England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> F v SCC [2014] EWFC B61 (28 May 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B61.html
Cite as: [2014] EWFC B61

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


		Case No: GU13P01102

IN THE FAMILY COURT

Sitting at the Designated Family Centre for Surrey
The Law Courts, Mary Rd, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4PS

B e f o r e :

His Honour Judge Nathan
(judge of circuit judge level)
____________________

Between:

	D and N F
	- and -
	SCC

____________________

Hearing dates: 6th May 2014 to 9th May 2014
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

His Honour Judge Nathan:

This is an application by the parents of two children to discharge care orders made in July 2011 by his Honour Judge Rylance.

In the care proceedings in 2011, His Honour Judge Rylance accepted the local authority's case which was that the children had been subjected to very serious and wide ranging neglect as well as their parent's volatile relationship, described as "a cauldron of discord". He found that the children had suffered significant harm and that in the absence of removal both were at considerable risk from suffering more of the same. The judge accepted the unanimous view of the professionals which was that neither parent could provide good enough parenting for the children at that stage or at any time within the children's then time scales. He also found that the parents could not cooperate with professionals so as to enable the court to avoid a lesser means of ensuring the children's safety and appropriate development other than permanent removal. He therefore made care orders, and subsequently placement orders. As presaged in his judgement, the local authority could not find an adoptive placement for the children together, and subsequently the placement orders were revoked. The children remain in foster carer where they were placed 4 years ago, the placement latterly being approved as long-term.

The local authority oppose this application. Indeed they make application under section 34(4) of the Children Act for permission to refuse contact with the children. Should the parents application be rejected there are also applications by 2 family members for contact.

The parents are D and N F. They are now 52 and 55 years of age respectively. Their children, who are my paramount concern are M F, born on 25 July 2003, and thus nearly 11, and N F born on 1 July 2008 who is nearly 6.

The judge in a long and careful judgment made a number of serious findings against the parents. In order to properly understand the background for my decision-making it may be necessary to read the entirety of his judgement.

I should emphasise that as well as hearing a wide range of evidence from among others social workers, a teacher, the parents and guardian, Judge Rylance also had a large amount of expert evidence. There were reports from 2 psychiatrists, 2 psychologists and an independent social worker. At a professionals meeting, it was clear that there was no material disagreement between them. Judge Rylance's' findings in a little more detail though were as follows:-

i) First - Home conditions were indescribably filthy. The children were exposed to squalid and insanitary conditions described in graphic detail by police officers whose evidence the judge absolutely accepted. The impact conditions in the home had on 3 police officers are set out in the judgement at paragraphs 10, 11 and 12. The social workers description of the house is set out at paragraph 14. The conditions described were the worst that one police officer had ever seen in 12 years of service, the smell causing him to almost vomit. One officer found the ammonia from urine so pungent that it made his eyes burn. Another described a dog covered in urine and faeces just released from an insanitary cage. It ran to 21 month old toddler N licked and pawed him then ran to the officer smearing it's excrement on his trousers. Subsequently the mother was found guilty of neglect in criminal proceedings. 19 dogs also kept in the house in what was found to utterly squalid conditions, resulted in successful prosecutions by the RSPCA

ii) Whilst the parents had provided a house which was " not fit for human, let alone a child's habitation", the judge was satisfied that this was not just at the time of police visits on the 18th and 23rd of March 2010 or indeed just in that month. It was not however a continuous situation, since the house was reported as clean and tidy in September 2009. It was, he found, a recurring theme, probably at its worst in March 2010. (Paragraph 29), but there were references to what were described as 'disgusting' and 'appalling' conditions in the home almost 10 years before as reported in the log of no fewer than 29 police call outs between 2003 and 2009.

iii) The Judge found that there was "no reason to believe that it will not deteriorate again. The father seemed oblivious to the mess", whilst "the mother was not equipped reliably to avoid a deterioration and she was dominated by the father" (paragraph 68)..

