England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

 

 

Case No: LS14C00558

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LEEDS

 

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

Date: 3 July 2015

Before :

HHJ Lynch

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

Between :

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

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

Catherine Mason for the Applicant

Emily Ward for the 1 ^st Respondent

Joanne Whitehead for the 2 ^nd Respondent

Gordon Wright for the 3 ^rd Respondent

Michael George for the 4 ^th – 6 ^th Respondents

Hearing dates: 29 June – 3 July 2015

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

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

Introduction

1. In these proceedings I am concerned for J, aged 2, K aged 1, and L aged under 1. The mother of all of the children is X. The father of J is Z, who does not have parental responsibility for him. The father of the younger two children is Y and he does have parental responsibility for his children.
2. The local authority began court proceedings on 10 December 2014 when L was born. The local authority had already had involvement with the family for over two years during due to concerns that J and K had suffered neglect as a result of X failing to meet their basic care needs. A high level of support had been received by X from a number of different agencies but the local authority says little progress was made and what progress she did make was not sustained. All three children from their respective births have been subject to child protection plans in the category of neglect. X and Y had separated prior to the court case beginning but continued for a while in a more distant physical and emotional relationship.
3. The case came before the court for a contested hearing in late December and interim care orders were made in respect of all three children, another judge approving a plan of placement in foster care. Since that time the children have lived together in a foster placement. The children see X four times a week, Y once a week. J has grown up believing Y to be his father. As the assessment of Z was negative it was not felt right to introduce his father into his life but the local authority is committed to life story work to explain J’s family circumstances to him. As a result J has not had contact with his father.

Background

4. In January the case was timetabled to final hearing in May and X was required to file a statement regarding paternity. Ultimately Z was located and, as a result of DNA testing, found to be J's father. That led to a slight delay in the proceedings so that he could be assessed as a potential carer for his son. There have also been assessments of X and Y. Sadly all of the assessments ultimately reached the conclusion that the children cannot be brought up by any of their parents and I shall return to the various assessments later in this judgment. There have also been viability assessments of some family members which have also been negative and which have not been challenged.
5. It is important for me to say that to the credit of Y and particularly X they have been able to accept that, when this case began, the situation the children were in at home was such that the children should not have been living there. Early on in this hearing an agreement was reached as to the wording of a document which sets out the threshold over which the local authority has to get if it asks the court to make a care order. I have set out the agreed document at the end of this judgment. Because the parents were able to agree this I have been able to focus on what would need to change in the future for the children to be able to return to their mother's care and whether or not that could happen quickly enough such that children would not be harmed by waiting.

Issues and the Evidence

6. In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter, together with an email sent from the adoption social worker to the local authority solicitor dealing with potential placements for the children were I to make a placement order. I have heard evidence in court from the social worker, an independent social worker who carried out a PAMS assessment, a worker who did direct parenting work with the mother, a psychologist, X, Y and the guardian. Z has not attended court throughout this hearing but Mr Wright has remained to keep a watching brief. During the hearing regular breaks have been taken to ensure X has been able to follow what is going on and for her to check matters back with her barrister.

The Position of the Local Authority and the Guardian

7.       I am grouping together the cases of the local authority and the guardian as they reached the same conclusion on the basis of the same evidence.

8.       The children’s social worker [“the social worker”], says that worries about X’s ability to meet the needs of her children have existed throughout the lives of her children. She experienced a road accident when she was nine which left her in a coma for a week and a few years later had another more minor brain injury. The combined effect of those incidents, together with other experiences in her life, seemed to have affected her ability to meet the needs of her children.

9.       Looking at what the difficulties are, she has had difficulties with budgeting, home conditions and providing basic care for her children. At the time proceedings were issued X was living with her own mother and sister and the property was overcrowded. X has not always been able to take on board advice from professionals and has failed to engage with support put in place to assist her. She has a learning disability and there have been concerns regarding her vulnerability. Worries about her ability to care for her children the local authority says were evident again when L was born, shown by her struggle to meet her baby's needs in hospital. I considered statements from several members of nursing staff on the ward when L was born and noted how all of them worried about X's ability to look after L. They commented on how she did not seem able to retain information and advice they gave, although I acknowledge they would not have been doing this in the way the PAMS assessor says would be the right way to give information to X.

10. The local authority also had worries about X’s relationship with Y, which relationship has included controlling behaviour, a particular worry given X’s learning difficulty. Y also has mental health difficulties. The local authority was concerned that Y failed to engage with the CRISIS Team and with work outlined in the child protection plan to support his ongoing mental health difficulties. As an example of his worrying behaviour, the local authority reports that he informed professionals that he wanted to set his flat on fire whilst he was in it.
11. Early assessment in these proceedings of X, by a psychiatrist and a psychologist, confirmed that she had a mild learning difficulty. The psychologist [“the psychologist”] is someone who in his career has specialised in working with people within learning disability services and with acquired brain injury. In his report he identified X in fact had an average IQ but she had specific cognitive impairments arising as a consequence of traumatic brain injury. Most significantly she had difficulties in her executive functioning and working memory, which would make it very hard for her to learn new skills and then apply that knowledge. This problem would be evident in respect of caring for herself let alone caring for a child. He said her impairments meant she would have difficulty in maintaining a habitable home environment, maintaining personal hygiene, carrying out any caring responsibilities for children, and developing and maintaining personal relationships. He identified that these difficulties would become more pronounced as she was exposed to an increasing range of stressors in her day to day activities and as a consequence of her parenting responsibilities.
12. Particularly in terms of parenting, the psychologist said X would have difficulty parenting all three children independently. She has difficulties in planning a series of events or planning unstructured activities. Given that parenting would require that, she would need to be supported by professionals in developing her skills in this area. He said she would need to be taught through role play and practical exercises, designed specifically for a parent with a learning disability. However he concluded she would require ongoing support and education to enable her to parent her children effectively throughout their minority.
13. The psychologist said she also demonstrated psychological health difficulties related to sexual abuse in her past, her acquired neurological deficits and had difficulties in social relationships. He said these difficulties caused her to be vulnerable to intimate partner abuse and potential exploitation.
14. Looking at what could be done to improve X's situation, separate from any necessary parenting support, the psychologist said X required therapy and education. He spoke of the need for counselling/therapy sessions, a total of maybe as many as 24 sessions which therapy should take no more than 26 weeks in total. That work would need to be done before she could be a full time mother to her children. In addition he said X presented with social anxiety, depression and low self esteem, with a tendency to be non-assertive. He recommended she attend a group-based assertiveness course to address this. If she successfully completed all this work the psychologist said X should have the ability to provide safe and good enough parenting for her children, provided she received and was compliant with the appropriate level of support and care that she would need to meet her day-to-day parenting responsibilities throughout their childhood. He did refine this in his oral evidence, confirming that what he meant was that she would have a role in providing that parenting to her children. Having seen the work done by the Project worker he was quite clear that X herself would not develop the skills necessary to enable her to parent her children.
15. The psychologist talked very clearly in his evidence about the support which could be expected from professionals, in the absence of family support, for a person who has suffered neurological difficulties as a result of brain injury. It was clear that this mother has slipped through the net in terms of assessment for support in her own right. The psychologist anticipated after she had physically recovered from her injury the family would have said they were managing and no assessment would have been carried out. He said the support she would need would be required for the rest of her life, and could come from her partner or family. In the absence of that she would need to be assessed to see what could be provided by the local authority. Such care would be needed even if she were living on her own without children.
16. In terms of X caring for her children with support, the psychologist was very clear that parents with disabilities can parent their children despite having support 24 hours a day. He said such arrangements would happen when the parent could provide direction and management and oversight of the staff offering to care, where the parents were "conducting the orchestra". In this case though he said the care staff would be conducting the orchestra and X would be part of the orchestra. He said in such a scenario children would regard the person doing the significant care as the parent. It was he said a question for others as to what constitutes being a parent, taking into account a significant part of parenting of these children would be given by others alongside X.
17. In terms of whether the court should adjourn for further period for assessment of X, the psychologist could not have been clearer that there was no value in this. He was clear it would provide no further information as to X's ability to parent. He accepted waiting for further assessment of X by Adult Services would tell the court the exact level of support she would need to care for herself and to parent, and how she might be involved in parenting her children. That took him back to the care that would need to be provided by others and the fact that here that would be provided by statutory agencies, where she would just play some role within that parenting of the children.
18. The psychologist also assessed Y. He noted Y's abusive experiences whilst in the care of his mother and his resultant anger to her for failing to protect him and his siblings. He was removed from her care at the age of six and had a variety of care experiences after that. The psychologist said Y presents with psychological issues related to his abandonment by his own father, his mother failing to safeguard him as a child, and the death of a relative, his symptoms indicating he has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder related to these experiences. The psychologist recommended he needs treatment such as CBT to address his childhood experiences, to understand the impact they have had on his well-being, and to move forward. There would need to be probably 8 to 16 such sessions, taking 3 to 4 months from the commencement of therapy. He also recommended Y should attend group-based anger management/assertiveness education. Y's epilepsy also needed ongoing medical management. The psychologist concluded once Y had undertaken parenting education, received therapy to address the consequences of his childhood experiences, and could demonstrate that he could manage his stronger emotions in a better way, he would have the ability to safely and consistently care for the children.
19. Turning back to X, the local authority commissioned an independent social worker, [“the PAMS assessor”] to carry out an assessment of X using PAMS tools, ie working in a way specific to a person with a learning disability. Her conclusion, as set out on page E227, was: “I am unable to recommend rehabilitation of the children to X’s care at this stage. There are parenting limitations identified within this assessment which require focused input using an appropriate parenting programme commensurate with X’s neurological difficulties which have an impact upon her learning needs. If rehabilitation is to be considered I would suggest that further parenting work, domestic violence including self-esteem/assertiveness input and counselling is provided to X within a strict timescale of 3 months. A re-assessment would be required at the completion of this initial programme of work to consider the viability of safe reunification with a package of support likely to be intensive in the short to medium term.” I shall return to the evidence of the PAMS assessor later in this section.
20. The local authority took stock having received the assessment of the PAMS assessor. Rather than weekly sessions for three months the local authority instead commissioned an intensive piece of work with X to be carried out by a project [“the Project”], with a review after three weeks to see if further work was appropriate. The social worker acknowledged this was not the work envisaged in the report of the PAMS assessor, namely a weekly session at three months. The social worker however felt this was the best way forward, as it would mean daily modelling, with an hour of teaching and then two hours of contact when X could be advised and guided on how to implement what she had just learned. The social worker felt this would give X the best possible chance to learn and demonstrate what she could do. The social worker also felt the independent worker identified would be better able to carry out the work than she herself. She therefore took her request to the Finance Panel and was successful. The brief for the Project was to ascertain whether X had the ability to learn new information in parenting skills and to assess her ability to put them into practice. The work got up and running on 7 May, having been slightly delayed due to X being unwell, and continued until a review on 20 May. Over that period nine sessions, each lasting several hours and totally about 33 hours, took place on consecutive weekdays with a review meeting taking place on the final day.
21. A worker [“the Project worker”], who carried out the work, addressed issues such as health and hygiene, cleanliness, management of the children's behaviour, diet and mealtimes, play and learning and safety in the community, as well as looking at X's relationship with Y. The Project worker concluded : “There is little doubt that X wants to make changes in her parenting and have the children returned to her care; however from this brief period of educational work and assessment it is apparent that she is not yet at a stage where this could occur. X’s own personal hygiene, self care skills, punctuality, relationship with Y, reading L’s cues and responding to her, as well as consistency in disciplining J and K, remained of concern. Whilst X has made some improvements in her parenting and taken on board advice, she has not consistently or fully explained to the children what unwanted behaviour they should stop and why. She has not dealt with safety issues straight away and it was seen as the assessment progressed and less discussion and prompts about discipline were held, X then started to lack consistency. X would need intensive support in caring for the children, and this level of support could not (be) provided within a supported accommodation project. If X had someone who could prompt and support her in the full-time care of the children then she would do as she was told, but again unfortunately there is no-one who would be able to take on this role.” [E341]
22. The Project worker continued : “At least a further month of intensive work would need to be completed. This would need to follow a similar pattern to the work carried out in this assessment, whereby educational work is carried out separately with X, then modelled when in contact with the children. X would then have to demonstrate an ability to be more consistent in her care and interactions with all three children. Given X has not been consistent in the two weeks of assessment by (the Project) raises concern that she would not be consistent in the next month.” [E342]
23. The court has the benefit now of the views of both the psychologist and the PAMS assessor as to the work done by the Project. The PAMS assessor acknowledged the programme of work was not what she had envisaged but said what took place was in fact much better, not something she had experienced a local authority offer before. She felt the high level of repetition, with the children present after teaching, the mother being prompted and encouraged to implement what she had learned, was a bespoke piece of parenting work and would have been much more effective than if there had been a week’s gap between sessions. She noted such intensive service provision was one of the Department of Health’s recommendations for work with parents with learning disabilities. She was entirely satisfied the project had worked with X with the right type of approach and using the right materials.
24. The PAMS assessor was asked by Ms Ward on behalf of X whether there should be a further period of teaching and assessment. Her answer was very clearly that there should not be, that she did not know what it would achieve in moving this case forward. Her concerns would remain around X's ability to implement consistently what she was taught, her inability to multi-task, and her struggle to anticipate the children’s needs without a high level of prompting and support. Simply extending the work to three months was not necessary given the intensive work done so far. There had been nine intensive days of work, plus work done in her own assessment and in contact, and she was satisfied that was appropriate given the resulting information.
25. Obviously other work which had been identified, including CBT, has not been carried out with X and Ms Ward asked the PAMS assessor if that did not mean there had been a deficit in assessment. The PAMS assessor said not, that when such intensive work was being done X should not have been overloaded in that phase. She could not say whether it was deliberate on the part of the local authority but if she had been asked she would have advised them not to do such work. She said that parenting work had to take priority and in any event the other work envisaged with X would take time to secure and implement. Given the outcome of intensive parenting work she would not be recommending further delay now for the other work to be carried out.
26. Looking at the outcome of the project’s work, the PAMS assessor said the assessment showed that a high level of prompting and support would be necessary as the children develop, placing a heavy reliance and responsibility on the local authority and related agencies. She said this would be needed throughout the children's infanthoods, throughout which time their emotional needs would not be met. She agreed in response to a question from Mr George this would in effect mean the support provider was doing the parenting.
27. The psychologist too was asked to comment on the work done by the Project and in his written response to questions he agreed it was an appropriate approach, with education on consecutive days. When the psychologist gave his oral evidence he spoke more strongly, saying he was surprised at the quality of work done. As with the PAMS assessor, he said his experience had been of such assessments being done in one or two short sessions a week, whereas the Project worker had been able to do a piece of work which gave X time to develop a skill in a long enough session and then practice it in the same day, what he described as “massed practice”. The work was done through shaping, modelling and training, teaching based on demonstration. Despite that X had great difficulties transferring ability she learnt in one activity to another activity, ie generalising. He said X's skills were specific to the context and situation in which they were learned. In his report he said X “demonstrated that she can learn new skills, but unless she is able to practice the skill within the context of an inflexible routine until such time as the new skill is over-learned, new information and activity can interfere with previous learning. X has great difficulty undertaking basic multitasking activity and learning more than one new skill at a time. The assessment and education approach used it demonstrates that X can learn an individual skill in sequential steps. X is unable to consistently combine a number of skills in such a way as to complete a more complex parenting or self-care activity, without external prompting or supervision.” [E361] He went on to set out some of the difficulties she exhibited including shifting from one activity to another; initiating and then completing an activity, particularly if distracted; and difficulty in planning and organising activity. He said such difficulties adversely affected her ability to maintain changes.
28. The psychologist concluded, as the PAMS assessor had done, “A longer period of parenting education will not reduce the impact of these difficulties upon X’s ability to parent her children” [E363].
29. Turning back to the plans of the local authority, the social worker said she had done her best to assess whether or not X could successfully care for her children and to identify if there is any support available which could enable that to happen. I have certainly been very impressed with the social worker, a consistent figure throughout assessments in this case, who has been committed to giving this mother every opportunity to bring up her children and who I am satisfied has left no stone unturned in her efforts. Her commitment to all of this family, including X, came over very clearly in her evidence, when she said that nobody wanted X to succeed more than she did. She had fought for the involvement of the Project in the hope X might be able ultimately to live in their move on accommodation. Given the outcome of the assessments the social worker says a further period of intensive support and yet more assessments would be necessary before one could decide if she could care for the children and she was not at all optimistic as to the outcome. She then had to balance that against the impact of delay on the children, given that there would be as much as a three month period of work, then an assessment has to be written up, the case would have to go back to the ADM for further consideration of plans if it had not worked out, before the sequential filing of evidence could happen and then a final hearing.
30. Considering the potential impact of all of that on the children, the social worker concluded: “It is clear that X has a great deal of love and emotional warmth for her children and as she has stated many times would do anything to have the children rehabilitated into her care. However, when considering the amount of work X will need to undertake in order that she may be able to care for the children, the length of time this would take and the possibility of X not succeeding then the Court would have to balance this with J, K and L remaining within a foster placement for almost a year, considering their very young ages and possibility of securing permanency within an adoptive placement.” [C60]
31. The social worker’s assessment of both of the fathers was that neither of them was in a position to offer to care their children needed, nor was there any family member who could care for the children or support the mother in doing so. In respect of the maternal grandmother, the social worker said throughout the period up to L’s birth she had failed to provide that support and the social worker was confident nothing had changed. As result the local authority's plan for all three children is one of adoption, the very clear plan being that the children would be placed together. The social worker acknowledged she could not guarantee this but the process of looking was not beginning with any date in mind when the search for the children being placed together would be abandoned. She knew from discussions with the adoption team manager that there were already local prospective adopters approved for sibling groups of three children and she was very positive a placement would be identified for these children.
32. The social worker was asked questions about her analysis that the children's needs would best be met by adoption rather than long-term fostering. She had addressed this very comprehensively in her final statement when she went through her “balance sheet”, looking at all the potential outcomes for the children. Both in her statement and her oral evidence she set out why she would not support long-term fostering for the children, whilst acknowledging the advantage of maintaining a degree of relationship with their parents. She spoke of the higher risk of placement breakdown in long-term foster placements as opposed to adoptive placements. There was also the question of the intrusive nature for children of being on care orders, having to have regular visits from social workers, having six monthly LAC reviews, having to have police checks done of any home where they wanted to have a sleepover, and she spoke about how it made particularly older foster children feel very different to their friends. The children would also grow up knowing that their carers were paid professionals which could impact on their sense of family identity and security.
33. In terms of future contact between the children, their mother and Y, the plan is that it should gradually reduce to monthly and stay at that level until an adoptive placement has been identified. A schedule showing that reduction in contact was drawn up during the course of this hearing and is to be incorporated into the amended care plan.
34. The children’s guardian, (“the guardian”), is a very experienced guardian and I found her main report a useful summary of the position the court finds itself in at this stage of the case. She went through the assessments in the same way that I have done, looking to see if the situation this family in the beginning of these case could be changed by work done with X in particular. She looked at the assessments of the psychologist, the independent social worker, and the project who delivered the work, and considered if there were enough positives to make it worth delaying for more work to be done. The quote that follows is rather longer than I would normally put in a judgment but it neatly and fairly encapsulates the situation as the guardian sees it better than I could summarise:

·          “I am aware that X is of the view that she should have been given longer to demonstrate that she could meet the needs of the children. I have to consider the impact upon the children of delay. I do not doubt X’s commitment to the children but am concerned that she does not appreciate the enormity of the task ahead. These are three very young children, the older boys are clearly showing signs of neglectful parenting and in my view need better than good enough parenting.

·          I have carefully considered whether the level of support services required could be provided for X with the children and have concluded that they could not. There is significant concern about X’s ability to live on her own and function as an adult in the community, to add on to that the responsibility of caring for three small needy children is too great a task in my opinion.

·          Each of the assessment reports are of the view that for X to succeed as a parent she would need someone with her on a full time basis, someone who lives with her. I have considered whether there is any adult who could fulfil this role. Prior to the proceedings being issued X was living with her mother…. with the children. It is evident from the concerns at the outset of the proceedings and the subsequent assessment of (the grandmother) that she does not fully recognise X’s difficulties and does not have the capacity to act in the supportive role that is required. There are no other family members who could fulfil this role. There are concerns about each of the children’s fathers and neither of them would be in a position to offer this support to X and the children.

·          In these circumstances I have considered whether professional support could be offered for the children. There is no service or a combination of services that could provide this service in the family home. I spoke to the assessor at (the Project) to ask if she had considered a period of residential assessment and / or supported accommodation for X. It is their view and one that I agree with, that the risk of the children’s needs being neglected is too high for this setting.

·          It is my view that the fact that there are three such young children, each with competing needs means that this is a risk that cannot be taken. There is no doubt that X loves her children and wants to be a parent to them, the needs of the children however lead me to conclude that this is not in their interests.” [E347]

35. In her oral evidence the guardian confirmed, as each of the other professional witnesses had done, that she did not think adjourning would give the court any further information regarding the mother's ability to meet the needs of the children. Parenting is a complex task and all the mother had so far been able to learn was some basic tasks. The guardian did not think she would be able to meet the different needs of all of the children on a consistent basis. It would take far too long for the mother to demonstrate she could make change, which the guardian doubted she could. She could not support the children being put on hold given the impact delay would have on them. She was clear, as she put it, “their need for placement is now”.
36. Given her support of the local authority's position regarding X, and her endorsement of their assessment of the two fathers and of extended family members, the guardian looked at the remaining options for care for the children throughout their childhoods. She could not support the plan of them remaining in long-term foster care given their young ages. She said in her report regarding the application for a placement order: “Their primary need at this stage in their lives is for permanence both in placement and in their care. For children of this age the uncertainty and long term social work involvement that inevitably comes with a foster placement does not meet their needs.” [E346]
37. If the children could not return to the care of one of their parents the guardian said the right outcome for them would be adoption. The guardian repeated her opposition to long-term fostering as an option for such young children. She was clear in her report every effort should be made to keep the children together and if not they would need adopters committed to regular direct and indirect contact, to maintain the sibling relationship which we all know is the most long-lasting throughout life. In her oral evidence she confirmed she was optimistic about the prospect of the children being placed together given the information provided by the local authority.
38. In respect of letterbox contact for J, the point was made by Ms Whitehead that the care plan did not provide for indirect contact between J and Y, who has been a father figure for him throughout his early life. The guardian was clear that indirect contact for a child was needed with anyone who had been a significant person. All the plans provide for indirect contact between the children and their grandmother. The guardian was very clear that J's plan needed to provide for letterbox contact between him and that Y.

The mother’s position

39. I found it very poignant listening to X give her evidence. She brought some beautiful photos in for me to see of the three children together. She had given quite a significant sum of money to the foster carer to have those photos taken to give her a record of her children together and she glowed with pride when she spoke about them. That pride and the emotion that came through in tears at times during her evidence showed me how right all the professionals were when they spoke of her love for her children.
40. X has been able to accept the problem she had up to the beginning of this case but asked for “just a bit more time” to show that she can do things. She says, and it is accepted, that she has worked well with the social worker and did all the assessments and work required of her. She says she has tried her hardest to do everything that has been suggested and thinks that she had more time she could become a better parent. She would have wanted the three months that the PAMS assessor suggested rather than the intensive piece of work set up by the local authority. She is clear she would go to any groups it was felt would be helpful and do anything else necessary if it meant the children could come back to her care.
41. In court X explained that she just felt the work done by the Project worker had been too much for her all at one time and she found herself forgetting things she had been taught before. She thought it would be easier if less had been done with her, just one thing at a time which she could then repeat a lot before starting to work on the next thing. She thought the psychologist was wrong, that she could learn new things and could be consistent. She felt he did not know her, that he was just going by a piece of paper. If not as much was done and she was given enough time to practice over the next few months she told me that would be perfect.
42. It was clear that X was very worried that if her children were to be placed for adoption they may well be separated or that placement might break down. If the children could not come back to her she thought they would have a better chance of staying together if they were in foster care, and she thought there was no greater chance of them having to move placement. And, of course, the key point for her was that she would also be able to go on seeing them.

Y’s position

43. Y’s position changed slightly from when he filed his statement to the beginning of this hearing. In his statement he was very clear he opposed the plan of adoption for the children. His view, entirely understandably, was that the best place for the children would be to grow up living within their family and he wanted X to have more time to show she could do what was needed. He reflected in his statement that he had not had a father in his life and he did not want that for his children, particularly given the issues that had been identified by the psychologist in terms of his sense of abandonment. