with the child's paramount welfare, would allow for a solution that would leave this boy in the care of his mother. In this long judgment I set out the background to the case, the evidence that I have heard, the agreed legal considerations, my analysis and then my conclusions.
3. Introduction – The Local Authority is Gloucestershire County Council. It seeks care and placement orders in relation to the boy concerned. He is C, who is ten months old, having been born on 3^rd May 2013. The mother of C, 'MM' (born on 30^th December 1997 and therefore now aged 16), opposes the Local Authority's applications and wishes to continue to care for C; she and C currently live at the home of her father, DM, in 'Town', Gloucestershire.
4. C's father, FF (born on 6^th July 1994 and therefore aged 19) has filed a position statement in which he acknowledges that he cannot care for C and expresses his support for the position of Ms M; he has not taken up available contact with C (saying that he could not travel from his home in City to 'Another Town' for that contact), has not attended previous court hearings (and only attended this hearing on the first day) but hopes that he would be able to arrange for contact to take place by arrangement with Ms M. He says that C was born as a result of consensual intercourse between himself and Ms M. The issue of the rape allegation was not litigated before me.
5. The guardian, Pravina Gulabivala, supports the Local Authority and, in her final report dated 19^th February 2014 [E16], recommends that care and placement orders should be made. At E25 she said that 'Ms M is not able to care for her son to a good enough standard. C would therefore continue to experience physical and emotional neglect, he is likely to continue to experience developmental delay. The cumulative impact of this would be that C would not be able to reach his developmental milestones and fulfil his potential'.
6. A clinical psychologist, Ms Beverley Fidell, assessed Ms M as having a Full Scale IQ of 68 [E9] but concluded that she does have mental capacity to instruct her solicitor [E13]. At E12 she suggested that Ms M's 'abilities are likely to remain within the exceptionally low or borderline range of intelligence'.
7. Another clinical psychologist, Dr Grace Tantam, was instructed on the mother's application and does not support the mother's position. Dr Tantam says: 'her difficulties mean that her relationships are complex and generally unsatisfactory, and she has a very limited capacity to reflect upon and understand emotions, especially as they occur within relationship dynamics. Her limited capacity to reflect, as well as her naïve and often concrete thinking, limit her capacity to protect C from the very real risks in his current environment. There is also a significant impact upon her capacity to engage with professionals and to take the advice that they give and implement it in a variety of situations over time'. Dr Tantam gave sensitive, firm and clear oral evidence to the effect that Ms M could not care for C adequately.
8. This is a case where every assessment that has been conducted within a wide range of professionals has concluded that C cannot remain with this mother consistently with his welfare despite there having been an exceptionally high level of support for the family. The two social workers (Ms Coward and Ms Gilder, both of whom gave professional and considered evidence), the guardian and Dr Tantam have all carried out separate assessments and are all of the same view. Ms HV, who has been the health visitor for C since shortly after his birth and who was involved in discussions about the orders sought by the Local Authority, supports it in its applications. Her evidence was professional, carefully considered and kind. Ms CS (who carried out a 'PAMs' assessment of Ms M and also gave careful and considered evidence), identified very basic areas in which Ms M could not provide adequate care for C [C80].
9. The Local Authority contends that Ms M is an 'immature, vulnerable and naïve' mother of exceptionally low or borderline range of intelligence who has not been able to demonstrate an ability to care for C since his birth either with or without the support of her family and who has not been able to develop her parenting abilities despite the large amount of professional input. The social worker's statement at C134 suggests that: i) C is living in cluttered and unhygienic home; ii) Ms M 'struggles' to adhere to advice and, for instance, gives C junk food; iii) Ms M 'struggles' to provide emotional warmth and stimulation to C; iv) Ms M does not meet C's health needs consistently (for instance, did not attend some follow up appointments for his lactose intolerance); v) Ms M's family members are hostile to and aggressive towards social workers, making it difficult to engage with them (Ms M herself says at C153 that she has found the social workers and the health visitor difficult to get on with suggesting that they 'talk down to her'; vi) assessments suggest that she is unable to sustain the care of C; vii) there are no family members who can care for C or sufficiently support Ms M in her care of him; viii) despite a very high level of support offered to the family during the interim period of this case 'the concerns of the Local Authority have not been mitigated'.
10. After C's birth Ms M and C lived together in a mother and baby foster home of XX (whose statement is at C244) but, the Local Authority contends, the mother did not maintain her initial co-operation with that arrangement, began to leave C with the foster carers for an inappropriate amount of time and decided not to remain after 12 weeks (although it has to be said that the foster carer's statement does not read as being particularly critical of the mother, which is perhaps not surprising given the mother's age and the foster carer's knowledge of the diffcilties that she has faced).
11. On 30^th July 2013 Ms M moved with C to live with her cousin, YY but, the Local Authority contends, did not care for C adequately and, in particular, demonstrated aggressive resentment towards him. The relationship between Ms M and YY broke down for reasons that were not litigated before me. The Local Authority intended to carry out a viability assessment of whether YY could care for C; however, before the assessment could be completed, Ms Y withdrew her request to be considered as a carer for C [C135].
12. On 2^nd September 2013 Ms M left the home of YY and went to live with C at the home of her father, D M. A written agreement was drawn up about the arrangements that would be in place there and a high level of supervision by the Local Authority was provided (involving visits on 1 to 3 times a day by safeguarding workers). The original agreement is at C42; the terms of the agreement were tightened up in January 2014 and are at C104. That later agreement was made after the Local Authority had applied at an interim hearing to remove C from Ms M but, faced with the guardian suggesting that the issues should be litigated at a proximate final hearing, did not proceed to argue for interim removal. However, the Local Authority contends that the agreements were not respected by the mother and that her care of C was inadequate.
13. Options – At the outset of this hearing I asked that the contended options for disposal should be identified. With the help of the advocates, for which I am grateful, it was made clear that each of the parties (including the guardian) agreed that there are only two realistic options before the court:

i) That C should continue in the care of Ms M with the help of her family and, if thought appropriate, a supervision order;

ii) That C should be made subject to care and placement orders.

14. Thus there is no suggestion that, in relation to this ten month old child, long term fostering represents a sensible or realistic option. Further, there is no suggestion that any third party (e.g. a member of either family or a friend) might care for C in the event that Ms M does not; thus there is no suggestion of what is sometimes called 'kinship' care. There was no suggestion that the case might be adjourned for further assessment (since there is an abundance of evidence that is now available).
15. These proceedings - These proceedings were started on 10^th September 2013 by which time C was four months old. Interim care orders, under which C has remained with Ms M, have been in place since 17^th September 2013, which is the date upon which District Judge Watkins conducted the case management hearing. On 15^th January 2014 HHJ Marston gave directions at a hearing in which the Local Authority sought to remove C from the mother's care against the recommendation of the guardian; the guardian recommended that the case needed to be listed for an urgent final hearing. It is following this hearing that the second agreement was made. The agreement contains 16 paragraphs which include that '…GGMH and/or A M to be present at all times when D M is at work…B M is not to have any contact with C M nor to be in the same property as C M…M is not to be left alone with C at any time….C is not to be left in the care of anyone (including GGMH) other than MM, DM or appropriate professionals…FF is not to have any direct or indirect contact with C M, save as arranged and supervised by the Local Authority…The unannounced visits are to continue and will consist of between 1 and 3 visits per day…'. The fact that Ms M could not be left alone with C under that agreement reinforces the exceptional level of supervision and monitoring that has been in place.
16. HHJ Marston listed the case before HHJ Rutherford on 24^th February 2014 for an IRH and on 27^th February 2014 for final hearing with a time estimate of two days.
17. At that IRH on 24^th February 2014 HHJ Rutherford adjourned the final hearing until 20^th March 2014 on the basis that the time estimate of two days was inadequate due to the proposed number of witnesses [B113C]. He gave further directions on 27^th February 2014 in which he recorded that threshold was in dispute and there needed to be a more particularised threshold document [B113B]. He recorded that the Local Authority and guardian both recommended that care and placement orders should be made, a course of action that the mother disputed (the father did not appear and was not represented). He also recorded that a number of family members had been identified as potential carers and that 'the court explained to [the parents] that any persons identified…may not be assessed due to the delay not being consistent with the timetable for the child. The persons identified by the mother are YY (maternal cousin), D M (maternal grandfather) and GM M (maternal grandmother). The person identified by the father is Jacqueline F (paternal great aunt)'. He also gave the mother permission to obtain a report from Dr Grace Tantam, clinical psychologist. He gave various other directions.
18. The suggestion that there were other potential carers who wished to be assessed had also evaporated by the time of this hearing. So, too, had the perceived issues about threshold. Nothing like the suggested number of witnesses gave evidence before me. Far from narrowing the issues, the IRH expanded them dramatically in a way that proved unnecessary.
19. Threshold – Following the hearing before HHJ Rutherford the Local Authority filed particularised threshold criteria, as ordered by the court and requested by the other parties, in a document that extended to seven pages and contained ten main paragraphs and 38 sub paragraphs [A22]. That hardly represents the sort of document that was intended by the 'new Public Law Outline' and the less said about it now the better (I do not criticise the Local Authority or author of the document in any way since they were ordered to file it). At the start of this hearing counsel helpfully produced a much shorter document which records the agreed terms in which the criteria in section 31(2) of The Children Act 1989 are fulfilled. I approved that document.
20. The essential part of the current threshold document read: 'The parents agree that the threshold for making public law orders in this case is met pursuant to Section 31 (2) Children Act 1989. The agreed threshold criteria are as set out below. Agreed Threshold Criteria: At the time when protective measures were taken the child C M (born 03:05:2014) was suffering or was likely to suffer significant harm and that harm, or likelihood of harm, was attributable to the care given to him, or likely to be given to him if an order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him.