iv) Moreover, the judge found, "Once the four-year ban on keeping dogs was over, dogs were bound to return" (paragraph 68)

v) The judge also accepted evidence of M's unkempt and malodorous presentation at school, poor school attendance, virtual illiteracy through lack of stimulation and delayed expressive language. N , he accepted , smelt of dog urine on his reception into foster care at which juncture he appeared never to have previously been bathed.

vi) He also found that the parents had been serially untruthful. They had put up at least two witnesses to give false accounts of the circumstances. The evidence of police and professional witnesseswere universally accepted by the judge in preference to that of the parents.

vii) The judge also found that the father was paranoid, and his - indeed the parents view - that there was a conspiracy by social workers and other professionals was rejected outright. Both parents exhibited an "almost complete lack of insight, exhibited paranoid views in relation to professional concerns and, in essence that there was a conspiracy against them". In the mother's case, the Judge accepted that 'her abnormal personality traits particularly the paranoid ones", as referred to by a psychiatrist, may interfere with her ability to take on board the legitimate concerns expressed by others about the welfare of their children and may consequently adversely impact on her ability to effectively and safely and appropriately parent the children'

viii) The father demonstrated a total lack of insight, and in the judge's view, concern (paragraph 33). Indeed both parents "had no insight into the problems, their causes or their solutions" (paragraph 54)

ix) Since neither had any insight into their failings, or harm caused and since neither therefore accepted any blame for the situation it was impossible to see how things would not revert to the low base from which the children were rescued" (paragraph 68)

x) "in view of the gross antipathy" of the parents to "professionals and hostility to interference" there was "no prospect of the parents or either of them working with social workers so as to avoid any reversion" (paragraph 68)

xi) Despite the mother's assertion during her oral evidence that she and the father had separated, on balance it was likely that they would resume their relationship. The mother was too dependent on the father and the father seemingly could not care either way.

xii) Finally at (Paragraph 61) The mother had sought to influence M in "a disgraceful way" paragraph 62

The parents were refused permission to appeal by Black LJ at an oral hearing on 13^th December 2011. She said at paragraph 8 of her judgment that she could discover no arguable grounds of appeal. There had been a diverse body of evidence to form the basis of the Judges findings. The mother's assertions of malicious lying were echoes of a conspiracy made before the trial judge. There was "no reason for such a malicious fabrication and no evidence of it".

Subsequently the local authority's badly delayed application for a Placement Order came before His Honour Judge Rylance on 22^nd February 2012. The transcript of his oral judgment, unapproved because of delays by the local authority in obtaining it, was provided on the second day of this hearing. Unusually the judge heard some oral evidence at that hearing, not from the parents but from the mother's treating psychotherapist Mr X Y, whom she relied on to say she should resume the care of the children. At Paragraph 11 he recorded that that psychotherapist did not have the "full trusting relationship with the Mother that he believed that he had" because he was quite unaware of the real facts. In particular he did not know that contrary to the Mother's assertions she had indeed been living with the children in the house at the time that it was in the state as found. Nor was he aware of the Mother's continuing belief that the removal of the children had been as a result of a conspiracy to remove them by the police and local authority. When told of this at court, this "came as somewhat of a shock to Mr X-Y and he said that he needed therefore to reconsider his position, eventually saying that he was no longer of the view that the mother was ready to resume caring for the children".

This application was made by the parents in December of 2013. On the 13th of that month, Her Honour Judge Cushing in the first case management order, provided that they should set out in a statement whether they accepted the circumstances in the home were as found by His Honour Judge Rylance when the care orders were made, an explanation for those circumstances and why they were now different. They were also ordered to deal with the current situation including the status of their relationship, whether there would be any pets or other animals in the home, details of any courses either parent had taken and details of any therapy.

The mother answered Her Honour Judge Cushing's direction in a statement in the bundle the main points of which were substantially repeated in subsequent documents filed with the court immediately before and at the hearing as well as in her oral evidence

In answering whether she accepted the circumstances in the home were as found, she said "I accept the circumstances in the home were not up to standard". However in explanation, she contended that she was at the time living in her chalet in SN coming up to BH each day. in her oral evidence she said 'I accept the place was not in the state it should have been in, but I wasn't living there'.

Her current circumstances had improved. She said that "we have completed all the tasks, targets and more besides that social services set for us to have the return of our children".

The house was now cleanly and neatly decorated. She produced photographs. She had repaired her marriage with Mr F having attended relationship counselling with him. She had successfully completed a family links nurturing program at the sure start centre at a local nursery . In addition she had taken a number of correspondence courses at home from Stonebridge College. She was unable to say how long any had taken. They were in Child psychology and in the Middle years of positive parenting . She had also taken courses in animal care, and dog grooming. Most recently she had done a 2 day course in London in coaching – her Psychotherapist thought she was a very good candidate for coaching. She had seen him once since the last hearing and he told her - she said - that she doesn't need therapy. Moreover, he "strongly supports me being reunited with my two children".

Father's first statement

He also contended that he, like Mrs F and the two children were not living at the house when the conditions were bad, something that Judge Rylance had expressly found not to be the case.

He put down the reasons for their poor relationship down to the stress caused by the termination that Mrs F had undergone in 2004, adding blame on the consultant who have acted negligently. He too confirmed that they had had couple counselling, that he was supportive of her, that the house was clean and tidy and that they had "a good loving relationship" after the couples counselling that he had attended.

In addition to the statements from the parents I have referred to I had a statement from the maternal grandmother GM in support of her application for contact, and a number of other documents generated in both of these proceedings and the previous proceedings in two lever arch files which comprised the court bundle. Among those papers were the original application by the maternal great aunt Mrs Phillips for contact. In addition to the parents, I heard oral evidence from the current social worker Barbara Ford, the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt, a social worker who supervised a number of contacts, Zoe Nash and the independent social worker Miss Deveraux Evans. I also heard oral evidence from the guardian Sue Tester.

The independent social worker report

She reached the following conclusions:

i) That the parents had not significantly changed as they and or their therapists did not feel they needed to do so.

ii) So far as the parents relationship was concerned, they were united against what we independent social worker described as "common enemies" namely the police and social services

iii) she dealt with the parents ability to provide a safe and secure environment for the children: she was of the view that the mother had clearly learnt something from the courses that she had completed. She was concerned though that she was easily drawn into her husband's tirade against the police and social services. She was also concerned about the parents conviction that M was being emotionally abused by being in foster care.

iv) So far as the physical condition of the house was concerned, things had clearly improved from what she had read in the judgment.

v) In terms of the needs of the children the mother was able at times to focus on this. Mr F was less able to do so. The Independent social worker concluded this part of her task by asking the parents how they would reassure the court if the children were returned to them that things would not go wrong again. They told her that things would not go wrong again as they had addressed all the necessary issues. Mr F added that he would always hate the police.

vi) She dealt with the parents willingness to work with professionals and take on board and advice: it was clear from the discussions that she had that the views of professionals previously put before the court and found to be correct by the Judge, were still not accepted by the parents. Accordingly in her analysis the independent social worker concluded that there was no evidence that the parents would work with social services "as it would appear that the relationship has completely broken down". Her conclusion was wider than this. She said "I would not be confident that Mr and Mrs F will be able to work constructively with professionals particularly social services at present"

vii) So far as the parents insight into the concerns of the local authority which led to the proceedings, she recorded that the mother didn't blame the judge for what he had done because, she contended, he had been presented with fabricated evidence. The independent social worker recorded that Mr F said to her that Judge Rylance had been corrupted by those out to get his family. The mother denied again to her that the children were unclean or untidy and disputed specific parts of the evidence relied upon by the judge from a number of witnesses, contending that a number of police officers social workers and the RSPCA whose evidence was accepted by the judge was untruthful, The psychologist Irene Martin Alam had also lied. Thus the independent social worker concluded that "the parents have not developed insight into the concerns held by the local authority at the point of the children were removed"

