England and Wales County Court (Family)

IN THE CHELMSFORD COUNTY COURT                                                       CM13C05152.

 

                                                                                                              Friday, 14^th February 2014.

Before:

 

HER HONOUR JUDGE PURKISS

Between:

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA BOROUGH COUNCIL

Applicants

and

 

ML, F, MG and MGM

 

And

 

MR, CL, SL, AL, MKL and LL

(by their Children’s Guardian)

Respondents

____________________

 

MISS MILLER  of Counsel (instructed by Southend Borough Council) appeared for the Applicants.

MISS DOOLEY  of Counsel (instructed by Law Hurst & Taylor) appeared for the First Respondent.

MISS NEWTON of Counsel (instructed by White & Co) appeared for the Second Respondent.

MISS STEVENS of Counsel  (instructed by Steed & Steed LLP) appeared for the Third Respondent.

MR LEFTERI of Counsel (instructed by solicitors) appeared for the Fourth Respondent.

MS BAXTER  of  Baxter Harries Solicitors, 157 High Street, Ongar CM5 9JD) appeared for the Children’s Guardian.

____________________

 

Digital Tape Transcription by:

John Larking Verbatim Reporters,

(Verbatim Reporters and Tape Transcribers)

Suite 91, Temple Chambers, 3-7 Temple Avenue, London   EC4Y 0HP.

Tel:   020 7404 7464   Fax:   020 7404 7443   DX: 13 Chancery Lane LDE

 

____________________

 

                                                                 JUDGMENT

                                                                   (Approved)

 

                                                                                                                                                         

Friday, 14^th February 2014.

 

01      This case concerns six children: MR (born 9^th February 2001); CL (born 3^rd January 2003); SL (born 19^th December 2003); AL (born 28^th July 2005); MKL (born 7^th August 2008); and LL (born 29^th December 2010).  The parents of MR are the Second Respondent father F and the Third Respondent mother MG.  The parents of the other children are the First Respondent mother ML and the Second Respondent father F.  F has parental responsibility for all of the children save CL.

 

Background to the proceedings

 

MR.

 

02      The local authority became involved with MR in about 2001 when concerns were expressed about the care he was receiving from his mother MG.  MR was subsequently placed with his paternal grandmother who cared for him until she died in 2012.  During this period MR lost contact with his mother and his half-sibling C.  At the time of his grandmother’s death F was in an on-off relationship with ML, the mother of his other children and she agreed to support his care of MR.  In between his grandmother’s death on 22^nd August 2012 and his accommodation pursuant to Section 20 on 16^th July 2013 MR moved a number of different times within the care of his paternal family.  He lived with his uncle SP, his father F and ML, then with his father alone, with his father and KP, DP , ML and also at a family of friends known as the D family.  Eventually MR found his way to ML’s home from the D family, claiming that his dad had ‘done a runner.’  It was from ML’s home that MR was accommodated.  The final welfare hearing for MR has been adjourned by the court to a date subsequent to the completion of a parenting assessment of his mother MG with whom he has now re-established contact and who wishes to care for him.  His involvement and MG’s involvement in this hearing has been solely on the issue of threshold in relation to MR which was resolved by agreement on Day 1 and also in relation to contact to his half-siblings, the L children.  Consequently when those issues were resolved by agreement his advocate Miss Stevens withdrew from the hearing further.

 

The L children.

 

03      The L children came to the attention of the local authority in 2006 as a result of concerns about father’s criminal offending, his alcohol and drug misuse, domestic violence between him and ML.  The children remained in the care of the parents.  Concerns resurfaced in 2011 with further referrals with regard to domestic incidents between the parents and continuing concerns about the father’s substance misuse, the neglect of the children and suggestions from the children on occasions that they had been inappropriately physically chastised.  The relationship between the parents appears to have been characterised by a high degree of conflict and repeated separations during which threats, including threats to kill, were alleged by the mother followed by subsequent reconciliations.  In early 2012 the children were made subject to a Child Protection plan under the category of neglect.  In about March father appears to have moved out of the family home for a couple of months.  There were increasing concerns about CL’s disruptive behaviour.  He absconded from the family home for short periods of time and he alleged that he had been assaulted by LD, a friend of the family.  The local authority tried to support the parents’ care of the children with a number of interventions.  The father was referred to New Paths domestic violence service for men; the mother booked herself on to the Freedom Program; and the mother engaged with Fledglings.  On 13^th November the decision of the Child Protection conference was to remove the children from the Child Protection plan and place them on a Child In Need plan.  It is said that this decision reflects the positive progress made but having reviewed the chronology – none of which has been challenged within these proceedings – that would appear to have been a surprising decision; for example, at the beginning of November F alleged that there had been a threat by his brother SP to ‘smash his head in’ i.e. F’s head in ‘and smash his partner’s head in.’  F was reported as saying that this was a credible threat and that therefore he had stayed overnight at the family home.  In any event by February 2013 the decision of the Child In Need meeting was to remove the children from Child In Need plans. Agreements with the parents included work with the professionals including the following work; the family continuing to work with Fledglings and being supported by health visitors, school nurse, the school and other professionals.  The parents were encouraged to refrain from exposing the children to conflict and the case was then closed in February 2013. 

 

04      Exactly a month later, on 11^th March 2013, a referral relating to the family was received from the school. A further NSPCC referral in April reported concerns of the children being physically harmed and neglected, and raised once again the former concerns.  The case was reopened to Social Care and a Child In Need meeting convened.  The mother was unhappy at Social Care’s involvement but a plan was devised for ongoing support including support from Fledglings, therapeutic support for the children, and Think Family.  The latter support was declined by mother initially but subsequently accepted by her.  Attempts were made to improve the state of the family home.  Concerns continued regarding the continuing volatility in the parents’ relationship, the father’s substance misuse and the mother’s friendship with LD.  CL’s behaviour had resulted in the mother’s having to call the police on a number of occasions.  These concerns continued and escalated, culminating in reports at the end of July that SP made serious threats to ML as a result of a dispute over a debt that he said she owed to him.  Police intervention at the time appeared to increase SP’s anger over the alleged dispute and the local authority subsequently took the decision to issue proceedings.  An Emergency Protection Order was granted in relation to the five L children on 2^nd August 2013 and they were placed in foster care. 

 

05      During these proceedings there have been a range of assessments, ongoing social work assessment, viability assessments of family members, assessments by Linda Sansom, an independent social worker of the mother and father, psychological assessments of the children by Tammy Surgenor.  Dr Surgenor conducted a comprehensive assessment including observations of family members’ contact.  She concluded that the needs of the children were such that they should not be placed together.  Very quickly after being placed in foster care CL started to abscond and I am told that he absconded up to 45 times from foster care.  When he absconded he went to his maternal grandmother’s home or to the home of his uncle RL.  His maternal aunt CN was positively assessed and for a period CL lived with her along with his mother, but by September maternal grandmother had put herself forward to care for CL and the aunt had decided that she did not want the mother to continue to reside with her nor did she want to look after CL in the longer term.  It was agreed eventually following local authority assessment that he should move to live with his grandmother.  He moved there on 18^th October 2013 and has settled very well into that placement.  His grandmother is providing very well for his care and his behaviour has improved significantly.  All parties in this case agree that CL should remain placed with his grandmother MGM.  Having considered the evidence about the progress made by CL within that placement I made a residence order in the maternal grandmother’s favour on 2^nd December 2013.  She has attended and participated in hearings since that date but she also attended prior to that date to provide the M with support. At the conclusion of this hearing all parties agree that I should make a special guardianship order in relation to CL in her favour. 

 

06      SL has been placed separately from her siblings in foster care.  She has settled well.  There appears to have been a plan to test out a prospective placement of SL with the maternal grandmother and CL towards the latter part of last year but Dr Surgenor expressed concern about whether or not this would destabilise CL’s placement in an email dated 18^th November which set out her preliminary findings.  As a result of this it appears that the plan to try SL within the placement with maternal grandmother was not implemented.  At the beginning of this hearing the local authority plan for SL was to invite the court to approve a care order on the basis that she would remain placed in long-term foster care separate from her siblings with ongoing contact to her family.  This was opposed by all of the parties including the guardian who recommended that there should be further exploration of the possibility of placing SL with CL and the grandmother MGM.  At the conclusion of Dr Surgenor’s evidence, which was almost at the end of the first week of this hearing, the local authority reflected on its plan and decided to agree to explore this option for SL by way of further assessment.  A revised care plan has been submitted to the court D175-176 and this is a plan which is put forward on the basis that it is agreed by all parties.

 

07      AL and MKL have been placed together in the same placement.  Initially MKL was placed with LL but as a result of his violent behaviour towards her he was moved and placed with AL.  Once MKL moved into the foster placement with AL, AL’s behaviour is described as having deteriorated and both boys have displayed quite destructive behaviour in their placement.  AL is eight; he has a Statement of Special Educational Needs as a result of learning difficulties.  The local authority plan for AL is to attempt to secure an adoptive placement for him.  In advance of this hearing the local authority set out its care plan which provided that AL should move from his present foster care into a bridging placement.  Such a plan was opposed by F, who wished to put himself forward to care for AL.  However, at the beginning of the hearing having had an opportunity to reflect on the final evidence F decided that his plan was not viable.  He accepts that he needs more time to demonstrate that he can continue to progress in relation to his substance misuse and continue to sustain changes to his lifestyle.  However, he, along with ML, opposes a placement order in respect of AL.  At the beginning of the hearing the guardian opposed AL’s care plan but on the last day of the hearing the local authority amended its plan to provide for a parallel search for adopters and foster carers for AL on the basis that he would not be moved from his present carer until a placement was secured.  His guardian now supports that plan.

 

08      MKL is five.  He has exhibited difficult behaviours.  The local authority plan is that MKL should be adopted.  His parents do not put themselves forward to care for him but his uncle RL applied shortly before this hearing for leave to apply for a special guardianship order.  ML and F supported RL’s application.  The local authority and the guardian opposed it.  RL has not been represented within these proceedings but with the agreement of all parties I allowed disclosure of relevant documentation to him and on occasions assisted him with questions to witnesses whose evidence he wished to challenge.  In addition I am very grateful to Mr Lefteri, who represents MGM.  The grandmother had supported RL’s proposal and Mr Lefteri in effect acted as his advocate within this hearing and put forward his case to the witnesses as if RL had leave to make that application.  This enabled the court to fully consider RL’s position.  However, having put forward his case fully to all of the professional witnesses and having heard the evidence-in-chief of the guardian, RL reflected overnight about his application for leave to apply for a special guardianship order for MKL.  He decided that he needed to prioritise his own son C  in respect of whom there have been problematic historic contact disputes.  He withdrew his application for leave.  Although the guardian agreed the plan for adoption for MKL, she disagreed with the local authority about how best to implement it.  The local authority proposes to leave MKL in his present placement and the guardian thought that MKL should be moved into a bridging placement and then on from there.  However, on the final day, having seen the revised care plan which provided for a parallel plan to search for both adoptive and foster care placements, thus reducing any prospective delay, the guardian changed her position and offered support to the local authority’s plan. 

 

09      LL is placed in foster care.  She is aged three.  The impression I have from the papers is that she is an intelligent and a feisty little character.  Her speech is advanced for her age.  There have been a number of concerns about the care she has received in foster care which have been raised during the course of this hearing.  It is not necessary within this judgment to deal with those matters.  LL’s mother wishes to resume her care and seeks a further period during which this option can be assessed and the family supports this proposal.  The local authority and the guardian recommend a care and placement order but the guardian thinks that some preparatory work will be necessary with LL.  However, that does not alter the guardian’s view that LL is ready to be adopted and should be adopted. 

 

10      It can be seen from the outline of the parties’ positions that the landscape of this case has changed quite dramatically during the course of what has been a long hearing.  A lot of evidence has been given in relation to issues which are no longer live issues between the parties.  The orders which I am invited to make by agreement are a special guardianship order in relation to CL to the maternal grandmother; secondly, an interim care order in relation to SL to the local authority on the basis of an interim care plan for testing out a placement or SL to be placed with her grandmother.  The issues in the case which I have to determine are firstly whether or not a care order on the basis of care plans for AL and MKL to be adopted can and should be approved, it being conceded that they will not return to their family’s care; secondly, whether or not AL or MKL should be made the subject of placement orders; thirdly, whether or not LL should be made the subject of a care and placement order or remain in the interim care of the local authority pending a further assessment of the mother as a prospective carer for LL alone.  Whilst opposing the local authority’s plans for placements, the parties have agreed the amended contact plans at D177 of the bundle.

 

The law.

 

11      A court cannot make a care order unless the circumstances at the relevant date are as set out in Section 31 Children Act: that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to him if the order were not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him. 

 

12      If the threshold for the making of an order is established I must then consider the local authority plans for these children keeping their welfare as my paramount consideration.  I must take into account all of the relevant circumstances in the case but in particular those matters set out in Section 1(3) Children Act 1989.  I must remember that any delay in determining the welfare decision is likely to prejudice their welfare and I remind myself that I should not make an order unless I consider that it would be better to do so than not.  Article 8 and Article 6 of the ECHR are engaged in relation to this application.  

 

13      The local authority applies for orders the effect of which contemplates a permanent separation of AL, MKL and LL from their birth family.   Following recent decisions in the cases of Re B (A child) [2013] UKSC 33, Re G (A child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, Re P (A child) [2013] EWCA Civ 963, K v LB Brent [2013] EWCA Civ 926, B-S (Children) [2013] UK 1146, and W (A child) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1125 I must consider whether or not the permanent removal of these children from their birth family is proportionate to the risk of harm to them in their family’s care or the risks associated with removal.  In evaluating which set of arrangements for their future are to be endorsed, the children’s welfare is paramount.  I must not approach the task of deciding whether or not to approve care plans in a linear way by considering the option of whichever family member puts themselves forward and then arriving by default at the local authority plan.   I must undertake a global holistic evaluation of each of the options available for their future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to their welfare.   I must set out clear reasoning based on the evidence including assessing the benefits and detriments of each option for placement; in particular the nature and extent of the risk involved in each of the options must be included, and where removal from a relative is proposed that must be analysed as a welfare factor.  I remind myself that an order severing the ties between a child and his parents can only be made where it is justified by the overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s interests.  Adoption is a very extreme thing, a last resort, as Lord Neuberger reminded  in Re B. 

 

14      In considering the local authority’s application for placement orders in respect of AL, MKL and LL again I must have the children’s welfare as my paramount consideration and must bear in mind that any delay is likely to prejudice their welfare, and pay particular regard to the matters set out in Section 1(4) Adoption and Children Act 2002.  I cannot make a placement order unless the circumstances are as set out in Sections 21(2) and 21(3) Adoption and Children Act 2002.   Section 21(3) requires the court to examine whether or not parental consent has been given and if not to consider whether or not to consent with that consent as set out in Section 52 of the Act.  In this case the parents do not and will not consent.  In deciding whether or not to dispense with their consent, I must be satisfied that adoption is in each child’s interests and that their welfare requires the court to dispense with their parents’ consent.  In considering whether or not to make a placement order I must have each child’s welfare throughout their lives as my paramount consideration, and as I have said, take into account all of the matters referred to in Section 1 of that Act. 

 

15      A placement order is not something which follows automatically from the making of a care order even where the care plan is for adoption.  I should only make such an order where I am satisfied that all avenues to rehabilitation have reasonably been explored and that each child is ready to be adopted.  In relation to evaluating whether or not the child is ready to be adopted, where work, for example, therapy with that child needs to be undertaken there is a distinction between cases where the child’s difficulties are such that it is not possible to determine whether or not a child should be adopted until that work is undertaken and cases where the work that a child should undertake is preparatory to placement for adoption.  The fact that it may be difficult to secure an appropriate adoptive placement is not a reason to conclude that adoption is not in a child’s best interests.  I refer to the following authorities: Re T (Placement order) [2008] EWCA Civ 248; Re P (Placement orders, parental consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535; Re F (A child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1277.  

 

16      The standard of proof in relation to any dispute in facts is the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, and the burden in this case rests with the local authority; it is not reversible.  It is not for the Respondents to establish that allegations are not made out.  Findings of fact must be based on evidence and not speculation.  When carrying out an assessment of the evidence I remind myself that if a court concludes a witness has lied about a matter, it does not follow that he has lied about everything.  A witness may lie for many reasons; out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure.  R v Lucas [1981] QB 720.

 

Evidence.

 

17      The written evidence in this case extends over five files, reflecting the significant involvement of the local authority in the lives of these children.  I have heard oral evidence from Dr Surgenor, Mr Britton of the Marigold Family Centre, Linda Sansom,  EW (social worker), LB (Adoption social worker), Tony Versaca, SL, F, MGM, RL and the guardian Linda Gillespie.  I am going to focus in the judgment on the evidence relevant to the decisions I have to take at the conclusion of the hearing.  This means much of the evidence in the first week of the hearing, which focused on the SL and CL proposal, will not be set out save in so far as I need to consider this evidence in order to approve the agreed orders and in order to inform the decisions I make in relation to the other children.  I have obviously considered all of the evidence I have read and heard very carefully but in what is already going to be a very long judgment this judgment will be far too long and repetitive if I go through and try to deal with all of it.

 

18      EW gave evidence and put forward the local authority’s plans for the children.  She had been the social worker since May 2013.  She gave evidence over a couple of days.  Other witnesses were interposed.  This meant she was unable to react to the emerging evidence by providing instructions as to the changes in the care plan as the case proceeded and it did leave her – in particular on the issue of the SL and CL proposal, and the contact proposals – in what I think was the unenviable position of trying to defend the local authority’s care plans on these issues which during the first week started to look untenable.  She was clearly a caring social worker but I felt that her evidence on some issues lacked the sort of detailed analysis which is required in a case of this complexity.  This had the effect that when challenged about a part of the plan – for example, contact – she tended to say ‘Well yes, we will take that on board’ and I had to remind her on a number of occasions that it was not much use for a local authority to take such points on board after the hearing because I needed to know what the plan was during the hearing and before I reached a decision.  In making that criticism I do acknowledge that the case on welfare for these children because of the number of them and the constellation of difficulties they have demonstrated in placement has been complicated.  Almost as soon as she had completed her evidence she instructed her counsel that the plans for CL and SL should be changed to allow for the testing out of the placement of SL with the grandmother and she also instructed about changes to the contact plans. 

 

19      On the final day of the hearing, having heard the guardian’s evidence, the local authority changed its plans again and provided for a parallel search for adopters and foster carers for AL and MKL.  It was unfortunate for there to be a further change in the local authority’s plan at this very late stage in the hearing.  Unsurprisingly, this caused consternation on the part of the Respondents.  I directed the social worker to be recalled to give evidence together with the guardian who supported the revised plans. 

 

20      It was equally unfortunate, in my view, that the local authority had taken advice overnight from David Britton from the Marigold Centre.  Mr Britton had given evidence earlier on in the hearing about the advice he had given the local authority historically about CL.  When he gave evidence the plan for SL was still in issue.  He had told me that he was aware of the other children and had sat in on meetings regarding them but he had never met them and had therefore only a glancing acquaintance with the issues relating to them.  I cannot imagine why the local authority thought it sensible to consult with Mr Britton in this way at the eleventh hour most of the way through the hearing.  Furthermore I do not really understand why having done so the local authority did not immediately provide all parties with the typed note which I directed them to file and serve on the last day of the hearing which set out the summary of the advice that he gave.  I accept that a local authority must consult with professionals in order to exercise its parental responsibility but it should have consulted the parents before so doing.  This is particularly so in circumstances where the case is part-heard at the final hearing.  The local authority should have known that its actions, taken without consultation with the parents, would have the appearance of unfairness. When I saw the typed note, it became clear that what had been set out in that note was with regard to CL, AL and MKL mainly related to the implementation of the local authority’s plans for them in anticipation of those being approved by the court.  Matters that did not fall within the remit of implementation concerned the issue of LL’s sexualised behaviour.  This issue was already before the court in evidence and in fact the witness had been asked about it by Miss Dooley when he gave evidence but at that point in his evidence he acknowledged that he had never met LL but had been asked by the local authority if he could provide some advice to her carers and that part of the note updates on his advice to the foster carers.  To the extent that it strays into assessment and analysis in relation to causation of that behaviour I disregard that note.  Firstly, Mr Britton had never met any of the children other than CL and any views he expresses are not views to which the court should therefore attach weight; secondly, he did not give evidence on the note and was not cross-examined on it. 