i) M is a vulnerable young mother (aged 15 at the time of C's birth) who has herself had a difficult upbringing and was the subject of a child protection plan as a child.

ii) Before proceedings were issued C had been in 3 different placements.

iii) M alleges she was raped by C's father F F yet there is evidence to suggest that she maintained contact with him.

iv) M and C live with maternal grandfather and professionals have observed the home at times to be cluttered and unhygienic.

v) M's relationship with her family can be volatile at times and M's brother B has physically harmed M in the past and presents a risk to C.

vi) M's care of C can be inconsistent as a result of her immaturity and lack of parenting experience and she sometimes needs prompting to meet his needs.

vii) Professionals have at times observed a lack of interaction between C and M and also expressed concern about her handling of C.

viii) M has struggled to engage with certain professionals and M and became angry and frustrated, and sometimes in front of C.

ix) The psychologist Dr. Grace Tantam has reported on 14:03:2014 (at E27) and as part of her executive summary described mother as a "very vulnerable parent and she experienced a range of difficulties both cognitive and emotional" and Dr. Tantam concluded (para 1.4) that mother could not provide for C's need for permanence and safety within his timescales.

x) The father, FF, does not put himself forward as a carer for C neither has he attended any contact with C.

21. I approved that threshold document and so the focus of this hearing has been on welfare issues alone. Governing the welfare issues is the jurisprudence of Re B [2013] UKSC 33 that C should not be deprived of the right to an upbringing with his mother unless, as a last resort, there are exceptional circumstances demonstrating that no other solution compatible with his welfare is available. Of the dicta in Re B the President said in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146: 'The language used in Re B is striking. Different words and phrases are used, but the message is clear. Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are "a very extreme thing, a last resort", only to be made where "nothing else will do", where "no other course [is] possible in [the child's] interests", they are "the most extreme option", a "last resort – when all else fails", to be made "only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do": see Re B paras 74, 76, 77, 82, 104, 130, 135, 145, 198, 215 [22]'.
22. The care plan is at D16 and proposes that C should be placed with prospective adopters. It suggests that the parents should have letterbox contact [D18]. At C140 the Local Authority social worker, Joanne Gilder, proposes that C should move from the mother's care to a 'bridging placement' whilst prospective adopters are found.
23. Services – This is a case where there has been a truly exceptional level of interim services and assessment. The interim services have included the following:

i) Ms Gilder (social worker) – weekly visits;

ii) HH, health visitor, fortnightly visits;

iii) KK, nursery nurse – fortnightly;

iv) 'CJ, youth support worker – weekly;

v) RR, Family Support worker of the Z Centre – weekly.

vi) MM, Family Support worker – each Monday and alternate Wednesdays;

vii) X Nursery (Tuesdays);

viii) Welfare visits by the Countywide Contact team – between once and three-times a day.

24. The unanimous view of all professionals who have assessed this young mother is that she is unable to care for C adequately even with that very high level of support and the support of her family. Ms M loves C and desperately wants to care for him but, it is said, is simply unable to do so. This is, therefore, an utterly miserable case to hear. There is no doubt whatsoever that Gloucestershire County Council has provided as many services as it could possibly be expected to offer. Those services having been available in the past, there is no reason to suppose that they could not be provided in the future. I do not think that I could be more fully informed about services. The point that is made by the Local Authority witnesses and by the guardian is that, notwithstanding the array of services that have been and could be made available, there is no realistic prospect of this mother being able to care for C in a way that is consistent with his welfare. There is no issue about the availability of services.
25. The Local Authority – It was first involved with Ms M from 17^th December 2007 until 11^th March 2008 when she was subject to a child protection plan as it was considered her welfare was being neglected. Her brother B had been subject to a similar plan for 9 months in 2006 and again from 27^th December 2007 until 26^th February 2009; B received support from learning disability services, is said to have been neglected by his family and has behavioural difficulties that cause him to become agitated and volatile [e.g. H125].
26. On the 26^th September 2012 a referral was made to Children's Services by Ms M's school, LB School, after she had complained that her brother B had hurt her physically and also because of her poor school attendance (she had not been to school since term started). She was then aged 14 and must have been pregnant by then also. She had apparently posted on Facebook a photograph of bruises that she alleged had been caused by B. It is about this time that her parents separated and, of course, Mr F came to live with the family.
27. As a result of the referral from the school, the Local Authority became involved with Ms M and created a child protection plan for her which was in existence from December 2012 until March 2013.
28. The Local Authority planned for the birth by holding a case conference on 4^th February 2013 and a child protection plan was made due to concerns that C would be neglected [C6]. Arrangements were made in April 2013 (a month before the birth) for C and Ms M to move to the mother and baby foster placement after the birth.
29. In August 2013, prior to the issue of proceedings, the Local Authority social worker, Jennifer Coward, carried out a core assessment of the mother [C11]; it concluded as follows:

• 'M is a fifteen year old girl who is the mother of a three month old baby. M presents as immature, and has been observed to demonstrate immature behaviours – such as stomping off and locking herself in the bedroom when given advice or asked to do something. Numerous concerns have been raised by various professionals such as health visitor, nursery nurse, children's centre, and children's services. Concerns have also been raised by both foster carers. These concerns all relate to M's care of C and include M's rough handling of C, not communicating with him whilst feeding, dressing or changing, not ensuring his head is supported, even after advice and leavings C to prop feed himself.

• ….M appears not to be interacting with C and does not appear to be aware of how important it is that she does interact with C. M has not been talking to C when feeding him or changing his nappy. It is concerning that even after being prompted by the nursery nurse and health visitor, M still did not interact with C and how important it is, however M does not appear to be putting this knowledge in to her care of C.

• Concerns have also been raised regarding M's ability to ensure C's safety, this was demonstrated as M allowed C to be taken to her grandmother's by a ten year old female.

• ..Concerns have also been raised in relation to M being quite verbally aggressive towards C, shouting at him and even on occasions swearing at him.

• ….Given the seriousness of these recent concerns and that C is only three months old, a legal planning meeting will be arranged with a view to securing a long term placement for C'.

30. However, in September an agreement was entered into between Ms M, DM and the Local Authority by which Mr M reduced his work hours and Ms M lived at his home with C. It was at that point that the very heavy level of supervision began as, indeed, did these proceedings.
31. The social worker, Ms Coward, filed a further statement in October 2013 in which she said at C29: 'In conclusion the Local Authority remains very concerned about C's emotional presentation. He has presented as detached and avoiding eye contact due to both M and her father raising their voices and being verbally aggressive, as detailed in the health visitor's records'.
32. The health visitor, HH, had started visiting Ms M on 10^th June 2013. In her statement at C38J she said: 'My analysis, based on my observations of Ms M' care of C is that Miss M is inconsistent in her ability to meet C's physical and emotional needs. At times she is so overwhelmed by her own emotions that she appears unaware of limited skills of containment (the ability to receive and understand the needs of C) or reciprocity (the ability to actively develop her interactions and become more attuned with C). It is possible that Miss M could develop these skills but her inconsistent engagement with professionals and the lack of positive role models around her, make this less likely'.
33. A 'PAMs' assessment of the mother was carried out by a social worker, Ms CS and was written on 19^th December 2013 [C68]. 'PAMs' stands for an assessment based on the parenting assessment manual developed by the clinical psychologist, Dr Sue McGaw (who often used to give respected evidence in proceedings in Truro when I was at the bar); it is used nationally. The results are summarised by Ms CS at C80 and by the guardian at E21 where she says: 'The PAMS assessment concluded that Ms M needs immediate high priority work to be undertaken across 25% of 135 skills assessed. The priority work which needs to be undertaken immediately is in the area of feeding, stimulation, parental responsiveness, general household cleanliness, hygiene and so on. The assessment also highlighted 26% of skills identified as medium priority to be undertaken in the next four to eight weeks. Overall it was concluded that Ms M needed input either immediately or in the next four to eight weeks in 51% of skills. The assessment concluded that the level of need was high especially as it came after eight months of intensive support, guidance and advice. The assessment concluded that further work be undertaken with Ms M within tight time constraints, and if the work is not competed then alternative plans would have to be made for C'.
34. The report of Ms CS included the following passages at C80 and C81:

• 'Across the total 135 worksheets skills which have been assessed and described in this report, 25% are identified as High Priority Rating 3 (teaching required immediately). These skills are in the areas of 'feeding, child's healthcare hygiene, child's healthcare warmth, parental responsiveness, development: stimulation visual, development: stimulation language, household routines, shopping, cooking, washing, hygiene in the kitchen/living room, hygiene in the bathroom, general safety, safety in the kitchen/living room, environment and community. There are 26% of skills identified as being of medium priority rating 2 (teaching recommended in 4 – 8 weeks). Also there are 29% of skills identified as being of low priority rating 1 (teaching required in the future). Finally 20% of skills were assessed as criterion reached. Overall, M M requires 51% of skills to be taught either immediately or in the next 4-8 weeks across all the areas assessed.