Impressions of the parents

the mother

The case was conducted on behalf of both parents by the mother. I found it very useful in making an assessment of her to have not only her oral evidence, but also her very lengthy oral submissions direct, as it were, from the horse's mouth, because I was able to get a view of her unprotected by the skills of solicitors and advocates. I say straightaway. She loves her children. Whilst her love for them propels her in this application, I am also quite sure that a major motive in her pursuit of this application (and indeed in her husband's) is her resentment of social services, police and authority and her wish to prove them wrong. I do understand the pain she feels at the forcible separation from her of her children. However, I have rarely seen someone so angry, so loud and so strident in the way she conducted her case. In her questions she made angry speeches at a very high volume. On one occasion during evidence she banged the table. She talked repeatedly, indeed right from the beginning of the case, before anything else had been said by anyone about getting justice, going to a higher court, that is to say an "open one" where there would be the media present. She repeated this time and again thereafter in her own evidence, by way of comment during that of others and several times in her closing submissions. She told me how she was going to write a book about the case and that she had had the offer of a film when it was over.

I was most concerned about her insight. She was asked by Miss Hudson, counsel for the local authority whether she accepted anything in Judge Rylance's judgement. She said that she accepted that "the place was not in the state it should have been in, but I wasn't living there". She went no further than that. Indeed she then went on to tell me that the entire case was a conspiracy. Parties to that conspiracy were the police, social workers, the headmistress of the school who had colluded with PC Hench, and the RSPCA. What was reported to be dog urine was no more than water. What was reported to be faeces was in fact dog food. The people who had put the conspiracy together were "script writers". The motive for this conspiracy was that the police were jealous of the family's lifestyle. They had inherited a nice car. Dr Bradbury, the psychiatrist who in the original proceedings considered that the mother had traits of a personality disorder and did not consider that any successful treatment could be obtained within the timescales for the proceedings, and who also reported that the father had significant paranoid traits, was – she claimed (as did her husband) - if not an active part of the conspiracy – a drunk who drank gin and orange at interview disguised in a bottle of Lucozade. She would not accept as truthful the social worker Barbara Ford's evidence that M had recalled having faeces in her hair. The family support worker had also lied in her evidence about the mother's behaviour at contact when she had reported the mother whispering to M in the car park. She would not accept that M had also told the guardian that she – that is the mother had whispered to her at contact that she would be going home. The Guardian had made this up. There was, she said, a conspiracy to keep her children, and part of that conspiracy was the lies being told by the social worker and the Guardian. Even though Barbara Ford, the social worker had not been allocated in the original case, both she and Zoe Nash, the social worker who supervised some contacts followed what was described as a script by which social services seemed to have been perpetuating the original conspiracy. She saw no harm in having bought M an army print T-shirt and telling her 'we will fight". She was of the view that social services were at war with her. She was a soldier in that fight and to quote what she put to the guardian: "she would not surrender". She was very confident in her assertions about childcare, having done the 4 correspondence courses I have described. This enabled her to say and I quote from my note of what she said "it states in psychology that if you break attachment it can cause trauma". Accordingly and again I quote 'continuing to keep the children stolen will cause trauma". She told me that her psychotherapist, Mr X Y, who had given evidence before His Honour judge Rylance and had submitted a report which said that she required 4 to 6 months therapy, had not only told her that he would put her in contact with people to make a film about the injustice that she had suffered, but had also expressed the view that he could not understand how social services could have attempted to remove her children, and had told her, contrary to the report before Judge Rylance that she did not need any further therapy. However, the mother was quite firm. She had made changes and had improved.

