England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT at Manchester
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND THE ADOPTION & CHILDREN ACT 2002

		Manchester Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester. WC2A 2LL
		17th September 2014

Introduction

1. I am concerned with the interests of the child to whom I will refer as MP for purposes of anonymity who was born on the 12^th March 2014 and is now just 6 months old. I will refer to the parents and other family members by their initials. His mother is LH and his father is JP and to whom I will refer for convenience where appropriate as the 'mother' and the 'father' without intending any disrespect to either. The mother and father are not living together. They are not married. They were in a relationship from February 2013 until June 2014 when they separated. The father has parental responsibility for MP as his name is on his birth certificate.
2. The mother has four other children. The three oldest are JH aged 14, KH aged 12 and SH aged 11who are the subject of care orders and placed with long term foster carers. The fourth child is KKH aged 3 who has been adopted. The four children were the subject of proceedings brought by this local authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, in 2011 and which concluded with orders made on the 9th August 2012. JP is not the father of any of the mother's other children. MP is his only child.

Applications

3. The applications before the court made by the applicant local authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, are for a care order in respect of MP pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and for a placement order pursuant to section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

Circumstances leading to the proceedings

4. The mother had a troubled history and was adopted as a child. The mother's three older children were subject to care proceedings in Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council in 2005 which concluded with the children being returned to their mother's care under 12 month supervision orders. The mother subsequently had a fourth child in 2011. in December 2011 care proceedings were commenced by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and all four children were subsequently removed from the mother's care.
5. The concerns during those proceedings were: (a) Physical abuse of the children by the parents, resulting in injuries;(b) Emotional abuse; (c) Poor home conditions; (d) Poor engagement with services; (e) The children presenting as dirty, unkempt, hungry and sad; (f) Poor school attendance and failure to meet the children's medical needs; (g) The mother's mental health issues; (h) Domestic violence between the parents; and (i) Concerns that the children may have been left with unsuitable adults
6. Final Care Orders were made in respect of the four older children on the 9^th August 2012. The three older children were to be placed in long term foster care placements while the youngest child, KKH, was made the subject of a placement order. KKH has since been adopted.
7. The mother remained with her abusive ex-partner for 11 months after their children were removed and then began a relationship with this father of MP some three months later.
8. The mother contends that her circumstances are now significantly different from what they were in the previous proceedings. However, the local authority contends that there is no evidence of this.
9. During her initial ante-natal appointment in respect of this child, the mother disclosed to the midwife that she had four children, but did not inform her that the children had all been removed from her care.
10. The father has no other children. He has dyspraxia and states that he requires support with his daily living and particularly with remembering things. It is clear that in a parenting role he would need lots of support. When they were in a relationship, the mother was his main source of support and he was very reliant upon her; they have now separated. When asked how he would protect his child from physical abuse, the father stated that he did not know. The father has issues with anger management but has not had any professional support with this.
11. On the 11^th November 2013, the police were called to a domestic incident between the parents. The mother denied any physical abuse, stating that it was an argument and she threw her mobile phone at the wall.
12. Professionals raised concerns regarding the parents' poor standard of personal hygiene. The parents were at the time of the child's birth in homeless accommodation and both had housing arrears which they were paying off.
13. Due to the above concerns, the local authority undertook a pre-birth assessment in respect of the child, and the child was registered on a child protection plan on the 9^th January 2014 under the category Neglect.
14. The parents attended a parenting course at the Sure Start Children Centre in February 2014 but did not engage in the activities. The mother told the staff that she knew what to do as she has had four other children and the father appeared disinterested in the course.
15. The child, MP, was born on the 12^th March 2014 by emergency caesarean section due to foetal distress. He was placed in the Neo-Natal Unit due to concerns in regard to his prematurity; he was born at 38 weeks but had stopped growing in the womb and he presented as 30 week gestation.
16. Following MP's birth, the hospital reported that the parents and maternal family members were exhibiting aggressive behaviour towards staff on the Neo-Natal unit and refused to leave the ward when asked to do so; there were concerns that this was putting MP and other vulnerable babies on the unit at risk.
17. The local authority therefore applied for an Emergency Protection Order which was granted on the 14^th March 2014. The application for a care order was issued on the 17^th March 2014.