• M is a lone parent that has been assessed by a clinical psychologist. The assessment found that M's literacy skills as limited due to her poor school attendance; her reading age was seven years and nine months, although her numeracy skills were sound. Her IQ score falls exceptionally law and her verbal score was also exceptionally low, there was some variation in her subtexts scores and her weakest score point is measure and non-verbal reasoning. It was found that M could communicate clearly and effectively [but] her verbal reasoning skills are restricted.

• When on task M is a loving mother but becomes quite distracted very easily. Her organisational skills are poor and she will need support around this and the importance of keeping appointments with health professionals. M is currently living at home with her father who provides the majority of support, alongside her Nan….

• Recommendations - Out of 13 areas M has scored a priority rating 3 in 9 of them, this is a high level of need. M has already had 8 months of intensive support including a foster placement. The work that is recommended in the teaching points needs to be prioritised and have tight time constraints in which they are completed for C's safety and emotional wellbeing. If the work is not completed then social care need to re-consider where C should live to ensure that his needs are met, not just in the immediate future.

• In the past M has not made a good attitude towards taking advice from professionals this will have to change for her to make any progress. M needs to realise that to provide C with an environment that is conducive to his development and emotional needs she needs to listen to professionals and act upon their advice. M's family need to support her with this...The Health Visitor and Family Support worker to continue to monitor C's development and to provide guidance with regard to feeding, general health and symptom recognition / responses. M also needs to understand the importance of looking after herself emotionally as well as physically'.

35. In oral evidence Ms CS said that areas identified as being within high priority rating number 3 are very important to parenting. If one looks at the list of areas identified it is not surprising that Ms CS said this.
36. An example of the difficulties suggested in the report of Ms CS is at C74 where she said: 'M could not describe the right order for preparing a bottle, during the observation she complained about the bottle being greasy. M seems very distracted when feeding C and often loses interest with what she is doing early on in the process; she does not encourage C to eat his food and often leaves half a bowl of food because she has not persevered….[C75]…M mentioned that the bottles were greasy and tried to clean it off with a wet wipe. In the parent booklet M was able to describe that she knew how to change a nappy, when being observed she was not able to follow this and did not wash her hands or dispose of the nappy in a safe way…Most of the time M did not raise her voice, although in one observation she became quite cross and shouted while C was in front of her. There are other adults in the home who have raised voices quite loud around C'. As to the raised voices, Ms CS said that her experience was that it is not that the family members shouted at each other but that they had loud voices and the television was turned up to a high volume; it is a very noisy household, she said.
37. What I did not hear from any of the questioning of Ms CS during oral evidence was how the 'rating' that was given to this mother as part of this PAMs assessment transported into the questions that I have to consider in accordance with Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and Re W [2013] EWCA Civ 1227. I therefore raised this with the advocates.
38. The social worker, Ms Gilder, therefore returned to the witness box to say how the assessment was considered by the Local Authority. Not surprisingly, she said that the PAMs assessment highlighted the concerns that the Local Authority already had. She said that she had considered the PAMs assessment when making her recommendations. Although Ms M has made some improvements on the issues raised in the assessment, they have not been consistent and the advice that the mother has been given has not been implemented. The assessment 'was a case of confirming what the Local Authority already knew', she said.
39. In December 2013 the Local Authority continued to express its concerns about the care that C was receiving. Ms Coward filed a statement contending that Ms M was not co operating with professional involvement. Further, there were particular concerns about the presence of B, Ms M's brother, at the house. During a visit by the social worker on 11^th December 2013, B was seen to be behaving aggressively towards his grandmother and to be agitated. He had been arrested on 5^th December 2013 for assaulting his grandmother (she had gone to hit him with a pan, apparently and he responded to her violently in what was referred to at this hearing as the 'pan incident'). At C74 there is an account of B having thrown a glass bottle at his sister A. At H89 there is this description of B in the home on the day in question, 18^th November 2013: 'B was talking to M very loudly as he sat on the floor rolling himself a cigarette. He was talking about 'beating up' someone and 'breaking their neck'. GGM told him several times to stop but he just laughed and carried on. GGM commented, 'He's been like it all day'. A said B had thrown a glass bottle at her earlier 'messing about'. No one was engaging with C'.
40. Ms Coward said, at C63, that C was living in an environment in which there was a lot of verbal aggression within the family as a whole. At C65 she suggested that C should be removed from Ms M and placed with foster carers.
41. However that application was not pursued and the tighter family agreement was made, which included that B was not to be present in the home and was not to have contact with C. Following the hearing before HHJ Rutherford the report of Dr Grace Tantam was received which also mirrored the Local Authority's reasoning as to why C cannot remain with his mother.
42. Enclosure H - This enclosure of the court bundle contains the many pages of documentation prepared by the Countywide Contact team. I have read that enclosure and summarise its contents in this way:

i) Countywide workers were accepted into the house.

ii) Their work involved recording observations of C, the condition of the house and the interaction between family members. This was safeguarding work and not assessment. It was no part of the team to challenge or advise the family.

iii) C was generally smiling, adequately dressed and gave the appearance of being happy.

iv) The condition of the house was often cluttered and grubby but not squalid.

v) There was no consistent observation of poor interaction within the family although there were times when there was obvious tension.

vi) On occasions there were outbursts of ill-temper by D M (e.g. H3, H30, H60, H162, H166 and H207) but, on the whole, he co-operated with Countywide.

vii) There were some reports of positive interaction between the mother and C (e.g. H7, H31, H69, H238, H241, H243, etc) and also some negative (e.g. H9, H89, H105, H141, H152). In the main, however, the recordings do not purport to asses the quality of interaction between the mother and C.

