England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT TRURO

		Courts of Justice Edward Street Truro TR1 2PB
		21/08/2014

1. Key:

a. The children are S-LF and T-RF

b. The mother is CF

c. The maternal grandmother is CFR and her husband is SR

2. The children concerned in these public law proceedings are S-LF and T-RF. S-LF was born on 23 September 2010 and is therefore 3 ¾ years old while T-RF was born on 27 July 2012 and is therefore now 2. The children's mother is CF. They have different fathers neither of whom has played a significant part in their lives or the proceedings. I am sad to record that the current care proceedings are the second such proceedings in respect of these two sisters. The previous proceedings came to an end on 6 January this year at their issues resolution hearing. At that time, CF had completed a tolerably successful period in residential assessment with the children and sufficient progress was seen to contemplate an end of the proceedings. They concluded with a 12 month supervision order, the local authority recording its intention to monitor and assess CF's care of the children in the community. A written agreement was prepared and put in place to make very clear to CF what the expectations of her would be.
3. Before I detail what happened thereafter I want to spend a moment on the issues that gave rise to the original care proceedings which began in September 2013. A transfer-in child protection conference was held on 23 July 2013 following the arrival of CF and the children from Yorkshire. The concerns that had been communicated to Cornwall were quite extensive. S-LF had poor nursery attendance. Conditions at the family home were said to be inadequate. There was not enough food. CF lacked insight into the physical safety of her young children. She was said to have a history of poor mental health and also of being resistant to advice. She struggled to set and maintain boundaries. She had been facing rent arrears. Both of the children had been made subject to child protection plans in Yorkshire as a result of issues of neglect.
4. On 12 August 2013 CF signed a written agreement with the local authority dealing with an appropriate level of supervision of the children. On 23 August S-LF was seen standing alone by a main road. CF was inside her caravan apparently unaware that her daughter was out on the road. When social workers spoke to CF about that she seemed to struggle to understand the gravity of the situation. Then on 29 August a duty social worker attended her property on an unannounced basis. That worker was greeted at the door by S-LF, her mother being in bed. CF later said that she'd been asleep for an hour because she felt unwell. During this period the children had unsupervised time around the caravan and a window was wide open giving opportunity for S-LF to get out. Yet again, CF struggled to understand that this level of care was inadequate. Following that social work visit CF agreed for the children to be section 20 accommodated for a time. A mother and child placement was devised to enable a parenting assessment to be undertaken in safe circumstances. So it was that CF and the children entered a foster placement provided by Five Rivers.
5. The early signs from the placement were quite promising with CF showing some good parenting skills. However, issues around her mental health became concerning quite early on. She was extremely resistant to being referred to the community mental health team. She presented as significantly depressed. During the assessment process she told the worker that should the assessment not go her way she would take the children and kill herself and them. On 30 September 2013. the social worker tried to explain her duty to inform the children's father of the court process. CF became extremely abusive and threatened to kill the man concerned. She could not be calmed. By 1 October the threat to kill herself and the children had morphed into a threat to kill herself and the social workers. So much concern was held about this that the police were informed. On that date at a weekly meeting held at the placement CF was very aggressive towards the social worker and did not recognise the impact on the children who were present.
6. Notwithstanding this very worrying situation there was a general consensus that upon completion of the parenting assessment carried out by Five Rivers there should be a period of community-based assessment. This commenced on 29 October 2013. The Five Rivers reporting had disclosed a complex picture. CF evidenced a real desire to care for her children and she tended to show them emotional warmth. She put some considerable effort into setting routines and boundaries. There were continuing worries, however, around managing risk and her difficulty in being challenged and in accepting advice and guidance.
7. The social worker in the case, Emma Shergold, completed a comprehensive parenting assessment based on the community assessment period. CF has a diagnosis of body dysmorphic disorder, a condition associated with a poor concept of self worth and negative image. It was a recurrent concern that CF had sought support to manage that condition but not then followed up by attending appointments and making referrals when asked to do so. There was a history of her feeling unable to leave her home and therefore not being able to take the children out in the community or attend nursery provision. She would spend a considerable amount of time getting ready in the morning limiting the time that she had to devote to her children and their stimulation.