I made it clear to the mother at the outset and time and again throughout the hearing. I was not able to go behind the findings of Judge Rylance. I understand the resentment she feels so strongly at the removal of her children. I well recognise that there are cases where there have been miscarriages of Justice and where the police have lied. This hearing was not one though where I was able to overturn Judge Rylance's findings. Even were I able to do that, her challenges to those findings made on the same basis as in the previous proceedings, were in my judgment nonsensical. In particular assertions that there was a wide ranging conspiracy between a number of independent professional members of at least three separate agencies – police, Social services and RSPCA as well as the head teacher, a conspiracy perpetuated to date by continuing lies was so far fetched as to be in the realms of fantasy. Her husband's assertion readily adopted by her, that a police officer or social worker had smeared faeces on a nappy and planted it in their home had already been rejected in 2010 as had the assertion that she had driven each and every day the very long journey from SN in K to BH with M, and I can see why. The motives for the conspiracy were similarly fantastic. Her limited admission about the true state of the house namely that it was "not up to standard' was so wide of the mark given the stomach churning evidence that it really did bring into question her grip on reality. All of this is very material in determining whether the mother has changed, and I will come back to that, but the bulk of the mother's assertions of fact were in my judgment so unreliable as to be delusional.

The father

He loves his children. However the professional view, endorsed in the findings of Judge Rylance that he was paranoid, came across very clearly.

He stuck to the same line that his wife had. Judge Rylance had been fed a lot of fabricated stories. I have already mentioned his assertion that nappies had had faeces smeared on them by a social worker or police officer who had then planted them in the house, something that Judge Rylance had dismissed as nonsense. Of the conspiracy between police social services teachers the RSPCA and others, again the reason was that they were jealous of his lifestyle. He added another reason. His dogs, all of which bar one 15-year-old, were in fact in good condition, were very valuable and sold on by the RSPCA. This was their motive. Subsequently an unnamed RSPCA officer had told him that "There was a lot of foul play" in his case, with bottles of water going over to look like dog urine, and playing around in the back garden, to I assume give the impression of a worse state of affairs than was actually the case. Dr Bradbury had been drinking. He had stuck his finger in the top of her Lucozade bottle and tasted gin. He did not know why that particular piece of evidence had never been revealed in the previous proceedings. The Guardian's record of him saying only a fortnight ago to her that the independent social worker was "another one to destroy" because she had said things critical of the parents, was something that he had not said to her. I was very careful to check with him what he meant by that because the guardian had a clear record in her final analysis. Having strenuously denied saying it in his oral evidence, his wife the following day in her submissions tried to explain that he had said it but not meant it. He was asked whether he had changed at all. He said 'no' - I'm still the same person. He then asked rhetorically of Miss Hudson "what do you think needs to change". He accepted when I clarified this with him that he meant by that that nothing needed to change. The assertion by professionals that he needs to change was quote a 'load of rubbish'

The Law

The criterion for deciding on whether or not to discharge a Care Order is the Welfare of the child. The burden is on the person applying for discharge to persuade the court that the child's welfare requires discharge. I look at that question of Welfare though the prism of the Welfare Check List

Welfare checklist.

I start with a brief picture of these children by reference to sub paragraph (d) their age, sex, background and any characteristics of theirs which the court considers relevant. M is now almost 11 and she has been in her current placement with her brother for over 4 years, or more than 1/3 of her life. She was described as a confused and conflicted child. She struggles to express her feelings and emotions for fear of upsetting people. She has struggled with low self esteem. The guardian thinks she would benefit form some professional therapeutic support. She struggles at school and needs extra support and is due to go to secondary school in September which will be a significant transition for her. She is also approaching puberty.

Looking at sub paragraph (b) Her physical emotional and educational needs I absolutely agree with the guardian. It is important that she feels secure and free from worries and anxieties so that her transition to secondary school is successful. It is also important that she is never again subject to the sort of neglect found by His Honour Judge Rylance. As Barbara Ford, the current social worker whose empathetic approach to the case impressed me, something emphasised by the calm way she responded to the very angry and aggressive cross examination from the mother, M realises how horrible conditions were, when at her parents. She then thought it was normal. M was, as Ms Ford said (and I accept) embarrassed as she talked about the dog pooh that used to be in her clothes, hair and throughout the house. It is indicative of the way the parents have approached this case that they simply dismiss this as lies.