43. The guardian gives her summary of that evidence from Countywide in this way: 'Daily welfare checks were also undertaken of Ms M and C. The welfare checks reveal at times, positive observations of Ms M and her care of C. When on task, she is observed to be focussed and attuned to the needs of C. The observations also highlight the erratic nature of Ms M's care of C. Ms M can become easily distracted and lose focus with C. She does not persist with feeding him. Although she offers him toys, she does not follow this through with actively engaging in playing with him. C therefore does not know what to do with the toys and loses interest. Ms M is also not able to consistently stimulate C by talking and singing to him; this is a critical aspect of language development'.
44. Ms M - There is a very helpful genogram of her family at C1. The family lives in close proximity in Local Authority housing on 'A' Road in Town (Gloucestershire); her sister, brother and grandmother (GGM H) live two doors away from the home where Ms M, D M and C live. Apparently A is the carer of GGM H [C156].
45. A more distant figure in this case is the mother of Ms M, GMM. There is a 'viability assessment' of her at C106. She and D M separated in October 2012, at which time FF was living in the house. She lives with a PP in a one bedroom council flat on a busy road and is trying to arrange for a move to a different property in Gloucester. She and Mr P receive benefits, smoke and have two kittens in the flat [C107]. The assessment includes, in the penultimate paragraph: 'Although Mrs M has shown a willingness to care for C, it is concerning that Mrs M has not played an active part in supporting her daughter since the birth of C. Mrs M did not engage with children's services and was not available for pre arranged visits at the beginning of the year when it was identified that M was pregnant. Mrs M own children have all been made subject to child protection plans under the category of neglect'.
46. MM's sister, AM, was born on 13^th September 1992 and has filed a statement at C243A. A says that she sees Ms M nearly every day and supports her in her wish to care for C. A says that she would work with professionals and thinks that M M (the mother) is a good mum [C243b].
47. The case began on the understanding that Ms M and Mr F had severed their relationship and were on poor terms. The disputed allegation of rape was symbolic of that understanding. However, on the second day of the hearing Mr Farquarson informed the court, as he was duty bound to do, of instructions that he had received from his client. They were that Ms M had informed him that she and Mr F had met recently, had come to City together with C and had spent time together there with Mr F's parents that day before she and C returned to Town. Ms M accepted that she had concealed this information from her father. Not surprisingly, I was told that this information was distressing for D M to hear. Further, that contact amounted to a clear breach of both agreements (at C104 and C42).
48. B M, M's brother, was born on 6^th January 1996. The guardian says as follows about him at E22: 'The Local Authority has been also concerned about the presence of B; Ms M's older brother. B has a learning disability and his behaviour has been of concern; he can be aggressive and volatile. His presence in the home became even more of a concern after he was arrested on 5^th December 2013 for assaulting Ms H; maternal grandmother. He was advised to reside at his mother's address but he has not done this. Although discussions have been undertaken about the risks of B being around C, the family have failed to take on board concerns; Ms M left C with Ms H and B on 11^th December 2013; B was observed to be agitated and aggressive'.
49. The Local Authority alleges that the agreement of 9^th January (which provided that 'B M is not to have any contact with C M nor to be in the same property as C M') was not respected by the family and that B was present in the home with C on a number of occasions after it; Ms M denies that he has been. The evidence is insufficient to substantiate the Local Authority's case on this point and, since the burden of proof rests on the Local Authority, the allegation falls by the wayside as being without substance. The evidence would certainly not survive a direction given in accordance with R v Turnbull [1977] Q.B. 224.
50. Ms M's last statement is at C152. In it she said that she would intend that she and C should remain living with her father. However, her brief oral evidence was not to the same effect. Initially, she said that her relationship with her dad was alright and that they sometimes fall out and do not speak to each other - sometimes he shouts at her and it makes her really upset. She then said that she does not have a good relationship with her dad and that she is not sure where she will live in the future. She just wants to 'live on her own with C as far away from everyone as she can; with her sister or someone like that'.
51. She is working with a CJ on the 'Parents with Prospects Programme'. She began to work with CJ before the birth, there was then a gap for a few months and then (from December 2013) weekly visits were arranged at the Z Centre; this work is still continuing. In her statement CJ says at C122: 'Whenever I have seen C, he has been appropriately and well dressed and of clean appearance…[C123]…M obviously cares for C and enthusiastically shows items of clothing she has brought for C. I have witnessed her hold C, however the majority of time within my visits, M has been comfortable to leave C within his bouncer chair or perhaps move to his walker, although I acknowledge it would be difficult for M to care for C and complete written tasks….on some visits to the family home, the environment has felt cold, although C has been dressed well. The general condition of the home environment has varied, generally appearing very untidy and cluttered with limited space. Family members have been friendly, although on occasions heated discussions between family members and opinions of social care have been voiced making it difficult to engage M in planned tasks and perhaps detrimental to my efforts to encourage M to engage with services and support offered. ..M remains happy to engage on a regular basis and continue to complete Parents with Prospects training on 1 : 1 basis and give further consideration to joining the group help at the Z Centre with support'. I was told that, initially after the PAMs assessment Ms M did not wish to participate with the support of the Children's Centre.
52. Ms M says that she would like to continue to work with KK (who is a community nursery nurse working under the supervision of the heath visitor, HH and who has filed a statement at C193). She attended a Young Mum's to be course before C's birth and continued to attend after the birth but did so only sporadically; there is a statement from a LL at C148 which, for the purpose of this hearing, has little evidential value. Her involvement with that course ended in October 2013 [C151] when Ms M began to work with Ms RR from the Town Children's centre.
53. Ms RR has filed two statements (C65a and C124) which are not well drafted (as they do not give any overall summary) but read as though they are not critical of the mother's general care of C (she refers to C being clean and of Ms M being engaged); she also refers to one incident when C banged his head and Ms M was prompted to give him a cuddle [C187].
54. Ms M says that she has found the current social worker Jo Gilder and the previous social worker Jennifer Coward very difficult to work with. She says that she and her father have ensured that her disruptive brother, B (born on 6^th January 1996), is not allowed to come to her father's home [C154] and that she and her father have worked hard to improve the conditions within the home. The picture emerged very clearly that when people simply observe Ms M or her father, there is no sustained hostility from Ms or Mr M; however if advice is given or if either Ms M or D M are challenged, they find it very difficult indeed to accept the advice or challenge and resentment emerges.
55. Ms M ends her statement by saying at C156: 'I ideally want C to be able to remain at home living with me. I understand that I will need to have ongoing support both from my family and also other people and I am prepared to accept this. My father is willing to continue with his part time hours so that he can be at home to support me as he has done during these proceedings. My Nan is really helpful and someone I can talk to and get support emotionally. She has a wealth of experience and similarly I am able to talk to my mother. My sister A comes round every day. She lives with my Nan and is her carer. She is 21 years old and has no children of her own. She is also able to continue to support me. I do not believe that it is right for C to be removed from my care. I am a young mum and I know that I do have things still to learn. My relationship with my father is good and there have been times when we have not seen eye to eye but we are managing much better and if we do not agree on something or say something that the other does not like we do not shout at each other…I very much want to be able to continue to look after C and bring him up within my family and believe that with the support that be put in place and continue, I am able to do this'. Her oral evidence, as I have stated, was somewhat different to this.
56. Mr F – He lives in City with his parents, S F and K T and his younger sister KKF. Arrangements were made for him to have supervised contact with C but he did not keep to them [C116]. There is a very poor relationship between Mr F and the members of Ms M's family (which is not surprising given that the allegation of rape arises from a time when Mr F had been given a home with the M).
57. A report by Anglia DNA, dated 28^th November 2013, confirmed that Mr F is C's father. The Local Authority carried out an assessment of Mr F and in the resultant report dated 16^th January 2014, it concluded that it would not support Mr F being considered as a carer of C [C115-119].
58. He has appeared before the magistrates court on three occasions (all during the past six months – i.e. since 5^th September 2013). On the 5^th September 2013 he appeared for two public order offences and received a community sentence. On 6^th December 2013 he appeared for racially/ religiously aggravated harassment and a further public order offence; he received a further community sentence which was made more onerous on 2^nd January 2014 for breach.
59. Mr F's father, S F, and his partner Mrs K T initially put themselves forward as potential carers of C but then withdrew, apparently stating that they 'did not want anything to do with C' [C133]. On 10^th January 2014 Ms T told Ms Coward (social worker) that 'no family members wanted anything to do with C' and, further, Ms T expressed surprise that, at the time, Mr F was expressing a wish to care for C himself [C116]. Other family members have been assessed but are not supported by the Local Authority as carers of C; none of them have put themselves forward as carers of C.
60. D M: D M, the maternal grandfather of C, is aged 46 having been born on 11^th November 1967. He used to be married to Ms M's mother, GM M. He works as a coach driver for 25 - 30 hours each week (he was working 55 hours a week prior to the time when M and C came to live with him). He filed a statement at C157 and gave oral evidence. He stresses the support that he would wish to offer Ms M. He says that the conditions within the home have improved as a result of their 'huge effort to tidy the home and de-clutter it'.
61. The Local Authority carried out an assessment of whether he should be considered as a separate carer for C. The assessment at C35 by Ms Jennifer Coward, concluded at C37 that 'It is recommended that Mr M is not suitable to be further assessed as an alternative carer for C. Mr M own child have all themselves been subject to child protection plans in the past. Mr M allowed a male whom he thought was in a relationship with M (then aged 14) to live in his home which resulted in M making the allegation that this male raped her resulting in this pregnancy. Mr M has also demonstrated inappropriate behaviour in front of C, this is by shouting and swearing in an aggressive manner in front of C, even after being advised not to'.
62. The guardian summarises her contentions, and those of the Local Authority, in relation to him at E22 in these terms: 'Mr D M has striven to support Ms M to the best of his abilities. He has clearly found it hard to reduce his working hours with the consequent impact on family finances. Mr M is a provider for his family and the loss of work and income has impacted on him. He has expressed his frustration with his daughter's behaviour when she has not cooperated and tried to get Ms M to see the error of her ways. Their relationship has been noted to be conflicted and difficult at times. Alongside this, he has expressed his anger and hostility at the professionals involved in managing Ms M. Although at times he has been able to acknowledge the concerns of the Local Authority; this has not been consistent. This has not been in Ms M's interest; she is an immature, young adolescent who needs adult guidance and role modelling. As her father has struggled to appreciate the concerns and engage with the professionals, so she has likewise'.
63. DM himself says at C158: 'I have found the attitude of some of the professionals very condescending and it has made it quite difficult to work with them. I recognise that at times I have probably been hostile and I also recognise that I need to be prepared to work co-operatively with people. It has been tremendously challenging to have different people coming in and out of our property, observing us, commenting on what they see and on a lot of occasions been quite critical in a very unconstructive way rather than trying to encourage and support us'.
64. In my opinion a good insight into the difficulties within this family can be seen at C114b where the health visitor, HH says: 'On the 28^th November 2013 at 9.10 a.m. I sent a text message to Miss MM to remind her of my visit that day at 10 a.m…..When I visited the family home at 10.10 a.m. neither Miss M nor C were at home. I spoke for a while to Mr DM, who expressed frustration at M's lack of engagement with professionals. He swore a lot about Ms M and said that she was going to lose C. Mr M said it would teach Ms M a lesson if she did lose C. Mr M was getting really fed up with Ms M attitude, and that they had argued a couple of days go because of this. Mr M said that he was fine with people, if they kept on the right side of him, but they would see a different side of him if they did not. He said 'that applies to everyone, even my own kids, and especially M'.
65. C – the health visitor says at C114e that there is evidence of some developmental delay 'in the areas of manipulative skills, speech and language skills, hearing and cognitive skills'. When HH, the health visitor tested his development in January 2014 (at 8 months) these latter skills were at the six month level. However, that delay is only two months and it would certainly not be possible to exclude genetic factors (e.g. the mother's low IQ) being the cause of any delay. Further, C has been wearing glasses since the beginning of January 2014 and this may also assist with his development. The 'concerns' about development have not been substantiated before me.
66. C has been attending nursery on each Tuesday for five hours. CC Aoun, of the nursery, has filed a statement in which she says that Ms M has 'engaged with staff at X nursery, she gave good eye contact when listening to C's key worker when they were commenting on C's morning but Ms M did not say much in response'. There is little of evidential value to this case from the nursery.
67. Welfare considerations – I now turn to the legal considerations relating to welfare. I handed a copy these proposed legal directions at an early stage of this hearing and it was agreed by all legal representatives that were correct and sufficient.
68. Where, on applications for care orders such as this, the threshold criteria are fulfilled in relation to any given child (as is the case here), it is necessary to consider the provisions of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and section 1 of the Children Act 1989 when deciding whether to make the care order sought. Where there is an application for a placement order before the court the court must conduct a global, holistic approach to welfare issues weighing up the various available options before it. As part of that holistic approach the court must conduct the welfare analysis in relation to the placement application by considering the terms of section 52 (1)(b) and section 1 of the Adoption and Child Act 2002. The welfare checklist in the 1989 Act is not the same as the checklist in the 2002 Act. Article 8, of course, is also further and significantly engaged in relation to the placement application.
69. In Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, paras 49-50 MacFarlane LJ said: "In most child care cases a choice will fall to be made between two or more options. The judicial exercise should not be a linear process whereby each option, other than the most draconian, is looked at in isolation and then rejected because of internal deficits that may be identified, with the result that, at the end of the line, the only option left standing is the most draconian and that is therefore chosen without any particular consideration of whether there are internal deficits within that option…The linear approach … is not apt where the judicial task is to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child's future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child's welfare."
70. The Court of Appeal has given guidance about the importance of applying the statutory factors in the 1989 and 2002 Acts. The guidance is to be found, for instance, in the case of EH v Greenwich [2010] EWCA Civ 344. I set out in full the relevant passage from the judgment of the late Baron J:

61. The judge was making a very draconian order. As such, he was required to balance each factor within the checklist in order to justify his conclusions and determine whether the final outcome was appropriate. Accordingly, because this analysis is entirely absent, his failure to mention the provisions of the Children Act and deal with each part of Section 1 (3) undermines his conclusions and his orders.

The Judge did not mention Article 8 of the ECHR. The terms of that Article provide that[ Baron J then set out Article 8 which I will set out below]

67. In the case of Re P [2008] EWCA Civ 535 Wall LJ stated: -There is, perhaps, no more important or far-reaching decision for a child than to be adopted by strangers" …"Judges approaching the question of dispensation under the section must, it seems to us, ask themselves the question to which section 52 (1) (b) of the 2002 Act gives rise, and answer it by reference to section 1 of the same Act, and in particular by a careful consideration of all matters identified in section 1(4)…..

"…the best guidance which in our judgment this court can give is to advise Judges to apply the statutory language with care to the facts of the particular case. The message is no doubt, prosaic, but the best guidance, we think, is as simple and as straightforward as that."

68. The precise terms of the section which provides [the learned Judge then set out the provisions of section 1(4) of the Act, which I cite in full later];

69. The judge should have turned his mind to each of these provisions and not truncated his considerations as set out above. By so doing he specifically failed to address these children's particular needs and the likely effect on them (throughout their lives) of their ceasing to be a member of their original family. They have an established attachment to a loving mother who, with targeted assistance, might be able to provide some form of future mothering'.

71. Compliant with that case, I cite Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides. It states that: '1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society …for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'
72. Care orders amount to a very significant invasion of the rights encapsulated within Article 8(1). Placement orders amount to an even more significant invasion of that right than care orders. For such orders to be justified they must satisfy the provisions of Article 8(2) and therefore must be: a) in accordance with the law (here the Convention compliant Children Act 1989); b) necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms (i.e. welfare) of others (i.e. the child) and c) proportionate. There is no conflict between Article 8 and Section 1 of the 1989 Act – Dawson v Wearmouth [1999] 2 AC 308 and Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FCR 425.
73. The determination of whether the threshold criteria are fulfilled involves considering the position at the time that protective measures were taken (here, when the proceedings started). By contrast, welfare issues must be based on the totality of information available to the court and, unlike threshold issues, it is necessary to conduct a contemporary evaluation of what is best for the child concerned.
74. Thus, in making welfare decisions I have to apply section 1 (1) of the Children Act 1989 in relation to the care application and section 1(2) of The Adoption and Children Act 2002 in relation to the placement application as well as section 52(1) (b).
75. By section 1(1) of the 1989 Act the welfare of LJ is the court's paramount consideration.
76. Section 1(3) of the Act contains the welfare checklist. It provides that, in making welfare decisions in a case such as this, a court must have regard in particular to —

(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of her age and understanding);

(b) her physical, emotional and educational needs;

(c) the likely effect on her of any change in her circumstances;

(d) her age, sex, background and any characteristics of hers which the court considers relevant;

(e) any harm which she has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

(f) how capable each of her parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting her needs;

(g) The range of powers available to the court under the Act.

77. The 2002 Act – Children may not be placed for adoption under placement orders without the consent of the parents unless "the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with" (section 52(1) (b) Adoption and Children Act 2002). The core statutory provisions in relation to placement orders are therefore sections 52 and 1 for the purposes of this judgment (although there are of course many other provisions in the Act relating to such orders).
78. The case of Re P (children) (adoption: parental consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2FCR 185 provides useful guidance in relation to applications for placement orders. The main and relevant principles for these purposes are set out in paragraphs 119 to 154 of the judgment of Wall LJ. Those principles are summarised in the case of EH v Greenwich [2010] EWCA Civ 344. I wish to mention the following three points that arise from Re P (although I have considered the case as a whole):

i) In considering the provisions of section 52 I must consider section 1(4) of the 2002 Act (as explained in EH v Greenwich);

ii) The word 'requires' in section 52 is 'plainly chosen as best conveying the essence of the Strasbourg jurisprudence'. That is, it implies an imperative rather than something that is merely optional or desirable;

iii) Section 1(4) of the 2002 Act is not the same as section 1(3) of the 1989 Act. The welfare checklists are different in several important respects, especially s 1(4)(c) and (f). The court should therefore work through section 1(4) of the 2002 Act when considering whether to make a placement order.

79. Ryder LJ summarised the position in the case of Re R [2013] EWCA Civ 1018: 'So far as section 52 of the 2002 Act is concerned, the judge had to be satisfied that the welfare of each of the children required their parents' consent to be dispensed with. In other words, their welfare necessitates adoption and nothing else short of that will do. That formulation is derived from the terms of section 52 as explained by this court in Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2 FLR 625 CA at paragraphs 113 to 119 inclusive and, most recently as reiterated by the Supreme Court In the matter of B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33'.
80. The relevant parts of Section 1 of the 2002 Act provide as follows (I have not included ss 5):

(1) This section applies whenever a court or adoption agency is coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child.

(2) The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life.

(3) The court or adoption agency must at all times bear in mind that, in general, any delay in coming to the decision is likely to prejudice the child's welfare.

(4) The court or adoption agency must have regard to the following matters (among others)—

(a) the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision (considered in the light of the child's age and understanding),

(b) the child's particular needs,

(c) the likely effect on the child (throughout her life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person,

(d) the child's age, sex, background and any of the child's characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant,

(e) any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 (c 41)) which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering,

(f) the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including—

(i) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so,

(ii) the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the child's needs,

(iii) the wishes and feelings of any of the child's relatives, or of any such person, regarding the child.

(5) …

(6) The court or adoption agency must always consider the whole range of powers available to it in the child's case (whether under this Act or the Children Act 1989); and the court must not make any order under this Act unless it considers that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so.

(7) In this section, "coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child", in relation to a court, includes—

(a) coming to a decision in any proceedings where the orders that might be made by the court include an adoption order (or the revocation of such an order), a placement order (or the revocation of such an order) or an order under section 26 (or the revocation or variation of such an order),

(b) coming to a decision about granting leave in respect of any action (other than the initiation of proceedings in any court) which may be taken by an adoption agency or individual under this Act,

but does not include coming to a decision about granting leave in any other circumstances.

(8) For the purposes of this section—

(a) references to relationships are not confined to legal relationships,

(b) references to a relative, in relation to a child, include the child's mother and father.

81. It is of fundamental importance that there is discipline in the approach to welfare issues in care and placement proceedings. The court is not a court of social engineering. The court does not decide welfare issues by considering whether, on an individual judge's analysis, a child might be considered to be 'better off' in care or adoption. Nor does the court apply a test of whether a child will receive 'optimal care' with a given parent since there would be many parents who would fail that test. Thus the court must not approach a case such as this by asking whether, on balance, a given child would be better off with adopters or with a parent.
82. The dicta that I have already set out from Re B-S (and which have their basis in the judgments of Lady Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Neuberger in Re B [2013] UKSC 33) must be applied. For myself I find the passages from the judgment of Lord Neuberger in paragraphs 77 and 78 of particular assistance. They include the following at paragraph 77: 'It seems to me to be inherent in section 1(1) that a care order should be a last resort, because the interests of a child would self-evidently require her relationship with her natural parents to be maintained unless no other course was possible in her interests. That is reinforced by the requirement in section 1 (3)(g) that the court must consider all options, which carries with it the clear implication that the most extreme option should only be adopted if others would not be in her interests'.
83. Although care proceedings are quasi inquisitorial (see Re W [2013] EWCA Civ 1227), it is for the Local Authority to justify its applications and to substantiate its proposed care measures on evidence – P, C and S v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FLR 631.
84. Fostering / adoption – No party suggests that long term fostering presents itself as an option for C. I agree that that is so. Black LJ said as follows in the case of Re V [2013] EWCA Civ 913:

• [95] My difficulty with that is that I do not think that fostering and adoption can, in fact, be equated in terms of what they offer by way of security. I do not intend to embark on a comprehensive comparison of the two arrangements, merely to highlight some of the material differences. What I say should not be taken as a substitute for professional advice to the court from social services and/or the guardian in any case in which this is a significant issue.

• [96]. With that caveat, I make the following observations:

i) Adoption makes the child a permanent part of the adoptive family to which he or she fully belongs. To the child, it is likely therefore to "feel" different from fostering. Adoptions do, of course, fail but the commitment of the adoptive family is of a different nature to that of a local authority foster carer whose circumstances may change, however devoted he or she is, and who is free to determine the caring arrangement.

ii) Whereas the parents may apply for the discharge of a care order with a view to getting the child back to live with them, once an adoption order is made, it is made for all time.

iii) Contact in the adoption context is also a different matter from contact in the context of a fostering arrangement. Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the starting point is that the authority is obliged to allow the child reasonable contact with his parents (section 34(1) Children Act 1989). The contact position can, of course, be regulated by alternative orders under section 34 but the situation still contrasts markedly with that of an adoptive child. There are open adoptions, where the child sees his or her natural parents, but I think it would be fair to say that such arrangements tend not to be seen where the adoptive parents are not in full agreement. Once the adoption order has been made, the natural parents normally need leave before they can apply for contact. 

iv) Routine life is different for the adopted child in that once he or she is adopted, the local authority have no further role in his or her life (no local authority medicals, no local authority reviews, no need to consult the social worker over school trips abroad, for example).

85. Oral evidence – During the course of this hearing I have heard oral evidence from the following:

i) Ms Gilder, the social worker - C128 and C189.

ii) Dr Grace Tantam, the psychologist, whose report is at E27;

iii) Mr S S, of the Countywide Contact Support Services;

iv) Jennifer Coward, C2, C11, C27 and C59.

v) Ms CS (who conducted the 'PAMS assessment – C68 with a list of dates of assessment sessions appearing at C33).

vi) HH, the health visitor, whose statements are at C38a and at C114a.

vii) M M, whose statements are at C23 and C152.

viii) D M whose statement is at C157.

ix) The guardian, Ms Pravina Gulabivala whose report is at E16.

86. Ms Gilder - she said that she had seen the report of Dr Tantam and thought that it confirmed her own views. She has seen C once a week since she was allocated to the case in December. She said that D M has been hostile to her and has advised Ms M not to tell her anything and that Ms M is inconsistent about whether she wishes to speak to her.
87. She said that, when she visits, there is always floor space for C but there is always a lot of clutter around the edges of the room. The impression she and other witnesses gave is that the house is sub optimal but was not such as to be any worse than might be encountered in many homes – cluttered and grubby rather than squalid. There are photographs that I was shown.
88. She said that she cannot think of any alternative to adoption as a means of meeting C's welfare and had considered every possibility when considering whether C can remain with his mother. She acknowledged the pressure that had existed for this mother during the currency of this case and that something like 23 professionals have been involved with the family.
89. Ms Gilder said that she accepts that the family regards her as hostile to them and not supportive of their wish to retain the care of C. She agreed with Mr Farquarson that the family had the same impression of Ms Coward, the previous social worker. An example of the family's hostility to her is given at H166 when Ms Gilder visited on 10^th January 2014 and wrote at H167: 'The family clearly do not want to work with the Local Authority'. She said that, on that occasion, D M kept coming into the room in which Ms Gilder was speaking to Ms M and repeatedly told Ms M that she did not need to speak to Ms Gilder. At H166 she describes D M as 'huffing and puffing'.
90. She said that B's behaviour is unpredictable and intolerant and so the Local Authority was genuinely concerned about any involvement between him and C. She said that Ms M can try to protect C from B but, due to B's unpredictability (such as the incident at H125 when he became frustrated with his mobile), she could not say that Ms M can protect C from him.
91. She said that, when she has seen C, he is always very well presented. Ms M interacts with C in the house and she accepted that there are many reports of two way interaction between mother and child in enclosure H. C appears to be a 'happy, content child' and 'smiles at everyone'. However, there are very basic deficiencies in the care that Ms M can offer to C and the help of her family cannot make up for them.
92. She stressed the difficulty that she has encountered when trying to work with Ms M and her father. She said that she is afraid of D M because of the way that he speaks. It is very difficult to speak to him because he is flippant and dismissive; for instance he rang the local council on one occasion when she was there and was speaking in a loud voice about his negative views of social workers.
93. I was impressed by the evidence of Ms Gilder. She has worked hard on this case and has ensured that there is a very high level of support for this family, notwithstanding the difficulties that they present. I accept that she has been met with hostility and rejection from the family when she has attempted to work with them and I also accept that she is genuinely afraid of Mr M (who is a tall and strongly spoken man).
94. Dr Grace Tantam – She learnt about the meeting between Ms M and Mr F just before giving evidence. She said that Ms M is a very vulnerable mother who has difficulty understanding risk and how to behave protectively. Due to the mother's cognitive limitations it is very difficult for her to identify risk and how to avoid it. One of the themes in the report is Ms M difficulty in generalising, she said – thus Ms M does not learn from experience. She thought that Ms M would understand that professionals would get very upset about her meeting with C but she would have difficulty understanding why this was so and also carrying that lesson forward in her approach to other men. Dr Tantam stressed the level of the mother's vulnerability to pressure from others – thus, how could she meet up with Mr F given her allegation that he raped her?
95. She said that Ms M needs nurturing herself. Dr Tantam said that Ms M did not appear to have received nurturing from her family in a way that would allow her to develop; this is apparent from E32 -33 of Dr Tantam's report. Ms M described an up bringing in which 'everyone was shouting at each other'; the one time that Ms M 'lit up' in the meeting with Dr Tantam was when there was discussion about the time that Ms M spent living with her grandmother (who, later, sadly died).
96. In her report Dr Tantam said at E33: 'M also told me about the level of shouting and conflict between her parents and how this had caused her to be very upset, and that her parents did not stop fighting even when others, such as her grandparents, intervened and said it was having an effect on M…[E37]…there are significant concerns with regard to M's capacity to provide safe care. She has very limited understanding of risk and the nature of harm that C might sustain and what she might need to do as his parent to act protectively…[E38]…M's exposure to extremely high levels of conflict in her childhood have led to her having difficulties in regulating her own emotions and it is likely that her threshold for her 'fight or flight' system being triggered is lower than most people'.
97. Dr Tantam said that she had approached the case on the basis that, if the extended family was able to act protectively to make up the limitations in the abilities of Ms M, that might provide a solution but, she considered, that that protective element is not present. Ms M presents demands as a child herself (and so her own emotional needs conflict with those of C).
98. Dr Tantam also said that Ms M visibly withdrew when discussion moved on to her experience of emotional provision by her parents. Dr Tantam tried to gather an understanding of the mother's relationship with her parents but once the conversation moved away from very concrete matters Ms M disengaged (for instance, Ms M yawned when there was discussion about her father). Dr Tantam said that Ms M would have great difficulties when things were not 'OK' and she had to set aside her own difficulties to care for C. There is a significant and unsurprising body of evidence that poor emotional care of the mother would impact upon her abilities to provide emotional care for her child.
99. Whilst C is a baby it is relatively easy to provide for his emotional care. Dr Tantam foresaw increasing difficulties in Ms M's ability to care for C as he gets older.
100. Dr Tantam made the obvious point that a particularly strong feature of this case is just how much support has been provide by the Local Authority over the last ten months. She said that she did not think that any involvement could provide the type of 'wrap around protection' that would be needed to keep C safe. Ms M's ability to work with professionals is limited by her cognitive limitations. She said that Ms M is herself very much in need of support. She said that she hoped the process of maturation would allow Ms M to ameliorate some of her vulnerabilities but that is a medium to long term process and would require individual work with Ms M due to the complexities of her limitations.
101. The evidence that Dr Tantam gave was very well presented and thoroughly convincing. She had investigated this case well.
102. SS – He is employed by Gloucestershire as part of the Countywide Contact Support Services. Between November 2013 and March 2014 he visited the family about 34 times. He is not a social worker but is experienced in his job and, he said, is also a foster carer.
103. He said that Ms M and D M have always been welcoming to him. D has sometimes said that he is 'pissed off' when there have been difficulties with the social workers, however SS has never experienced any displays of anger from Ms M. He said that the condition of the home has improved over time and there is always a pathway for C to crawl along. It is now consistently in that improved condition.
104. He has never seen D M raising his voice and frightening C. He has never seen Ms M raising her voice either. C is a smiling and happy child. M stimulates and plays with C. D is very good with C and has a strong bond with C. The family is strongly committed to C.
105. B used to be in the house and was always polite to SS. More recently, SS has seen B outside the house. SS has not had any difficulty with B and he has not seen any animosity amongst the family members.
106. Jennifer Coward – She said that she saw D M's house being inappropriate with clutter and dogs (the dogs were later removed). She saw B being quite intimidating and arguing with GGM H whilst walking around the room with C on the floor.
107. At H125 there is a record of an incident that Ms Coward witnessed where B became agitated, swore and threw his mobile phone; Ms Coward said that she left soon afterwards. She said that she was genuinely concerned about B being around in the house. She said that D M was verbally aggressive to her and to the family support worker. D M was not happy with her going to the home at all and did not like that she gave him advice about what he should be doing and also that she wrote reports about the family.
108. Ms Coward said that her experience is that Ms M would speak aggressively to her – saying loudly that she hated social workers and never wanted them to come back. Further, there were a number of occasions when she visited and D was shouting and swearing in front of C; she said that in the majority of times that she visited in the last ten weeks that was working on this case she was shouted at by Mr M – he would raise his voice and swear. For example on an occasion in January when Ms Coward said the Local Authority would apply to the court for C's removal, he called her a cunt in front of C.
109. D M himself says at C158: 'I have found the attitude of the professionals very condescending and it has made it quite difficult to work with them. I recognise that at times I have probably been hostile and I also recognise that I need to be prepared to work co-operatively with people. It has been tremendously challenging to have different people coming and
110. She said that she was visiting once or twice a week and most of the time C was stuck in his car seat. There were times when she saw interaction between the mother and C but this decreased in time. She accepted that there was interaction but said that it was not consistent.
111. She said that Ms M would switch off when advice was given. She would begin by getting upset and angry, say that she was being criticised and then not engage in the conversation. I note that Dr Tantam gave similar evidence.
112. Ms CS - she said that Ms M was sometimes co operative with the work of assessment, sometimes not (e.g. she refused to participate in as session on 8^th November, there were two days when Ms M was not present when Ms CS attended and there was a day when the guardian was present and the mother was distressed and not able to participate in assessment work). She said that a mother who has needs such as this is of concern because she required training in one-third of the domains that were identified.
113. She said that the first time that she went to the house D M was pointing fingers at her (and her service manager) and made it plain that he did not want her there. On other occasions D M was around and on two of those occasions he was grumbling and quite agitated (saying that he was going to ring a solicitor 'or somebody').
114. She said that a parent who had the ratings recorded in the PAMs report would need a high degree of support to understand the developmental needs of the child. She thinks that the mother needs a lot of teaching at a level that would require frequent intervention. Without that the child would suffer. She thought that the mother will sometimes take things on board but would not manage C on her own.
115. HH - She said that she is still the health visitor for C. She visits once a fortnight and KK visits on the intervening week – thus there is a visit each week either by herself or by KK. She said that the house is variable as to its condition; the photographs that have been produced show the house at its best, she said. The house was not very clean but one would not call it squalid – she agreed that 'grubby and cluttered' would describe it.
116. At times the family has expressed resentment and frustration about her being in the house – this happens on about 30 to 50% of the times that she visits and tends to arise quite quickly. D M has a particularly short fuse; there has been a variety of things that have frustrated him when she visits such as money and the involvement of social workers. The level of support is at a much, much higher level than most young mothers would be getting.
117. She said that she had been dealing with Ms M since June 2013 and has not noticed very much progress at all in Ms M's understanding about how to care for C. Sometimes it seems as though things have improved but then, on a later occasion, it becomes apparent that things have taken a step backwards. HH said that she felt that Ms M has been given lots of support in a positive way and that there is nothing else that could have been done.
118. She said that she has continued to have concerns about Ms M's care of C. She gave examples of Ms M leaving C unattended on a sofa, giving him dairy foods despite his lactose intolerance and, on another recent occasion when HH asked to see C bottom due to his persistent nappy rash, Ms M 'yanked' C out of the baby walker roughly and then removed his nappy roughly, she said.
119. She said that she supports the Local Authority's actions and application. She does not think that Ms M has the ability to meet C's needs as they develop and become more complex. Ms M can meet his basic needs most of the time but, as he grows older, will be unable to do so. When she first became involved she was more optimistic about Ms M's ability to care for C than she is now. Now, she said, she is more concerned than she was then.
120. Ms M – She was very distressed when giving evidence (as she did, bravely, by video link). She explained that she does not still give C dairy food. She follows a written food chart. She said that she gave him toast for breakfast that morning. When I asked what she put on the toast she said 'butter' but said that it was not dairy butter (although she could not say what sort of butter it was). She said that she is confident about handling C and did not accept the account of Ms Force that she had handled C roughly. She found it really hard working with Ms Coward and Ms Gilder; they talked down to her as if she was a bad person.
121. She spoke of the day that she spent with F F recently. She said that she had not wanted to go but F persuaded her do so. His mum sent her a text message saying that, if Ms M did not go, it would mean that she was stopping F from seeing his son. F had been speaking to Ms M by Facebook; she tried to block him, but he found her new Facebook address. She did not know why she had not blocked him again. Before she left Town that day she was in the house with C and just her Dad and possibly her Nan. She told them that she was just going out for the day; her Dad did not ask her where – she and her dad were not on speaking terms that day.
122. She said that she caught a bus to Gloucester and met C at Gloucester station. She was scared and, she said, 'so was C'. She had not wanted F to come to her own house because there would have been a fight. She thought that F would have done so if she had not agreed to meet with him. When she went to his parents' house she felt worried and scared because she did not want to be there. She got back home in the evening having left at about 9 o'clock in the morning. She said that she knew that it was on the written agreement that she should not go and that she had not wanted to. She did not tell her dad about having gone to see F until she came to court at the start of this hearing.
123. She said that she knows that she is not supposed to go out with C at all on her own. Her father had told her off the day that she went out to see F with C (the evidence of D M was somewhat different).
124. D M – He said that reducing his hours of work has been a huge issue because of the financial impact. It has meant that he could not pay his rent and it has created some difficulties within the home. He could not afford to continue with the current arrangement and might have to give up work altogether to claim benefits. He would do whatever he could to support M. He has done a lot of work on the house to get it into the current better shape; he and M now have to rota to do the housework. He said that he does not intend to stay at this property if he can help it and has started to look to rent privately.
125. He said that he and M get on pretty well now and have bonded. They had not really bonded before she and C came to live at the house in September. He thought that it was a realistic prospect that M might live on her own with C. He would be on the end of a phone to help if needed. He said that, if C is with M, he thinks that M will look for a place on her own when the council can offer her somewhere.
126. He said that the social workers have talked down to M and he finds that difficult. In his opinion, the Local Authority has not helped at all and he does not believe in asking for help anyway; if he cannot do it himself he leaves it. He later acknowledged that KK, RR and CJ had helped M.
127. He did not accept that he has lost his temper with the social workers since, if he does lose his temper, he goes 'off the wall'. If social workers spoke nicely to M he would get on with them. He denied swearing at the social workers or using the word 'cunt' to describe any of them; he did not accept that he called the social worker a 'fucking cunt' as recorded at H109C. I did not believe his evidence on this issue; I am sure that he did use that language.
128. He said that B has not been in the house since the second agreement was put in place. Surprisingly, he said that M cannot [sic] stand up to B, although she is very protective of C. B is tall and of big build.
129. He said that F F came as a lodger for four months at the insistence of GM M and he did not want F in the house. He knew nothing about F F before he came. He thought that M was going out to see her mum on the day that M and F met up recently. He rang GM M that afternoon and learnt that M had not gone to her mother's. However, when she returned home, he did not ask M where she had been and just asked her whether she had had a good day. Asked how he could prevent her behaving like that again, he said that he did not know. He and M have not spoken about this.
130. He said that he has a very poor opinion of F; F pinned M up against the wall on two occasions when living with them. If F came to the house he would hit him. It was not safe for C to be with M and C since F can be nice one minute and then mistreat M the next. There is no knowing how he would treat her.
131. He thinks that M is a very good mother; she is a much better parent that he ever was, he said.
132. Ms Gulabivala – She said that she adheres to her recommendations and conclusions. She agreed with the report and evidence of Dr Tantam. She did not think that Ms M can meet C needs within his timescales.
133. When she was first appointed she was concerned that there should be a parenting assessment and thought that a PAMs assessment was the most suitable form for it. The PAMs assessment was delayed as Ms M made it very plain in a meeting on 8^th November that the assessment was not necessary and was 'babyish' [E20]; thus it was decided that Ms M needed more time to do the session. When she saw that report she thought that the Local Authority had put in an extensive package of support and monitoring.
134. She did not think that C's needs would be met by him remaining with Ms M even with a package of support. She did not think that the support package would be successful. She did not think that it would be accepted and did not think that the family sees the need for it.
135. She said that she has discussed with Ms Gilder whether prospective adopters are available and said that she had been told that a possible family had already been identified.
136. Mr Farquarson's submissions – Mr Farquarson submitted that this is not a case where it can be said that nothing other than adoption will do. Ms M has shown strong commitment and love for C. She has met his physical care needs by keeping him warm, fed, clothed and clean. His health needs have been met to a reasonable standard and she has taken him to the doctor. There have been over 200 visits by Countywide and there has been no suggestion of any emergency or risk of immediate harm arising that might have led to C's removal. There is no suggestion of any physical mistreatment of C. Physically he is a healthy child; there is no suggestion that he is under-weight or over-weight.
137. The fact that he is a happy child suggests that he is receiving appropriate emotional care from a mother who is attuned to his emotional needs. A removal of C from his mother and natural family would be a huge change in his circumstances. The family history of learning disability, which would have to be made known to any prospective adopters, may make it more difficult to find adopters for him. C has been in three different placements in his life so far and has seen tension within the home in which he lives. Home hygiene is certainly not at a level that would justify intervention but it is noteworthy that Ms CS said that this was her principle concern.
138. The suggestions that B has been in the house after the second agreement are not substantiated by evidence. Ms M has co operated with some professionals such as RR, KK and CJ and is capable of working with some of them. There are 24 professionals who have worked with Ms M and, in the main and besides HH, Ms Coward and Ms Gilder, there has been a reasonable relationship with them. The tensions within the home are understandable given the 'goldfish bowl' effect of being observed by so many professionals and also the financial pressures that they have been under.
139. As to Dr Tantam's evidence that Ms M does not have the cognitive and emotional ability to care for C in the long term, the past ten months suggest otherwise.
140. Ms Knapp's submissions - She advanced submissions that were supportive of those advanced by Mr Farquarson. Due the mother's young age and own need for parenting the state should provide services that would allow the mother to maintain her role as C's parent and develop her parenting as she matures.
141. Mr Norris's submissions – The Local Authority has worked very hard to try to help this mother to be given the opportunity to be brought up by his family. However, despite the exceptionally high level of support and services Ms M is not able to care for C adequately. She does not get support from her mother and herself says that she has a poor relationship with her father (as Dr Tantam reported). She has a complex relationship with her volatile brother and has been unable to resist Mr F despite her stated fear of him. There is no one within the family to protect C or her. There is no alternative to adoption.
142. If C remains with Ms M she and her father suggest that she will move to live on her own with C. No package of support can be put in place that would meet C's welfare demands.
143. Ms MacMillan Scott's submissions – The mother has struggled, is brave and loves her little boy. It is agreed that there are only two options – C remains with C or C is placed for adoption. Initially the guardian had some optimism. However, that optimism has not been maintained. The PAMs assessment raises very basic gaps in the mother's parenting ability. The people with whom the family have had difficulties are the important ones – the health visitor and the social workers. For the health visitor to be afraid to go into the house is very unusual.
144. The evidence of Dr Tantam is correct. As Dr Tantam said, if the parents of Ms M were a 'safe pair of hands' the case would be different; however they are not.
145. Analysis of welfare checklist – Since there are only two options that are available for consideration I analyse them together by reference to the welfare checklists in the 1989 and 2002 Act.
146. C is plainly too young for his current wishes and feelings to be ascertained. He has the needs of a ten month child. Ms M could not meet them on her own. Even his basic needs of feeding, hygiene, warmth, stimulation, washing and safety (the points identified in the PAMs report) are beyond her without an exceptionally high level of supervision and help. Even with the exceptional level of supervision there are still significant lapses in her care of him (such as when she went with C to visit F F).
147. If, contrary to her evidence, she were to remain within her family home and if she and her family members were to be offered and were to accept a continuing exceptional level of support from a wide range of professionals C's basic needs would be met most of the time as they have been. However:

i) It is highly unlikely that she would accept that level of long-term support ;

ii) It is highly unlikely that her family would accept it either;

iii) The tensions within her own family make it unrealistic to think that the current arrangement of family support would continue in the long-term either;

iv) Even if the family and professional support could remain at the present level, for C to live in an environment where that level of support is necessary for even his basic needs to be met would be extremely limiting.

v) Both Ms M and D M spoke of Ms M's intention to find accommodation elsewhere.

vi) There would still be significant lapses due to the underlying cognitive limitations of Ms M and her inability to retain things that she has been taught.

148. Anything beyond C's basic needs would not be met in her care even if C and Ms M did continue to have that exceptional level of support. It is inconceivable that Ms M could arrange for his education, social development, emotional development, nutrition or daily organisation either or on her own or with help from others. It is simply a matter of her not being equipped to provide what C needs. One only has to try to picture a toddler in the household at 'A' Rd that has been so clearly described to see how impossible an arrangement that would be. If one then tries to imagine Ms M living on her own with C, it is even more apparent that such an arrangement would be unachievable in a way that is consistent with C's welfare. In response to Ms Knapp's skilful submission, no end of services provided by the state could make up for those deficiencies.
149. Thus, in relation to C's needs, they will not be met if he remains with his mother. If he moves to an adoptive placement there is every reason to suppose that they will be met. I recognise the power of Mr Farquarson's submission that his family background (including Ms M's intellectual limitations) may render it more difficult to find adopters but I heard no evidence to suggest that this would be insurmountable (and my own experience as a judge who deals frequently with adoption work would be contrary to Mr Farquarson's well presented argument).
150. The effect of C changing his circumstances so that he moves from his mother's care to an adoptive placement in which he ceases to be a member of his natural family for the rest of his life is plainly of the utmost significance to him. He is now ten months old and has spent the whole of his life so far being cared for by her. By now he has developed obvious attachments to those that surround him and care for him, especially his mother. Further, he is a much loved baby who attracts the natural affection of his natural family. Therefore separation from his mother will cause him the distress and anxiety that any child of his age would suffer by being separated from his primary carer, known environment and extended family. Those are all very significant features of his circumstances that have to be taken firmly into account, as I do. It is another extremely painful aspect of this desperately sad case.
151. Further, in the long term he will know that he had a natural loving family that wanted to care for him and which he has lost through adoption. That sense of loss may leave him with emotional difficulties in the medium and long term in a way that also must be considered now, as I do also. There is a magnetic connection that exists between any individual and his natural background that may exert its influence over C's emotional welfare at any stage throughout his life (e.g. I often receive requests for adoption files to be inspected by people who were adopted many years ago because they want to trace their background in order to help them understand their own identities and what has happened to them). Adoption is not a panacea.
152. Against that, however, must be the recognition that a change of circumstances that leads to C becoming an adopted person will at least offer him the chance of an upbringing in which he has his needs met and in which he is parented adequately. Unfortunately, because of Ms M's own age, circumstances and intellectual limitations she cannot offer him that. I agree that she is still at a level where she has the needs of a child herself in a way that ill equips her for parenthood. In adoption C would have the benefit of an upbringing by an adopter or by adopters who had been carefully selected and who had chosen to parent him. He would also be looked after by people who were able to do so adequately, which will not be the case if he remains with his mother. Further C would be protected from the conflicted environment in which he is currently living and would have the chance of an adequate childhood all of which would be denied to him if he remained with his natural family.
153. At ten months C is now of an age where he must have his future finally decided. There cannot be any further period of assessment; in any event, there is now such a wealth of evidence that further assessment would serve no purpose. His background is that he was born to a fifteen year old mother with exceptionally low cognitive abilities and a conflicted family. For ten months every effort has been made to try to keep him within that family but those efforts have not succeeded. The same problems kept emerging and are not going to alter since they have their origins in the mother's own difficulties and limitations as well the dysfunction within her family.
154. As to that family dysfunction I give these examples (and there are many more that could be given): i) the fact that Mr F, who the father says was unknown to him and was violent, came to lodge at the house at all and then remained for four months; ii) the complications that B has posed; iii) the family response to social workers; iv) the apparent lack of involvement from Ms M's mother when Ms M gave birth as a teenager and her absence from court; v) the response of D M when he learnt that Ms M had gone out for the day and was not with her mother as he thought (i.e. he did not ask her where she had been despite the terms of the agreement at C104).
155. The harm of leaving C within this environment is that his emotional, physical, social and educational needs would not be met. I think that it is highly likely that if he were to be left in his mother's care now it would be a matter of only a few months before that arrangement broke down entirely, leading to C having to be found an alternative home at an even later stage. It is inconceivable in my opinion that Ms M would be able to manage his care, with or without her family's help, for more than that short further period. She has been unable to adhere to agreements made with the Local Authority and would be likely to expose C to the risks of emotional harm from the conflict within her family and also from her conflict with F F. If she does remain at 'A' Road it would be naïve to think that B (who lives two doors away with other family members) would not visit in the future.
156. C has developed a relationship of attachment with his mother and his natural family. His family want to care for him and love him. However, if they do so it will lead to the consequences that I have outlined above.
157. Conclusion - Under the Children Act 1989 the range of available orders is limited to making no order, making a supervision order or making a care order. The most interventionist order is the care order. However, on the facts of this case and the evidence that I have heard a care order is the only order that can be made consistently with the welfare of C. Nothing short of such an order of last resort will do. Thus a care order is necessary and proportionate and I am driven to make one.
158. That decision means that, of the two identified possible options, the option of C remaining with his mother is not available. In the light of the matters that I have set out above and consistent with all of the professional evidence, I find that the only available order that will meet the paramount welfare of C is a placement order. Thus I conclude that the welfare of C requires that I must dispense with the consent of M M (and, insofar as may be necessary, his father F F) to C being placed for adoption. I make a placement order and approve the care plan of the Local Authority.
159. Conclusion - I therefore make a care order in relation to C M. Having dispensed with the requisite consents in the terms set out above, I make a placement order.
160. Finally - I would wish to recognise the excellence of the legal representation that has been provided to Ms M by her counsel and her solicitors. This is a heart breaking case for all concerned but most particularly for this young mother. I have no doubt at all that that highly distressing impact will be felt by those have supported Ms M, including her legal team and I can only express my own regret that this judgment, for which I am solely responsible, should be the instrument of so much pain.

Stephen Wildblood QC

26^th March 2014.