England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

Case No. AI13C00064

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BARNET

St. Marys Court

Regents Park Road

London N3 1BQ

Date: Friday, 22^nd August 2014

 

Before:

 

HER HONOUR JUDGE LEVY

 (In Private)

 

B E T W E E N :

 

                                               LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY                                Applicant

 

-  and -

 

                                               MOTHER, FATHER, CARER AND CHILDREN               Respondents

 

_________

 

 

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.

(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)

Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers

One Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HR

Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737

info@beverleynunnery.com

 

_________

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This judgment was handed down in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on the condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment, the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be contempt of court.

 

_________

 

J U D G M E N T

(As approved by the Judge)

 

A P P E A R A N C E S

 

 

MR. M. FLETCHER  (instructed by Haringey Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR. C. ARCHER  (instructed by Ewings) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.

MR. G. LAFAZANIDES  (Solicitor, Fahri Jacob) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent.

MISS S. SHAH  (instructed by Duncan Lewis) appeared on behalf of the Guardian.

 

 

 

JUDGE LEVY:

 

Introduction

 

1                   This morning I am giving judgment in public law proceedings which concern two young girls, A, born on 16^th September 2006, now seven years and 11 months old, and B, born on 11^th December 2009, four years and eight months old.

 

2                   These proceedings are brought by the London Borough of Haringey.  I will refer to their mother as the “mother”.  Their father, to whom I will refer as the “father” has been served with the proceedings but has played no part in them.  The children’s carer (the “carer”) is also a party to these proceedings.  She is a family friend with whom the children were placed in March 2013.  She was joined as a party on 4^th October 2013 and seeks a special guardianship order.  The children’s guardian is Eric Dooley, who was appointed on 17^th May 2013.  He was the children’s guardian in previous care proceedings, which I will refer to in due course.

 

3                   Other significant people in the children’s lives to whom I will refer are their half-sisters, C, who is 21 and lives in separate accommodation from the mother, and D, who is 16, and lives with her eight month old baby daughter GD in supported accommodation.  I will also refer briefly to the maternal grandmother (the “grandmother”).

 

4                   In these proceedings the allocated social worker since 20^th December 2013 has been Salam Kamara, his team manager is Diana Hylton.

 

5                   I have said that this is the second set of care proceedings concerning A and B.   There have been long-standing concerns, in particular about the mother’s misuse of drugs and chaotic lifestyle, including criminal activity, and similar concerns about the father.  The first set of proceedings were brought by the London Borough of Greenwich, and took place between 2010 and 2011, culminating in a special guardianship order made to Mrs. X, the children’s paternal aunt.  Unfortunately, Mrs. X died in May 2013 and this local authority brought this second set of proceedings.

 

6                   The proceedings have been long and complex.  Since May 2013 there have been three assessments of the mother, including an assessment for the purposes of contact, all of which have been positive.  There has been a positive special guardianship assessment of the carer. There have been two final hearings.  In November 2013, a final hearing took place took place before Her Honour Judge Venables.  She found that there was a gap in the evidence and adjourned the case for further reports.  Her judgment can be found at p.B50A in the bundle.  I will refer to it in my judgment but it should be read in full together with this judgment. This matter first came before me in July 2014 and had to be adjourned part-heard until August.  I heard evidence over some eight days. 

 

7                   The options for the children put forward by the parties are: the local authority, supported by the mother, seeks a care order with a plan to rehabilitate the children to the care of their mother, to monitor the situation for a period of six months, and then, if all is going well, to apply for the discharge of the care order to be replaced by a supervision order for a period of 12 months:  the carer, supported by the guardian, seeks a special guardianship order. 

 

8                   At the conclusion of the evidence and submissions, I formed the view that the complexity of the case and its history, and a number of issues which it raised required a full judgment.  I gave my decision on 8^th August 2014, which was that I would make a care order to the London Borough of Haringey approving the final care plan for rehabilitation of A and B to their mother’s care.  I will make orders at the conclusion of this judgment.

 

The hearing

 

9                   In preparation for this hearing I have read three bundles of evidence. I heard oral evidence from Judith Jones, an independent social worker, Briege Gilhooley, from the London Borough of Hackney, Mr. Kamara, Miss Hylton, the mother, the carer and the guardian.

 

Threshold

 

10              Threshold was agreed prior to the final hearing in November 2013, and the composite agreed document can be found at section A of the bundle.  It is dated 30^th October 2013. 

 

Background/previous proceedings

 

11              By way of background, I am going to set out the history of the previous proceedings and these, to provide context for my judgment. 

 

12              As regards the mother’s early lifestyle I can do no better than the description which Miss Jones gave in her report (E186, para.5.1) where she said:

 

                   “Both parents of these children have misused drugs throughout their adult life to such an extent that both have served sentences for criminal activity.  The mother has also admitted to being involved in prostitution as a means of funding her habit.  She admits to having lived a chaotic alienated life of homelessness without access to proper health care, income support or any of the infrastructures required to care either for herself or her children.

 

                   Her account is that she made the decision to remove her older children, C and D, from her care into the care of her mother, accepting that her lifestyle was not appropriate for her children.”

 

13              It was that lifestyle which led the London Borough of Greenwich to bring the first proceedings.  In the process, Mrs. X was approved as a family and friends foster carer, and the children were placed with her in May 2010.  A was then three and a half and B was six months old.  At that time the father was living in Mrs. X’s household.

 

14              The proceedings were issued on 18^th May 2010 and culminated in the special guardianship order in favour of Mrs. X, which was made on 9^th September 2011.  The order was made by District Judge Hamilton sitting at the Inner London Family Proceedings Court, and records that Mrs. X agreed to the mother having contact once a month for four hours, supervised within Mrs. X’s home.  The mother did not oppose that, but wished that contact would be reviewed in the event that she could show Mrs. X that it was in the children’s interests because of her abstinence and rehabilitation from illicit substances.  In his Facts and Reasons, District Judge Hamilton said that the local authority and the guardian were confident that Mrs. X would be able to manage contact and decide what was in the children’s best interests.  It appears that Mrs. X was reassured and the mother’s contact was increased.  According to the mother it developed with her commitment to sobriety (B50E, para.8).

 

15              In the summer of 2012 the mother went on holiday with Mrs. X and the children.  From September 2012 she had contact in her own home all day on Saturdays and Sundays, from 10 am until 8 pm.  She took the children to activities and enrolled them in theatre school.  Over New Year 2012/2013, the children stayed overnight with her for the weekend.  She says in her early witness statement (C23, paras.11 to 18) that as Mrs. X became progressively more unwell, she had more contact with the children at the weekends.  Her position then was that although she was seeing the children regularly she was not able to care for them full time because she was still in the early stages of addressing her drug abuse and changing her lifestyle.

 

16              Prior to Mrs. X’s death, the London Borough of Haringey (the borough in which Mrs. X lived) had initiated PLO procedures because they were concerned about the father, who also had a history of drug abuse and was still living in Mrs. X’s home.  In about February 2013, the local authority began to assess the carer as a potential carer for the children.  In March 2013 Mrs. X had a heart attack, was taken to hospital and remained there on life support.

 

17              On the weekend when Mrs. X became ill, the mother looked after the children in her home, but she knew that the local authority would not allow her to keep them and she did not want them to be placed in foster care with strangers. Therefore she asked the carer to look after the children.  The mother says that she made it clear to the carer that she was asking her to do so as a temporary arrangement, but the carer does not agree that it was intended to be temporary.  By that time A was six and a half and B was three and a quarter.

 

18              On 3^rd March 2013 the children were accommodated by the local authority, with the mother’s consent under s.20 the Children Act 1989 and placed with the carer. Mrs. X died on 1^st May.  The proceedings were issued on 13^th May.

 

The history of these proceedings and the development of the local authority’s care plans

 

19              The care plan dated 26^th April 2013, shortly after the proceedings commenced, recorded that the mother had said that she would like to be reunited with her children, and she was being assessed for that purpose.  At the same time the carer was being assessed as a long term carer for the children.

 

20              In his witness statement dated 8^th July 2013, the then allocated social worker, Franco Genovese, considering whether or not the mother should have unsupervised contact with the children, noted that a hair strand test for drugs was negative for the period March to June 2013, but he wanted to wait the report of Dr. Ratnam, a forensic consultant psychiatrist, and the outcome of his parenting assessment of the mother.

 

21              On 20^th August 2013, the special guardianship assessment of the carer, carried out by Mairead O’Sullivan, was filed.  It was positive, but recommended a six month testing period because the carer was then in a relationship with a man who was known to the local authority as aggressive and someone who had harmed his own children.  I must point out that the carer (as is entirely accepted) was not aware of this man’s history, and as soon as she was made aware of it she terminated the relationship.

 

22              On 9^th September 2013, Mr. Genovese completed his parenting assessment of the mother.  He recorded that she was doing well, but said it was essential that there should be a period of abstinence of 12 to 18 months so that the local authority could be confident that the changes she had made could be sustained.  He also advised that there should be unsupervised contact and a move to weekend day contact should be considered.

 

23              In its care plan dated 17^th September the local authority sought care orders in respect of both A and B, with the plan that they should remain with the carer while the local authority waited to see whether the mother could remain abstinent for 18 months, which would have taken matters to June 2014.  That was the basis of the care plan which the local authority put forward at the final hearing before Her Honour Judge Venables on 5^th, 6^th and 8^th November 2013.

 

24              In addition, there would be further work and training for the carer over a six month period, a further assessment and monitoring of the mother over six months, and at the conclusion the local authority would either apply to discharge the care order with a plan for the children to be rehabilitated to their mother, or support the carer in her application for a special guardianship order.

 

25              At the hearing the local authority put forward alternatives: the application could be adjourned so that their plan could be clarified which would require a period of time to carry out the work that they had described;  or they could trial the rehabilitation of the children to the mother under a series of interim care orders.  At that hearing, the mother felt able to take on the care of the children but she recognised the need to reassure professionals and the children, and invited the court to adjourn or to consider the phased plan for rehabilitation under interim care orders.

 

26              The carer sought a special guardianship order.  She said that she would be happy for the children to return to the mother’s care in the longer term, and Her Honour Judge Venables formed the impression that such a move would be

years away (para.6 of her judgment).

 

27              The guardian asked the court to reject the local authority’s plan and make a special guardianship order.  He said there was no guarantee that the mother would be able to make the changes required within the children’s timescale, and the children could not wait.  He also considered the local authority’s assessment of her to be fatally flawed because it had not critically examined the risks posed by the father and did not take proper account of the mother’s drug history.

 

28              In her judgment Her Honour Judge Venables noted the mother’s account of her fight with drugs and the support that she had received (para.9) and the positive report of Dr. Ratnam. She set out her own impression of the mother as being open and honest.  She was impressed by the mother’s commitment to stay clean and her awareness of how difficult that is, and she had shared her vulnerability from the witness box.  Her Honour Judge Venables expressed concerns about the local authority and said that its assessment had not included a critical analysis of the risks posed by the father, both to the mother and the children, and had not considered her support network, nor the sort of support that she would require.  The Judge was also critical of the guardian, who had no one-to-one meetings with the mother, had not observed contact, and had not discussed with her, her recovery programme, her support network or how she would manage the risks posed by the father (para.24 of the judgment).

 

29              In conclusion, Her Honour Judge Venables found that she did not have sufficient evidence to enable her to carry out a holistic evaluation of the various options for the children, and she proposed that an independent social worker should carry out a rigorous assessment of the mother.  She hoped that the delay, which she considered purposeful, would not be long.  In her order of 26^th November 2013, she provided that Judith Jones would carry out the risk assessment and the case was timetabled to a final hearing to begin on 14^th April.  An IRH was listed for 3^rd April.

 

30              Miss Jones prepared a report which is dated 21^st February 2014 and replied to questions on 16^th March 2014.  Miss Jones is a very experienced social worker and children’s guardian.  She says in her report that she has 30 years experience at practitioner and senior manager level, she has also trained as a mental health social worker.  Her full CV is set out at pp.209-210 in the bundle.

 

31              After she filed her report, there was a professionals’ meeting, on 21^st March.  The local authority reported that they had consulted both the mother and the carer about their intention rehabilitate the children to their mother’s care, and they were encouraged because the carer had confirmed her ongoing commitment to the children both before and after such a move.  The professionals’ meeting was called to discuss the rehabilitation plan.  The local authority reported the referral that they had made to First Steps, their proposals for increasing contact, moving to overnight contact, the support services they proposed to put in place, including therapeutic support, the timetable for the children’s return to the care of their mother, and their proposals for the children’s  contact with the carer.

 

32              The independent reviewing officer, Sandra Boyson, noted the Mis Jones’ report was the second positive assessment of the mother and did not oppose rehabilitation. 

 

33              The guardian acknowledged that the mother had made good progress, but he was still concerned that the rehabilitation plan was high risk.  He was loath to go against the assessment of Miss Jones, but there was a gap in the assessment with regard to the effect of change of placement on the children.  Miss Jones said that the stakes were equally high for the children if they were not returned to the care of their mother, and she said that, given the support systems that the mother had put in place, the risk of relapse was low.

 

34              At the time the local authority were considering the slow process of rehabilitation and also mediation between the mother and the carer.  The possibility of shared care was discussed, but rejected because at that time the mother and the carer were not co-operating.

 

35              The local authority then filed a further care plan dated 31^st March, accepting the recommendation of Miss Jones, setting out their plan for rehabilitation of the children to the care of their mother and all the support that they proposed to put in place.  The plan at that stage was that the move to overnight contact would take place from the end of May.  There would be a referral to the Great Ormond Street Hospital Attachment and Trauma Team, there would be support for the mother in attempting to obtain larger accommodation, and it was anticipated that the children would move to their mother at the start of the school holidays, so in July 2014.  There would be a transitional phase with announced and unannounced visits, and after a period of time the local authority would seek to discharge the care order and replace it with a supervision order.  They would also require the mother to undergo regular drug testing, to which she agreed.

 

36              The parties’ positions and the view of the court were recorded in the recitals to the order which Her Honour Judge Venables made at the Issues Resolution Hearing on 3^rd April 2014.  It recorded that the carer reluctantly did not oppose the rehabilitation plan, although she took that position with reservations and she sought a contact order.  The guardian had concerns about the rehabilitation plan, but in the absence of a challenge to that plan by the carer he did not oppose it.  He sought an adjournment so that further evidence could be put before the court.

 

37              Her Honour Judge Venables’s view was that the rehabilitation plan should commence and the children would be placed in their mother’s care who would require accommodation.  She made a further interim care order so that the local authority could manage the transition towards rehabilitation. She ordered a further hair strand test for drugs of the mother, papers to be referred to Great Ormond Street and a report from First Steps.  She listed the final hearing for 25^th June with a time estimate of three days.  The London Borough of Hackney was invited to attend.

 

38              Following that hearing the children were prepared for the move to live with their mother.  Mr. Kamara told them in what he described as “gentle talks” with the reviewing officer, Miss Boyson, that they would be going to live with their mother.  The local authority tried to take matters slowly.

 

39              Subsequently papers were sent to the London Borough of Hackney because the children would be living with their mother within that borough, and because, in the longer term, the London Borough of Haringey hoped that the London Borough of Hackney would be designated as the local authority which would supervise the children’s placement with their mother when a supervision order replaced the care order.  I will deal with the evidence of the London Borough of Hackney and the views of that evidence of the various parties in due course.

 

40              I note at this stage that Hackney’s views led to a change of position by the carer, who decided to oppose the final care plan, and the guardian supported her.  The case came back to Her Honour Judge Venables for an urgent directions hearing on 24^th June when she considered whether findings of fact should be made about the views of the London Borough of Hackney.  Neither the carer nor the guardian sought findings: both considered that such an investigation by the court would not be proportionate and they were content that the court should give such weight to Miss Gilhooley’s evidence as the court thought fit.

 

41              When it became clear to the local authority that the carer had changed her position, the children were not told that the local authority’s plan had changed: they were told that the court would decide.  So from that time they have known that their mother wants them to live with her and the carer wants them to stay.  The local authority’s view is that they have been in the middle of a difficult decision, but knowing that the judge would decide.

 

42              The final hearing could not proceed on the dates on which it had been listed, and Her Honour Judge Venables could not hear it because she was not sitting throughout the summer. The parties agreed that the case should not be delayed and moved to another court in September.  It was therefore listed before me at the earliest opportunity, which was for four days from 7^th July.  There was a difficulty because the guardian was going to be on leave, but he was content for most of the evidence to be heard in his absence on the basis that he would receive detailed notes from his counsel, and he would hear the mother’s evidence and give his own evidence, and I would hear submissions on 8^th August.

 

The children

 

43              A is now nearly eight, and B is just over four and a half.  They are children of dual heritage: their mother is white and of British heritage, and their father is black and of Caribbean heritage.  They both attend primary school.  The carer says that when the children came to stay with her they had difficulties.  A was very withdrawn and B was overweight.  Now the carer describes A as a “chatterbox”, seven going on 16.  She is doing very well at school and the carer has provided her with tutoring to help her with her maths in preparation for the SATs tests.  B has lost weight and is now much more active.  Apparently both the children had a lot of tooth decay and that required extractions and the carer and the mother shared the responsibility for taking the children to hospital for those procedures.

 

44              Mr. Kamara said (C66) that the school advised him that the children are performing at expected levels, they are settled, they do not present with any emotional difficulties, their behaviour is reported as good.  He said:

 

          “It is evident that both children are developing in an age appropriate manner and enjoy a very warm caring relationship with their (carer).  They are coping well with the rehabilitation plan thus far amidst the unavoidable delay.”

 

45              I have had the benefit of seeing photographs of the girls which the mother brought to court, engaged in various activities during contact with her. They include a photograph of A with GD. 

 

46              There is evidence that A and B are resilient children.  They have coped with the death of their guardian, Mrs. X, with support from the carer and also from their mother and with the delay in the rehabilitation plan and in a decision for them.  Neither their presentation nor their achievement at school, nor their relationship with either the carer or their mother seems to be have been affected.

 

The mother

 

Recovery

47              I note from the papers that the mother had been through a detoxification and rehabilitation process previously and had relapsed.  Her current period of recovery began in August 2011, when she was in Holloway Prison.  She then spent three months in Hope House and nine months in Foulden Road dry house.  In September 2012 she moved into the flat where she now lives and where, after years of homelessness, she was able to create a home. 

 

48              She has lapsed three times.  In November 2012 she says that her sponsor, a mentor with Narcotics Anonymous (“NA”) was distressed and wanted to smoke crack cocaine, and the mother did so with her.  She told me that she stopped, asked her mentor to leave and reported her own lapse to NA.  In December 2012 she smoked cannabis twice to help her sleep.  The next day she saw her GP who changed her medication for depression.  She reported all three lapses to NA and has been frank about them in these proceedings.

 

49              Her Honour Judge Venables referred to the report of Dr. Ratnam and I will refer to it briefly.  Dr Ratnam refers to the mother’s previous abstinence and then, turning to the current period of abstinence, notes that the mother was still abstinent when she saw her - her report is dated 6^th August 2013 - and was motivated to remain so.  She had been open about her lapses and Dr. Ratnam noted that none of those had led to continued use. 

 

50              She noted the positive changes that the mother had made: that she was no longer in a co-dependent relationship with the father; she had established her own support network; she was attending NA; she was receiving appropriate treatment for depression; she was attending cognitive behavioural therapy and she was willing to undertake regular drug testing.

 

51              Dr. Ratnam referred to the common framework for indicating change as being abstinence for a period of one year, and noted that the mother should continue her efforts and receiving the support that she had outlined in order to sustain her abstinence.  She also noted that the mother had insight into the effects of her former drug use on her children.  No-one has thought it necessary to seek a further report from Dr. Ratnam.

 

52              The mother is supported in her recovery by NA.  She attends three meetings a week – which is recommended at this stage and is her choice, although it is not a requirement.  In accordance with the NA programme she, in turn, sponsors other women who have entered the programme more recently.  This is expected of people who remain part of the programme after a period of 12 months.  She described this as giving back what she had received.

 

53              The mother is supported by Open Doors, and I noted that both the workers who support her attended court on some of the days of hearing.  Miss Jones spoke to them and I note her assessment of them.  Miss Grainne O’Kill, the Experience Project Leader, explained that Open Doors is an NHS project run from Homerton Hospital, and that their role is to work on building a more structured life for women who are moving out of addiction, by creating a bespoke programme for each person.  After the mother’s lapses and after her depression had been diagnosed, Miss O’Kill, thought that she would benefit from CBT and she had made the referral.  She said that the mother has been known to the Project for many years and has really engaged in the past two years.  When she relapsed it had been dealt with very quickly because she had the infrastructure in place to assist her. 

 

54              Miss O’Kill gave a very detailed account of the changes that she has observed in the mother (E194, para.9.3).  She described her in this way:

 

                   “Totally different now … has prioritised herself and her children … one of the most valuable contributors to our Project … engages in groups … mentors newer women … energetic, intelligent, creative.  She has become such a competent person in running her life, but also in whatever she tries to do.  Everything she tries she does with commitment.”

 

55              Her assessment of the risk of relapse is set out at E195, para.9.5.  She said:

 

                   “Her decisions before were made in drugs and for drugs.  She had a severe and long-standing problem.  She did not have anything else.  It is very different.  She is protective of herself.  This is someone who proves that sustained and long term recovery can and does happen.”

 

56              Kathy Hill is the Lead Development Outreach worker at Open Doors and I note that she has known the mother for many years, because in a former capacity she was the mother’s probation officer.  She also described the difference that she sees in the mother (E196, para.10.1).  She considers that this time this period of recovery is completely different because:

 

                   “She is more independent, no sign of co-dependency, expressive about her needs, her feelings, searches confidently for support.  There is a huge difference.  She takes responsibility for herself and her dependants; has tried to rebuild her relationships with the older girls but has been careful and realistic …  I have confidence in her.  Now she has recovered for herself and her children, and fortunately she accessed the various interventions which were needed.  I do not think she will ever go back.  I am experienced.  I don’t say that lightly.”

 

57              The mother is also supported by the Lifeline Project, a women and families service provided by the London Borough of Hackney.  Her family worker, Ellie Guadella, attended part of the hearing to support her.  In a letter dated 18^th July 2014 Miss Guadella explains that the mother had been assessing the drop-in service for some time.  In May 2014 she asked for further support and had a number of one to one appointments with Miss Guadella.  They had discussed A and B and these proceedings, and also the mother’s relationship with D.  She said that Lifeline will continue to support the mother for as long as necessary and they can offer her work with two children’s centres in Hackney, a parenting support group, a stay and play group, counselling and access to a “Strengthening Families Strengthening Communities” programme which begins in September.  If necessary, they would signpost to other services in the borough.  In summary, she said they will support the mother in maintaining her recovery and as a parent of children recently returned to her care.

 

58              I note that the most recent hair strand tests for drugs for the period of January to April 2014 were negative.

 

Family and friends support network

59              Miss Jones also considered the mother’s family and friends support network, and I will come back to those when I consider the concerns of the London Borough of Hackney. 

 

Relationships with her children

60              As to the mother’s current relationship with A and B, I note that she cared for A from the age of three months until she was three and a half years old, and care proceedings in respect of both children were taken after B’s birth.  It is considered that it is possible that A experienced a greater sense of loss than B, when they were no longer in their mother’s care.

 

61              I have referred to the history, as the mother provided it, of her contact with the children between September 2011 and March 2013, while they were in the care of Mrs. X.  Once these proceedings started, her contact with the children was reduced from unsupervised contact almost daily, including overnight contact, by stages to two periods of contact of two hours per week at a contact centre.  There was only one period of unsupervised contact prior to the first final hearing, which took place on 28^th September 2013, and which was successful.  The increase in contact to all day Saturday and Sunday was proposed by Mr. Kamara in June 2014.  Overnight contact which was planned has not taken place, or at least had not taken place by the time I gave my decision on 8^th August, because the agency decision maker could not authorise it until she had received the results of the DBS checks.

 

62              As regards the mother’s older daughters, Miss Jones noted that C (age 21) is living in a YWCA hostel, but she spends quite a lot of time with her mother.  She works at the weekends in a market.  She noted C’s description of her mother.  She said this (E192, para.7.1):

 

                   “She always used to see us when we were growing up but there would be long times in between when she disappeared.  We did not really have a mother/daughter relationship.  Last time she got clean my sister and I did get to know her and see how she could be, but it did not work.  This time she is a different woman.  She is strong, she is like an adult, more like my mother.  I just know she is different.  I can trust her now.  It is not going to go back.  Everything about her has changed.  She has even given up smoking cigarettes.”

 

         Miss Jones was impressed with C’s brutal frankness about her mother in front of her mother, which she considered was a healthy sign.  I note that C came to court to support her mother.

 

63              Miss Jones considered the mother’s friendship with Ms F who has recently had her teenage children returned to her care following a three year rehabilitation plan and her recovery from a long-standing drug addiction.  I understand that the supervision order will lapse in September 2014.  She noted that Ms F and the mother have a long-standing friendship.  They have travelled a similar path and they support each other.  Miss Jones told me that this is an important relationship.  Having a friend to confide in is a key issue in remaining stable, and it is understandable that the mother would have a close friend who had had similar experiences so that she had a friend who was somebody with whom she could be brutally honest.

 

64              As to D, Miss Jones said that the mother is not putting D forward as support because she has her hands full looking after her baby, GD. 

 

65              Mr. Kamara told me that he has met D on several occasions when she accompanies her mother to his office on a Friday.  They are always together when he sees the mother and usually the mother is pushing the pram.  They have positive discussions in which D is very much the daughter with the mother.  In his view, D is receiving support from her mother.  He has talked to them for at least 15 minutes on four or five occasions, and has no concerns about their interaction, nor has he heard any complaints from the children after contact that there have been any difficulties between the mother and D.

 

66              The DBS report was received on day 7 of the hearing with the support of the local authority and orders which I made, but also as a result of a great deal of chivvying by the mother.  Fortunately, as the mother had predicted, it did not tell the local authority anything it did not already know. It showed that the mother had not been involved in any criminal activity since July 2011.

 

67              The mother’s accommodation since September 2012 has been a one bedroom flat.  She has made it as comfortable as she can for the children.  She has made her bedroom into their bedroom, with bedding and decorations that I have seen in photographs, and told them that she would sleep on a sofa-bed when they came to stay overnight.  She has applied for a move to larger accommodation, and during the proceedings she received confirmation, initially that she had been given priority for a move to two bedroom accommodation, and then that on 18^th August she would be able to view a two bedroom house in Hackney and she would have first refusal.  She told me she had already seen photographs of it and she would take it.  Again, Mr. Kamara supported her, but the mother pursued her application energetically and successfully.  I do not know what has happened since 18^th August - perhaps I will receive an update.

 

The father

 

68              The father is the late Mrs. X’s half-brother.  He engaged in the previous proceedings when he was living with Mrs. X; he engaged in drug therapy; he took a parenting course and he hoped that he would be able to care for the children.  He has not engaged at all in these proceedings.  He has a long history of drug abuse and related criminal convictions.  When Miss Sussex, the first allocated social worker, wrote her first witness statement on 26^th April 2013, the father was serving a prison sentence for attempting to smuggle drugs into prison.

 

69              The mother says in her statement dated 8^th July 2013, that when she used to visit Mrs. X, the father was there.  She assumed that social workers visited and knew about that.  She avoided him and stayed in the living room with Mrs. X.  She said, “I knew he was trouble for me in terms of my staying clean”.  She acknowledges that if the girls are with her, the father will pose a problem, particularly because the girls ask to see him, but she says that if he wants contact with the girls she would tell him to see the social worker or make an application to the court.

 

70              The carer has told me that the father came to see the children at their school in June and September 2013.  He attended at the school the day after A’s birthday in September and gave her a present.  It seems that he has not tried to see the children since then.

 

71              The mother says that she has not been in a relationship with the father since 2011, she has not seen him since Mrs. X died in May 2013, except that she saw him once in the street, but he did not see her.  On one occasion he telephoned her and asked her for the carer’s telephone number and address.  She did not provide the information, she told the carer and the social worker about the call, and she changed her own telephone number.  In her oral evidence she described the father as “useless”, but she acknowledged that he is a risk to the children.  She told me that he should not have contact unless he does work around his drug use and undergoes a contact assessment.  In her view, he has let the girls down by refusing to be assessed.

 

72              In her witness statement dated 23^rd June 2014, (C104, para.18) the carer said that she does not accept that the mother does not have, or has not had, any contact with the father.  She said she was informed in March by Mrs. X’s niece that she is aware that the mother is still having contact with the father.  I note that this was not mentioned between March and June 2014, the carer did not report it to the social worker and in April she did not oppose the children’s rehabilitation to the mother.  At the hearing before me, the carer provided no detail of the information she had received and refused to name the niece.  There was no opportunity for the mother to challenge this suggestion except by denying it.  The carer said: “I genuinely believe that the mother would rekindle her relationship with the father if the children were returned to her care”, but she gave no reason for her belief.  She later told me that it was not, in fact, a great concern and she did not believe that the mother is seeing the father now.  She had no proof that the mother has been in contact with the father.  I disregard this evidence of the carer’s evidence.

 

73              Mr. Kamara tried to engage with the father.  He made a home visit on 9^th April 2014, and found that the father was irritable, he did not see any need for an assessment, although he had accepted that contact should be supervised.  He cancelled further appointments with Mr. Kamara.

 

74              The guardian also tried to engage with the father and spoke to him on 1^st April 2014 when he found him to be angry, uncooperative, not prepared to engage.  He did say that he was receiving methadone on prescription.  The guardian spoke to the father again on 27^th June, when he said he was no longer on a methadone prescription but abstinent.  He angrily disputed the suggestion that he had failed to co-operate with the local authority, but he remarked that he wants to see his children and no one will stop him.

 

75              Miss Jones considered the risk posed by the father.  The mother told her, as she has told me, that she had not seen the father since Mrs. X’s death, and in her view he had let the girls down and had a long way to go to prove that he could be around them.  She said that she was over him.  She had worked hard in therapy to get out of co-dependence.  Miss Jones found that the mother had a sophisticated understanding of her former relationship with the father. 

 

76              The mother says that she sees the father’s brother from time to time.  They attended the same construction course and he helped her lay flooring in her flat.  She said he has straightened himself out and is working, but she did not invite him to visit her after the carer said that he might come with the father, even though it was not true.  She was not going to do anything to compromise her position.  She told Miss Jones that if the father tried to see the girls she would make it clear to him that he could not and she would tell social services or the police, if he became difficult.  She had discussed both with her solicitors and her professional supporters the possibility of obtaining an injunction.  She also was hoping to move and the father would not know her new address. She said, “I am released from him now, I just know and feel the difference”.  Miss Jones concluded at E201, para.13.2(a):

 

                   “Clearly [the father] is a risk but from my discussions with the mother and her support network I was satisfied that she has done as much as she can to disengage from the co-dependent relationship.”

 

Miss Jones’s report

77              Both the guardian and the carer have criticised Miss Jones’s work around the risk posed by the father, that she did not read his files and did not meet him. This criticism was raised at the professionals’ meeting on 21^st March 2013.  Miss Jones said to me, “I started from the assumption that he is a formidable risk to the mother and the carer”.  She told me she is absolutely clear that he is a significant risk and she had carried out her work on this basis.  I accept her analysis.

 

78              As to the relapse support plan, Miss Jones noted that the mother’s approach is based on the 12 step plan and total commitment to abstinence.  She has worked on her relationship to addiction, her vulnerabilities and the triggers which had allowed her previously to remain in that life.  She also noted the mother’s previous attempt at rehabilitation which had failed because she had not understood how total her focus had to be on abstinence.  In her view, the mother now understands this.

 

79              The mother discussed with Miss Jones the timetable of appointments. She gave Miss Jones a clear account of why and how she has changed (E191, para.6.7):

                   “I know it is different.  I did it before to get the children back, but I also now know I was not doing it for myself.  Now I feel different.  I have a thirst for life, I love it.  I love what I am doing.  I have met good people, made good friends whom I never met before.  This is all a change for me.  I want my children back but I also had to do it for me.  I had to look at what was underlying the addiction.  That is the difference.”

 

80              Finally, with regard to the mother’s support network Miss Jones spoke to the vicar at the church where the mother is a member of the choir.  He described her as:

 

          “… enthusiastic, reliable and committed, a great support on any project in which the engaged, she is articulate, she had been put forward for radio interviews to promote a recording which the choir made and their projects.”

 

That is a further source of support for the mother.

 

81              Miss Jones concluded that the central question with regard to the mother is whether she can be described as “recovered” and ready to take on the care of the children, both of whom have experienced loss and disruption in their young lives.  She noted that the mother, herself, says that relapse is always a risk and that is why she takes the various supports available to her so seriously.  Miss Jones said that, as a social worker for 30 years, she was not naïve about the effort that it requires to recover from a serious long-standing drug addiction and the lifestyle that accompanies it.  She said in her report that she had known many who failed and many who succeeded, and (E200) she said of those who have succeeded:

 

                   “I have known many others who do [succeed].  Some of them become good parents, some become professionals themselves, some become creative or ordinary hardworking people.  All of them who do manage it share a quality which is that they turn the obsession with addiction towards a focus on themselves to be recovered and healthy.  I also notice a sense of being proud of themselves, vital to building the confidence to engage and invest in parenting.  If anyone has these qualities it is [the mother], not just from my observations but from the accounts of serious and experienced professionals in her life.”

        

         She concludes(E200, para.13.2):

 

                   “If anyone is recovered [the mother] is.  From my discussions with professionals, she is a person who invites respect precisely because of what she has managed to do.”

 

         She assesses the risk of relapse as “low”, taking into account the mother’s efforts, the support with which she is provided, the views of those who support her and also the support which she receives from her family and her friend Miss Drummond.  She accepts that any rehabilitation has challenges and risks, but she could not see anything of concern in the mother’s relationship with the girls, and therefore the foundation of that relationship gives cause for optimism.  She accepted that there would be challenges, there would be transitional issues, and she therefore recommended the rehabilitation plan but with support for the transition. 

 

82              Miss Jones explained to the carer that accepting all her good qualities and her love for the girls she - Miss Jones - and the court had to place the possibility of the mother caring for the children as a primary consideration.  It was very important to Miss Jones that the carer could continue to support the girls through the process of rehabilitation and she was very concerned when it appeared in the early part of the hearing before me that this might not be a possibility E206/G).

 

83              Finally, she said to me of the mother, “I got the impression of a woman who has been in the worst place with the degradation which accompanied it and was able and willing to confront it.  As far as we can possibly say, this woman is living a clean life and doing all she can to do so.  She has done as much as anyone could expect of her for her children to be rehabilitated to her.”

 

The carer

84              Her Honour Judge Venables recorded in her judgment of 18^th November 2013 (para.8):

 

                   “[The mother’s] recognition that she is extremely fortunate to have had [the carer] take on the care of the girls.  Everyone accepts that the carer took on two very young children who had experienced loss, who had difficulties and that she has devoted herself to them and they have thrived in her care.”

 

85              The carer feels aggrieved because she says that the local authority lied to her when they placed the children with her and told her that they would stay with her until they reach the age of 18.  She believes she was misled.  The social workers did not explain about parallel planning, or perhaps they did but she had never fostered children before and she accepts that she did not understand all that the social workers told her.  She did know, from the LAC review in June 2013 and throughout that summer, that while she was being assessed as a long term carer for the children, the mother was also being assessed for the possibility of the children returning to her care.

 

86              She told me that in April 2014 she had accepted the rehabilitation plan reluctantly.  When the local authority approached her with the plan she could not fight, so she said yes.  At the time she was legally represented, and she told me that she did not feel under pressure.  She also said, when asked by Miss Shah, that she was tired, deflated and defeated. 

 

87              Then she received a letter from her solicitors which outlined concerns which had been expressed by the London Borough of Hackney and she changed her position.  She told me that she was concerned that the children might be placed with strangers in foster carer, although it appears that no one had suggested or even considered that the children would be placed in foster carer.

 

88              In the course of her evidence, the carer told me that in April 2014 she applied to the London Borough of Islington to be approved as a foster carer.  She did not apply to Haringey because she felt that they had condemned her as a person by formulating the rehabilitation plan for the children to return to the care of their mother, and because she considers that they lied to her.  That information, given on day five of the hearing, seemed to come as a surprise to everyone in court.  The carer said that she had told the social worker, and she assumed that he would tell others.  She knew that the London Borough of Islington had asked Haringey for information about her.

 

89              I note that the carer decided to oppose the rehabilitation plan before the professionals’ meeting on 12^th June, before she had seen the mother’s response and before she knew Haringey’s view of the Hackney concerns.

 

90              The carer raised her own concerns about the mother’s ability to care for the children in her witness statement, in particular at C104, para.4.  I will mention those which seem to be most important to her.  She said the children reported that their mother did not have any money for them and she questioned where the mother was spending the £50 which the local authority was providing for the children’s subsistence over the weekends they spent with her.  She also told me that the children play her and their mother off against one another.  She apologised for raising this question and said that it was not a concern. 

 

91              The carer said that the mother has never had the care of the children, which is not correct.  She said that the mother has never cared for school age children, which is correct, and I will consider it when I look at the factors set out in the welfare check list. 

 

92              She was concerned that the mother might not be able to access all the support she needs to sustain her recovery if the children are in her care.  The mother gave evidence about the various NA groups she could attend and other support and that she would work around the children’s needs. 

 

93              She said the children were hungry when they returned from contact, which had never been raised with the social worker.  She raised concerns about an incident that occurred when the children had contact with their mother on 19^th July on a trip to Southend.  It was subsequently agreed that this was a storm in a teacup and I will not refer to it further.

 

94              Most of these concerns, set out in full in the carer’s witness statement, did not seem to trouble her as much when she gave her evidence.  She withdrew some of them and apologised for raising others. I have referred to the concern that she raised at the same time about the father.  The carer said that at the time she made the witness statement there was a lot going on; she and the mother were being nasty to one another.  This, of course, was in the period immediately following the carer’s change of mind when she decided to oppose the local authority’s final care plan.

 

95              The carer’s evidence about her position with regard to the mother and the local authority’s care plan seem to me to be contradictory.  She told me, “I am not hostile to the children returning to their mother.  If the children go back to their mother, I have no argument.  My only argument is with the way the London Borough of Haringey has treated me.  If the London Borough of Haringey had not told me that I would care for the children until they were 18 we would not be here”.  But she continued to oppose the local authority’s plan.  Her main concerns seem to be the relationship between the mother and D.  The risk posed by the father was less important.  She was concerned that the mother might not be able to work with Haringey professionals.

 

96              Miss Jones met the carer and reported that the carer told her that Mr. Genovese did not know what he was talking about when he recommended rehabilitation, but the guardian was on her side.  She said that if the girls go back to their mother she would “pull out”, she would be “finished with it” (E199, para.12.8).  Miss Jones was surprised and felt that this approach rather undermined the carer’s expressed feelings for A and B.  Miss Jones told me that these views were expressed vehemently and she was satisfied that the carer meant it when she said it. The carer told me there was a lot going on at the time and she did not mean it.

 

97              I have considered the question raised by the guardian as to whether the carer is a member of the children’s family.  The carer is, I believe, now 50.  When she was 16, so in about 1980, she met Mrs. X at work, Mrs. X befriended her and the carer went to live in her home for some time.  I do not know for how long.  From about 1981 the carer was in a relationship with a Mr. S, a relationship which lasted 23 years.  I do not know whether they lived together.  They had a son, E, who is now 24.  The carer’s relationship with Mr. S seems to have ended in 2004 and after that she cared for her son, who was then 14, as a single parent.

 

98              The carer has known A and B since they were placed in Mrs. X’s care in March 2010.  She told me that she went shopping with Mrs. X on Saturdays and sometimes, if Mrs. X asked her, she would cook and take food to her.  She did not know much about the mother, although she was visiting for contact at the time.  She did not know that she had been through rehabilitation and was not taking illegal drugs.  She did know that the mother was having contact with the children in Mrs. X’s home, because she told me that she had queried Mrs. X allowing the mother to bath the children and comb their hair, and that Mrs. X had said, “[the mother] can do it, she’s their mum”.

 

99              The carer did not have any relationship (I do not mean an intimate relationship) with any of Mrs. X’s three brothers as far as I am aware, or with Mrs. X’s two sons, both of whom attended the family group conference on 12^th March 2013.

 

100         There are various descriptions of the carer’s relationship with Mrs. X throughout the documents.  At the family group conference on 12^th March 2013, she was described as a “family friend”.  At the LAC review on 4^th June 2013 she was described as an “adoptive daughter”, of Mrs X.  In the special guardianship report of 20^th August 2013 she was described as a “family friend and support person”, and Mr. Genovese noted that the carer described Mrs. X as a “mother figure since her teenage years”.  The guardian, in his initial analysis, described the carer as a “family friend”. 

 

101         I have considered this question carefully.  I find that the carer is not a member of the children’s family.  That she may consider herself quasi adopted, or an adopted member of the family is not sufficient.  I do not know what Mrs. X’s views were on the subject.  I find that she was, as the guardian said in his first report, a family friend and certainly a connected person for the purpose of caring for the children.

 

The London Borough of Hackney’s concerns

The concerns

102         I have noted that the London Borough of Haringey’s plan includes applying for a supervision order after the rehabilitation plan has succeeded.  Haringey therefore contacted Hackney, both as the borough within which the mother lives, and would live with the children, and as the local authority they hoped would take over the supervision order.  The papers were considered by Briege Gilhooley, who is a London Borough of Hackney Court Case Manager for children in need, and whose responsibilities include considering applications that Hackney should be the designated borough under a supervision order. 

 

103         Miss Gilhooley read the papers provided by Haringey.  From the Hackney files she read the family assessment of D and some case notes.  She spoke to some of her colleagues and relies on their professional opinions.  It is important to note that Miss Gilhooley did not meet any of the people involved, other than the professionals she spoke to.  She did not attend any meetings relating to them.  She did not supervise any of the social workers working with them.  She had not read all of the Hackney papers.  On 3^rd June 2014 Miss Gilhooley wrote to Haringey with her concerns.  On 12^th June there was a professionals’ meeting attended by Miss Gilhooley, Miss Jones, the guardian and Miss Hylton, in which all acknowledged that she had highlighted significant concerns and they, therefore, asked her to provide a detailed statement of concern so that the mother could have an opportunity to respond. 

 

104         Miss Gilhooley wrote a witness statement dated 18^th June (C72).  She told me that it set out the nature of her concerns.  I will look at some of them.  The first concerned the relationship between the mother and her Miss F, a close friend of the mother with a similar history.  Miss F’s children were returned to her care under a supervision order to the London Borough of Hackney, and Hackney social workers expressed concerns about the mother, who they said often attended meetings with Miss F.  They described the mother as disruptive and unhelpful to the progress of their work with Miss F, because the mother directed her not to engage in the work proposed by the social work unit and said she did not have to do what the social worker said, so they considered her to be a negative influence.

 

105         The mother told me that she had attended one or two meetings at her friend’s request.  She did advise her that she did not have to sign a written agreement which the social worker put before her, not giving her an opportunity to read the agreement before she signed it.  I have noted that the supervision order comes to an end in September 2014.

 

106         Miss Jones had noted that Miss F provides personal support for the mother.  Haringey’s view of this is that she may well have been over-involved, but in consultation with Miss Jones they felt that this was something the social worker could work on with the mother and it was not sufficient to change their care plan.

 

107         The London Borough of Hackney raised concerns about the mother’s sister, G, who the mother had told Miss Sussex, the first allocated social worker, is the person who had introduced her to illicit drugs.  The mother told me that her sister lives alone and they have no contact.  G has serious health problems, including heart and kidney failure.  She is supported by the maternal grandmother. The mother told me that if she were to visit her mother and find her sister there, she would leave immediately.  There would be no animosity to upset the children, but she would not remain in her company.  In the course of the hearing it was accepted that this is not a major risk.

 

108         Hackney recorded that the relationship between the mother and her daughter, D, is volatile and involves a lot of shouting, and that was given as the reason why D and her baby could not move in with the mother.  Mr. Genovese had noted in his parenting assessment of the mother in September 2013 that there were difficulties in the relationship, as a result of which the mother had decided that it was not appropriate for D to live with her.

 

109         The London Borough of Hackney was concerned about two incidents.  One had taken place in May 2014 when the mother accompanied D to view accommodation where Hackney proposed to place her with the baby.  The Hackney social worker said that the mother had talked about her own history and had said that D did not have to do what the social worker said, and should not be scared into doing things she did not want to do.  The mother told me that Hackney had taken D to a hostel where they proposed to place her, where there were a number of people who had criminal convictions and she did not think it was a suitable place for a 16 year old and a baby and she said so.

 

110         The other incident occurred in June 2014 when D called her social worker, upset and angry, and saying that she would not work with her because the social worker had said that A and B should not be returned to their mother’s care.  This must have been after the letter of 3^rd June written by Hackney to Haringey.  The Hackney social worker suspected that the mother had blamed D.  The mother told me she did not blame D, but she had asked her what she had said, and, on reflection, she agreed that it was not wise to have a conversation about this with D. 

 

111         Now the mother says that she babysits for D on Tuesdays for several hours so that D can see her friends.  They have lunch together on Fridays and, as Mr. Kamara has confirmed, they go to social services.  She told me that she supports D as much as D will let her.  She has asked Lifeline about a referral to a counselling group – Impact - and if D is willing, she would undertake that work.  She described her relationship with D as “a work in progress”.

 

112         As a result of the London Borough of Hackney’s experiences with the mother in relation both to Miss F and D, they queried whether she would be able to work with professionals. 

 

113         The London Borough of Haringey has a great deal of experience of working with the mother.  There have been three allocated social workers, two positive assessments by Haringey social workers, the mother has co-operated with Miss Jones, with Dr. Ratnam, and with all the sources of professional support that I have referred to.  She co-operated throughout the previous proceedings and throughout these.

 

114         Mr. Kamara described the mother as forthright, but said that he can work with her.  The guardian also agreed and said that her direct approach was not an issue for him.  In the view of the London Borough of Haringey, the mother has coped very well with these proceedings and worked as well as possible with professionals.

 

Approach to this evidence

115         The guardian in his final report, and Miss Shah in her written submissions on his behalf, argue that I should accept the evidence put forward by the London Borough of Hackney in the terms in which it is put forward.  The guardian said it should be treated with “the credibility afforded to any other local authority … Historically, the court relied on evidence of this nature, where it is not unusual to seek evidence from other local authorities when people relocate.  It is right for this evidence to be put before the court and scrutinised as part of the forensic process.” (E248, para.55). 

 

116         However, I have not been asked to scrutinise the evidence within a forensic process.  I have been asked to accept it at face value. 

 

117         The same position is taken on behalf of the carer.  Neither the guardian nor the carer sought findings of fact because they considered that it would not be proportionate, and this is recorded in Judge Venables’s order.  As a result, the evidence raises many questions to which I can give no answers.  I remind myself that Miss Gilhooley spoke at the professionals’ meeting and prepared a witness statement on the basis of reading part of her colleagues’ files and speaking to some of them.  She has not met the mother, nor others referred to in the reports.  The accuracy of those reports on which Miss Gilhooley relies is substantially challenged by the mother in her witness statement dated 23^rd June 2014 and her oral evidence.

 

118         In her written submissions, Miss Shah suggests that the Hackney evidence should be admitted as hearsay in accordance with the Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993.  She also referred me to the warning set out in the judgment of Buckley LJ in the case of Thomson v. Thomson [1986] 1 FLR 202, where he said:

 

                   “Some hearsay is unavoidable in such a document and in respect of comparatively uncontroversial matters is likely to be unobjectionable.  But where acutely controversial matters are concerned I think it is important that a reporting officer should report his own observations and assessments and the way he is constrained to pass on second hand information or opinions, he should endeavour to make this explicit and should indicate the source and his reasons, if he has any, for agreeing with such opinion.”

 

119         I do not criticise the London Borough of Hackney for raising concerns, but the matters that they raise are disputed by the mother, and those concerns, or at least some of them, are the reason why the carer withdrew her consent to the local authority’s final care plan, and the guardian supported her.  As such, the concerns are acutely controversial.  In my view, to accept Hackney’s contested hearsay evidence without subjecting it to examination would be a breach of the mother’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  I do not accept the Hackney evidence at face value.  I consider it together with the mother’s evidence and that of the London Borough of Haringey when I evaluate the evidence as a whole.

 

120         Both the London Borough of Haringey and Miss Jones have been criticised for not having read the Hackney files.  Mr. Kamara and Miss Hylton told me that they asked Hackney for a detailed written account of their concerns and were entitled to assume that there would be nothing more serious in the files than Miss Gilhooley raised in her witness statement, and I think that is a reasonable assumption.  I noted that the tone of Miss Gilhooley’s oral evidence was pessimistic throughout.  She gave no credit to the mother for her efforts.  She disregarded or criticised the assessment of Miss Jones.  Her evidence, it seemed to me, suffered from being a paper exercise carried out without any first hand knowledge of the people concerned.  In the course of the hearing it appeared that the carer’s concerns were not as great as they were in her June witness statement.

 

121         The guardian was able to consider alternative interpretations of the Hackney evidence, and he told me that when he discussed those concerns with the mother on 27^th June 2014 she responded thoughtfully and indicated that she could work with Hackney in their role to assist and befriend her family, it would not be in her interests of the children’s interests to do otherwise.  His assessment of the mother was that she would probably find a way to work with Hackney if she had to.

 

122         The London Borough of Haringey has considered Hackney’s concerns.  They have consulted with Miss Jones about them, but overall their view is that those concerns are not sufficient to make them change their final care plan for the children.  Mr. Kamara will work with the mother, continuing the months of work which this local authority has carried out with the mother and with which she has co-operated. I prefer the view of the London Borough of Haringey to that of the London Borough of Hackney and of the carer and the guardian to the extent that they support the Hackney view.

 

The amended final care plan

123         The London Borough of Haringey has today filed amended care plans for A and B.  Following the decision which I indicated on 8^th August 2014, overnight contact has taken place, and the plan is that the children will return to live with their mother with effect from 26^th August.  Their school has been informed.  A referral has been made to First Steps and initial meetings have taken place.  Great Ormond Street Hospital (“GOSH”) has accepted a referral and will consider what therapeutic work the children require once they are settled with their mother.  The Independent Review Officer supports the plan.

 

124         Once the children are settled they should have contact with the carer over the weekend, once a month from Friday after school until Monday, returning to school.  Contact will continue to be reviewed. 

 

125         Once the children are with their mother, Mr. Kamara will visit, making both announced and unannounced visits, he says on a Thursday or Friday, (which means that the unannounced visits will not be completely unannounced).

 

126         It is a very different timetable from that envisaged at the professionals’ meeting in March 2014, as a result of the delay in bringing this matter to a final hearing and the fact that contact between the mother and the children has moved on to some extent in the meantime.

 

127         I should refer briefly to the referral to First Steps and their meeting with the mother on 13^th May, which Mr. Kamara also attended.  They have also met the carer but there is no concern about that.  They noted that the mother was angry with statutory services, did not take responsibility for the removal of the children from her care, blamed it on a miscarriage of justice and was generally angry with social care.  She felt let down because the carer was not prepared to support the return of the children to her care.  I note that the carer acknowledged in her separate meeting that the mother had come a long way.

 

128         Mr. Kamara told me that when the mother was speaking to the workers from First Steps she was speaking about the final hearing in November 2013, and in that context she meant that the local authority had not done all it should have done, as was found to be the case by Her Honour Judge Venables: if they had done all that had been required of them at that stage, the children could have been with her from then.

 

129         When I considered the suggestion that the children had been removed by way of a miscarriage of justice, it seemed to me that the mother may have been referring to the fact that she was remanded in custody in relation to charges which arose out of the murder of her friend, charges which were subsequently dropped.  It was not explored at the time in the hearing.

 

130         The local authority has taken on board the recent difficulties in the relationship between the mother and the carer, and has referred them to Darling Mediation Services.  Both have had preliminary meetings in order to provide documents for an application for public funding. I understand that they will have three or four 90 minute sessions, presumably some of them together, with Beryl Darling, in due course.

 

The guardian’s position

131         In his initial analysis dated 24^th June 2013, the guardian said that the mother might need to be drug-free for approximately 12 to 18 months to demonstrate confidence as to her ability to maintain abstinence.  The mother has now been abstinent for some 20 months. 

 

132         The guardian’s position at the final hearing in essence is the same as the position he took at the hearing before Her Honour Judge Venables.  In November 2013 he said that the placement of the girls with the carer is a wonderful placement which offered stability, security and protection.  He was also concerned about the father, and the mother’s ability to keep him at bay.  The guardian’s view is that the father, by not participating in these proceedings, is simply biding his time and will reappear.  He said, “We have not heard the last of him”.

 

133         By the time of his final analysis, it was clear that the guardian had done a great deal more work, including work with the mother and that his opinion of her had changed to some extent.  He accepted that the prognosis for her abstinence had markedly improved, that her most recent history is entirely positive and calls for optimism (E237, para.26), but if she were to relapse the consequences for the children would be catastrophic.  He included in his final report information which he obtained from the school, noting that both children had been introduced to a wide range of academic and social activities and that they are doing well at school.  They were described as “well adjusted children, who do not appear anxious and whose academic progress is above average”.  A was described as: “… self-confident and assured, a child who talks about ‘[the carer]’ and what she does at home, she attends school regularly and punctually and is always well presented.” B is also very popular and doing very well.  She is a confident and engaging child.”

 

134         The guardian accepts that A and B have a right to be brought up by their mother, but the court has to balance the risk and benefits.  In his view, given the history of their placements and the fact that the mother is still in recovery, the court should consider how the change in circumstances would affect the children, and the advantages and disadvantages of the placement options which he has set out in some detail in his report.  Having analysed all of those and accepting that the case is finely balanced, he recommended that the children should remain in the care of the carer, as the placement offering greater stability.

 

Impressions of the mother and the carer

135         I set out Her Honour Judge Venables’s very positive views of the mother and I share those views.  I have noted the mother’s continued commitment to recovery, her ability to build a new life with new contacts, to acquire new skills, while retaining a supporting friendship with Miss F who has made the same journey, and repairing her relationship with C and to some extent also with D.

 

136         The mother anticipates that there may be difficulties when the children are returned to her care, they may present with challenging behaviour.  She told me they already challenge boundaries at contact and she deals with that.  Both because she considers that she is in recovery and perhaps she always will be in recovery - I think that is a view often taken of those with a similar history – and because she has thought about the difficulties that the return of the children to her care might pose, she has a strong professional support network and a good personal support network.  I have set out the differences that she sees in her life and her expression to Miss Jones of her love of life.

 

137         The effect of these proceedings on the mother should not be under-estimated.  She has been working towards the return of the children to her care all the time they have been removed from her care, certainly throughout their placement with Mrs. X and over the past 15 months of these proceedings.  From the account which she gave to First Steps and on the evidence of Mr. Kamara, she was disappointed, as I am sure she must have been, by the outcome of the first final hearing in November 2013.  She understood in April 2014 that the children would be returned to her care because the carer and the guardian were not opposing the local authority’s plan.  It must have been a very great blow to her when the carer changed her position and the guardian followed suit.  It is no wonder that the relationship between the mother and the carer deteriorated.

 

138         The mother then had to face up to the fact that there would be a second final hearing at which she would have to give evidence, and throughout all of this time she was subject to close observation and monitoring.  Miss O'Kill told Miss Jones that the mother had found the court process very distressing, especially when some of the professionals appeared to undermine her work in recovery.  “It did make her low, but it never took her anywhere relapsing.” and “We all think she is fantastic” (E194, para.9.2).

 

139         For the mother these proceedings have been even more stressful than care proceedings usually are, and throughout that she has not faltered in her determination, in her commitment to the children, nor in her recovery, all of which is very much to her credit.

 

140         I accept that the carer loves A and B and the mother, the local authority and everybody else involved in these proceedings accepts that.  I have heard about the carer’s excellent care for the children, their activities, their friendships, their baking with the carer and their shared grief for Mrs. X.  It was very important for these children that the carer was able to offer them a home and love and security when Mrs. X fell ill and their mother was unable to take on their care.  The children have thrived in her care and she is rightly proud of their development.

 

141         The carer does not accept that the mother asked her to care for the children on a temporary basis.  Having seen the mother in the witness box and reviewed all the evidence, it is clear to me that the mother always wanted the children to return to her care and she was working towards that even while they were placed with Mrs. X.

 

142         I have noted that the carer is aggrieved, that in her view the local authority misled her by saying that the children would remain in her care throughout their minority.  It seems to me inevitable that when Mrs. X became ill, the social worker will have asked the carer whether she was putting herself forward to care for the children long term, and I accept that she confirmed that she was.

 

143         At that time, on the basis of the information available to Haringey, who had not been involved in the previous proceedings, it may have seemed unlikely that the mother would be able to care for the children.  Therefore, if the carer was given an assurance that the children would be with her long term, I am certain that it would have been given in good faith.  The carer had never fostered a child before and told me that she did not understand much of what the social worker told her.  She did know that both she and the mother were being assessed as long term carers for the children.  It was made very clear in the minutes of the LAC review and in her special guardianship assessment.  It is unfortunate that the carer is, as she seems to me to be, still angry about what she sees as the local authority letting her down.  That seems to have been, at least in part, the reason why the carer has contested the local authority’s plan for the children.

 

144         It is also unfortunate, indeed sad, that the carer sees the decision of the local authority to rehabilitate the children into their mother’s care as a criticism of her care of them.  She told me she felt they had condemned her as a person.  When she was answering questions in cross-examination she said that she felt that she was on trial.  The London Borough of Haringey has made no criticism of the carer and she received a positive special guardianship assessment.  The local authority has made its position on that very clear. 

 

145         For the carer too these lengthy proceedings have been very stressful, as the guardian noted when he saw her in April 2014.

 

146         Having changed her position with regard to the local authority’s care plan, I consider that the carer’s witness statement dated 23^rd June 2014 was unfortunate.  It raised concerns which had not previously been shared with the social worker, and many of which in the witness box the carer either withdrew or could not substantiate.  In my view, some of those matters went far beyond what was necessary, even in an adversarial situation.

 

147         I have noted that the carer applied in April to be approved as a foster carer by the London Borough of Islington, and she said that she would pursue this aim if the children were removed from her care, and therefore she would not be available to support them in their mother’s care, nor to care for them if the rehabilitation plan were to fail.  This was not an attractive position, but it seems that now the carer is prepared to work on her relationship with the mother for the sake of the children.  She told me, “I will be a stronghold in the children’s life to let the children go home”, and I believe her.

 

148         Both the mother and the carer told me that they would make strenuous efforts to improve their relationship, and I was pleased to see that, whereas they had been sitting apart at the beginning of the hearing, by the end they were sitting together and sharing the occasional joke.

 

149         The carer would like to see the children once a month if they return to their mother’s care, but she would also like to see them on a much more informal and flexible basis by arrangement with the mother.  She hopes that they can both be flexible about this.

 

The law

150         The parties have provided me with written and oral submissions on the law, all of which I have taken into account. 

 

151         The starting point is s.1(1) of the Children Act 1989, which provides:

 

                   (1)     When a court determines any question with respect to—

        

                   (a)     the upbringing of a child; …

 

                   the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”

 

         General principles set out in s.1 include delay:

                  

                   “… any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.”

 

         The section also sets out in sub-section (3) the welfare check list, all of which factors I will have regard to.  Another principle that underlies the Act is that the court should consider all the orders available to it and should adopt the least interventionist approach.

 

152         I have the benefit of Mr. Fletcher’s written submission on the law, which is agreed by all the parties.  In summary, it is agreed that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to respect for his family life and there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right, except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of other, as set out by Lord Templeman in Re KD (a Minor: Access Principles) [1988] 2 FLR 139.  In addition, I note that although rehabilitation is an important aim of Article 8, the obligation to effect rehabilitation is not absolute.  The principle of proportionality applies, and the interests of the child prevail.  

 

153         Lord Templeman went on to say in Re KD:

 

                   “The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent, provided the child’s moral and health are not endangered.”

 

154         In Re D (Care: Natural Parent Presumption) [1999] 2 FLR 134, the Court of Appeal held:

 

                   “The question for the court was whether there were any compelling factors which overrode the prima facie right of a child to an upbringing by its surviving natural parent …”

 

         and noted that the correct approach was, first, to consider whether the parent was a potential carer for the child.

 

155         More recent authorities have established that within the context of public law proceedings the local authority and the court should, as its first consideration, establish whether the natural parent can care for the child and, if so, examine whether rehabilitation is both achievable and desirable.  There may be other factors that could preclude a rehabilitation plan, but the natural parent as carer should be at the forefront of the court’s mind.

 

156         In the process, Mr. Fletcher referred me to a number of authorities: decision of the ECHR in KA v Finland [2003] 1 FLR 696; judgment of Hale LJ in Re C and B (Care Order: Future Harm) [2001] 1 FLR 611; judgment of Thorpe LJ in Re B (Care: Interference with Family Life) [2003] 2 FLR 813 at para 34; dicta in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 . I would add the judgment of Lord Neuberger in Re B where he said:

 

                   “The child’s interests include being brought up by the natural family, ideally by the natural parents, or one of them, unless the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare make that not possible.”

 

157         Miss Shah, for the guardian, seeks to persuade me that the two options of placement with the mother and the carer are akin to two family placements.  She asserts that the carer is known to the children as “a member of the family, adopted, but a member of the family nevertheless”.  Therefore, the mother’s and the carer’s rights to a family life should carry equal weight, subject to the children’s overriding welfare interests.  As a proposition, that does not seem to accord with counsels’ agreed statement of the law.

 

158         I have found that the carer was not a family member.  Consequently, she did not have a family life with the children in March 2013 when she took on their care.  Relying on decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, Miss Shah submits that the carer now has a family life with the children, a different point, but one which I accept.  I accept that over the past 16 months the carer has cared for the children very well, and in the process has established a family life with them.  In my view, that does not make the placement with the carer a family placement in the sense in which it is presented in Miss Shah’s submissions.  As to the reference to the tension between public and private law proceedings in the way in which they treat biological relationships, while it is an interesting point it does not assist me in these public law proceedings.

 

159         I accept, of course, that the presumption in favour of the natural parent is subject to the welfare test.  As I have said, the starting point is that the child’s welfare is paramount, and also, as provided by Article 8(2), the child’s welfare prevails over the interests of a parent where they conflict, and I would add over those of a family friend.

 

The welfare checklist

160         In considering the factors set out in the welfare check list, I will look at the advantages and disadvantages of the two options for the girls put forward by all the parties.  Both are viable.  No one is suggesting that the children should be placed with strangers.

 

The children’s wishes and feelings

161         At the LAC review on 4^th June 2013, the IRO reported that:

          “A had told her that she wanted to stay with [the carer] and her mum.  First she said she wanted to stay with [the carer] most of the time and with mother some of the time.  Then she said, no, she wanted to stay with her mum and only visit [the carer] some of the time.  She said she wanted to see her mother more.”

 

162         A couple of weeks later, on 22^nd June, the guardian saw the children and reported that they had the same view, and this was contained in his second report dated 1^st October 2013.  He said:

 

                   “A said, ‘I want to live sometimes with [the carer] and sometimes with mummy’.  B, looking to her older sister for guidance, said, ‘I want the same as A, to live with [the carer] and to live with mummy’.”

 

163         A few days later, on 28^th June, Mr. Genovese visited the children at the carer’s home and reported:

 

                   “Both stated they like living with [the carer] but also wanted to live with their mother.  Both expressed having a warm and loving relationship with their mother and they look forward in anticipation to contact.”

 

164         On 30^th September 2013 the guardian saw the children again and reported that A said, “I want to live with [the carer]” (E151, para.20). 

 

165         Then in her order of 3^rd April 2014 Her Honour Judge Venables said that the local authority should begin the rehabilitation plan.  Mr. Kamara told me he visited the children in April and sat on the floor with them and told them about the plans so that they would not be surprised to find that they were visiting their mother more.  At that point A told him she wanted to stay with the carer and see her mother at weekends.  Both the children were positive about increased contact with their mother.

 

166         When the carer changed her mind, Mr. Kamara saw the children again but he did not tell them that the plan had been changed and indeed the local authority’s plan has not changed.  He told me that everything they said about contact was positive and that some months A had said to him that if her mother made her home comfortable - giving the example that at the carer’s home they had bunk beds - for them, “I will move to mummy”.  As I have said, I have seen the photographs of the children’s room in the mother’s flat.

 

167         When the guardian visited the children on 19^th March 2014 he did not ask them directly about their wishes and feelings, but he gave them a CAFCASS workbook ‘How it looks to me’ to complete on their own.  A wrote one wish, “I want to stay with [the carer]”, and added, “I want more time with my mum”.  B wrote similar wishes but may have copied her sister.  The guardian considered that giving the children a workbook in which to express their wishes was a more reliable way of ascertaining their wishes and feelings than talking to the.  This is set out in his final analysis dated 1^st July 2014.

 

168         In July, on 16^th July, Mr. Kamara visited the children and reported that A told him, “I want to stay with [the carer] but have some weekends with mummy”.  B told him she did not mind staying with her mother.  He noted that she was indecisive about where she wanted to live, but indicated she would love to spend a few days with her mother and with the carer.

 

169         The mother’s view is that A is confused and does not know where she wants to be.  She has told her mother that she misses Mrs. X.  She wants to stay with the carer for ever and to live with her mother and to see her ‘nanny’, the grandmother. 

 

170         The carer says the children have told her they want to stay with her and A has threatened to run back to her if she moves to live with her mother and has memorised the bus routes.  Mr. Kamara said he had had long conversations with A but she had never referred to running away.

 

171         Miss Jones agreed that the children are caught between two adults.  They will be confused and distressed by picking up negative cues from the mother and the carer, and in that situation would be unable to say what they feel.

 

172         Reviewing this history I note that in June 2013, when the children had been living with the carer for three months, they told the social worker, the IRO and the guardian that they wanted to live both with their mother and with the carer.  Some nine months and again 12 months later, A told the social worker and the guardian that she wanted to stay with the carer but have more time with her mother.  To the extent that the children’s wishes and feelings have changed, it seems to me they have done so as the children have spent more time with the carer.  By the conclusion of the final hearing overnight contact had not started because of the delay in obtaining the results of the DBS checks, and the children, therefore, have no experience, or no recent experience, of staying with their mother.  It would have been helpful both for them and for professionals if they could have made the comparison.

 

173         The guardian and the carer say that an advantage of a special guardianship order and the children remaining in the carer’s care would be that the children would feel that their wishes and feelings had been listened to.  The children have clearly and consistently expressed a wish to see more of their mother.  If I were to make a special guardianship order to the carer, the guardian recommends that the children’s contact with their mother should be reduced from all day Saturday and Sunday to once a fortnight.  The children are not aware of this.  Miss Jones told me that the children would experience such a reduction in contact with their mother as their mother retreating from their lives.

 

174         The children’s wishes and feelings are important, but they are very young and their wishes and feelings at this stage are not determinative.  I noted Miss Jones’ advice that whatever their placement the children’s wishes and feelings will have to be managed.

 

The children’s physical, emotional and educational needs

175         Every child needs love, security, stability, permanence, a carer or carers she can rely on to nurture her and help her develop to the best of her potential.  These young girls’ young lives have seen a great deal of loss and disruption.  They have had three carers - their mother, Mrs. X and the carer, and therefore two changes of carer.  It is fortunate that when their mother could not care for them they were placed with people they knew, and for most of the time they have continued to have contact with her.

 

176         The guardian and the carer say that, as a result of their experiences, the children have a greater need for security, which the mother accepted in her oral evidence and which I also accept.  Fortunately, the children have no special physical or educational needs.

 

The effects on the children of change in their circumstances/their sex, background and any other relevant characteristics

177         The guardian is anxious about moving the children from the stable placement where they have received appropriate care to a placement which, in his view, presents quite a lot of uncertainty and a lot of professional involvement.  He is concerned about the harm which the children have suffered as a result of their loss of carers and consequential disruption, and the risk of further harm if a rehabilitation plan were to fail.  I will consider that in more detail when I look at the advantages and disadvantages of the options for the children.

 

178         I have considered the emotional effects of a move on the children.  I have referred previously to the children’s resilience. In his final analysis the guardian describes them as “well adjusted children who do not appear anxious and whose academic progress is above average”, which he says is indicative of remarkable resilience.  There have been other references to the children being “resilient”.  At the minutes of the LAC review on 4^th June 2013, it was noted that both the mother and the carer were supporting the children in grieving for Mrs. X, and that both the mother and the carer considered that the children were coping well with their loss.  With the loss of Mrs. X, the children suffered other losses, a considerable reduction in their contact with the mother, cessation of their contact with their father, whom they still ask about and wish to see, but they settled quickly and well with the carer, which also suggests a degree of resilience.

 

179         The guardian anticipates that A may find a move to her mother’s care “massively disconcerting”, because she will recall that her mother was not there for her at times.  He said that he did not see a happy ending to these proceedings, whatever the outcome the children will deprived.

 

180         I have considered the effects on the children of the legal framework within which they are placed, whether under a care order or a special guardianship order.  The guardian points to the consequences of rehabilitation under a care order.  There will be continuing professional involvement with the children in the form of visits, both announced and unannounced, and LAC reviews.  The children will be, as he put it, “subject to limitless therapeutic involvement”, a reference to Great Ormond Street Hospital.  This approach and these provisions, in his view, almost certainly imply a lack of trust of the mother.  He is concerned that the local authority’s care plan will result in a delay in reaching a final outcome for the children.  The guardian told me that if I were to decide that the children should return to the care of their mother he would prefer this to take place under an immediate supervision order.

 

181         By contrast a special guardianship order in favour of the carer would involve less professional involvement, but I note that the local authority would seek a supervision order, so there would be professional involvement and the local authority propose that there should be therapeutic involvement with Great Ormond Street Hospital, whatever the outcome.

 

The benefits of returning the children to the care of their mother

182         They would be living with their natural parent, which is important for their identity, would give them a sense of belonging to a family and knowing who they are.  When I asked the guardian to expand on this, because he said very little about it in his final report at E244, he said: “The children would feel part of their family, they would not feel different or odd, their mother is likely to have a deeper understanding of them than anyone else, she holds their history”.

 

183         The children would have an opportunity to develop and repair their relationship with their mother.  They have already a close relationship with C, who Miss Jones observed they adore.  The guardian also described C as a strength.  They would have a relationship with D and her baby GD, who is their niece, as the relationship between the mother and D develops.  I know that they have seen D and met the baby because I have seen photographs.  They would see their maternal grandmother.  I note that the maternal grandmother put herself forward to care for the children at the family group conference in March 2013, but does not do so now.  I understand that she has health problems which would make that difficult, and she supports her other daughter.  It does indicate her commitment to the children at an early stage.  I am aware that the mother visits her occasionally and they speak on the telephone.  To that extent, the grandmother would also be a part of the children’s lives.

 

 

184         The children have dual heritage, and the mother would have to ensure that their heritage from their father is promoted, but there is no reason in anything I have heard or read to think that she would not do so.  They would not have to explain school friends why they do not live with their mother and their family.  They would be able to remain at the same school, because the mother lives, and will in the future live considerably closer to the school than the carer does, and there will be therapeutic support provided by Great Ormond Street Hospital.

 

Disadvantages of returning the children to the care of their mother

185         Some of the disadvantages which the guardian and the carer referred to no longer apply - in particular, difficulties with accommodation and the delayed results of the DBS checks.  The guardian says that the risk of relapse - and it is agreed that there will always be a risk - would be catastrophic for the children.  I have noted that Miss Jones said in her report that she assessed the risk as “very low”.  The guardian was concerned about the loss of input from the carer, although by the end of the hearing he was also hopeful about an improvement in the relationship between the mother and the carer. 

 

186         Miss Jones advised that rehabilitation to the mother might trigger in A and B feelings of resentment, confusion and anger which would require sensitive therapeutic attention, and such feelings on the part of the girls might express themselves in challenging behaviour which the mother would need to manage.

 

187         The guardian and the carer note that the mother has not cared for school age children.  There is a concern that they would be subject to indefinite therapy.  I have noted that the local authority care plan includes a referral to Great Ormond Street Hospital for therapy, whether I return the children to the mother’s care or make a special guardianship order.  The guardian is also concerned that bereavement therapy for the girls might be deferred.  As far as I am aware, it has not been suggested that the children should have bereavement therapy in the course of these proceedings.  In any event, their therapeutic needs will be assessed by the staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital and it is reasonable to assume that if they consider that the children need bereavement therapy, they will include it in their plan of work.

 

188         Then finally, there is the risk posed by the father, which I will come back to.

 

189         As regards the referral to Great Ormond Street, in accordance with their usual practice, they will not start work with the children until they are in a permanent placement.  They then will assess the children’s therapeutic needs and design a programme of work, which it seems to me, on the basis of experience of the involvement of Great Ormond Street and other matters, is unlikely to be indefinite, although at this point the duration is unknown.

 

The benefits of the children remaining in the care of the carer

190         This would provide continuity of a good placement, of home, routines, friendships and local social activities.  There would be certainty because I would make a final order.  The guardian says that the children would not be subject to therapy, but, in fact, it is the local authority’s intention that there should be therapy.  The children would feel that their wishes and feelings had been taken into account, they will retain a link with their mother through contact, there would be less risk of disruption by the father, and being with the carer would also assist with their cultural identity.

 

The disadvantages of the children remaining in the care of the carer

191         They would lose the loss of an opportunity to be brought up by their natural mother and suffer a reduction in their relationship with their mother through reduced contact, and the potential loss of their relationships with their siblings and their grandmother.  The children would feel different from school friends and would have to explain why they do not live with their mother but with the carer.  Miss Jones suggested that another disadvantage is that they children, as they grow up, would see a healthy functioning mother who is close to her other children, and they might have difficulty understanding why they do not live with her, which may trigger feelings of loss and confusion throughout their childhood.

 

192         Whatever the arrangement for the children’s long term care, everyone agrees that they would benefit from having both their mother and the carer in their lives and therefore a good working relationship between the adults is essential, as all the professionals have noted, and both the mother and the carer agree.  I have pointed to the improvement which I have seen in their relationship in the course of the hearing.

 

193         Miss Jones told me that if the mother and the carer can work together then the risks that a rehabilitation plan would fail would be lower, and the children would have a “win/win situation”.

 

Ability to meet the children’s needs

194         Is the carer capable of meeting the children’s needs?  Certainly.  She has had a positive special guardianship assessment, she has demonstrated her excellent care of the children over 16 months, which everybody has acknowledged.

 

195         Is the mother capable of meeting the children’s needs?  The children have a very good relationship with their mother.  As was observed as long ago as 14^th June 2013 by Caroline Sussex, the first allocated social worker, when she carried out an assessment of the mother for the purposes of contact and gave, a very detailed account of excellent genuinely child focused contact, an experience repeated by Miss Jones in the course of her assessment.  I have said that Miss Jones has advised that the relationship between the mother and her daughters is good and provides a foundation for their rehabilitation to her.

 

196         The guardian said in his final report that he has been impressed by the mother’s energy and her warm and nurturing manner with the children.  The only real concern about contact which was raised by the carer was later agreed to be a storm in a teacup.  I noted the mother’s apposite comment, “Where there’s no communication, everything is a concern”. 

 

197         The guardian has no concerns about the mother’s ability to provide for the children’s physical, educational and emotional needs.  The carer seemed to be less sure, but could point to nothing of any substance, apart from the mother’s recent lack of experience in caring for the children full-time.

 

198         I have said that the mother in my view has been working towards the return of the children to her care since the special guardianship order was made to Mrs. X in September 2011.  She has shown great commitment.  She has had contact to the children throughout and her relationship with the children is clearly good.

 

199         There was some evidence on the subject of attachment.  In his oral evidence the guardian told me A’s attachment to her mother is “probably anxious”.  This was not put to either the social worker or his team manager in cross-examination.  By contrast, I note that in his second report (E151, para.24) the guardian said:

 

          “A has a very good relationship with her mother, she seemed to be securely attached to her mother as evidenced by their tactile relationship and circumstances where she has sought security from her mother.”

 

And he added:

 

          “B has a very good relationship with her mother.  She is tactile, seeks reassurance and gives her mother hugs and kisses which is indicative of a secure attachment.”

 

I note that neither the parties nor the court has thought it necessary to obtain an assessment of the children or their attachment to their mother from a child and adolescent psychiatrist.

 

Risks of placement with the mother

200         I have considered the risk of relapse, the father, the assertion that the mother may not be able to co-operate with professionals, her relationship with D and her limited full-time care of the children. 

 

201         I have set out the history of the mother’s recovery.  She has now been abstinent for longer than the period proposed by Dr. Ratnam and the guardian.  The guardian told the professionals’ meeting on 22^nd October 2013 that although then the mother had done remarkably well, in 20 years as a guardian he had only seen one person successfully come off drugs.  Miss Jones’ experience clearly is very different.  In her report she was able to describe the characteristics of people who successfully abstain from taking illegal drugs.

 

202         The mother is aware that she is in recovery, and, as I have suggested, probably always will be, and has therefore surrounded herself with a strong professional network and a good personal network.  I have referred to Miss Jones’ assessment of the risk of relapse as low.

 

203         The father presents two areas of concern:  first, that he might disrupt the children by turning up unexpectedly; and secondly, the risk that he poses to the mother and her abstinence.  The guardian considers that the father poses a risk both to the mother and the carer, but the risk to the carer is less because they were never in an intimate relationship.  He may find it easier to approach the mother.  I note that when the mother visited the children and saw the children in Mrs. X’s home between September 2011 and March 2013, the father will have been there at least some of the time, but she says that she ignored him, she sat in a different room, she did not resume a relationship with him and she remained abstinent.  She has said that if he wants to see the children she will deal with him robustly, tell him that he needs to deal with his drugs issue, that he needs to be assessed, and will refer him to the local authority.  She has also said that if necessary, if he is difficult, she will call the police and apply for an injunction.

 

204         Miss Jones took the risks posed by the father at their highest for the purposes of her assessment.  She told me it would not have assisted her to know whether, in fact, he was taking methadone, given his history and the lack of engagement with these proceedings and with professionals, and I accept her analysis of the father’s position and the basis of this aspect of her assessment of the mother. 

 

205         When cross-examined by Mr. Lafazanides, the mother told him firmly that he was under-estimating her ability to protect her children, and she told him how she would deal with any approach from the father.

 

206         I have considered the mother’s evidence and I have formed the view that if the father were to approach her or the girls seeking contact she would deal with him in just the way she says.

 

207         As to the mother’s relationship with D, that has been described as “a work in progress”, and the evidence suggests that the mother is working on it, spending time with D and supporting her, but not rushing the development in their relationship, and that seems to be confirmed by the evidence and the experience of Mr. Kamara.

 

208         As to the suggestion that the mother would not co-operate with professionals, particularly the Hackney professionals, I have dealt with this in detail.  Hackney ignored all the evidence of the mother’s co-operation with social workers and other professionals over a long period of time, and I have noted her co-operation in the preparation of assessment and her co-operation throughout lengthy and testing proceedings.

 

209         I do not accept the suggestion, which is implicit in the concerns expressed on behalf of the guardian and the carer that none of these professionals challenged the mother.  Those who work with drug addicts are, in my experience, realistic and tough-minded.  Miss Jones described her interview style as “robust”, and having seen Miss Jones give evidence, and I should say knowing her work as a guardian in other cases, I accept her description.  I have also noted the mother’s ability, even during the final hearing, to obtain an offer to view a two bedroom property, which is tantamount to an offer of a tenancy, and the results of the DBS checks.  She had support, but I doubt that she would have succeeded if she had been difficult, confrontational or uncooperative.

 

210         Those who have worked closely with her describe her as forthright, but they all seem to be able to work with her.  I note that Miss Jones told me that the mother has respect for social workers and seemed to understand what they needed to do, which is borne out by all the professionals who have worked with her.

 

211         As to the mother’s limited experience of caring for the children full-time, of course she has had limited care of them full-time, and the guardian is concerned that caring for two school age children full-time could perhaps induce the type of stress that could challenge her ability to remain abstinent, in particular if they were removed from the carer’s care against their wishes.

 

212         The accounts that I have seen of the mother’s ability to care for the children in contact are amongst the best I have ever seen.  I have noted the effort she has made to create a home for them in her one bedroom flat and her successful efforts to obtain larger accommodation.  She told me that the children already test her boundaries and she can and does manage that.

 

213         Throughout the proceedings she has been described as having a very good relationship with the children.  She is intelligent, competent and hard working.  She has a great deal of professional support and she has discussed the children’s return to her care and the difficulties that might cause with her key workers who have confirmed that they will continue to support her, and there will be work with Great Ormond Street Hospital.

 

214         No one can predict exactly how the children will respond, but I find that the mother is as well prepared as she can be to take the care of the children on full-time, and if there are problems she will ask for help.  I am satisfied that she can meet all the children’s various needs.

 

Conclusion

215         In conclusion, this has been a complex and unusual case.  It is unusual to find that a local authority and a parent are in agreement on a final care plan, but it is opposed by the children’s carer with the support of their guardian.  It has an unusual history which I have set out resulting in two contested lengthy final hearings.  I appreciate that that will have been stressful for the carer but far worse for the mother who must have thought she had succeeded and then had to cope with the blow of the change in the position of the carer and the guardian and a second contested hearing.  Throughout all of that she has remained abstinent, committed and steadfast.

 

216         I have noted that Her Honour Judge Venables criticised the guardian in her judgment in November 2013 and the work that he has done since then.  He told me that they have established a relationship of trust and respect.  I think he has been impressed by her efforts.

 

217         There are two aspects of the guardian’s final report that concern me.  I have noted that in his analysis of the advantages of being brought up by a natural parent the guardian said very little about the benefits of that, although it is universally accepted by professionals and the courts.  He provided helpful answers when I specifically asked him about it, and Miss Shah in her oral submissions suggested that the advantages are so obvious that the guardian did not need to set them out in his report.  In my view, that is not the appropriate or just approach to the analysis by a guardian who, in a final report, asks the court not to return the children to their mother’s care, and it would be a pity if that omission perpetuated the mother’s impression that the guardian remained set in his views against her.

 

218         I also found it remarkable that in his final analysis the guardian did not mention Miss Jones’ report.  There was no summary, no analysis, nor any explanation of his reasons for rejecting the views of a jointly instructed expert.  That he does reject her views is obvious from his position, and he had raised questions with her at an earlier stage.  Nevertheless I consider that a serious omission.

 

219         Further, I noted that the guardian described the carer as a member of the children’s family and argued for a different approach to the right to family life on that basis, although he had previously described her as a “family friend”.  Also in his oral evidence he referred to the children’s attachment to their mother as “insecure”, although he had previously described it in his report as “secure”.

 

220         These two matters have raised a concern that at the final hearing aspects of the guardian’s case have been overstated in an effort to support his argument that the children should remain in the care of the carer.

 

221         The guardian considers the case as finely balanced, but ultimately prefers the “status quo”, the continuation of the children’s placement with the carer under a special guardianship arrangement.  He considers the local authority’s final care plan to be “high risk”.  I accept that if the mother does relapse and the rehabilitation plan breaks down it would be catastrophic for the children.  I have considered the other risks.  I am persuaded that the mother will deal with them with support robustly.

 

222         I balance the period of some 16 months that the children have spent in the care of the carer against the far longer period they will spend with their mother - ten years and more - if rehabilitation is successful.  Having considered the evidence and the options for the children I conclude on the facts that it is in the best interests of A and B to be cared for throughout the rest of their minority by their mother, in the first instance under a care order to the London Borough of Haringey.   To the extent that this decision violates the carer’s rights to a family life with A and B, I consider that it is proportionate to their welfare needs.

 

223         Finally, I wish to commend the London Borough of Haringey social workers and their team manager, Miss Hylton, for their work in this case and the support which they offer the mother and the children.  I do not consider that the care plan indicates a lack of trust or confidence.  In my view, the investment which they are prepared to make in the plan for the children indicates the local authority’s confidence.

 

224         I thank the carer for her care for the children and what I hope will be her ongoing involvement with them.  I thank all the representatives for their assistance in this long and difficult matter.

 

225         I make care orders in respect of both A and B to the London Borough of Haringey.  I approve the local authority’s amended final care plans for the children dated 22^nd August 2014.  I dismiss the carer’s application for a special guardianship order. The guardian asked me to make a contact order in the carer’s favour but she did not pursue the application. I make no contact order as I rely on the improved relationship between the mother and the carer, both of whom have told me that they want the children to continue their relationship with the carer.  I make the usual order for costs. That concludes my judgment.

 

_________