England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

Case No: DP14C00014 &

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LEEDS

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF X, A CHILD

Date: 14 August 2014

Before :

HHJ Lynch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Debra Brown for the Applicant

Kiran Dhillon for the 1^st Respondent

Fiona Callow for the 2^nd Respondent

Helen Cain for the 3rd Respondent

Hearing dates: 11 - 13 August 2014

Judgment handed down: 14 August 2014

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

APPROVED JUDGMENT

Introduction

1.      In these proceedings I am concerned for X, who is aged six months. He is the child of Y and Z, who are a couple and who both share parental responsibility for him. X is the first child of both parents. X was accommodated in foster care at birth and has been subject to a care order since 27 February when the case first came before me. X’s parents have supervised contact with him together three times a week for one and a half hours.

2.      The local authority applied for an interim care order in respect of X on 13 February and more recently have applied for a placement order in respect of him.

Background

3. Children’s Services were contacted on 4 July 2013 by Jennifer Holroyd, the social worker for Y from the Community Team for adults with learning disabilities, to inform them that Y was pregnant, was in a relationship with Z, and that there were serious concerns regarding their capacity to care for a young baby. Y was involved with the service as she herself had been assessed as having a learning disability and needed support. The pregnancy had been planned by the couple, despite concerns apparently being expressed by professionals working with them at the time. A pre-birth assessment was undertaken which highlighted a number of concerns about Y’s and Z’s ability to provide a safe and stable home for their unborn child and regarding their ability to recognise and prioritise the needs of the baby. Concerns were also expressed regarding Z’s mental health. The assessment recommended that care proceedings should be commenced upon the birth of the expected baby and the child placed in foster care whilst a full assessment was completed to determine whether the parents had the ability to meet the child’s needs in the long-term. The local authority were also worried about the vulnerability of both of the parents as Z had been subject to harassment by man who attempted to convert him to become a Muslim and Y had been sexually exploited by an older man.
4. At the first hearing on 27 February, an issue was raised regarding the extent to which the parents could give instructions their solicitors so capacity reports were commissioned and a report from the father’s psychiatrist. There were some issues around X’s health so a report was sought from his hospital paediatrician. At the next hearing on 3 April the case was timetabled through to today’s final hearing.
5. In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter. I have heard evidence in court from Nicole Dunn, X’s social worker; Rachel Minney, who supervised contact; both of X’s parents; and Adrian Smith, the children’s guardian. Deborah Pedder, who carried out the PAMS assessment, came to give evidence but was unwell and was unable to do so. Written questions were put to her, enabling Ms Dhillon in particular to raise matters she would wish to have done in oral evidence, and I have considered her answers to those.

The Position of the Local Authority and the Guardian

6. The local authority, supported by the guardian, says that X very sadly cannot be brought up by his parents. The local authority relies on its own assessments of the parents, including a specialist PAMS assessment carried out by an independent social worker, Deborah Pedder, commissioned by the local authority to ensure a worker with the appropriate expertise assessed the parents.
7. Early in the case, the local authority’s concerns included both parents’ lack of ability to meet X’s basic needs, Z’s handling of X and ongoing failure to respond to his distress or demonstrate any affection or emotional response towards him; Z’s mental health and ongoing use of cannabis; and the parents’ inability to live independently and achieve and maintain acceptable standards within their home. Those matters still encapsulate why the local authority says X cannot grow up living with his parents.
8. In terms of the parents’ ability to meet his basic needs, the PAMS assessment carried out by Ms Pedder forms a significant part of the local authority’s case. The PAMS assessment model has been developed to be particularly appropriate for parents with learning disabilities and Ms Pedder was brought in from outside the local authority to ensure that such expertise was available. She met with the parents over four full days and observed two contact sessions between the parents and X.
9. In a number of the areas assessed Ms Pedder had concerns about the parents’ abilities. Concerns included their ability to manage to provide a balanced diet, to understand childhood illnesses and engage with health services, to respond emotionally to X and to nurture him, to stimulate him, to protect him, and to manage stress for themselves. In terms of living independently, Ms Pedder noted the already high level of support the couple needed to manage on their own and identified the challenge which would they would face if X were added to their family. Importantly she spoke of how the couple were not retaining and implementing advice they were given and she said would need to demonstrate they could do this on a consistent basis. She also doubted their understanding of the need they actually had for support, given what they themselves could express.
10. Particularly worryingly, Ms Pedder spoke of issues from her own observations of contact. “Whilst Y offers X lots of eye contact, smiles and physical warmth, there remain significant concerns in relation to her ability to offer him sufficient stimulation. She does not fully engage her son and her verbal communication is extremely limited, often repeating the same phrases throughout the contact. She fails to attune to X’s emotional cues and can become frustrated when he is distressed, needing advice about what he may need or how she can reassure him. Z will tend to take a back seat within the contacts and appears to make the most of opportunities to leave the room” (D114). It did occur to me as I read this how it chimed with Ms Minney’s evidence about contact which I shall come on to.
11. In her assessment, Ms Pedder identified work which would need to be done with the parents before they could care for X, such as work around healthy eating, recognising childhood illnesses, children’s development and home safety. It was put to her that none of this work had been done and if it had the parents would be in a better position. Her view was that the work would have been necessary but there was no guarantee they would be able to retain and implement the information when caring for X, given what has been seen in contact. The guardian was also in his evidence asked about this, and he felt it would have been too much to have asked all this work of the parents when they were struggling with the basics in contact.
12. Ms Pedder also commented upon the parents’ minimal insight into the challenges that caring for X would bring, that they did not recognise the significant changes that were needed. Ms Pedder concluded: “There is no confidence in their abilities to meet the child’s needs, even at a basic level and even a high level of professional support would not be sufficient to safeguard him…… Sadly, the risks to the child of a return to his parent’s care are insurmountable and I am of the firm view that he will be at risk of significant harm” (D116-117).

13.  The local authority also drew my attention to the evidence of Rachel Minney, who has supervised the majority of contacts between X and his parents. Although her final report was prepared in July she prepared reports for reviews in March and May and it was interesting how similar they all were, showing no real improvement from her perspective on the part of the parents in terms of meeting X’s needs. Ms Minney said she had offered both parents unusually high levels of advice and support, including demonstrating at length what they should be doing. She said normally it would be possible to reduce this significantly after a number of weeks but due to the parents’ ongoing difficulty with both retaining information and putting information into practice that had not been possible. She mentioned that the mother would forget information passed to her by X’s carer within minutes on occasions, such as whether he had just been fed.

14.  Ms Minney spoke of neither parent being able to recognise what X needed, for example they could not read his cues so would tend to feed him when that might not be what he needed. She spoke of the mother being unable to multitask, for example not talking to X whilst changing him or feeding him. She talked of the lack of physical affection, Z particularly seeming very distant and disengaged from his son, although in her oral evidence she acknowledged that being observed in contact was a difficult situation for a parent.. There was also a notable lack of stimulation or play. Ms Minney concluded: “Y and Z cannot meet X’s basic care needs without high levels of support and intervention for 1 ½ hours three times a week in a child focused environment. I am very clear that X would be unsafe if left in the care of his parents for even the shortest of periods without constant and vigilant supervision by an experienced adult” (D177). She reiterated this in her oral evidence, saying she had asked colleagues who had covered contact what they thought about leaving the parents with X and they were clear they would not even leave the room to go to the toilet for two minutes, a viewpoint with which she entirely agreed.

15.  Ms Minney also observed that the parents had failed to attend just over a quarter of contact sessions during her involvement. She said the parents always rang to say they were not coming but left it too late to stop X being brought. She commented on the kind of explanation they gave, the reasons being often inconsequential matters of ill health including a sore throat and sunburn, and she wondered how the parents would manage if X were in their care if they could not attend contact for one and a half hours in this situation. She also noted that one of the parents never came in the absence of the other, other than one occasion when Y was brought expecting to meet Z at contact and he did not arrive.