 

21      So the local authority’s settled plans were special guardianship order of CL to the grandmother; trial of SL with grandmother with an adjournment of her case under an interim care order; care and placement orders in respect of the three younger children on the basis of the parallel search for foster carers and adopters for AL and MKL, and the revised contact plan, as I have said, was agreed by the parties.

 

22      LB was the Adoption and Family Finding social worker who has prepared statements and given oral evidence.  It seemed that she had very little experience.  She had only joined the department in July, had not ever completed the placement of children for adoption, but she had two of them which had been matched.  The ages of those children were under one, and one to two; as such, it seemed to me that she was a surprising choice to work this case and then to give evidence to the court.  She could not really help as a result of her lack of experience on the impact of attachment difficulties and sexualised behaviours on timescales and likelihood of securing appropriate placements.  She provided some statistics about 100 adopters being available on the National Register but agreed that those statistics were not really useful if looked at in isolation of the number of children awaiting placements.  In light of her lack of experience I did not find her evidence of particular assistance.

 

23      David Britton from the Marigold had been involved, as I have said, in assisting on CL’s case.  He prepared a statement setting out his involvement.  It is unnecessary to consider that in light of the agreed way forward for CL.  During the course of his evidence he was asked about what work could be undertaken with LL’s carers about sexualised behaviour.  LL has been demonstrating this behaviour by masturbating and making herself sore.  He explained that he was not someone who had expertise in relation to sexualised behaviour in the sense that he could provide any sort of opinion as to its causation but he did say that he would be able to work with LL’s foster carer on strategies to help LL move on and observed it was common to see this sort of behaviour in Looked After Children either because of a normal exploration of the body or because it was a sort of self-soothing behaviour.

 

24      Linda Sansom gave evidence before me.  She is an independent social worker who had conducted an assessment of mother and father separately.  Her relevant evidence for this hearing was on the issue of whether or not mother should have an opportunity for a further assessment.  Her report does not really provide a clear recommendation and it was a report which I read in advance of the hearing and felt that it lacked detail and analysis.  My expectations for her oral evidence were low.  In the event I found her quite an impressive and persuasive witness.  She came down off the fence in favour of mother having an opportunity for a further assessment.  She felt that mother had moved on and was showing real insight into what had gone wrong with the older children.  She had been very young when she had entered the relationship with F.  The family thought that F had been controlling; that they had not known the extent of what was going on at the time.  Miss Samson met with RL and the maternal grandmother and told me she had been very impressed with the family.  She thought they were close and supportive of one another.  It was a positive factor that mother lived close to them.  Mother had done a lot of work since she had separated from F, engaging at Parklands, undertaking counselling, the Freedom Program, and she wanted to do other courses.  Miss Sansom’s impression was that she was someone who was trying to change her life and her style of parenting and she wanted to be a good parent to LL.  Her family felt she had made positive changes too. 

 

25      She saw the mother and LL alone which Dr Surgenor had not the opportunity to do during her assessment, and she disagreed with Dr Surgenor’s description of the difficulties in the mother/child interaction; but she did accept that she had only seen them together over a relatively short period of time, and was not an expert in attachment.  She accepted Dr Surgenor’s evidence that LL probably had a lot of attachment issues.  When she had seen LL alone with her mother she did not see anything which concerned her.  Mother had responded to her and she had responded to her mother’s attention positively.  LL had been calm, happy and relaxed.  In addition she felt that the contact supervisor had been a little domineering and had strong opinions which she voiced, telling Linda Sansom that she did not think LL should live with her mother.  In light of the positives she outlined she thought that the responsibility of only one child may well be something which the mother could manage and she recommended that work be undertaken prior to any final decision in respect of LL.  She noted there had been no assessment of mother with LL alone.  She felt that the sexualised behaviour needed to be looked at before LL was placed anywhere.  However, when cross-examined she agreed that the clock was ticking for LL in terms of placement and also agreed that the decision was a difficult one.  It was about balancing risks.  There would be risks to LL if any prospective placement with mother broke down and she agreed this would be devastating to LL, as it would be to any child, but she also went on to observe that she had sufficient experience to know that adoption was not always a wonderful option and there were risks of placement breakdown in adoptive placements.  The implications of adoption for LL would be that she would lose contact with her family of origin.  She agreed when cross-examined that it was early days in the mother’s engagement with change and she could not answer whether or not that could be sustained.  On balance she felt that there was some mileage in further assessment of mother and LL and she told me she thought there was ‘some hope.’  She was positive about F’s contact with AL and said dad was an important figure to AL.  As I have said, I thought she presented in a persuasive way.

 

26      F gave evidence before me.  He admitted very frankly that much of what was set out in the police bundle at J was true.  He accepted responsibility together with ML for the harm that the children had suffered.  He acknowledged his longstanding problems with substance misuse.  He had told Linda Sansom he had a history of cocaine use extending back over 20 years.  He was now engaged in attempting to deal with that issue and move on with his life but he accepted that the timescales for him to be able to demonstrate a sustainable recovery would be outside the timescales for the children.  He had hoped to be able to offer a home for AL but he realised now that would not be possible.  He supported the mother in her attempt to resume the care of LL and he supported both CL and SL being placed with the grandmother.  He would not interfere with that placement and he would abide by restrictions on his contact.  He did not think that the younger children should be adopted and thought it would be better for them to be in long-term foster care.

 

27      RL gave evidence.  It is unnecessary to deal with the part of the evidence which related to his own application but he told me in a way that indicated he was quite genuine in his feelings that he supported his sister caring for LL and would also provide what support was required of him in relation to his mother’s care of CL and SL.

 

28      MGM thought that SL should be placed with her and CL.  CL had settled into her care very well.  When he first came to her he was unsettled, unsure and a little anxious but she thought he was a different person now.  He was doing extremely well and enjoyed his work, which was not the situation previously.  He had made new friends and was going to judo.  He even had a girlfriend.  She told me that he smiles all the time and his behaviour was in her words ‘brilliant.’  He has put on weight and is proud of himself.  She noted he would spend time in front of the mirror these days making himself look nice and he seemed to always want to go into the shower.  MGM said when he asked how he looked she always complimented him.  He was content to have contact to his parents but was always happy to come home.  She was now focused on getting him the right schooling.  She had identified a suitable school and hoped the transition could be managed by September.  It would be a gradual process.  She thought she would be able to manage both SL and CL.  She used to have them to stay regularly.  CL wanted SL to come and live with them and she was also willing to supervise F’s contact. 

 

29      When the grandmother was cross-examined by the mother she was asked about occasions in the past when the mother had fled the marital home following arguments and grandmother had driven her back to the marital home.  The point the mother appeared to be making was that the grandmother had in some way returned her when she was not keen to go or had colluded with F in her return.  She was a little upset about this line of questioning.  Although Miss Dooley for the mother was keen to resist any suggestion that the mother was intending to offend the maternal grandmother or minimise her own responsibility in past failings, I agree with the grandmother and the local authority that this line of questioning was another way in which the mother minimised her responsibility for what had happened.  With regard to the mother MGM said that she had seen a real change in the mother.  She thought mother was more assertive and self-assured and she felt confident she would be able to care for one child.  She reassured the court she would be on hand and she would alert Social Services if history repeated itself.

 

30      ML’s oral evidence commenced on the Friday of the first week and concluded subsequently so she gave her evidence in two stages.  She accepted responsibility for what had happened to the children and was keen to impress on me that she had changed.  She had separated from F and there was no going back.  She was hoping to move away from her old home into new accommodation suitable for LL.   That should be available within a few weeks.  She would be closer to her family and to support.  In her statement she said:

 

          ‘I do not like having to admit it but the children’s lives were chaotic and they would have felt frightened and insecure too often.  The more children I had the worse it got.  There did not seem to be time to think about the situation.  I shut out the children’s reactions as it was painful for me to see them suffer and not be able to do anything about it, as that is how it felt at the time.  It was horrible.  I really thought I could change F .  I thought he loved me enough to change.’ 

 

          She had done a Positive Parenting course; she had just started a new Freedom Program which was more intensive than the one she had undertaken in 2012.  In November 2013 she began counselling sessions at Parklands connected to the Women’s Refuge.  She said this work was intensive and told me it ‘goes quite deep.’  She had not missed a session and was determined to continue to attend.  In April she is due to start another course called Reclaiming Ourselves.  In addition she said that the assessment with Dr Surgenor had been helpful in assisting her to understand what had gone wrong in the past.  As part of her developing insight she had decided not to support AL’s being placed with F.  She said she could see now that the relationship with F had not been good for the children and she accepted that they had been exposed to a great deal of conflict.  She thought she would be able to manage with LL.  There would be only one child and she had found the boys very difficult to handle.  Having CL in the house had made everything very difficult as she could not really manage him.  She had taken help from Social Care and she was prepared to continue to cooperate with the local authority.  She told me she accepted the older children should not return to her care. 

 

31      I asked her about the police reports of incidents in Section J.  With a few amendments she accepted that these reports made by her were true accounts of incidents which had occurred.  She told me that during the occasions when CL had been out of control and on the occasions when there had been incidents of domestic violence or threats of arguments which the children had witnessed they had been very scared and frightened, and she told me that the children had cried on those occasions. 