Progress of proceedings

18. MP remained on the Neo-Natal Unit at the hospital until the 1^st April 2014 when he was discharged and placed with foster carers. On the 19^th March 2014 MP had been made the subject of an interim care order at a hearing before District Judge Carr which was treated as a Case Management Hearing. Directions were given for a Cognitive functioning assessment of the father to be undertaken by Dr Shawn Mosher, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, and for Social Work and Parenting Assessments of the parents to be undertaken by the local authority as well as a Viability Assessment of the maternal grandmother. The proceedings were timetabled to an Issues Resolution Hearing listed on the 29^th July 2014 and included presumptive directions to apply in respect of any proposed placement application being made.

.

19. A cognitive functioning assessment of the father was undertaken by Dr Mosher. This is dated the 22^nd April 2014 and is to be found at [E40-56] in the bundle. Dr Mosher concluded that the father has the capacity to understand the proceedings and concerns of the local authority and does not have a learning disability, but lacked motivation and presented as 'highly disinterested' in the assessment process. Concerns were also raised by him about the father's personal hygiene. Dr Mosher concluded that it was the father's lack of motivation and immaturity, rather than his intellect, which would affect his day-to-day living and his ability to provide effective child care.
20. A Parenting Assessment was undertaken of the parents by Matthew Purves and Christine Ager for the local authority which is at [E57-81]. This Assessment which is dated the 11^th June 2014 concluded that the parents were unable to meet the parenting needs of MP. There were serious concerns about the mother's ability to practically meet all of her child's needs and she had failed to seek any professional help since the removal of her older children or to address the issues of concern in those proceedings. Concerns were also expressed regarding her controlling behaviour, her lack of self-care and her poor hygiene. The father was unable to answer questions about the basic parenting of a child without prompting from the mother or the assessors. He again presented as lacking in motivation. Concerns were raised regarding his poor life skills and poor self-care.
21. An updated Social Work Assessment was also undertaken of the parents by the key social worker, Sheila Cotterill, which is at [E82-95]. This assessment which is dated the 13^th June 2014 echoed the concerns in the Parenting Assessment regarding the mother's failure to seek professional support in respect of her parenting skills. Concerns were also raised regarding her lack of motivation to change and her ability to form appropriate adult relationships. The assessment concluded that the father does not have the necessary life skills and motivation to ensure that his own needs are met and does not have the ability to safeguard MP from harm. Both of the local authority assessments therefore concluded negatively regarding the parents' ability to meet the needs of MP.
22. On 24^th June 2014, the MP was moved to a new concurrent foster placement (meaning that he is with foster carers with whom he can remain as his adopters, should the court make a placement order); this was a planned move which was necessary due to the previous foster carer's ill health. The move to the concurrent placement has gone well and MP presents as settled in their care. He currently has contact with each of his parents twice a week for 45 minutes a time, supervised by the local authority.
23. The local authority was directed to undertake a Viability Assessment of the maternal grandmother, JF, but she stated that she was unable to put herself forward as long-term alternative carer for the child. The parents also put forward the paternal grandmother, JR, as a potential alternative carer; she declined to be assessed and requested that there was no further contact with her from Social Care.
24. A paternal aunt, SP, and her partner put themselves forward to care for MP. The local authority had a number concerns regarding their ability to safeguard MP. The local authority therefore decided not to proceed to a full assessment of them; SP and her partner accepted this decision.
25. In light of the negative assessment of the parents and the absence of any other family members able to provide suitable care for MP the local authority plan to provide permanence for MP is one of adoption.
26. The local authority filed and served its final evidence in the proceedings as directed and lodged its placement application on the 15^th July 2014. The parents filed and served their final statements as directed and opposed the local authority plan for MP. A Final Case Analysis Report dated the 25^th July 2014 was completed and filed by the guardian together with a Placement Order Report also dated the 25^th July 2014 in which she supported the local authority plan for adoption for MP.
27. At the Issues Resolution Hearing on the 29^th July 2014 the proceedings were ready for hearing. However, the matter was listed for a final hearing to commence on the 16^th September 2014 with an ELH of 3 days as this was the earliest date which I could accommodate because of my existing commitments.