8. The outcome of the community-based assessment was to provide evidence that CF was capable of providing a clean and warm home environment for the children. She was able to budget and keep the children clean and appropriately clothed. At the time that that assessment was coming to a close CF was acknowledging that she had made some poor choices in terms of people that she mixed with and that these had created risks of harm for her children. She at that stage had a new partner who had recently been released from prison for offences relating to burglary and possession of cannabis. She was stating that she would not allow her partner to have contact with her children unless supervised by a third party agreed by the local authority until an assessment of him could be completed. There was no evidence at that stage that she had not adhered to these provisions.
9. These are the background circumstances that led to the making of the 12 month supervision order in January 2014. They serve to explain why the local authority and, indeed, the court retained some level of anxiety about the future of the children in CF's care. Such limited sense of optimism as then existed was short-lived.
10. On 13 January 2014 CF informed the local authority that she was four weeks pregnant by her then partner JD. She said that they planned to be a family. Such information as the local authority had about JD tended to show that he was a problematic individual, resistant to advice and guidance. On 20 January 2014 CF sadly suffered a miscarriage. On 22 January 2014 a fresh written agreement was signed. This included an agreement not to resume her relationship with JD. T-RF had still not been taken to a mother and toddler group and S-LF was still not regularly attending nursery.
11. JD was acknowledging that there were arguments between him and CF. She was not engaging fully with the Triple P parenting course and she failed to attend the child in need meeting.
12. On the 4^th February 2014 CF called the police as a result of a violent incident between her and JD. The children were present. On 10 February she signed yet another written agreement. She appeared to be accepting, at that stage, of the fact that she had let her parenting slip since getting into a relationship with JD.
13. On 3 March 2014 JD was recalled to prison having breached his licence conditions. CF contacted the social worker to alert her to this fact and to say that her relationship with him was at an end and he would not be welcome at her home.
14. By 21 March 2014 CF had still not sorted out any counselling for herself and was still not attending a mother and toddler group. By 31 March 2014 she told the social worker that she and JD were back together as a couple.
15. By early April her tenancy was under threat. There had been a breach of its terms in particular in relation to noise emanating from the premises and the keeping of unpermitted pets. JD was seen as being a constant presence there.
16. On 14 April 2014 the view was taken that CF's engagement with the Triple P parenting programme had been minimal.
17. On 22 April 2014 there was a new PLO meeting, such was the concern of the local authority. A new written agreement was put in place. JD was asked to move out and CF made a self referral to Outlook Southwest.
18. On 27 April 2014 an explicit sexual drawing was noted on the kitchen wall at her home. She seemed to have no appreciation of how inappropriate this was with children in the home. Nothing was done to remove the drawing for many days. On 28 April 2014 there was another violent domestic incident between CF and JD. Yet again the children were present.
19. History repeated itself on 30 April with another domestic violence incident. CF agreed, at that stage, to obtain a harassment order against JD but promptly went back on this intention.
20. Still on 30 April the social worker visited and CF was aggressive in the extreme to her, again with the children present.
21. This chaotic, dangerous situation continued from one incident to the next, from one broken promise to the next and eventually, on 30 May 2014 I made interim care orders sanctioning the removal of the children from CF's care. They have remained in foster care ever since. CF had, on more than one occasion, looked me in the face and promised compliance with protective measures. My own view, in the light of the circumstances that have transpired, is that she, at all material times, was lying and never intended to honour her promises to the court which she has treated with contempt.
22. The situation since then has been replete with further written promises by CF to change her ways. It has been marked, however, by continuing volatility and by a series of very serious threats made against local authority personnel. As I commented at the end of May, CF presented as the angriest and most unregulated young woman that I had seen for many years.
23. The task confronting the court within this final hearing is to determine, so far as possible, the future course for these two still very young children. They have suffered significant harm in parental care. That was certainly the case at the date of inception of the previous care proceedings and there can be no doubt but that it remained the case when the current care proceedings began. The matters that I have rehearsed as having happened since 6 January 2014 make it very plain that the threshold test for the making of a further public law order has been amply satisfied. To put it in terms, these children have not been kept safe, have been exposed to domestic violence and anger and CF has, at all material times, prioritised her own needs over them. The trajectory for their future and therefore the future risk facing them in parental care is worrying in the extreme.