 

32      LD was not really referred to in her written evidence but he features as a significant and seemingly malign individual in the police disclosure.  In that Section of the bundle he is described in ML’s complaints as having assaulted CL and having threatened her.  She told me that he was aged about 17 when she first met him; he was a mutual friend of hers and F’s and he remained a friend until the children were removed from her care.  She thought that he was using drugs.  Her friendship with LD was on/off but when she had split up from F she had started to lean on LD for emotional support.  She leaned on him as well because she was finding CL difficult to manage.  He would be around the house.  She had thought that he was good with CL because he had suffered from similar difficulties to CL in his life.  She explained that he had ADHD.  She described his behaviour as hyperactive; he would always want to make jokes; he tended to move around the room very quickly.  She accepted that he had slept over at her property on a couple of occasions.  She thought that he really understood CL and had been good with him.  She was asked then how it was that he had been reported as having assaulted CL by kicking him in the genitals.  She told me that LD had an issue with her; that he had come to her house, CL had been outside and complained that as he came in he kicked him in his genitals.  Afterwards she told me that she had asked LD about it and he denied the assault.  She told me that it was difficult to know who to believe in those circumstances.  She had reported it to the police but nothing came of it and it seemed that she had then resumed her friendship with LD.  She did not really know when asked what effect this would have had on CL. 

 

33      When she resumed her evidence she told me she could see it was probably not a good idea but she persisted to say that LD had been good with CL and she thought that he had helped her to calm CL down.  I asked her if the children were frightened of LD and she agreed that they might have been.  She said that she had not been frightened of him but she probably should have been.  She agreed it had been wrong to allow the situation with LD to continue and that it was not in CL’s interests to have him around but she explained:

 

          ‘The other children liked LD .  I don’t know if they were saying that because there was a level of fear.  He did shout at them, but he can come across as scatty and intimidating.’ 

 

          She also said:

 

          ‘It was a very confusing time for me.  I don’t know why I let him in.  I lost control of my children and was trying to get relief and help from wherever.’ 

 

34      What was striking about the mother’s evidence was that when she resumed her evidence she moved quickly to distance herself from the answers she had given about LD and was keen to stress that he had been a bad influence and she did not think he had been good with CL at all.  Whilst it was obviously heartening to hear the mother change her evidence about LD, I thought that it sounded rehearsed.  I thought she was saying what she needed to say.  I find that the evidence she gave about LD when she was first being asked about him represented her true feelings about the role he had assumed in the family’s life.  I find she did think that he had helped her with CL. I find also that she had not known whether to believe CL’s allegation of assault.  Despite not knowing, she had allowed LD back into her home and into the lives of her children and she appeared to have accepted when his shouting at them.  Towards the end of her evidence the mother became tearful and was protesting that nobody had helped her. 

 

35      At the conclusion of the mother’s evidence I was satisfied that she was making an effort to turn her life around and had separated from F; that she had been telling the truth about the incidents that are recorded in the police evidence at J; that she loved her children; that she was committed to caring for LL; and that she had not engaged openly with her family about the extent of her problems.  However, I also thought that she had focused the cause of her family’s problems on the domestic violence between herself and F.  Whilst this obviously played a significant part in the experiences the children had, the fact is that after that relationship ended they were exposed to continuing harm as a result of her friendship with LD.  During that period LD is said to have assaulted CL and threatened her.  The history of repetitive dependence on unsuitable men indicates a vulnerability and a neediness in this mother.  It appears that she transferred her dependence from F to LD.  I think in the evidence she gave she minimised her own responsibility for the current situation.  Despite saying she accepted it, I did not think she really understood the extent of her own involvement.  For example, she had sought to deflect criticism away from herself and on to her mother in the cross-examination of her mother by suggesting or implying that it was her mother’s fault that she had reconciled with F.  In addition, she had sought to explain her continuing friendship with LD on the basis that he had actually been a help to her and CL.  In the context of what can be gleaned about him from the police material this, I am afraid, was a woeful misjudgment. 

 

36      Thirdly, at the end of her evidence she was in tears and saying that nobody had helped her when I am afraid the history in this case points very clearly in the other direction.  She chose her relationships with F and LD and she chose to continue those relationships.  Her children had no choice and had to live with the consequence of the choices that she made.  In so doing she failed to prioritise her children or demonstrate an appropriate instinctive protective quality which is an essential ingredient, in my judgment, of good parenting.  She exposed her children to continuing significant harm.  When she was asked about how CL must have been upset about her continuing friendship with LD following LD’s alleged assault of him, she gave the impression in the witness box that she was thinking about this issue for the first time and it seemed almost to take her by surprise that it might have been difficult for CL to see LD around the house and in a continuing friendship with her.  I felt that a lot of what she said in evidence about acknowledging the children’s experiences was what she thought she had to say to get LL back, and this impression I am afraid was reinforced by her tears at the end of her evidence which were not in fact about the plight of her children but about her own predicament.

 

37      The guardian had prepared a number of reports which are in the bundle.  She supported a trial of SL with CL and the maternal grandmother.  I am not going to deal with the detail of her evidence on this uncontentious point.  She thought all of the children displayed insecure attachments.  She thought that the moves for the children needed to be kept to a minimum because of this.  She felt there was no perfect solution for these children; it was a difficult balancing exercise.  She had been worried about supporting the care plan for adoption for AL.  He had displayed difficult behaviours including sexualised behaviours.  She thought it would be difficult to find adopters for him at his age.  She did not want him set up for adoption and then disappointed.  He was a bit like the Artful Dodger – he had a lovely personality but underneath she thought he was quite difficult to manage.  His behaviour had deteriorated significantly since MKL moved into his foster placement.  He had told her that he did not want adoptive placements but MKL might.  Apparently after she had left he told the foster carer he might want a new mum and dad. 

 

38      MKL had difficult behaviours and on her visits he tended to fly around and not really speak to her or engage with her but he did come and rest his head on her lap when she was reading a story.  She tended to think his sexualised behaviours might be exploration.  His violent behaviours had been concerning and she told me about the occasion when he tried to strangle LL.  She thought he was very needy and would require a family with a male and female carer.  He probably needed to be Statemented.  She had been anxious about AL and MKL remaining in the same placement, one moving on to adoption with the other left behind.  She was worried about MKL’s lack of progress.  He had been placed in the Nurture Group at school but made no progress.  She thought it would take about a year to find an adoptive placement for MKL.  She was clear that whatever the outcome AL should not be told if the plan for adoption for him was approved, that that was the plan, as it would be very difficult for him to accept MKL being selected and placed for adoption and his being left behind.  She had thought that they should not remain in the same placement after this hearing.  However, on the last day after the local authority had changed its plan so that it would conduct a parallel search for adopters for both MKL and AL she had changed her mind and decided to support the making of a placement order.  She was cross-examined about the change of recommendation given her previous opposition to the placement for AL, but she explained she thought this plan would involve the widest trawl of potential carers and the best chance of securing the right placement.  Her preference on behalf of the children would always be for the most secure form of placement and in her view that was adoption.  If the right adopters could be found, this was what was best for the children. 

 

39      Regarding LL, she felt that she had been quite impressed by Linda Sansom’s evidence and she told me that she had started to question her recommendation when she heard her evidence, but that after mother gave evidence she reverted to thinking that adoption was in LL’s best interests.  She told me she thought she had ‘a long way to go before she took responsibility and stopped pointing the finger at anyone else.’  She felt mother’s problems had been ongoing for a long time and that she demonstrated little understanding or empathy for the children’s experiences.  Although she had made progress, it was not enough.  In addition to the deficits in her own parenting, the fact was that these children – and LL included in that – are now exhibiting a range of difficult behaviours; they had had no boundaries at home; LL would need experienced and very competent carers.  LL was displaying some sexualised behaviour and rubbing herself so that she was sore.  She had advised the local authority to start working with the carers about this and had some concerns that the foster carer had made too much of it.  She thought it could be soothing behaviour and it should have been ignored.  It was difficult to say. 

 

Threshold.

 

40      The threshold for the making of orders is conceded by both parents.  I have looked at the agreed documents and I accept and approve these threshold documents as a succinct summary of the concerns about the care received and likely to be received by each of the children.  However, there are other matters set out in the police documentation which are agreed by the mother and broadly agreed by the father, and I have decided that it is important in this case to record certain additional findings in order to place the children’s experiences in their proper context.  Therefore I am going to make the following findings in relation to the history.

 

41      Having heard the evidence I find that there were a constellation of escalating and serious concerns in relation to the care provided to the children by the mother and father.  These are set out comprehensively in Section J of the bundle containing police material in relation to a  number of callouts in the main to the family home.  The mother asserts that these incidents occurred.  She was not challenged in cross-examination by F about the incidents which relate to him, and F accepts that what is set out in Section J is broadly accurate whilst not necessarily conceding all of the detail, and so I find that the following accounts are broadly accurate. 

 

42      In so far as incidents between ML and F are concerned, on about 18^th April 2011 during an argument at the family home witnessed by the children the mother asked the father to leave; he threatened her that he would get an ‘Irish pikey’ that he knew to come and get her in a white van and chop her up and bury her so that she did not have the children; the mother left the premises with the children in fear. 

 

43      On 17^th April 2011 father came over to the family home to see the children; he refused to leave; threatened to get the mother ‘smashed up.’  He finally left at 11 pm.  When the mother went downstairs the following morning the father was sitting in the front room saying that he climbed the drainpipe and got in through the bathroom window.  The mother asked him to leave again.  He refused and became aggressive and abusive and threatened to have the mother killed.  He also threatened the children.  At around this time he was spending approximately £120 on cannabis.  The mother went to stay at her mother’s in fear. 

 

44      On 19^th April 2011 while staying at the grandmother’s the mother received a series of threatening messages from SP (brother of F), F and a friend of F’s – SP’s messages indicating that he would come to her door and ‘open her up.’  Later in the evening of 19^th April the mother again called police as a result of a man climbing over her back fence.  She was worried this was related to the text she had received.   When cross-examined by Miss Newton, whose client broadly accepted the police records, that she had not seen whether the individual who came over the fence was the father or his brother, she accepted that and she accepted that in fact that could well have been a drugs-related episode. 

 

45      On 14^th July 2012 the mother reported to police that she separated from the father four weeks ago and that since then they had argued over contact.  She was worried F and his brother might turn up at the family home as he threatened to do so.  The mother had initially thought when she gave evidence that her separation had been before this time but as she acknowledged it was an on/off relationship she agreed it likely represented the truth. 

 

46      There were police callouts in relation to other matters that did not directly relate to F.  In October 2010 a relative of F’s and her partner turned up at the family home demanding money from the mother, swore at her and threatened her, but left when she called the police. 

 

47      In October 2011 the mother returned home to find that the family home had been broken into, paint had been thrown over the walls, sofas, armchairs, stairs and bedroom doors upstairs; water had been turned on; the house was flooded; the sofa was slashed.  The mother did not think that the father had caused this damage; she thought it was related to drugs. 

 

48      On 23^rd January 2012 the fence at the family home was ripped down and three men tried to kick the door down.  This happened in the evening.  The children were in the house.  The mother agreed they would have been aware of this incident as it caused a lot of noise.  Again the mother told me this incident might have been drug-related. 

 

49      In February 2012 the mother was called by an unidentified person to say that he was on his way around and would smash her skull in and cut her up.  The mother was anxious that the individual who threatened her might have other family members with him. 

 

50      On 12^th March 2012 at 19:05 LD attended the mother’s address together with his father and cousin.  According to the mother LD was angry.  He blamed her for his arrest a few weeks beforehand.  He kicked the front door of the family home, shouting ‘Fucking cunt!’  She told him to go away or she would call the police whereupon he replied ‘I don’t care.  I’m going to come back with a knife, break through your door and stab you up.’ 

 

51      On 16^th March 2011(sic) RL and the grandmother were at the mother’s address when LD, his father and cousin came to her property again and came into the house.  Her door was open as ML’s step-grandfather was cutting her lawn.  They threatened ML. 

 

52      On 9^th March 2012 at about 8:30 pm CL jumped out of a window and ran away from home.  He was upset because he could not see his father.  He was found by a member of the public at a local football ground, screaming out for help, distressed and shaken up.  He reported that his mother was drunk and that he had been sleepwalking.  The mother denied being drunk and it does appear from the police record there is no record of any concerns being expressed on CL’s return home of the mother being drunk.

 

53      On 27^th March 2012 at 18:35 mother called the police because she had an argument with CL about ice cream which resulted in his going outside, getting a metal bar from waste dumped by the side of the road and smashing up the garden fence.  During this incident he called his neighbour a ‘Paki cunt.’  He stopped and walked off in the direction of the church carrying the metal bar and then returned to the fence.

 

54      On 5^th April 2012 CL lost his temper and smashed the front window in the family home.  The window was double-glazed.  Once the outer panel was smashed, CL continued to try and smash the inner window with rocks.  ML tried to stop him but could not get near him because he was ‘lashing out.’  This incident continued from the time the mother called the police at 15:26 throughout the afternoon.  When the police first arrived CL appeared to calm down but she had to call the police again because of an escalation in CL’s behaviour after they left.  He came inside the house and tried even harder to smash the window from the inside.  He assaulted his siblings by kicking and punching them.  Police attended and spoke to CL and again he seemed to calm down, but after they left the mother had to call the police for a third time at 19:34.  He was attempting to continue to smash the window by kicking at it again.  He had written on the curtains and hit his sister around the head.  Mother requested help as he was ‘going crazy.’  A further call was made by the maternal grandmother who attended the family property at 20:02.  She was worried because CL was smashing things and lashing out.  He was throwing things at his mother whilst grandmother was on the telephone.  When both the mother and grandmother gave evidence they agreed that only the maternal grandmother had been able to calm CL down and that only happened when she required the mother to leave the property.  The mother told me that on this day the other children had been very distressed. 

 

55      On 29^th October 2012 SP called F and stated he would come around and smash his head in and smash his partner’s head in as a result of arguments over the custody of MR and F stayed at the house all night before reporting that incident the following day.

 

56      On 30^th October 2012 at 18:29 the mother called the police to report that over the last few weeks she had received a number of nuisance calls and texts from SP regarding the custody of MR and had received a call that day which was threatening.  She was concerned for her safety because three men had turned up at her door and were banging on it and shouting.  She could not see who they were as they were wearing hoodies and had them up.

 

57      On 24^th June 2013 the mother called the police again to report that she had been receiving threatening messages from SP but also from KP and Christopher P.  There was a dispute between F and members of his family about an ongoing criminal case.  She told me that because F had changed his telephone number the messages were coming to her.  Subsequently she did not want any further action to be taken as she told me she had received an apology from those people.

 

58      On 23^rd July 2013 the mother had to call the police because CL was smashing up the family home with a Hoover pipe.  She reported that there was plaster everywhere and that when she tried to get close to him he tried to attack her with the pipe.  During the call CL went to the top of the stairs and urinated down them.  The other children were present during this incident and were very scared and upset.

 

59      On 25^th July 2013 mother called the police and reported that SP had again threatened her during a telephone conversation, saying that he would come to the house and ‘light up Cheddar Avenue, break down your door, shoot you between your eyes and make sure there are people watching when I do it.’  The records indicate that a day later whilst accepting that she had called the police to complain about this she refused to pursue the complaint.  She told me when she gave evidence that she had been just advised to leave it and not proceed with a formal complaint as it was a threat made by telephone.  I did not believe the mother.  I think this was an occasion when she decided not to pursue her complaint.

 

60      On 27^th July 2013 the mother called the police because CL had wanted to go outside and play and the mother had refused to allow him; he tried to climb out of the window; damaged the hinge in so doing and ran off saying he was going to Rayleigh.  He left the house with bare feet; he came back carrying two large bits of plastic and was threatening people.  If anyone tried to approach him he lashed out with the plastic.  The police attended and calmed him down but after this incident CL’s behaviour deteriorated so that at 21:31 mother again had to call the police.  CL was smashing at the worktop and threatening LD, who was at the home, with a knife.  Mother described LD on this occasion to police as her ‘friend.’ 

 

61      On 30^th July 2013 at 15:59 mother received texts from F’s family asking her to give F his benefits money which was being paid into her account and mother called the police alleging harassment.

 

62      On 30^th July at 21:43 the police had to attend the mother’s address because of concerns that LL had taken by mistake or by accident a tablet for ADHD and had also received a burn on her arm caused by one of her siblings but the paramedics who attended were not concerned about LL’s presentation.

 

63      On 31^st July 2013 the mother called the police to allege that once again she had been threatened by SP in numerous messages on her telephone.  He demanded money from her; he had threatened to shoot her.  She was unwilling to make a formal complaint but did agree that she should move from her property and went to stay with her brother RL.

 

64      These historic incidents and complaints in addition to those which were agreed between the parties in relation to threshold appeared to me to be important to record in order to paint a fuller picture of the children’s experiences in the care of their parents than might be understood from the agreed threshold facts.  In my judgment the difficulties encountered by these parents affecting their parenting of these children were diverse, very serious and chronic. 

 

The impact upon the children.

 

65           The impact of the parenting on each of the children has been significant.  CL has been perceived within his family to be the problem child.  The guardian told me that he was referred to as being ‘bad’ consistently by most of his siblings, and in her first statement the mother focuses on CL as a cause of a lot of the family’s problems.  In her initial evidence she attributes this to diagnoses of ADHD and/or ODD.  Having heard Dr Surgenor’s evidence the reality of course is somewhat different.  Each of these children has been profoundly affected by their experiences of family life in the care of the mother and from time to time the father, but CL as the eldest child has been the one most obviously and profoundly damaged by his experiences. 

 

66           Dr Surgenor is a clinical psychologist who, as I have said, has undertaken a comprehensive assessment.  There was little challenge to her findings when she gave oral evidence about the impact on the children of the poor parenting that the children had received.  There was some suggestion by the mother that CL and SL might have been affected as a result of their early life experiences in her care when she was grieving the death of her father.  Whilst accepting that this may have impacted upon her emotional availability to her children at that time, Dr Surgenor did not accept this as a likely primary cause  of the extreme difficulties exhibited by both CL and SL.  Dr Surgenor’s opinion is that each of the children suffered from significant attachment problems.  Her recommendation at F186 is that none of the children should be placed together.  She acknowledged that this was an unusual recommendation and it is one that she had thought very long and hard about.  She said this:

 

          ‘It is my opinion that the children’s individual needs are so significant that they will struggle to cope if placed together in any combination increasing the likelihood of placement breakdown.’ 

 

          She thought that all of the children required above average reparative parenting to address their emotional and behavioural needs. 

 

67      CL has been the most severely affected.  He presents with an insecure, anxious ambivalent attachment style, generally observed in children who have received intermittent, unpredictable and inconsistent responses from their primary care-giver.  This is complicated by a diagnosis of global learning disability.  He is likely to increase his provocative and attention-seeking behaviours if he feels that the interests of others is withheld.  It appears for a long time his distressed and disturbed behaviours were wrongly attributed to these wrong diagnoses.  He was perceived as a child who had problems.  As RL told me, when explaining why he had offered to care for CL, he thought that as the difficulties in the family were created by CL if he took CL his sister might be able to manage the other four children.  I am not blaming RL or the family for this misunderstanding.  They misunderstood the cause of the problem because they were not aware of the extent of the mother’s difficulties.  CL’s behaviours were of course not attributable to a condition from which he suffered; they were a direct result of the chaotic parenting which had been provided by ML and F ; his exposure to high levels of parental and family conflict, including violence and threats of violence; and his parents’ failure to protect him from this.  In short his behaviour is evidence of the significant emotional harm which he has suffered.  Shifting the responsibility onto CL in the way that the parents did represented a clear demonstration that they were unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their failings as parents.  This approach was adopted by other members of the family, except it would seem his grandmother.  As I have said, treating CL in this way had the additional effect of isolating and in effect scapegoating CL as the problem child when in fact he was merely demonstrating the harm he had suffered. 

 

68      There was a significant escalation in his behaviours in the year prior to his removal from the family home.  During this period the children were exposed to a number of violent incidents including LD’s assault on CL.  Following the mother’s report to the police the family was visited by LD’s father and cousin, who threatened the mother.  Despite this, the mother appears to have continued her association with LD and it was during this period that CL appeared to display some particularly disturbed behaviour which I observe in the circumstances is hardly surprising.  I have not heard from LD within these proceedings and I cannot therefore make conclusive findings with regard to the alleged assault.  What I consider to be important about this episode is that in circumstances where her son claimed to have been seriously assaulted by LD the mother’s response was to ask LD, who denied it.  I appreciate that she did complain to the police about the assault and by so doing she appears to acknowledge its seriousness.  However, after this, once she had obtained the denial from LD, she told me that she did not know who to believe and she continued to associate with LD.  This must have been interpreted by CL as indicating that despite the seriousness of his allegation his mother either did not believe him or was not concerned as to whether or not the allegation was true.  The effect on his sense of security and his self-esteem must have been enormous.  As the family looked for solutions RL stepped forward and offered himself as a carer.  He took CL to live with him at his accommodation.  Unfortunately, because of the terms of his lease he was unable to have CL living with him full-time.  He told me that he would only have been able to have him there 3-4 days per week.  CL then returned to the mother’s care and RL told CL that he could live with him as soon as he obtained permanent Council accommodation.  Despite this it would appear that no steps were taken to arrange for CL to spend even the 3-4 days per week with RL.  A couple of days after his return to ML’s CL became extremely distressed and I have already dealt with the incident that occurred on that occasion.  I agree with the local authority that this was no coincidence.  He was distressed to have returned to his mother’s care and he was demonstrating that distress by escalating his behaviour.  CL’s behaviours became so extreme that the guardian had considered whether or not the court should approve a plan for CL to be placed in residential care.  I declined to take that step at the interim hearing when I was invited to consider it.  By this time CL had an established pattern of absconding from foster care back to his family and was saying openly that he wanted to live with his grandmother.  I thought it was best to wait for the expert opinion of Dr Surgenor and it seemed to me to be a risky strategy to place CL somewhere from where he would abscond, potentially at a distance from his home with all of the attendant risks to his emotional and physical safety when he absconded.  He moved of course as I have already indicated into the care of his grandmother. 

 

70      SL also presents with insecure, ambivalent, anxious attachment.  She displays distressed behaviour including whining, attention-seeking, being provocative, fractious, demanding in an attempt to increase her care-giver’s responses.  Her presentation is complicated by her exposure to traumatic experiences which have left her in a state of heightened arousal and high anxiety, according to Dr Surgenor.  I accept that evidence.  She is however keen to be placed in the care of her maternal grandmother.  Dr Surgenor acknowledges it will be difficult for her to understand why she cannot be placed there when CL is.  Dr Surgenor is worried that within that placement if both children are placed together SL will try to compete with CL for the mother’s attention and in so doing this may cause a placement into which CL has settled so well to be threatened.  The guardian does not agree that this is necessarily the consequence of trying out the placement.  When Dr Surgenor was challenged about her opinion it became clear that her overriding concern was the stability of CL’s placement.  She was worried it would be devastating for CL if that broke down.  She did not express optimism about the options for him if that placement did break down and was worried he would end up in a residential placement from which he would likely abscond and that would just lead inevitably in due course to potentially secure accommodation.  She accepted that grandmother would be able to meet SL’s needs.  She was a good carer.  So if one examined the issue of carer capability in isolation from consideration of CL’s needs there was no issue.  It was about whether she could manage the competing needs of both children. 

 

71      When cross-examined she agreed that CL had feelings of responsibility towards his siblings and would likely be distressed as a result of the outcome of the proceedings if things did not go the way he hoped.  She agreed that he had expressed a wish to live with SL.  She agreed that if it were not tried and SL remained in long-term foster care CL would likely feel responsible.  She agreed that this posed a threat to the stability of the placement regardless of the court decision because this would be an outcome he continued to want to achieve.  The guardian had told me that in discussions she had CL had been so concerned about SL’s position that he had made the suggestion that he could go into foster care instead in order to allow her to live with grandmother.  This suggestion of CL’s paints a picture of a child with an acute sense of responsibility – which I should add he does not have – for SL’s predicament. 

 

72      Looking at SL, she wanted to live with CL and her nan.  Dr Surgenor agreed it might be difficult for her to accept remaining in long-term foster care if placed outside her family when she knew that CL enjoyed the love and affection of the person she wanted to be placed with.  SL would know that her nan wanted her to live with her as well, and she would know that there were no concerns about her nan’s capabilities to care for CL.  Dr Surgenor agreed that all these factors might then make it more difficult for SL to make the proper emotional investment in a new carer.  When the guardian gave evidence she told me she disagreed with Dr Surgenor.  She acknowledged the risks of destabilising CL but felt on balance that this option needed to be tested because if it could work it would obviously provide both children with an opportunity to grow up within their family and with each other, which was preferable to only one of them having the benefits of family life.  I prefer the guardian’s analysis.  Each of these children wants to live with their nan.  I acknowledge when it is tested I accept Dr Surgenor’s evidence there is a significant risk that it might not work.  However, that will not be established unless it is tested.  This is not a scenario where grandmother will simply be left to cope alone.  The interim care plan proposed by the local authority will have to be underpinned by continuing professional assessment and support.  If it is not tried, the placement for CL will continue, but at what cost?  The aspirations of each of the children is for a different outcome; the children’s presentations will not remain static; they will both be profoundly disappointed by the outcome.  CL will feel responsible for SL’s plight.  This may in any event threaten the stability of his placement.  CL has shown himself to be an individual who will escalate his behaviour when distressed in order to achieve the desired outcome.  If this plan is not tried I think there will be a significant risk this could happen. 

 

73      Similarly, unless it is tried there is a significant risk that SL will never emotionally invest in new carers.  In addition, her feelings of rivalry will be exacerbated so that instead of improving the relationship between the siblings she will likely feel increasingly bitter at the unfairness of the ‘bad’ boy, i.e. CL, being allowed to live with nan when she has to stay in foster care.  At some point she might vote with her feet or engage in behaviours to end her placement in the hope that she too can achieve the outcome she desires.  There had been the tentative plan to test out the placement which was halted as a result of Dr Surgenor’s preliminary findings.  SL may well have been aware of this possible plan.  This is a large family; there is regular contact between the members of the family and different children, some of whom attend the same school.  Even if only one of those children became aware of the possibility of SL moving to live with nan and CL, there would be a route for this information to find its way back to SL.  How could SL or CL ever fully accept placement of her outside her family if this option is not tested?  So whilst I agree with Dr Surgenor about the significant risks of pursuing this plan I think the other risk factors which she accepted and which I have outlined tip the scales in favour of a cautious testing out of this placement. 

 

74      I am entirely satisfied from all of the evidence that I have heard that CL has settled extremely well into the placement with his grandmother.  His behaviour is now improved; he has shown confidence; pride in his appearance; he is making friends.  Everyone in this case agrees – and I agree – that it is vital that his placement with his grandmother is supported and underpinned by the grandmother having a final order in her favour.  I have considered of course whether or not in light of the agreement between the parties the proportionate response would be to allow the residence order to continue but I think that CL needs the greater security afforded by special guardianship order.  He needs to understand – as does the family – that this order which secures his placement is final and that it is intended to be enduring.  In this complex family situation he needs to be reassured that it is his grandmother who will have the first and last word on what is best for him.  He wants to stay there; it would be devastating for him if that placement broke down.  It would leave him adrift; no family member able to resume his care; with the only realistic option some form of residential placement.  Because of the chronic and profound harm he has suffered, it is even more important for him to have that security, the security of knowing he will not be removed from the home of his grandmother, and for all of those reasons the best order to make in this case – and the only order which will secure, in my judgment, CL’s welfare – is for me to make a special guardianship order in favour of MGM and I do so. 

 

75      I agree with the guardian, as I said, that the placement of SL with the grandmother needs to be tried out.   SL’s wishes and feelings have to be taken into consideration and she wants to live there.  There is, as I have found, a real risk she will reject any plan for foster care if it is implemented without this trial having taken place.  Her parents cannot care for her; her grandmother has the ability to provide a good level of care, and she would have the opportunity to be with one of her siblings.  I have to think of course about what is best for both children.  I have already identified significant risks to CL if this is not tried; there are on the other side significant risks if it is.  There are risks of course to SL, that she would never accept placement elsewhere unless it is tried.  This is a situation which is very delicately balanced and requires very careful management.  On any view this is a plan which will require the local authority to share parental responsibility for the duration of the transition and perhaps beyond.  I have in those circumstances given very careful consideration to whether or not I should make a final care order in favour of the local authority on the basis of this plan as a final care plan.  But I have decided on a fine balance that it would be best to allow the proceedings to continue for SL for a discrete period of time to allow for the testing out of the placement under interim orders for the following reasons.  If a final order is made now SL will lose the benefit of her guardian.  I have been very impressed with and reassured by the analysis of the guardian in this case.  She has been fair and balanced in her assessment and has shown an ability to be flexible in her recommendation.  Secondly, if I take that option the grandmother will lose the benefit of any representation within these proceedings because of course the proceedings will come to a conclusion.  So for those reasons on a fine balance I agree that the proceedings for SL should be adjourned under an interim order.  I do not propose to make directions in relation to that today because I want to give the parties the opportunity to reflect on the judgment after I have given it, so I propose to list the matter shortly after I return to work – I am not at work next week – in order for directions to be given in relation to that assessment. 

 

76      Moving on now to AL, MKL and LL, in relation to the three youngest children I accept Dr Surgenor’s evidence that those three children will likely exhibit high levels of distress which would result in challenging and potentially violent or destructive behaviours if they are placed together.  In my judgment they need to be placed separately from each other.  Their presentations in foster care support that opinion with regard to the diagnosis and placement together.  When MKL was in foster care and placed with LL he was violent towards her and that violence took an extreme form.  The guardian told me of an occasion when the foster carer had crossed to the other side of the room; when she turned around MKL was strangling LL.  As a result of that MKL was moved from the placement with LL and into the same placement as AL.  What happened then was that almost immediately AL, whose behaviour had been fine prior to MKL’s arrival, started to demonstrate extreme and challenging behaviours.  Both AL and MKL have been very challenging in their foster placement.  I have heard evidence that somehow – and it is still unclear quite how they managed this because of the very small gap between the top of the wardrobe and the ceiling – they have managed between themselves when in their room to make two holes in the ceiling, and there was another occasion when one of them lay underneath a bed and the other jumped on top of it so vigorously that the bed slats were broken.  This was quite clearly a potentially dangerous situation for the child lying underneath the bed.  A further example was MKL being given a watch for Christmas but having broken it by the next day. 

 

77      AL and MKL – there is no family member who contends that either AL or MKL should be placed within the family.   The choice for these boys therefore and the focus of a dispute between the parties is between whether it is best for them to be placed in long-term foster care or adopted.  AL and MKL both have insecure, ambivalent, anxious attachment styles.  AL has been extremely demanding of attention, will escalate his behaviour until he obtains the desired response; he can lash out and be violent, and in addition he has significant learning needs.  MKL has an insecure, anxious attachment with behaviour alternating between distressed behaviour, crying, fretting, whining and attention-seeking to being withdrawn when he appears to be depressed.   When giving evidence on the first day of the hearing Dr Surgenor told me that the prospects of securing adoptive placements for these boys was ‘pretty low’ but this was in response to a question about the boys not being easy to place.  When she returned to the witness box she revisited this issue and said in response to a question about whether or not AL was adoptable:

 

          ‘My concern is  about whether AL is adoptable.   I do not go so far with LL and MKL.  LL’s behaviour is challenging but I see her as being adoptable.  MKL is also an endearing child.  The extent of his difficulties are not as extreme as AL’s.   He is a lot calmer and easier to manage one to one.  He is adoptable.’ 

 

          She was not challenged in relation to that answer. 

 

78      On the first occasion that the guardian went into the witness box she appeared to agree with Dr Surgenor’s analysis in respect of AL.  She was worried not only about the feasibility of securing adopters but about his age and the level of his difficulties.  I thought she did not really think AL should or could be adopted.  She had said in her report:

 

          ‘I have some apprehension about a placement order for AL on two grounds, firstly being his age and the second is that the issue of his sexualised behaviour needs further professional assessment.  It is also on the grounds that AL shared with me that he does not want new parents.  However, I do acknowledge that should an adoptive family be available for AL this would provide him with a greater degree of security.’ 

 

          It was that view in part which had made her apprehensive about AL and MKL remaining in the same placement whilst searches for adopters were undertaken.  She thought MKL would move on first to such a placement leaving AL behind.  She was worried about the resultant impact on his self-esteem.  

 

79      I think there was a sound reason for her change in position on the last day of evidence when she decided to support the local authority plan for placement orders for AL.  Given the difficulties in securing an appropriate placement for AL it is perfectly understandable that both she and the professionals should want the search to be widened as far as possible.  It is also understandable that if he could have the chance of adoption and the potential greater security that would offer, it may be better for him than being in long-term foster care with the relative instability that option offers.  However, in my judgment her analysis ignores the fact that both she (at least in her initial evidence) and Dr Surgenor suggested that AL was presently unadoptable because of the extent of his difficulties.  I accept that analysis.  AL is a boy aged eight.  He has been ambivalent about having a new family and this no doubt reflects in part that as an eight-year old he is already a fully-integrated member of his own family with an established identity.  Like his siblings – because I accept Dr Surgenor’s evidence on this point – he does not have a significant relationship with either of his parents, although I note that he was very keen to and happy to see F.  His parents accept that they should not look after him.  AL’s difficult behaviours undoubtedly reflect the emotional harm he suffered in his parents’ care.  He is currently displaying sexualised behaviour which the guardian thought in her report needed to be assessed before he could be placed for adoption.  He needs plans to be made for him without delay but any change in his circumstances will be difficult for him as a result of his attachment difficulties.  Such a move will have to be well-planned and should if possible be his last move.  In the circumstances it is essential that the right carers are identified for him. 

 

80      I accept Dr Surgenor’s analysis and the guardian’s original analysis regarding AL.  I think he is not ready for adoption.  He is a child with significant emotional and behavioural difficulties which require further assessment.  He has a learning difficulty.  Even if adopters could be found who wanted to look after him, would they have the right qualities?  Given the extent of his difficulties, adopters – who may be relatively inexperienced – might not be equipped with the skills to care for a child with AL’s level of needs.  If the wrong carers are selected for AL his prospects of remaining in the same placement diminish.  Irrespective of whether or not the placement is adoptive, this could lead to placement breakdown.  It would be devastating for AL to be returned to care in such a situation.  He would feel unloved and rejected, and this would compound the emotional harm he had already suffered.   Having considered the evidence very carefully, I conclude that AL is not ready to be adopted.  On the evidence before me I do not find that adoption can be said to be in AL’s best interests.  However, in my judgment it is plainly in AL’s interests that the local authority is able to share parental responsibility with AL and make plans for his future placement in long-term foster care without delay.  This will enable him to retain some limited contact with his birth family and it may be that further consideration will need to be given to that particular issue.  I make therefore a care order to the local authority but I refuse the local authority application for a placement order in respect of AL.

 

81      Moving on to MKL, he has difficulties and he has not done so well at school as might have been expected.  There have been doubts about whether or not the foster placement he is in best promotes his welfare.  Firstly, he is placed with AL and for all the reasons put forward by Dr Surgenor these children cannot and should not be placed together.  Secondly, he is with a single carer and the guardian thinks he needs to be cared for in a family where there are two carers, one of whom will be a male carer.  Dr Surgenor described MKL as a endearing little boy and he did rest his head on the guardian’s lap at story time.  He is in need of reparative parenting but he is in the view of Dr Surgenor and the guardian adoptable.  Any work which needs to be undertaken with MKL is work which is in my judgment preparatory work rather than work which would inform a decision as to what the best plan is for him.  Adoption in my judgment undoubtedly offers any child the best opportunity for stability and security because adopters make a greater lifelong commitment to a child than foster carers.  Adoption is an outcome which can only be contemplated where there is no other alternative and where the court is satisfied having undertaken an assessment that this is the option which best meets the child’s needs.  MKL cannot be cared for within his family.  In my judgment, if it is possible to secure an adoptive placement for him it will offer him the best prospect of security and stability.  It may take time to find such a placement and it may ultimately not prove possible, which is why the local authority is right to propose a parallel search for the right carers.  If they are foster carers and they are prepared to make a long-term commitment to MKL it will be much better for him to move into that placement rather than await an adoptive family.  However, if there were two placements available at the same time, one adoptive and one long-term foster placement, I accept the guardian’s evidence that the better option for MKL would be an adoptive placement. 

 

82      The impact of adoption on MKL and the severing of his link to his family of origin will unquestionably be lifelong and profound.  He was noted to have been excited when he was told – mischievously by AL – that he might be going home.  I do not find this surprising, but in the circumstances I cannot have regard to that as an expression of his wishes and feelings to which I could attach any real weight.  He is too young and he does not have sufficient understanding of the options.  Even if he did want to go home, sadly that is not an option for him.  He desperately needs carers of the sort the guardian has described who can make a long-term lifelong commitment to him.  I have already accepted – and no party argues – that his parents and family cannot care for him and accepted that he cannot and should not be placed with his siblings.  He is destined therefore for a solo path.  I accept Dr Surgenor’s evidence that his relationship to his parents is not significant.  His relationships with his siblings appear from the evidence I have seen to be relationships which threaten MKL’s emotional stability and wellbeing rather than enhance and support him.  Both of these factors lessen the long-term emotional impact of adoption on MKL.  He will of course be unsettled and disturbed by any change in his circumstances, as would any child be.  But a change involving a move into a placement where he can be by himself with appropriate carers is likely to be in my judgment a positive experience given the difficulties he encounters in his present placement with AL.  Although quite understandably his family does not want him to be adopted, I have reached the firm conclusion that this is the only option which will meet his needs.  I am therefore going to make a care order to the local authority for MKL enabling the local authority to share parental responsibility with his parents and implement plans for his future without delay. 

 

83      Having decided that MKL’s welfare requires adoption, I move on to dispense with his parents’ consent and having already in any event in this long judgment considered the matters to which I am directed in Section 1(4) Children Act I make a placement order in respect of MKL to the local authority.

 

84      LL.  There is a conflict between the evidence of Dr Surgenor and Linda Sansom about the nature of the relationship between LL and her mother.  Miss Sansom observed positive interactions and was in any event worried about the unhelpful interventions of the contact supervisor.  I am of course prepared to accept that she is being truthful in what she observed and that she saw nice interactions between mother and LL.  However as she herself acknowledged, she is not an expert in attachment and she deferred to Dr Surgenor on this issue.  Although Dr Surgenor only observed mother and LL together with all of her siblings – and that was not a happy experience – she was confident in her assessment.  I prefer Dr Surgenor’s opinion.  LL demonstrates an insecure avoidant attachment style present in children whose parents are emotionally unavailable.  Although LL presents as a child who makes minimal demands on her carers, she is also highly independent; she is intelligent; she is stubborn and feisty.  She is likely to follow her own agenda and be a challenge to parent, and when challenged she presents challenging behaviour.  However, even if I were wrong about that, what Linda Sansom observed was interactions between mother and child but in a highly supported setting.  This mother has been able to demonstrate within that setting that she has basic parenting skills and is able to interact with her child well over a limited period of time.  This explains why her own family, with whom she was in regular contact, did not really grasp how serious her situation was and the extent to which her children were being harmed.  However the history indicates that she was unable to do this on a consistent basis.  Her own vulnerability to more forceful personalities, whether F or LD, rendered her powerless and unable to protect her children from chronic and serious harm. 