(a) The ascertainable wishes and feelings of M (considered in the light of her age and understanding). M told Barbara Ford that if "M and D" as she referred to them cleaned up the house and didn't tell lots of lies she would want to live with them . She said nothing to the guardian about wanting to live with her parents, and was ambivalent about contact, mainly because of how her mother had behaved on occasions. She wanted to see her parents at contact but did not want anything bad to happen. The pressure she had felt under is set out at paragraphs 25 to 29 of the final analysis, where a tearful M was described as very confused and conflicted. She told the guardian that "her mum tells her that she is still fighting and that she will get them back. She also tells M not to tell anyone". That made her feel worried as she is happy and settled where she is and sees her foster carers as her forever family"

N also referred to as L has been described as a delightful, sociable and energetic boy with heaps of energy who enjoys being busy at all times. His wishes and feelings given his age are unclear. In any event in my judgment the wishes and feelings of these children cannot be determinative of this case.

Both children are well settled in to their current foster placement. L has been there for 2/3 of his life. Both children have formed excellent attachments and call their foster carers Mummy and Daddy referring to Mr and Mrs F as M and D. Of course, in an ideal world children should be with their natural parents, but I need to consider that their lives would be impacted for a time by the effects of any move and that particularly for M that such a move is at a difficult time and for a child with a problematic emotional presentation and background.

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

His Honour Judge Rylance made serious findings about these parents. Crucial in this case must be a consideration of how, if at all, they have changed.

these are the changes relied upon by the mother

i) ONE - That the courses undertaken by her show she understands how to parent, her children's needs, indeed child psychology. There are serious question marks about the time she spent on these courses. More importantly though was her motive in doing them. In my view it was likely that her motive was not so much self improvement as an attempt to equip herself with ammunition in her fight with social services. She was able - in rather an inept way - to quote pieces of jargon picked up on her courses. She was not however able to recognise the real fundamentals - namely that she had exposed her children to appalling parenting. Without recognising that, and that therefore she need to change fundamentally how could it be said that there was any change in her ability to parent.

ii) TWO - the state of the house. So far as the state of the house was concerned, I accept that it has improved from the descriptions given in the previous proceedings. However, it was noteworthy that Judge Rylance had found that it had been much better before the material time and again subsequently. He found at paragraph 68 that " there is no reason to believe that it will not deteriorate again". The mother's repeated denials and rejection of his findings mean that that must remain a real danger in the future.

iii) THREE - That she has repaired her relationship with the father. She has certainly been to couples counselling with him over a period of time. Both should be given credit for – it would seem – being genuinely motivated to address this. It may be that they are now able to resolve differences in an acceptable and adult way. Without a reasonable passage of time and circumstances that may test this, it is not though possible to say that the work undertaken has borne fruit. The mother's assertion that things are better now could be true, but I found her to be so unreliable that I could not necessarily accept this without very good corroboration. I need to be cautious in view of the long history of marital discord evidenced by the numerous police call outs recorded in the original judgment.