24. The threshold test being met, I make the welfare of S-LF and T-RF my paramount consideration in determining what orders are needed. The choices in this case, sadly, are limited and very stark. If these children cannot be rehabilitated safely to their mother's care then, barring one family option, the future for them is likely to be placement with a new family by way of adoption. It is difficult to contemplate long-term fostering as an adequate care option for children of this age. The local authority view has changed since the end of the previous proceedings and it has now published care plans for each of the children that propose adoption outside of the birth family. It is, of course, as Draconian a care plan as can be envisaged and it engages the rights of both mother and children to respect for their private and family life. It cannot be approved unless it is literally the only alternative that meets the children's needs and therefore necessary and proportionate.
25. To ensure that I am properly focused on the welfare of these children, I intend to go through the welfare checklist within section 1 of the Children Act 1989 as a discipline to make sure that I address the correct issues. I intend to pick up on the evidence that I have heard as I make my journey through the checklist.
26. I address the issue of the children's wishes and feelings first. S-LF is not yet four and T-RF is only two. They are not expressing any coherent wishes for their future. Nor could they be expected to do so. Even if they did, they are at ages when one could not expect mature reasoning and it remains the fact that adults must make their decisions for them.
27. I turn to their physical, emotional and educational needs. Cathy Hopkinson, their Cafcass Guardian, draws attention in her final report to the change and disruption that these young girls have experienced thus far in their lives. They have had house moves, a short period of staying with their maternal grandmother and stepgrandfather, relocation to Cornwall, three periods in foster care including the current one. Moreover, CF has associated with unsafe and inappropriate people who have had contact with them. The care that has been applied to them by CF has been inconsistent in all of the domains of parenting. S-LF presents as very self-contained, beyond her years. She lacks appropriate stranger-awareness and quickly seeks out attention from adults, often climbing on knees etc. T-RF's speech and language is delayed. Both girls struggle to play imaginatively or constructively with toys. It is only now that the children are beginning to develop some sense of security and predictability in their foster placement. S-LF has struggled to adapt to structures and routines. She tends to try to dominate and/or care for T-RF. She likes to be in control of any situation and finds the structure of allowing adults to be in charge a difficult one to grasp. T-RF presents as less affected but tends to be in a world of her own. I detail these observations by Mrs Hopkinson simply to highlight the extent of the children's needs. It is very sad to say but they are children disadvantaged by their experiences. They need some level of compensatory parenting and are likely to present challenge for any future carers. This will be particularly so in respect of S-LF.
28. I move on to the effect on the children of any change in their circumstances. The one thing that is certain is that they cannot remain living with their current foster carers indefinitely. They have to move on in some shape or form. They are reported as making progress in foster care and the process of repairing the damage that they have suffered has begun. It seems to me to be of critical importance that their next move is a permanent one. They have had, frankly, a lifetime, so far, of inadequate and unsafe care. If they move into family hands and their care is, from that point onwards, good and consistent, then there is no particular cause for concern about their future. If there is any hint of recurrence in previous problems then there is a grave danger that the damage that the children have sustained will be compounded. The key within this paragraph of the welfare checklist is that there needs to be confidence that the children's needs will be reliably met on a consistent basis.
29. The children's age, gender and background characteristics is the next item on the welfare checklist. There is nothing particular to note in this connection. These children are of course a sibling grouping and must, at all costs, be kept together. Their ages mean that permanence is overdue for them.
30. Any harm suffered or risked for the future represents the next item on the welfare checklist. Even now, I detect that CF has no real appreciation of the inadequacies of care that she has applied to the children. She undoubtedly loves them but her ability to prioritise their needs over her own is not evidenced by her actions over time. She is in the very unhappy situation that because of the history that I have related it is very difficult to invest trust in what she says. I have already referred to the harm that these children have suffered in her care and this harm is not, in some way, theoretical. There is actual observational evidence of the impact of that harm on the children, S-LF in particular. The question of whether similar harm is a risk for the future is tied up with my analysis of the capability of CF to meet the children's needs were they to be repatriated to her.
31. The capability in this case of CF or her mother and stepfather, CFR and SR is the penultimate item on the welfare checklist. This, frankly, is the critical item for consideration and evaluation. I start with the children's mother. The matters that I have related in terms of the history of the case are, in my judgement, incontrovertible. CF disputes the accuracy of social work recording. In particular she is highly critical of Emma Shergold, the children's social worker. However, the indictments of CF's parenting of these children come from many sources. They were problems that were present during the Five Rivers assessment which emphatically did not give her a clean bill of health as a parent. They have been manifest to other authorities including the police, Nursery staff and other observers. I have seen CF completely out of control in the courtroom. She has been quite incapable of managing her own anger and behaviour. My evaluation of the social worker's input to this case is that it has been exemplary. Her crime, in the eyes of CF, is an unwillingness to compromise where the welfare of the children has been concerned.
32. What this all means is that there is very substantial evidence that CF has failed the children in very many respects throughout their childhoods to date. The recorded past represents a significant case for her to answer. I say this not in a critical way because CF is a product of her own unhappy childhood and her personality has been forged by circumstances beyond her control. It is with interest, therefore, that I waited to see what she would say within this final hearing. In preparation for it she filed a statement. She has always had an acute anxiety that she should speak for herself and that others should not speak for her. With that in mind, as mentioned, she has written me a number of letters in the past promising better behaviour for the future. This time she makes a statement that is brief and professionally drawn as a sort of covering note for another self prepared statement. That covering note details her primary position. That is that the children should return to her care. She intends to move to Yorkshire where she says that she has found accommodation close to her mother and step father. She intends that the sole care of the girls would rest with her but that she would enjoy the help and support of her mother and stepfather. Her fallback position is to support her mother and stepfather in their separate application to care for the children. Even on that scenario CF intends to live in Yorkshire to facilitate contact with the children. Finally on this covering statement she indicates that she has started a Freedom programme which she says is an on-line course about domestic violence similar to the Suzie project. She expresses the hope that she will have completed the course by the final hearing.
33. That statement covers a two-page typescript letter from her to me which in turn covers a more expansive statement that addresses Ms Shergold's evidence. She adds material that represents testimonial evidence from others and she concludes her material with evidence designed to suggest that social workers and foster carers have been known to abuse children.
34. I start with the initial covering letter which she begins with an apology to me for breaking her promise regarding JD. She says that he became very irritable at their circumstances and they began arguing a lot. She acknowledges that her children witnessed quite a lot of arguing and that it wasn't acceptable but she says that they have never been harmed and would never have been harmed in her care. She swears to me that she and JD are no longer in a relationship. She accepts that she has been young and stupid and has made several mistakes through her parenting life. She does not identify what those mistakes were and says that she would never put the children in any immediate danger. She then relates how she herself went through the care system and stayed with foster carers when she was 13. She describes the male foster carer as violent. In the covering note she acknowledges that she and her mother do not have the best relationship.
35. The next part of her statement says that she has never neglected or abused her children. It goes on to say that she has no mental problems. She says that the children have been cruelly abused by their removal from her loving care and she alleges that her article 8 human rights have been breached. She asks that S-LF should be brought to court to testify. In itself this is an extraordinary notion. She then goes on to present a critique of Emma Shergold's final statement. The long and short of it is that she accepts virtually none of the criticisms of her parenting. If one took CF's statement at face value one would wonder why we were here in court at all. CF describes the relationship between her and JD as a good one. She says he has never hurt her. She denies ever having been a victim of domestic violence. She admits to arguments and JD having anger issues. She acknowledges that, at its end, the relationship was not healthy. That apart I have struggled to find anything really approaching an acknowledgement of the responsibility she bears for the children's plight. All of the children's problems are turned back onto the local authority and the foster carers. She says that since being in foster care T-RF is having terrible temper tantrums and S-LF hardly smiles. She expresses concern that the children are not being fed properly.
36. I turn briefly to CF's oral evidence. I want to begin by commending her for her behaviour during the hearing. I have some insight into just how hard this process is for her and she struggles with a burning sense of injustice. There were one or two outbursts but, for the most part, her frustrations were contained.
37. I spent a little time with her on her perception of any mistakes she has made in caring for the girls. She was able to identify the maintenance of the relationship with JD as one. Another was the difficulty in going out as a result of her own self image and a third was depression. A little probing revealed no concession that these issues have caused any harm to the children. Even JD was painted as, essentially, benign. She did accept that she had broken promises to the local authority and the court with regard to him and tried, very unconvincingly, to persuade me that that was substantially his doing and the fact that they have separated for good should persuade me that she can be trusted for the future.
38. The overall picture is that really none of the criticisms of her care of the children is accepted by her as valid. What that means, of course, is that her parenting of them would be unlikely to change were they to return to her care. Of course, if she is right then all would be well. Sadly she is far from right.