 

85      During the first week of the hearing, and in particular after hearing the evidence of Linda Sansom, I thought that the decision for LL would be finely balanced and I was open to the possibility of a further assessment.  In the event it became clear to me after hearing the mother’s evidence that my initial optimism was misplaced.  Whilst acknowledging that the mother has taken important steps towards changing her life, the responsibility she accepts appears to me to be limited to accepting that she failed to be assertive in the face of manipulations and abuses from others, whether it was F, LD or her mother colluding in sending her back to F.  Although she has told me she accepts she is responsible for the continuation of this abuse by failing to act, her evidence – her oral evidence – and the attempts that she made within that evidence to focus the responsibility with F almost exclusively indicate that she does not really understand the extent of her own participation in this serious and sustained emotional abuse of her children.  The most obvious example of this was her assertion during cross-examination that LD had helped her with CL.  I agree with the guardian that she has a long way to go.  She is preoccupied, I think, with her own needs which appear to overwhelm her at times.  It was for this reason that she formed the association with LD after she separated from F.  There had been little mention of LD in the written evidence and as I said she appeared to be thinking when she gave evidence for the first time in the witness box about the harmful effect of that relationship on her children.  Although she acknowledged responsibility for his abusive behaviour towards her children and tried to reassure me, she then went on to try to reassure me that because of his own experiences as somebody who had ADHD she thought he understood CL and had been a generally helpful influence in the house. 

 

86      I have reached the clear conclusion that the mother in this case would not be able to provide safe care for LL during her childhood and that the serious risks to LL cannot be ameliorated or managed in a way that would enable the mother to do so.  There are three principal areas of risk.  Firstly, the mother’s attachments to men who pose a serious and ongoing risk of either physical or emotional harm to both herself and her children and the mother’s inability to protect her children from harm in this context.  Although she professes to understand how her relationship with F could be harmful, she did not demonstrate following her separation from F similar insight into the risks posed by LD and she continued when giving evidence to me to justify his presence in the house for reasons which do not bear scrutiny.  The context in which I have assessed this risk is that she has been engaged with support in relation to this issue for some time.  The bundle of additional documents she provided during the course of this hearing included a letter from Basildon Women’s Aid dated 22^nd January which sets out a chronology of support provided to the mother.  This chronology dates back to 2007 and it includes the offers of refuge accommodation in 2011.  I accept of course Miss Dooley’s submission that women who find themselves locked in an abusive relationship require time to extricate themselves from those relationships and time to develop insight into the circumstances which led them to both form attachments and remain attached to men who abuse them.  However, in the context of the findings I have made about the history this letter demonstrates that with advice and support from Social Care over a period of years, the support of a loving family, advice from organisations which exist to assist women in ML’s predicament, her insight has been very slow to develop indeed and I endorse what the guardian has said about it being very early days in her progress. 

 

87      Had I thought that the mother showed, when giving evidence, that she appreciated the extent of the historic risk and her own vulnerabilities to that risk, given her willingness to undertake more work I might have felt more confident about her proposal for further work.  However, at the conclusion of her evidence I shared the guardian’s concerns about her lack of basic understanding of these two issues.   I felt when she gave evidence after the break in her evidence about LD and professed to understand how that relationship had been damaging that her evidence sounded rehearsed.  I thought she was saying what she knew she had to say, and that is not a criticism of her; I understand that she wants more than anything else to care for LL. 

 

88      Secondly, there is a related risk which arises from this risk that I have already described.   The mother, as I found, has tended to develop attachments with men who abuse her.  Apart from the direct risk that poses to her children it also means that the mother, who is vulnerable anyway, becomes focused on her own predicament and difficulties and is unable to meet in a sufficiently consistent way her children’s emotional needs.  Frightened and vulnerable herself, she has been and is unable to address their needs.  I think this is why her children have – as I find they have – the attachment difficulties which Dr Surgenor describes.  It is the reason why when describing the incidents of violence and the threats of violence from LD or F when giving oral evidence she was not really focused on the children’s experiences; it was her own experiences that preoccupied her until she was asked to turn her mind to the children’s reaction.  

 

89      This mother is not a person who is incapable of relating to her children but she has been unable to do so consistently.  I am asked by Miss Dooley to consider that the work on attachment which could be undertaken by the Munro Centre and which could focus on improving the quality of childcare and interaction would be the proportionate plan.  Were this the only risk there would be significant force in what Miss Dooley says.  But it is not, as I have found, the only risk.  A situation in which attachment can be improved will not protect these children from the very serious risk of physical and emotional abuse to which they have been subjected.  As I find that risk established, the risk and the harm which flows from that risk outweighs any improvement which in my judgment could be made in the attachment between LL and her mother. 

 

90      There is a third area of risk.  It is linked to the risks which already have been identified.  The mother lacks, I find, empathy for her children.  Her evidence focused on her own experience and lacked the intuitive attunement to her children’s experiences that is the essential ingredient of a reactive and protective parent.  I have already referred to her appearing to think for the first time in the witness box about the effect on CL of LD’s continued presence in the home.  In the same way the blaming of CL for the family’s problems was a convenient way to externalise the family’s difficulties and minimise her own responsibility.  She may well have thought prior to Dr Surgenor’s report that he had the diagnoses of ADHD and ODD but there appeared to have been no reflection on whether or not the abuse he had witnessed had contributed to his difficulties.  This lack of attunement is highly relevant to her prospective capacity to care for LL.  LL appears sometimes to be a compliant child but she is, as I have already observed, very bright, strong-minded and feisty.  She is a child who wants to set her own agenda and who finds it difficult to accept boundaries.  I was told that her foster carer had been shocked when LL, then aged two, had sworn at her and told her to fuck off.  Historically this mother has been unable to impose boundaries on her children.  I referred to her vain attempts in pleading with CL to desist when he was engaged in trashing the home.  I accept that work could be done with the mother on her ability to manage boundaries but it is not simply about imposing boundaries in a formulaic way.  It is about her lack of attunement to her children’s emotional needs rendering her unable to adapt her responses and her parenting style as LL grows and develops in a way that is sensitive to LL’s needs.  Dr Surgenor says that LL will require carers who can provide her with care which helps address the harm which she has already suffered.  She is likely to be challenging.  Dr Surgenor says it can be ‘extremely difficult to impose boundaries as she debates and argues with adults.  Without sufficient structure and containment LL’s behaviour can rapidly deteriorate and she can become highly distressed and agitated.’  I think that the mother’s difficulties with boundaries combined with LL’s intelligent and independent character will mean that very quickly LL will understand that she is the more powerful character within that relationship and that mother is likely to relent if LL escalates her behaviour.  To put it colloquially, I think that LL will run rings around her mother, who will be unable to manage and contain her, to LL’s detriment. 

 

91      For these three reasons, all of which are interlinked, I have come to the conclusion after considerable deliberation that sadly in this case mother cannot care for LL now or at any time in the future within a timescale which will meet her needs.  I cannot therefore agree to an adjournment of the case for LL in order to enable her mother to undertake further assessment because in the context of the findings I have made I do not need that work in order to be able to evaluate the best outcome for LL.  LL is a young child who has experienced significant disruption and harm in the care of her mother.  There is nobody within her family in my judgment who is able to provide her with a long-term home.  She urgently requires placement which will provide for her needs, not only during her childhood but throughout her life.  Any severance of the link between LL and her birth family will cause her emotional harm.  There have been some lovely and warm interactions between LL and her mother.  However, as with MKL I accept Dr Surgenor’s evidence that her attachments to her parents are not significant and that she requires in any event to be placed separately from her siblings.  She is at an age where there has been no concern expressed about the prospects of securing her an adoptive placement.  She is at an age where she will be able, with appropriately skilled carers, to form and develop attachments.  I agree with the local authority and the guardian that the best option for LL will be within an adoptive family.  It would be harmful for LL to remain placed outside her family in a foster placement for the rest of her childhood, which by its very nature would not offer the degree of commitment and prospective stability which an adoptive placement could offer her. 

 

92      I have had to consider the fact that LL has shown some evidence of sexualised behaviour.  But the conclusion of the professionals is that it is an issue upon which her carers will need to be given advice.  It may of course put some prospective adopters off.  In any event advice has been given and work is being undertaken with her carers on this particular issue.  It has not caused the guardian, the social worker or Dr Surgenor to think that she is a child who is not ready to be adopted.  She is quite obviously an attractive little character and I am confident that it will be possible to secure an appropriate placement for LL.  Therefore, having considered all of the options available to me, I have come to the very clear conclusion that adoption is the only option which will meet LL’s needs both during her childhood and throughout her life.  She needs to move into her final placement urgently, not least because her current carers appear to have struggled to manage her sexualised behaviour.  The guardian thinks they may have made too much of this issue, the inference being that this may have exacerbated the problem.  Given that she has already had two periods of respite care with different carers, it will be important for her to move into her long placement as soon as possible.  As Dr Surgenor says, children with attachment difficulties do not react well to any change in their circumstances. 

 

93      I approve the contact plans in relation to all of these children which have in any event been agreed between the parties.  Quite clearly in relation to LL the local authority needs to share parental responsibility with her parents in order to urgently implement the care plan and I make a care order in favour of the local authority.  For all of the reasons which I have already rehearsed in this very long judgment I have come to the conclusion that LL’s welfare needs require her to be adopted and I therefore dispense with her parents’ consent and go on having considered the matters to which I am directed in Section 1(4) Adoption and Children Act to make placement orders to the local authority.

 

94      I appreciate fully that the judgment I have given is long and that the parties have been sitting in court for a long time.  I do not propose to deal with this case any further today.  It does not seem to me that it would be the right thing to do.  I am not here next week.  I propose to list the case for a Directions hearing in order to consider the way forward.  I bear in mind in particular that given the findings that I have made there may need to be some discussion between the professionals about the placements for AL and MKL because I have not made a placement order in relation to AL, and the plans that were put before me were plans for adoption for both children and it was on that basis that they were going to remain in their present placement.  So I want to give the local authority, the guardian, and the family, an opportunity to think about that further because it may be that they would wish to submit there should be some tweaking to the plan.  I do not know; they may not; they may all agree that the plans can stand as they are.  But in the context of the changes that were made on the last day it seems important to give the parties that opportunity.

 

 

_______________