The parties' positions

28. The local authority position is that it seeks a care order for MP based on its care plan which is predicated on the basis that he should be placed for adoption. If the court approves the local authority plan and makes the care order, the local authority invites it to proceed to deal with the placement order application, to dispense with the parents' agreement to adoption and make the placement order. It is proposed that the parents' contact with MP should be indirect contact on a yearly basis through the "letterbox" system. Post adoption counselling will be offered to the parents. The parents have met MP's foster carers and are aware that if the placement order is made that MP will stay with them and they will make an application for an adoption order. If the placement order is granted, the local authority proposes to reduce the contact between MP and his parents within a three week period with the final goodbye contact taking place in week three following the making of the placement order. The children's guardian supports the local authority's plan for MP and the orders which are sought.
29. The parents remain opposed to the local authority plans. However, following conferences with their respective advocates, Mr Kerrigan for the mother and Miss Penman for the father, I was informed by both that neither wished to challenge the evidence filed by the local authority or the children's guardian. The 'threshold criteria' for making the care order was not challenged. However, the mother wanted the opportunity to give evidence to address the court to reiterate what she has done to try to put herself in the position to be allowed to care for MP. The father did not wish to give evidence but continued to support MP being placed with the mother.
30. I heard very brief evidence from the mother. In accordance with her expressed wish she was not subjected to cross-examination. I then heard the briefest of submissions from Mr Broadley on behalf of the guardian. None of the other parties wished to make any submissions. The local authority relied upon its case as set out in its Case Summary. Given the speed with which the hearing had been conducted and the issues involved, I indicated to the parties that I would take time to prepare a judgment which I would hand down at a hearing on Friday. I indicated to the parties that I proposed to prepare a type scripted judgment which I would endeavour to hand down in advance of the hearing if possible.
31. In fairness to the parties, I took the view that I should inform them of the clear decisions at which I had arrived and which would be confirmed in my judgment. I confirmed that my decision was to grant the care order on the basis of approving the local authority plan for adoption. It followed from that that I would dispense with the parents' agreement to adoption and make the placement order. Having informed the parties what my decisions will be and having listed the matter for judgment at 10.30am on Friday, I indicated that I would excuse the attendance of the parents should they not wish to come to that hearing and also gave permission to excuse the attendance of the social worker and the children's guardian if required. This is the judgment.

Legal Framework

32. A care order or supervision order may only be made on the application of a local authority if the Court is satisfied that the "threshold criteria" under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are established. Section 31(2) provides that:

"A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied – (a) that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm; and (b) that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him; …….."

33. Section 31(9) defines "harm" as meaning ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development and "development" as meaning physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development and "health" includes both physical and mental health.
34. If the threshold is established, the court then has to pass on to the 'welfare' stage with a view to considering what, if any, order is to be made. Consideration of this requires me to have regard to section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and to treat the child's welfare as paramount and to apply the 'welfare checklist' or relevant parts of it in arriving at my decision.
35. The "welfare checklist" is set out in section 1(3) of the Act and requires the court to particular regard to:

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

(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;

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

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

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

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

(g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question."

36. An order should only be made if I consider that making an order is better for the child than making no order at all. If the court considers that an order is necessary it should go on to consider the range of options available to it, which include where appropriate private law orders under section 8, Special Guardianship Orders under section 14A as well as supervision or care orders under section 31. Before making a care order the court has to consider the local authority's proposals for contact with the child and has to have considered the local authority's care plan for the child. Since the care plan is one of adoption and the local authority is seeking a placement order in the event of a care order being granted on that premise, I am bound to have regard to the welfare checklist as set out in section 1 (4) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 (see paragraph 31 below) at this stage.
37. The court should only make such order as the facts require, and only then in compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality set out in Article 8 (2) of The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.
38. If, however, I approve the local authority plans and conclude that a care order should be granted in accordance with the local authority application, I then have to go on to consider the application for a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 .
39. By virtue of section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the child's welfare throughout his life is the court's paramount consideration. The court also has to have regard to the 'welfare checklist' set out in section 1 (4) of the Act. The matters to be considered are:-

(a) the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings;

(b) the child's particular needs;

(c) the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of his original family:

(d) the child's age, sex, background and any of the child's characteristics which are relevant;

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

(f) the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the relationship is relevant, including –

(xcviii) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of it doing so;

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

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

40. Section 21 Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides that a placement order shall not be made unless the child is subject to a care order or the court is satisfied that the conditions for making a care order are met and only then if either the parents have consented to the making of such an order or, in the event that no such consent has been given, if the parents consent should be dispensed with.
41. Section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides that the court may only dispense with parental consent either if the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or the welfare of the child requires consent to be dispensed with.
42. I have reminded myself of the guidance from the Supreme Court in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and the Court of Appeal in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 to be applied in cases involving care applications for children in respect of whom the plan is for placement for adoption. These authorities in line with the many other recent Court of Appeal cases dealing with care proceedings revisit and restate the key principles which underpin public law proceedings and provide a reminder that adoption for any child who has had to be removed from its parents care by state intervention must be seen as being the last resort.
43. In Re B-S we are reminded that there must be evidence from the local authority and the children's guardian to address all options which are realistically possible and should include an analysis of the arguments for and against each option. There must also be an adequately reasoned judgment which should demonstrate that the court has undertaken a global, holistic evaluation of the options for the child's welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each option.

The Evidence

Threshold Criteria

44. There is no issue as to the threshold which I was told is accepted by the parties. The threshold document is to be found at pages [1-2] of the bundle. On the basis of all the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the threshold is crossed and am content to accept and adopt the basis as agreed between the parties.

Local authority evidence

45. Ms Cotterill has been the allocated social worker for MP since the 9^th January 2014. She was the allocated social worker in the previous proceedings relating the mother's other four children in 2012. She remains the allocated social worker for the older three children JH, KH and SH. She is a very experienced social worker who has been employed by the local authority for nearly twenty five years. She has prepared and filed two statements in the proceedings which are to be found at [C1-18] and [C21-37]. She undertook the Social Work Assessment of the parents which report is dated the 13^th June 2014 and is found at [E82-95]. She was also responsible for the care plans at [D1-10] and [D11-22]. In addition, she had prepared and filed the Annex B (Suitability Report) in connection with the placement application which is at [H14-38].
46. I have been able to read and consider in detail all the local authority evidence filed. The factors which led to the local authority determining to commence the proceedings are briefly described above and fully set out in context in the initial statement of Ms Cotterill at [C1-18].
47. The Social Work Assessment confirms that the mother and the father have shown commitment to attending at contact with MP and engaged in and attended the assessment sessions. However, it concludes that there are a number of issues of concern in that the mother "has not sought professional help in respect of her parenting skill, motivation to change and form appropriate adult relationships". In respect of the father the assessment concludes that he "does not have the necessary life skills and motivation to ensure his own need are met and he does not have the ability to ensure that MP is safeguarded from harm". The overall conclusion of the assessment is that it "raised significant concerns about the mother and the father ability to provide consistent and safe parenting for MP. On this basis (a) rehabilitation plan for MP does not appear to be a viable or safe option for him".
48. The Parenting Assessment Report at E59-80 is a very illuminating document. Both parents attended all the sessions punctually. It was evident that the mother was able to address most of the questions of the assessors in a satisfactory manner based on her previous experience of caring for her other four children prior to their removal from her care. There were however significant concerns in respect of the mother having an "unnecessarily punitive approach when putting guidance and boundaries into action" and not being able to be consistently demonstrative in respect of the emotional warmth for MP. The assessors had "serious concerns over (the mother's) ability to practically meet all the domains outlined in this assessment". Noting that she had "not sought professional help since the removal of her children" the conclusion was that she appeared to have "buried the past without addressing the issues that have hindered her capacity to parent adequately. These concerns also extend to her controlling behaviour, lack of self care and hygiene."
49. The father demonstrated little understanding of what constituted the basic care needs of a child and the practical ways to meet those. He was unable to answer the majority of the questions in the assessment without prompting by the mother or the assessors. He recognised that his "dyspraxia, lack of motivation and poor life skills seriously compromised his ability to parent". What was remarkable was that when seen alone by the assessors in the final assessment session he made it clear that he did not want to be in a relationship with the mother. He described her as controlling. He said that the mother manipulated and lied to the authorities to have MP returned to her care but that he "did not want the mother to parent MP because of her past and his current concerns". He did "not trust (her) to care for MP and would not like him to be in her care". This is remarkable because it is wholly at odds with the position he adopts in his final statement in which he supports placement of MP with the mother.
50. In her final statement Ms Cotterill reiterates the history of the local authority's involvement with the mother and the assessments undertaken within these proceedings. She confirms the attempts made to engage in assessment of the grandparents which were unsuccessful. At C25 she sets out relevant information in respect of the enquiries made of the paternal aunt and her partner as potential carers and the reasons why it was not proposed to undertake any further assessment of them. She concludes that neither the mother nor the father have the ability to care for MP who needs a permanent placement to be secured for him until he reaches independence. As there are no other family members willing or able to care for him, the local authority has concluded that MP should be made the subject of a placement order with a view to adoption. It is proposed that MP should be adopted by the carers with whom he is currently placed.
51. She addresses an assessment of MP's needs by reference to the welfare checklist including the risk of harm to MP and assessment of the parents' capacity to care for him. At C33-34 Ms Cotterill addresses the placement options for MP on a basis which demonstrates to me that she has properly considered the requirements of Re B-S . She rightly, in my judgement, discounts long term fostering as an option and concludes that MP should be placed for adoption. She also properly addresses the issues in relation to contact not only in respect of the parents but also MP's half-siblings premised on the basis of MP being adopted.
52. A statement from the Family Support Worker, Christine Ager, dated the 4^th September 2014 and which is at [C44-49] dealt with issues in relation to the mother's contact with MP. Ms Ager said that she "observed her to be inconsistent with MP's care in relation to hygiene and emotional warmth". She set out examples to support her contentions by reference to incidents which spanned May, June, July and August. While she acknowledged that the mother has since the completion of the Parenting Assessment tried to show emotional warmth to MP she remains "concerned that these changes are insufficient and inconsistent". She concluded by saying that the mother's "standards of hygiene and basic care are inadequate".

LH (Mother)

53. The mother has filed two statements of evidence dated the 4^th April 2014 [C20a-20f] and the 22^nd July 2014 [C38-41]. I have read and considered these.
54. In her final statement the mother confirms, as she has throughout the proceedings, that she does not agree to the plan of the local authority. She confirms that she and the father have separated since the 6^th June 2014. She is now living in a one bedroomed flat of which she is the sole tenant. Her wish is to parent MP by herself. She is well aware of the basic needs of a child. She is aware of the previous problems and has "made efforts not to repeat the same problems and (has) made efforts not to repeat the same problems and to improve my understanding of the concerns". She acknowledges that when in the relationship with the father she "was mindful of his shortcomings in relation to care of a child and (she) worked hard to supplement his lack of understanding". She considers that if MP had been rehabilitated to them as a couple that they would have been able to care for him. She asserts her belief that her current circumstances would enable her to care for MP and to protect him.
55. The mother gave brief oral evidence to support her position. She confirmed the contents of her two statements and what her current circumstances were in her current accommodation which she has been in since May. She keeps the flat clean and tidy. She said she was not challenging the local authority evidence before the court. She has support from her mother and sister. She is not on any medication and does not need any counselling or assistance but said that if she needed help to care for MP she would now ask for it.
56. She saw MP two times a week for contact and said she gave him cuddles for emotional warmth. She acknowledged her difficulty in openly displaying affection but said that did not mean she loved him any less. She believed her personal hygiene had improved. She recognised there may be problems if the father was around and said she planned to care for MP on her own.

JP (Father)

57. Like the mother the father has filed two statements of evidence dated the 4^th April 2014 [C20g-20k] and the 24^th July 2014 [C42-43] which I have read and considered.
58. He does not agree the plan for adoption of MP. He accepts that he is not able to offer to care for MP. He felt the best place for MP was with his mother and that he supported her fully in challenging the plan. He confirmed that he and the mother are separated and he is currently homeless. He says that he is happier since he separated from the mother; he is calmer as he has his own space. He feels his anger is under control and he is much better able to manage.
59. Although he disagrees with the local authority plan, he said that he wants what is best for MP. If the court made a placement order he did not want MP to be moved to another family. He expressed that hope that the adopters will keep MP's name since it was chosen by him and the mother. He did not want to give evidence.

Sue Alexander (children's guardian)

60. Sue Alexander, the children's guardian, has been the children's guardian for all the mother's children in all the previous proceedings. She like the social worker therefore knows the mother well and is fully cognisant of all the previous difficulties experienced by her children as a result of the mother's problems.
61. In respect of the previous history of proceedings the guardian wrote at [E99] -

"In those original Care proceedings (the mother) was subject to a psychological assessment, which suggested she did not have psychological difficulties that could be helped by psychological intervention, more her style of parenting has been affected by her own upbringing which has not left her best equipped to be a parent……………

Despite all these previous positives, within a short time after the Supervision Orders expired many of the original concerns about (the mother's) parenting resumed and Stockport Local Authority had to become involved. They offered various interventions and support and while there may have been a very short term improvement, matters soon reverted to a high risk situation to the point that the older children themselves recognised the difficulty they were in and asked to be removed into care, appearing relieved when the Local Authority finally took those steps.

During the second Care proceedings, it was clear that the children had suffered further harm, the home conditions were atrocious, the children had missed many appointments, their attendance at school was poor, and they were observed to be dirty, unkempt, suffering from re-occurring nits, which all impacted severely on their physical and emotional development. Worryingly many of these concerns had been present previously, suggesting that whilst (the mother)had appeared to make progress during the course of time that the court were scrutinising her care of her children the first time around, she had neither the ability to sustain it or comprehend the damage that she was doing to her children by not meeting their needs in this way, despite all the work undertaken with her over the years".

62. Tellingly, in view of her knowledge of the mother, the guardian asserts -

" Whilst (the mother) has suggested to me that she is much more stable now, she has another new property and therefore another fresh start in terms of home conditions. I have no confidence in her ability to sustain any changes in the longer term."

She continues -

"(the mother) appeared unrealistic about her relationship with JP, initially suggesting it as a positive that JP has no history of other children or care proceedings and indeed even now suggests to me that she has no concerns about his ability to care for MP. While she was extolling the positive virtues of the relationship within her assessment, JP was telling the social workers a very different story of being unhappy and this came out just after the assessment was completed at which point the couple separated."

She goes on to say at [E100] that

"Having seen (the mother) more recently, I accept the current conditions of her home remain at an adequate standard and that she professes to have now changed and says she will be able to look after her son and the only way she can show this would be for him to be placed with her.

I would suggest however that there is ample evidence from the previous proceedings that this is not the case, clearly (the mother) was able to talk about what her children needed in the past and for a short time to manage to meet their basic needs, however she was unable to keep that level of parenting and routine up for any substantial period and this resulted in the impact on her older children that is still being seen today by the key social worker.

MP is a very small vulnerable baby who needs his carer to meet all of his needs not just in the here and now today but for the rest of his life and I do not believe that (the mother) would be able to do this. Given the history of this case and all the support (she) has received in the past, I can see no further assessment or support that would change this and while being separated from JP may remove one aspect of stress for (her), it would make no difference in her ability to care for MP."

63. In her report the guardian makes it clear that she agrees with the concerns of the local authority and supports its plans for MP. In undertaking a permanence analysis for MP, the guardian rightly identifies, in my judgement, the only two realistic options which need to be considered in the light of the conclusions reached in relation to placement with the parents or within the extended family. She has considered the positives and negatives of adoption and long term fostering which are set out in her Final Analysis Report at page [E104].
64. In her Placement order Report at [H41-52] the guardian addresses the welfare checklist issues as required by section 1 (4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. She considers and describes the impact of adoption on MP and the consequences of not being able to maintain anything other than an indirect contact relationship with his three older half-siblings who remain in care. She considers the feelings of loss he is likely to experience as he gets older and understands the adoption process. She explains the importance of a life story book and other information for identity purposes to help him in forming his identity. In considering his relationship with relatives in respect of section 1 (4) (f) the guardian reiterates the advantages and disadvantages of adoption and long term fostering and concludes at [H49] that

"(MP) has all of these positive aspects in his favour, which points to the likelihood of a successful adoptive placement, which would meet his needs throughout his life. Adoption would provide MP with a sense of stability and belonging that is less likely to be achieved if he remained in long term foster care from such a young age."

65. She then goes on to consider the issue of contact which she says must be considered within the framework of the local authority plan for MP. She goes on to conclude that

"(MP's) welfare throughout his life dictates that his need for permanence must outweigh any other factors and I have to conclude that the benefits of adoption for MP will outweigh the negative consequences, such as the loss of his relationships with his birth family." [H50]

66. Although the guardian acknowledges the love which both the mother and the father have for MP she considers that they are overwhelmed by their own difficulties which will continue. She reiterates the conclusion from her report in respect of the care proceedings that neither parent is able to provide adequate parenting for MP. Acknowledging that the parents will not be able to give their agreement to adoption, she invites the court to dispense with their agreement on the basis that MP's welfare requires it. She recommends the making of the placement order to enable the local authority to pursue its plan of adoption for MP.

Discussion of Evidence

67. There is of course no challenge by either the mother or the father to the social worker evidence before the court or the evidence of the children's guardian. Both the social worker and the children's guardian know the mother well and have knowledge and experience of her past failings in respect of her four older children.
68. Both the local authority Parenting Assessment and the Social Worker Assessment highlight real concerns in relation to the mother and the lack of progress she has made in respect of fundamental changes which would be required to enable her to be considered as an appropriate carer for MP. There is a real resonance between the issues picked up in the two assessments which properly justify the conclusions reached by the local authority in respect of the mother in respect of her capacity to care for a young child. It is clear to me that the mother's limitations and lack of insight and understanding in respect of caring for a young child have been apparent to the workers who have been supervising her contact with MP as well as the assessors. All these concerns are echoed by the children's guardian who, I should say, is well known to this court as a very experienced and competent guardian.
69. Sadly, there is nothing in the evidence which I heard from the mother or from what I have read in her statements or those of the father which goes in any way to undermine the conclusions of the local authority assessments or the analysis and assessment undertaken by the guardian. The evidence of the mother demonstrates that she has little insight or understanding of the local authority concerns about her lack of parenting skills and that she had a flawed appreciation of the father's very real limitations as a potential safe carer for MP. Although she has new accommodation and may have kept this clean and tidy and has cooperated with and attended the assessments sessions and all contacts, that appears to be the sum of what changes she has been able to make. On any view these changes when weighed against the mother's identified shortcomings and taking into account MP's needs as a very young and vulnerable child are not sufficient to justify a plan for rehabilitation to the mother as a sole carer.
70. Consideration of the other 'welfare checklist' issues so far as MP is concerned lead to the obvious conclusion that at age of 6 months he is a young child who is not capable of expressing his wishes and feeling. He has the needs of any young child for a stable and settled family life and to be provided with appropriate physical care with love and affection and encouraged to develop to his full potential in a safe and secure environment. He is a healthy child who is developing well. He is settled with his foster carers.
71. The change in his circumstances of making the orders sought by the local authority will mean that his contact with his parents will cease in accordance with the local authority plan in three weeks time. While that will involve a loss it is not one which is likely to be meaningful for him at this tender young age. He will remain in his current placement which in time should be translated into an adoptive placement and he is at the optimum age for this to be achieved.
72. It is within the context of those conclusions that I have to consider what order to make in respect of MP. Since the care plan is one of permanence through adoption and the local authority is seeking a placement order in the event of a care order being granted on that premise, I am bound to have regard to the welfare checklist as set out in section 1 (4) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 as referred to above at paragraph [38] when considering whether to grant the care order which the local authority seeks.
73. The guardian has considered the relevant checklist issues in her final Analysis Report and her Placement Order Report as indicated above. The likely effect on MP of having ceased to be a member of his original family and becoming an adopted person is in my judgement unlikely to be an issue of great significance given his age. She also addresses the issues of MP's relationships with relatives. The reality is that the only significant family relationship which MP has is with his mother and father. He has no relationship with his half siblings with whom he has never had any contact. This leads the local authority and the guardian to conclude that if a placement order is made there should only be indirect contact with the mother and the father as set out in the care plan. That, in my judgement, appears to me to be the right approach to adopt if a placement order is made.
74. I have had the opportunity of reading and considering the documents in the placement application which is before the court and which are included at section H in the court bundle.

Conclusion & Orders

75. This is not a case which is in any sense finely balanced. The evidence from the local authority assessments and the observations of contact overwhelmingly determines that there is no prospect of MP being placed in their joint care. The separation of the mother and the father does nothing to enhance or advance the mother's claim to be considered as a sole carer for MP given the signal deficits identified in relation to her insight and understanding of the issues of concern. The mother's situation is aggravated because of her limited appreciation of MP's needs including hygiene issues and the provision of emotional warmth. All these factors lead to the inevitable conclusion that MP cannot be cared for by either of his birth parents. The exclusion of any extended family members from consideration as prospective carers left the local authority, the children's guardian and the court with only two options to consider. In real terms, given MP's age, his health and development the only truly realistic option for consideration was to a care plan to achieve permanency by adoption.
76. I am satisfied that the local authority and the children's guardian have addressed the issues in a proper manner giving due weight to the relative pros and cons of the realistically available options in accordance with the requirements of Re B-S.
77. In the circumstances, bearing in mind that I have to treat MP's welfare as paramount I have no hesitation in saying that I approve the local authority's plan for him to achieve permanency through adoption by his current carers. I have considered that local authority's proposal for contact which in all the circumstances are entirely appropriate. Accordingly, I will grant the care order to the local authority. The making of the care order is, in my judgement, given the circumstances of MP as set out above necessary to protect and safeguard his interests and is a proportionate response to his circumstances. That then requires me to pass on to deal with the placement application.

Placement application

78. I repeat that I have read and considered the relevant documents in respect of the application for a placement order. The children's guardian supports the application for a placement order. I have of course given specific consideration to the welfare checklist as it applies to the Children Act 1989 in approving the local authority's care plan for adoption for MP. I have in addition, as is clear from what is said above, also already had regard to the checklist in respect of section 1 (4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the issues which are relevant. I do not intend to repeat myself.
79. I am satisfied that, on all the evidence before me, adoption is in best interests of MP. There is no other realistic available option and the reality is that nothing else will do so far as MP is concerned. His mother and father understandably, in the circumstances, do not agree to him being placed for adoption. I must therefore consider whether their agreement can be dispensed with on the basis that MP's welfare requires it. Having reached the conclusion that adoption is in his best interests then, in my judgement, it follows that I must dispense with the agreement of the mother and father to adoption in accordance with section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 because MP's welfare requires it. I, accordingly, dispense with their agreement to adoption. I make the placement order in respect of MP.
80. Although the issue has not been canvassed on behalf of any party, I am conscious that it might be said that the making of a care or placement order may be a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of both the child and his parents. I have borne this in mind in my consideration of the issues before me since the making of a care order and a placement for adoption order is unquestionably a substantial interference with a parent's right to respect for family life. In my judgement, such a step could only be regarded as interference in the child's right to respect for family life if there was a real prospect of him being successfully rehabilitated to the care of a parent or parents within an acceptably short timescale. That is not the position for MP and consideration of his Article 8 rights leads to the conclusion which will override the rights of his parents which I regard as a necessary and proportionate response to the circumstances in which MP now is.

Orders

Care Order

81. The orders which I make and will confirm at the hearing on the 19^th September 2014 in relation to the local authority application under section 31 in respect of MP are -

(a) A care order to the local authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

(b) The local authority may disclose copies of relevant documents in the proceedings to any prospective adopters with whom it is proposed to match the child, MP, for adoption.

(c) The local authority solicitor shall provide a copy of this judgment to the Independent Reviewing Officer for MP.

(d) There be no order for costs save for detailed assessment of the Public Funding Certificate costs of each of the assisted parties.

Placement order

82. In respect of the placement application in respect of MP, I will make the following orders -

(a) I dispense with the consent of the mother and the father to adoption on the ground that MP's welfare requires it.

(b) The local authority may place the child, MP, for adoption.

(c) The local authority solicitor shall provide a copy of this judgment to MP's adopters.

(d) There be no order for costs save for detailed assessment of the Public Funding Certificate costs of each of the assisted parties.

83. This concludes the judgment.