39. I was told that during the luncheon adjournment of the first day of this final hearing a family conference was held and the upshot of it is that if the local authority or court thought it necessary, CF would not move to Yorkshire, might even go to Australia, and would agree to have no contact with S-LF and T-RF if they were placed in her mother and stepfather's care. I probed about this too. She said she was signed up to this agreement but she was very clear that it would be completely contrary to her wishes and would be unnecessary. I was left with a sense that, having regard to her past performance, she would be even less likely to keep her promises in this respect than to keep those promises about JD that she very swiftly broke in serial fashion.
40. I was able to explore in evidence CF's attitude to professionals. Frankly, she holds them in contempt, particularly when she is at odds with them. Startlingly, she revealed that, resulting from her own researches, local authority personnel and others involved in the family justice scene are all motivated by money alone and are seeking to improve their positions financially by increasing their adoption statistics. I pause to say that my own knowledge of the system is sufficient to reassure me that this accusation is completely unfounded. I looked for some chink in the armour of her victimhood and found none. I pointed out to her that Emma Shergold had written the care plan in the previous care proceedings, supporting her retention of the care of the children. Still she failed to see a balanced picture. The net effect of all this is that by her own oral evidence CF confirmed all the local authority concerns about parenting that I had seen as evidenced also in her written statements.
41. My conclusion about CF's ability to meet the children's needs is that she cannot. It is not simply a case where she has undergone a short-term parenting assessment and been found wanting. This is a case in which evidence has been accumulating over, literally, years around her difficulties in prioritising her children's needs. One always looks for evidence of change but change has to begin with insight. Her written evidence and, for that matter, the oral evidence within this hearing demonstrates a vanishingly small quantity of insight into the past. She still does not really perceive that her parenting has fallen below an adequate standard. One sympathises with her in this respect because there are signs that acknowledging fault and therefore losing face has been a no-go area for her throughout much of her life. We are where we are, however. All of the attempts by CF to deflect the responsibility for the harm that her children have suffered onto others come to nothing. Her death threats issued to the social worker are a disgrace. She should be ashamed of herself. They alone would cause any judge to think seriously before he would permit children to be committed to her care. Here, however, the evidence base of her inability is far greater. I say again that I have no doubt of her love for her children but there seems to me to be very clear evidence indeed that her own personality and history conspire to disable her from adequate and consistent parenting. I move on to consider her mother and stepfather.
42. The assessment of CFR and SR was carried out by an independent social worker, Julie Atkinson. I pause to say that she is very experienced. The assessment is, essentially, negative. Before I come to the reasons for that, let me recite the positive elements. The evidence tends to show that CFR and her husband have provided good enough care for CFR's son B. Moreover, there is clear evidence that suggests that, in material and physical respects, they have the knowledge and ability to meet S-LF and T-RF's everyday needs consistently. They have a perfectly adequate home and sufficient resources coming in. They clearly love the children and their desire to care for them is genuine.
43. Let me now look at the areas of concern. I will say a little about each one and then tried to identify which matters raise the greatest level of concern.
44. Some concern was expressed about the couple's investment in the assessment process. Julie Atkinson says that she found it difficult, at times, to contact them or get responses from them. Moreover, she was not entirely satisfied that she was met with total openness from them. The example given in this respect was around the health history of each of the couple. Julie Atkinson was given to believe by both of them that they were fit and healthy and had had no significant health difficulties. The clear picture given to her was that there was really no meaningful medical history to investigate. That turned out to be anything but the truth when the medical records were eventually accessed.
45. Both CFR and SR separately have suffered from quite debilitating carpal tunnel syndrome, in the case of CFR as recently as 2013. In addition, CFR has had a long-standing history of involvement with psychiatric services since she was 20. There are references to eating disorders, to periods of low mood and difficulty in managing stress. In 2005 there is a reference to suicidal ideation with a report that CFR told a professional that she was thinking of taking her own life and that of her children with her. She had rehearsed her own history of physical and emotional abuse during her childhood. As recently as April 2013 she was telling a doctor that she had a poor sleep pattern and that it felt like she was having a breakdown.
46. In a slightly less graphic way, SR is reported to have wrestled with depression and there are entries in his medical records to that effect in 2009, 2010 and 2011. One has no wish, of course, to be intrusive into the past of any person but the issue of someone's health both past and present is a legitimate one for enquiry in any assessment of ability to meet a child's needs throughout their minority. Most people being assessed for that purpose would understand the reasons behind such an enquiry and would be honest. CFR and SR seem to suggest that they had misunderstood and saw the enquiry related simply to how they are feeling now rather than their historic health needs. Frankly, that response seems to me to be a little facile.
47. Still on the same issue of openness, CFR told Julie Atkinson that she had never taken illegal substances and had indulged in social alcohol use only. Certainly the first statement was untrue and she now admits that she has regularly taken cannabis some years ago. There was a time when she was drinking three bottles of wine per week which she still regards as unproblematic.
48. I move on from the assessment process and the way in which CFR and SR responded to it to more substantive issues around family relationships. I want to begin with the question of CF. That, in the sense of causation of CF's problems, is not something that is made much of in the assessment report or indeed in the final evidence of Emma Shergold. However, I have seen in CF really quite extreme dysfunctionality. I am bound to ask myself how she got that way. I cannot exclude the possibility that CFR played some part in creating CF's difficulties. The account that CFR has given is effectively this. She was herself, during CF's early childhood, a victim of domestic violence. That apart, the childhood of CF is described as being benign and unremarkable. However, from quite early on CF is described as becoming difficult. This is a recurring theme and eventually, at the age of 13 or 14, CFR voluntarily places her in care, no longer able to manage her behaviour.
49. CF is resistant to too much expert assessment of her. As I mentioned, she has a diagnosis of body dysmorphic disorder. That obviously has an impact on her behaviour but it seems to me that her difficulties are far more complex than that. There is a sense in CFR' evidence that CF's presentation is just one of those things. It is fair to say that I am unable to identify evidence that parenting deficiencies of CFR have contributed to CF's difficulties but, by the same token, I cannot exclude that possibility. It is fair to say that B's presentation suggests that he received good enough care during childhood.
50. The greatest concern voiced by Julie Atkinson in her report and indeed in her oral evidence was the difficulty that CFR and SR would have in managing the behaviour of CF and their torn loyalties.
51. Julie Atkinson, frankly, was a poor witness. This always creates difficulty because a poor professional witness may, nonetheless, provide important evidence and judgement insights into the matters under review. I consider that there were some flaws in the assessment process about CFR and SR. The decision not to have one or more further sessions following 30 May 2014 represented, in my view, poor judgement.
52. However, the fact that weighed heaviest in Ms Atkinson's conclusions was that of the family dynamics. Her insight on that issue was, I thought, justified by the objective evidence. She could have spent longer discussing the difficulty with CFR and SR but the upshot, in my view,would have been no change to her recommendation or to the overall negative outcome of the assessment. In fairness, this issue of managing CF and managing maternal feelings for her and the potential conflict with the girls' welfare is one on which the social worker, the Guardian and, for that matter, I can form our own judgements based on evidence not gathered by Ms Atkinson.
53. Emma Shergold, for example, has reached the same view. Although she relies on the Atkinson assessment, she also brings her own experience and expertise to bear. Ms Shergold, if I may say so, was an excellent witness. Her evidence, contrary to the view of CF, was measured, balanced, fair and compelling.
54. I turn to the evidence of CFR and SR. They helpfully filed written evidence but also gave important oral evidence. Before I come to that, I ought properly to mention CFR's cross-examination of Julie Atkinson. She had some justification for her resentment at Ms Atkinson but, in frankly a quite aggressive start to her questioning of the witness, I saw what seemed to me like a glimpse of CF. I stress that I do not make too much of this but it is an impression that I feel obliged to record. It was in fact a glimpse that was a little later repeated in cross-examination of the guardian.
55. CFR and SR gave their evidence together. They confirmed the content of the written material that they had filed. They then, helpfully, went on to deal with a number of issues that I needed assistance on. The first matter that I raised with them was their precise position in relation to CF and her ambitions to care for the children. I was looking to elicit from them their views about her past parenting and whether she should be given the chance to care for her children now. To put it in another way, I was looking to establish whether CFR and SR are offering simply a fallback position. Immediately that the question was posed CFR became emotional. I in no way criticise her for that and I was sorry to have placed her in an uncomfortable position. She plainly struggled, with CF in the room, to criticise her daughter's parenting. She found herself really unable to say that her daughter could not meet the children's needs. SR also found it difficult but did conclude, on balance, that CF is not yet mature enough to care for the girls and may need some therapeutic input to that end. Even he, however, was swift to commend to me CF's positive characteristics and I was acutely aware that my line of questioning had placed this couple in a position of great discomfort.
56. The next matter that I raised, with CFR in particular, was her relationship with her own mother. She acknowledged that this had been non-existent for some 10 years notwithstanding that her mother lives no more than about 10 miles away from her. She described a situation in which her mother had, in her view, let her down badly and exercised an unhelpful influence over CF. It was very clear that there was no possibility of rapprochement.
57. I next wanted to get a sense from CFR and SR about their own perception of the local authority and other professionals involved with the case. I was trying to see whether they felt that CF had been treated unfairly and whether they shared some of her views about the local authority having an ulterior motive in pursuing an adoptive care plan. They indicated to me that they do have suspicions about that and similarly do have similar concerns as does CF about exposure of the girls to abuse in foster care. It is fair to say that their views are, in no sense, as extreme as those of CF but there was a real sense of a family agenda here. It highlighted, yet again, for me, the extreme tension between the offer of CFR and SR as protective carers for the children and their feelings for CF.
58. Other evidence that CFR and SR gave dealt with their intentions in the event that they have care of the children. They envisage CF, if at all possible, having a regular contact relationship with the children. They would hope that it might be for short periods twice a week in the first instance but they expressed the hope that over a period of perhaps a year and, particularly if there were signs that CF had become more settled and addressed her problems, then the matter might even move to overnight contact. This caused me some interest because I am naturally concerned as to the trajectory for these children. The basis on which I had understood CFR and SR originally to have offered themselves was as permanent carers for the children until they reach majority. There was a sense from their evidence that they harbour the real hope that they may turn out to be caretakers until such time as CF gets her act together. If that is their position it is not something that I would criticise them for but it raises an issue around permanency for the girls and, to my mind, increases the risk that CF will retain expectations of assuming the girls' care over time. When directly asked by one of the advocates the response was that, at first, they would not expect CF to assume care until the children had reached secondary education. CFR then appeared to have a rethink and ruled CF out for future care completely. I was left with a degree of uncertainty about their position and a sense that there was thinking on the hoof going on.
59. I want to leave over my conclusions in respect of CFR and SR until after I have recorded the evidence of Cathy Hopkinson, the children's Cafcass Guardian. She has filed a report supportive of the local authority's care plans. The local authority had, at the commencement of this final hearing, revisited its decision in relation to post-hearing contact with CF in particular. The evidence I received was that CF has been making comments to the children during contact sessions that might destabilise their placement. The current local authority plan, if approved, would involve CF being offered only one further contact session. Part of the argument for that, apart from avoiding disruption, is that it enables them to be prepared for a further move to an adoptive placement. Cathy Hopkinson has reflected on the local authority change of position and supports it. And she extends her view about that so as to include CFR and SR. She believes that the children may struggle to move on unless contact is brought to an end very shortly.
60. Mrs Hopkinson is an experienced Cafcass Guardian and, to my mind, brought that experience to bear on the case. I detected not the slightest hint of malice in her evidence and she was straightforward and thoughtful. She came under what can best be described as vigorous cross-examination from CFR and SR. I in no sense criticise that. She maintained her position and articulated her reasons for seeing the risk of placement with them as being too great. She described her decision to support the care plans as a balanced one but not finely balanced. It was plain from her evidence that she saw the family dynamics as being the major point. She sees relevance in CFR's emotional well-being in the context that placement of the children with her and the probable tensions that CF will bring to bear, are likely to increase stress levels within the family. Mrs Hopkinson foresaw at least a possibility of a breakdown in this family placement. She also expressed some concerns about what she felt was quite defensive behaviour on the part of CFR in particular. She recounted an occasion when she had endeavoured, during the course of the proceedings, to approach CFR to introduce herself and explain her role. She described CFR as having been extremely defensive in defending CF and criticising the social worker. Although the atmosphere later thawed somewhat, she felt that the grandparents had chosen to remain rather at arms length which she found were worrying for the prospect of future cooperation with professionals.
61. The last item on the welfare checklist is the range of orders available to the court and it is here that I draw the strands of the case together. None of these cases are simple. They involve the gravest of consequences for families. Neither local authorities nor guardians nor courts treat such issues as routine or reach conclusions without evidence and without the most anxious consideration and analysis.
62. The court does not have the luxury of seeing how things go. We cannot let the children's minorities elapse and then look back over the preceding years to consider whether it was a good plan or not. In other words, risks have to be assessed and evidence-based predictions made. These are the issues to which the evidence in this case has really been directed.
63. I said earlier within this judgement that CF cannot meet S-LF and T-RF's needs. I know that she disagrees but she is not insightful about her limitations as a parent. I do not know whether that lack of insight is going to act as a lasting impediment to her making the changes that will allow her to parent in future. She is a very young woman and one hopes that time and further maturity will help. However, I see no early indications that, within the next few years, she will become capable of meeting S-LF and T-RF's needs any more than the needs of further children that she may have. I do not write her off for ever. I pay tribute to her love for the children. If she didn't love them she wouldn't be here. She shows much love in her interaction with them but this is one of those cases where that alone is nowhere near enough to meet their needs.
64. The law does not permit an adoptive care plan to be approved unless there is literally no alternative that meets the children's needs adequately. This principle emerges from recent jurisprudence and is also the logical consequence of the Human Rights Act. I am therefore left with this position that I have to consider the option of S-LF and T-RF being raised by CFR and SR.
65. I begin by making very clear that I see them as genuine, loving people. Their offer is a genuine one. They have not come to court to try to pull the wool over my eyes. If S-LF and T-RF were placed with them I am satisfied that they would do their best to meet the children's needs. When they say that they believe they can manage any intrusion into their care that CF brings to bear, I think that that belief is genuine. The issue is whether, objectively, they are deluding themselves and minimising the risks for the children. I have come to the conclusion that they are.
66. Running as a theme through this hearing has been the immense tension between CFR' love for her daughter CF and her protective instincts in respect of S-LF and T-RF. The inability to criticise CF in any meaningful way in the courtroom is extremely noteworthy. It shows the emotional dilemma facing CFR. She has a mother's natural anxiety to support both her daughter and her grandchildren. I say this not in any sense as a criticism but simply as an observation. SR feels the same thing but without the additional difficulty of being CF's biological father.
67. The idea of CF going to Australia is fanciful. By that I do not mean that they have not had a serious discussion about it. I am not confident that CF would go or that, if she went, she would stay there. I have told CF before that her trust has been ruined in these proceedings by her actions. I still invest no trust in her word.
68. Now the dangers for S-LF and T-RF are not just the prospect of CF arriving, as it were, with tanks on the front lawn but also include a more insidious process by which she, understandably from her point of view, gradually seeks to erode the authority of CFR and SR and assume a greater role in the children's lives. I do not think she could help herself. Already, CFR and SR are willing to contemplate significantly greater levels of contact for CF than would be in the children's interests. I see the pressure mounting and probably becoming irresistible, leading to a failure of emotional health. I cannot say with certainty that that is what would happen but, as mentioned above, I have to make an assessment of the risk based on the evidence. I consider that I correctly assess the risk as being grave, significant and too great for the children.
69. Does any other care option meet the needs of the children? Long-term foster care is not commended by anyone in the case as a way forward. CF would be unlikely to be able to tolerate it. The children would face an increased risk of multiple placements and they would grow up with the intrusion of the local authority as a continuing feature of their lives. Adoption, of course, is not 100% certain to secure their futures. Having said that, the children are of an age when one might have confidence that a well chosen adoptive placement would last for ever. It involves nowhere near the risk of a disrupted childhood that is presented by placement with family members.
70. I check my conclusions against the paramountcy principle within the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the welfare check list within that Act as well. The paramountcy principle of course concerns itself with the welfare of the children throughout their lifetimes. It should be apparent from this judgement that it is precisely to that that I have been applying my mind. Similarly, the welfare check list under that legislation contains some variations from that under the Children Act 1989. Those variations concern themselves with the potential loss of relationships and the views of family members. It remains the case, taking those factors into account, that adoption represents the only viable solution for S-LF and T-RF.
71. This is an extremely sad case. I have found it difficult albeit that I share Mrs Hopkinson's view that the issue is not finely balanced. For the reasons I have expressed above I approve the care plans and make full care orders in respect of both S-LF and T-RF to Cornwall Council. In particular, whilst the new stance of the local authority with regard to contact after this hearing appears Draconian and harsh it seems to me to be a welfare-based stance that is justified and deserves approval.
72. The placement order applications follow the making of those care orders. Placement orders cannot be made unless, in these circumstances, CF's consent is dispensed with. The analysis that I have carried out above represents the reasons why the children's welfare demands that her consent be dispensed with. I do that and proceed to make placement orders to Cornwall Council in respect of both children. I give that authority permission to change their surnames on placement for adoption. I also give the usual directions for detailed public funding assessment of the costs of CF and the children.

HHJ Vincent