iv) Four. That such is her emotional and mental state that she is no longer in need of psychotherapeutic work. In aid of this she quoted her psychotherapist. She said that he said "I don't have to do any more work." Indeed he went further – she said. I quote from her oral evidence "He said it reminds me of a film--- he has contacts in America and he will help me through contacts make a film as he can't believe how social services have behaved. I'm going to write a book". In truth and in fact the psychotherapist had in February 2012 and therefore after the care proceedings, but before the Placement Order proceedings recommended a further 4- 6 months psychotherapy as set out at page [E 264]. That therapy continued in fact only until the date of that report at which to quote his one page letter of 12.3.14 she discontinued it after the February court hearing. It was at that hearing that the psychotherapist who gave evidence learnt that he had not been told of the courts findings and had operated on the basis of what the mother had told him. He therefore performed a volte face and told Judge Rylance that he was no longer of the view that the mother could resume the care of her children. Since then he has had a one hour meeting with her. He says nowhere in that letter that she does not require further therapy. Nor did he refer to his previous report and the recommendation within it. He said this "as I have only had the opportunity to see Mrs F one time since my last report my current observations of her are limited. However, in the hour that I did see her I observed nothing that would cause me to assess her differently than I did in my report of February 2012. If anything she seems clearer and stronger than before." I did not hear evidence from Mr X Y. Judge Rylance however relied on the evidence of two independent forensic psychiatrists and a forensic psychologist as to the parents mental state. His report on the face of it seems to suggest no change from his earlier recommendations namely further psychotherapy for 4 to 6 months, something that has not happened. The letter from the therapist was also on the face of it inconsistent with what he learned and then said at the hearing before Judge Rylance. In my view it would be dangerous to place much reliance on it, so far as it goes. If what the mother reports Mr X Y to have said is accurate, then his short letter is inconsistent with what she told me he said. However I suspect that what she has attributed to him is largely inaccurate. Accordingly there is no evidence to suggest that the mother has had any suitable psychotherapeutic work to address the serious and long-standing personality and psychological problems outlined in the reports of Dr Akinkumni and Dr Bradbury. Moreover nothing that I have seen of her presentation in court reassures me that she has successfully addressed these issues.

v) FIVE that she can work with professionals. Mrs F prayed in aid the fact that she had attended couples counselling with someone called Bill Baker, that she liked a contact supervisor called Julie Perkins, that she had got on with a social worker called Helen and that another social worker had left her a with compliments slip which said it had been good to work with her. In contrast to this, I look firstly at the mother's allegations against social services historically, second her suggestion that two new social workers who have come into the case have lied and perpetuated the conspiracy against her, and thirdly her suggestion to the Guardian, that she had in some craven way made a recommendation for adoption after getting a letter from the then social worker James Ellis. The independent social worker was of the view that the mother could work with professionals if they agreed with her. The mother on a number of occasions talked about war between her and social services, about being soldiers. "It's like England and Germany" . I am quite clearly of the view that she may be able to work with professionals who do not challenge her or who agree with her. Immediately a professional has a different view, then it is impossible to work with her as amply demonstrated by the way she hectored social services witnesses. It is abundantly apparent that protective measures short of a care order, for instance a supervision order, would be entirely ineffective given her hostile , aggressive and indeed paranoid stance

vi) Six - dogs. When the existing ban is lifted the mother said in her statement she would have only one dog. In oral evidence she said it might be two. However she angrily denied that the dogs were in fact kept in the appalling conditions that led to the RSPCA prosecution. The father went further claiming that a dog or dogs had been presented at Crufts. I have two concerns. First I can place no reliance on anything the mother says about her future intentions. Second, whatever number she clams she might in future have, if she saw no problem in her treatment of these animals before nor any arising out of the exposure of her children to them, how in earth can I be satisfied that it will not happen again . I also bear in mind His Honour Judge Rylances' finding at paragraph 68 "Once the four-year ban on keeping dogs was over, dogs are bound to return"

The Father and change

vii) I have already set out what he said in his oral evidence. Nothing in him needs to change. That point was rammed home by the following. He had not, it would seem, bothered to look at the judgment of His Honour judge Rylance, or that is to say not invited the mother to read it to him. He had not looked at the independent social worker's report or asked the mother to read it to him. He had not felt that any counselling was necessary. Plainly he did not feel any parenting courses necessary. Plainly he also had no interest in child care or understanding of children.

viii) Even if he had not told me that there was nothing that needed changing in him, his untruthful evidence was sufficient to show that I could not be confident that there would not be a reversion to the previous conditions in the house should the children return to him. As Miss Hudson, said in general terms of both parents his conspiracy theory is an example of his bizarre functioning. This was further highlighted by his strange and sinister references to a senior social services official a Mr V – described as 'a weirdo' – whom with a nudge and wink he implied he would unmask or worse.