16.  Ms Minney was asked several times in her oral evidence about apparent improvements over the last six months in the mother’s care in particular. While she accepted on occasions Y’s confidence was better and she needed less support, support was nonetheless always required. She said Y’s confidence also did not grow consistently nor was it sustained and she could regress the following day. She said at every contact she had to repeat some piece of advice she had given previously, not necessarily covering the same area but something every time. Ms Minney was very clear that she had done extensive modelling in a manner appropriate for a parent with learning disabilities. She said the parents were very open to learning but simply could not retain it, let alone transfer that learning as X’s needs developed. It was put to her that Y had attended a parenting course before X’s birth where the coordinator, Flora Jennings, had concluded: “I feel that Y and Z, with the right support, could manage the day to day care of their baby and both demonstrated an ability to bond with their child” (D186). Ms Minney’s response was to point out that Ms Jennings was working from what the parents said, having shown their skills working with a doll that does not wriggle or cry or object. She said one had to factor in a real life baby when considering the future.

17.  She had a particular worry about Z who at times seemed to forget he was holding X. She said he did not often hold his son but when he did she was hyper-vigilant. She was shown references in the contact notes to this on 3 March, 4 April, 16 May and 16 June. In her absence last week a colleague had supervised a contact where the parents took X out into the garden of the contact centre and that worker was particularly worried about the possibility of X being dropped. She commented X was becoming more mobile and more wriggly and this seemed to catch both parents by surprise. Ms Minney spoke of how minimal Z’s involvement with his son was during contact. She mentioned a lot of the time Z would be gazing out into space. He had told her this when he was hearing voices in his head. She explained to him that when it happened he was not available to X and it might frighten him. Z’s response was to say if X came home he would not do it, a completely unrealistic approach she felt.

18.  Ms Minney was asked about the proposal that the parents should be given another six months given the improvements that had been seen. She spoke of how what had been achieved was only small steps forward and said one had to ask if it was enough. Her view was, as she put it, “I don’t feel we’re off the starting blocks”, and she was clear there was nothing like enough to justify further delay for X.

19.  The views of Ms Pedder and Ms Minney were endorsed by X’s social worker, Nicole Dunn. She had carried out the pre-birth assessment and has remained involved throughout the case. She was very clear in her written evidence as well as in her oral evidence that the parents loved X very much and took great delight in him, Y in particular. Given her own assessment and observations, the assessment of Ms Pedder and the observations of contact, she was clear that the parents could not meet X’s needs even now in contact. She outlined very similar concerns to those of Ms Minney. She identified a notable difference in X’s presentation when in the care of his foster carers, when he was a vocal and responsive little boy, and in the care of his parents when he was much more quiet and subdued.

20.  Ms Dunn said any improvement in the parents’ ability to care for X was far from sufficient. She drew attention to a recent contact on 9 July when she was deeply concerned at X exhibiting prolonged distress to which his parents did not respond, a contact where I would agree the recording made for worrying reading five months into proceedings. Ms Dunn acknowledged the difficult setting in which parents were being assessed but pointed out in this particular case there had been a consistent worker giving them advice and yet there was not the development in confidence or skills one would expect. She agreed that it was possible Z in particular was protecting himself from the possibility of his son being removed but said this made it very hard to assess his ability to parent. She, like Ms Minney, was clear that there would have to be another person present twenty four hours a day to support the parents, effectively providing the care for X.

21.  Ms Dunn spoke of parents being very loving together, warm and tactile, but equally clearly at times very immature. She commented upon them arriving late, at the very end of the last LAC Review, having cycled there, being very giggly as if they had been having fun, and utterly failing to grasp the seriousness of the meeting which they knew was taking place to address the future plans for X after assessments. She described the couple as being quite childlike and childish, something also commented upon by Ms Pedder. I myself noted Y giggling in court at a point when a witness was talking about the potential for Z to drop X, a very inappropriate reaction on her part.

22.  The prospect of a further six months delay was strongly opposed by Ms Dunn. She did not feel there had been anything like the change that would be needed to justify such a step. She had also considered the possibility of the mother and baby foster placement but again that was not appropriate as they have never got off the starting blocks. She was certain there was no level of support which could be put in place to enable the parents to bring up X. She said it was not a question of daily help but twenty four hour support which would be required. She was clear the workers at the supported housing where parents now live would not be in a position to offer this, and indeed later I heard that the couple may well move out shortly.

23. Z’s mental health was also a matter which concerned the social worker. I have information from two sources in respect of this. It had been thought at the outset of proceedings that he suffered from drug induced psychosis, his symptoms having begun after him taking a number of drugs at his 18^th birthday party. Dr Quinn however, when assessing him in respect of capacity, stated that the correct diagnosis for him was one of schizophrenia as the symptoms continued after him stopping using drugs. Within the proceedings Z’s treating psychiatrist was also requested to summarise Z’s involvement with mental health services and a letter from him was exhibited to Z’s statement. He confirms that Z has a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, a severe and enduring mental health problem. He spoke of how Z heard voices which at times meant he got distressed and preoccupied with them. Most recently at a review Z told Dr Dinesh the medication was helping him and he was more able to concentrate. Dr Dinesh was positive about Z having stopped using cannabis which he said would help his mental health. Dr Dinesh concluded: “Z’s illness by nature is relapsing and remitting. In the short term his prognosis is good and how things turn out in the long term will depend on how Z is able to engage with the team and care package which will be a combination of medication and psychosocial interventions” (D173).
24. I should add that Ms Dunn was concerned about whether Z would be able to keep off drugs. She noted taking drugs had been his response to stress and she worried about the risk of relapse.
25. In terms of the plans for X, Ms Dunn advised that X’s foster carer wished to be assessed to adopt him, something his grandmother had raised at a LAC review. Whilst the assessment was ongoing the plan would be for contact to reduce in accordance with the care plan. She said there was a plan for letterbox contact thereafter, although this appears I think to been omitted from the care plan so Ms Dunn agreed the local authority would amend its plan to reflect this.
26. The position of the children’s guardian I can state quite succinctly as he entirely supports the local authority. In his report he analyses the evidence filed and agrees that even with considerable support and guidance the parents have not managed to achieve stability or demonstrate an ability to meet X’s basic needs. Mr Smith says he does not consider that the local authority or any other service could provide the level of ongoing support and monitoring which would be required just to ensure X’s basic needs were met. He was clear that the mother’s position as a new parent who also had a learning disability, and indeed the father’s mental health issues, had been taken into account by the local authority in its work with the parents. He did not feel that the very small amount of progress made by the parents in their lives justified adjourning for a further six months for more assessment and teaching. Similarly, he did not agree with the mother’s proposal that she could go with X into a mother and baby placement, particularly as this would mean a change of primary carer for X. Mr Smith was very clear that neither of these options were in X’s timescales. Having analysed the various options in some detail in his report, he concludes that the plan of adoption is the only one which will provide X with the necessary stability and security.

The Position of the Parents

27. X’s parents have to their great credit been able to accept that the local authority had good reason to be concerned at the beginning of this case about their ability to care for X. A threshold document was agreed between the parties setting out the agreed basis for the case. The threshold as agreed between the parties is as follows :
1. Y suffers from a learning disability. Both she and Z require support to live independently, and struggle to manage basic household tasks.
2. Z suffers from drug induced psychosis. His mental health has been unstable throughout the pre-birth assessment, requiring two admissions to hospital, and he reports constantly hearing voices and seeing images of a violent and disturbing nature.
3. Both Y and Z fail to act on advice, they were both advised by various professionals not to have a baby, and during the pre-birth assessment have moved house twice against advice risking a change of professionals working with them and providing support.
4. Y and Z are living with Y’s mother Paula. It is a chaotic household with numerous young people drinking alcohol and smoking. The relationship between Y and her sister Claire is volatile involving physical fights and the risk of physical harm to the baby if caught up in conflict between them is significant.
5. Y was recently subjected to sexual exploitation by a neighbour and was unable to protect herself, which raises concerns regarding how she would be able to protect a baby.
28. Y and Z say that, despite those worries at the beginning of the case, they think they could now look after X at home with support. If I am not willing to agree to that they say they should be given another six months to show that they can go on improving, such that X could then be placed in their care. Y, when I asked her what she actually wanted me to do now, said that maybe the best thing now would be a mother and baby placement for them. When I asked Z the same question, whether he wanted X back now or to wait six months so they could learn more, he said either would be good. Maybe it would be a fair summary to say that all they want is to be able to care for X, now or in the near future, wherever that could be.
29. Y says very clearly in her statement that X would not be at risk of significant harm if her were with her and Z. She says they are now living independently in supported accommodation and are managing their home well, so she feels they could care for X there. Z told me they in fact hoped to move on Thursday as they have found a one bedroom furnished flat. Either option Y says lessens the chance of X getting caught up in arguments between her and her sister. The couple both say if X was in their care they would be happy to carry on working with professionals and would accept support to care for him, from the local authority as well as from their families.
30. Neither of the couple accept the negative assessments of them by Ms Dunn or Ms Pedder, and indeed think the local authority has been against them from the start. Y points out that the ante-natal classes for young parents they attended at a project before X was born resulted in positive comments from the course co-ordinator. Y addresses in her statement some of the particular issues which were raised by Ms Pedder, disagreeing with the observations made by her, but Ms Pedder was very clear in her response to questions about this is she quite certain of what she saw and did not see when visiting the couple’s home. Y feels she understands the issue of abuse much better now, having experienced it herself, so would be able to see if X was at risk in such a way, although in court the explanation she gave of what the signs might be was rather simplistic. Y also thought they were keeping their new home clean and tidy, and said she did not agree with Ms Pedder that the house they were living in was not in a good state when her assessment was carried out.
31. In respect of the observations of Ms Minney in contact, Y thought the report showed some progress in their care of X due to the support they were offered there. She said she tried to talk to him, to hold him correctly, to feed him and change his nappy. Z pointed out he was not as drowsy in contact now, due to changing his medication. Both of them said that due to their difficulties they took longer than other people to learn things. The parents pointed out it was very awkward being watched in contact and Z in particular felt if they were living at home with X it would be different as they would all be much happier. He also said in a way he had not allowed himself to get too close to X, knowing that the couple might never be able to take him home.
32. Both parents felt if they were given another six months they would be able to show they could care for X, if such proof was needed. Z said in his statement : “I think we need more time to show that we are able to learn how to care for X. It is very difficult to do this when we do not get to spend much time with him. No wonder he reacts more to his foster carer than to us as he spends most of his time with them. If we had longer I am sure things would improve more quickly. If we had a year, rather than 6 months, I believe we could prove that we are able to look after X” (D169).
33. Y and Z were also both willing to take any support which was offered. In their evidence both agreed they might need help but neither could really explain what help they might need. Y mentioned assistance with changing nappies, bathing him, filling up bottles and feeding X. They thought any help which might be needed could be given by X’s social worker, Z’s social worker, Y’s nurse or her occupational therapist, as well as the housing workers where they now live, and also Y’s mother and Z’s sister. Y was unsure whether she would need someone around all the time or just someone they could phone when needed, saying it was maybe ‘a bit of both’. Z did not think they would need someone there twenty four hours a day, as they would learn as they went, but maybe someone popping in to see how they were doing would be helpful.
34. Z acknowledged that he has mental health problems but felt things were better now that he was not using cannabis as he was not so preoccupied with the voices he hears. He said he had asked for some counselling and has been referred to the psychologist attached to his mental health support team. This would hopefully assist him in dealing with the voices and also with the grief regarding the loss of his mother when he was younger. He confirmed he was taking his medication regularly, had stopped using cannabis about five months ago, and had started attending weekly drug counselling sessions, all of which is very much to his credit.

Decision

35. I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of X. I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family. The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare. In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders are “very extreme”, and should only be made when “necessary” for the protection of the child’s interests, “when nothing else will do”. The court “must never lose sight of the fact that (the child’s) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at least one of them” and adoption “should only be contemplated as a last resort”.
36. It is not for the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering is not permitted. In YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 967 it was said: “Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and….everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.”
37. I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (supra) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the options for X, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer.
38. In reaching my decision I have taken into account that X’s welfare throughout his life is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I must also have in mind the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice a child’s welfare. I have to consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and the children as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. I am very conscious that any orders I go on to make must be in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of X’s rights and be proportionate.
39. A placement order is sought by the local authority in respect of X. The court cannot make a placement order unless the parent has consented or the court is satisfied that the parents’ consent should be dispensed with. Here the only ground for me to dispense with the parents’ consent would be if X’s welfare requires consent to be dispensed with. In that context I am conscious that “requires” means what is demanded rather than what is merely optional.
40. The central question I have to ask myself is whether X should be rehabilitated to the care of his parents, with or without statutory orders, or whether he should be adopted. No one has proposed him remaining in foster care long term and, given his age and the perceived wisdom regarding the inappropriateness of this as an outcome for a child of his age (see Black LJ in Re V [2013] EWCA Civ 923), I do not propose to address this possibility. Equally there are no possible family placements so that is another option I have had to discount. I must however also consider if I should adjourn these proceedings for six months to give the parents longer to improve their parenting skills. I have to balance the pros and cons of each of the options being presented to me. McFarlane LJ in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 said “What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.” In addressing this task I have considered all the points in the welfare checklists contained in both the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and propose to consider the evidence in the light of those factors.
41. It is very important to have in mind X’s physical, emotional and educational needs as a starting point in my analysis. As the guardian says, he is a vulnerable baby who is totally reliant on his primary carers to ensure he has all of his physical, emotional, health and educational needs met in a safe, warm, loving environment. X is also a child with some additional medical needs. X was born with a dilated right kidney which requires ongoing antibiotics to prevent recurrent urinary tract infections and he may require a surgical procedure to correct this in the near future. He also needs to have the opportunity of a secure and stable family life for the rest of his childhood and beyond.
42. In the light of this, a key question has to be how capable the parents are of meeting his needs. Without doubt they both love their son, and descriptions most particularly of the mother’s care of him our that she is warm and gentle with him. The problem though is that neither parent is able to understand what X needs and then to give the care which he requires. I know the parents do not accept the assessment of Ms Pedder but the work she carried out just three months ago shows matters of real concern. A frequent theme was the inability of the parents to take on advice given and retain that advice over a period of time and that was evidenced throughout contact over the last six months. Ms Minney struck me as a warm and approachable person and she has been a consistent support for the parents throughout that contact. She could not have been clearer however that despite all her support the parents had, as she put it, ‘not left the starting blocks’. I have her observations three days a week for many months and reading the contact notes which had been supplied to me it is clear that very real concerns were evident as recently as the middle of last month when she left to go on holiday. I am quite satisfied that the local authority have made allowances for both the mother’s learning disability and the father’s mental health issues, as well as the fact they are both new parents. Also the parents have not been able to attend contact consistently and cancelling for reasons such as having sunburn neither shows an understanding of the impact on X of cancelling nor how his needs will be met if they were caring for him full-time.
43. Ms Pedder in her report concluded: “I do not currently see either parent as capable of meeting this child’s needs either together or individually and in order for them to care for their son, there would need to be another adult within the household, assessed as capable of caring for the child. This adult would need to be X’s primary carer and would need to supervise and support all of the parent’s care of him” (D114). Sadly this is a comment with which I entirely agree. There is no level of support, short of twenty four hour care, which could be put in place and were twenty four hour care to be offered it would mean someone else was bringing up X. Were X to be in the care of his parents he would inevitably suffer significant harm, despite their real love for their son, as they have sufficient challenges caring for themselves without a child as well. I fear they will not hear what I am saying about them within this judgment but I would emphasise none of this is their fault. They have done their absolute best to be good parents to their son and he will know how hard they tried.
44. I have thought very carefully about whether waiting another six months would mean it would be likely X could go to live with his parents but that is simply not realistic. Looking at the very limited progress which has been made in the last six months, I cannot look ahead and think that six more months would be sufficient. X’s needs will be changing significantly in that time and Y, as the person currently doing almost all of X’s care in contact, had no sense of how that would affect what he needed. I appreciate Z says the problem is that they are being watched in contact but I simply do not accept that. I do not think another six months of X staying as he is would enable the couple to learn to meet his existing needs, let alone them learning to deal with a much more demanding toddler. And I agree with Deborah Pedder that X’s life and development cannot be “placed on pause” in the hope the parents may improve, given the lack of optimism on the part of any professional who has worked with the family.
45. The only alternative which is being suggested is one of adoption for X. There is the potential for a child to be harmed by a change of the person caring for him. However in this case it is entirely possible X will be adopted by his foster carers who are currently being assessed, this having been suggested by his grandmother. I am very conscious that adoption means a loss for X of any meaningful relationship with his birth parents and with their families. Letterbox contact is useful for identity purposes but cannot replace a real knowledge of his parents. The relationship he has with his parents through contact probably is not very significant, given the difficulties they have faced when caring for him. I have to balance against the loss of that relationship the importance to X of having a family who will be his forever and that has to be a very significant consideration when considering what is in X’s best interests.
46. Spelling out then the balancing exercise I have carried out, if X could be placed in his parents’ care, he would grow up knowing he was being brought up by his parents. That way he would have a clear sense of who he was and he would be growing up in a ‘normal’ arrangement. However the local authority assessments undertaken prior to and during these proceedings conclude that Y and Z sadly would not be able to meet the needs of X.
47. Looking at the alternative of adoption, this has the advantage of providing long-term stability, permanency, emotional security and a sense of belonging within a family environment for the whole of X’s childhood and beyond. His needs would be consistently met by carers who have undergone a rigorous process of assessment to ensure they are capable of meeting his needs. Although he would grow up knowing he was not with his birth parents, the guardian addressed this, saying: “Research suggests that adopted children respond differently to their circumstances depending upon their early experiences, and the support and nurturing they receive from their adopted family. It is likely that X would feel some level of upset in the knowledge that he was removed from his parents care. Nevertheless, if this information is provided in an age appropriate and sensitive manner and X is able to understand that his parents did try under difficult circumstances but ultimately were not able to make the necessary changes to care for him, then it will be possible for X to enjoy the nurturing of the permanent family without resentment. X will need to grow up with the knowledge of his origins. This will be achieved through life story work, indirect contact and sensitive parenting by his adopters” (F42). Z said both in his statement and in court that he is really worried X may go off the rails in his teens if he is adopted and he feels that is much less likely if X is living with his parents. I appreciate that is a very real worry for the parents. My view though is that adoption is the best way of giving X security for the future, the best possible base for him getting through his teens, and that will be particularly true if he is able to stay in his current placement.
48. If one then considers X’s future, it is clear that adoption is the only way all his needs can properly be met. Having carried out the balancing exercise that I must, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of X being returned safely to his parents’ care, and that his needs for stability and permanence can only be met in an adoptive placement. I am satisfied that the local authority’s final care plan for X is proportionate and, in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002, in his best welfare interests. I therefore make a care order and, having concluded that X’s welfare requires me to dispense with the parents’ consent to placing him for adoption, I make a placement order authorising the local authority to place X for adoption.
49. There is one further direction I wish to make. I think it is hugely important for children who are adopted that they have information available to them, through their adoptive parents, so they can make sense of their early life. This judgment, in setting out what I have read and heard in court, gives at least a summary of that start and will ensure X knows his parents loved him very much and tried their hardest to learn what was necessary so they could look after him. Whilst my judgment will be placed in an anonymised form in the public domain it is important that it is easily available to those who will be bringing X up. I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment must be released by the Local Authority to X’s adopters so that it is available to him in future life.
50. Finally I also make an order for public funding assessment for all the respondents in this matter. I hope that my reasons as given are sufficient but if the advocates require any further detail to be given I would ask them to let me know.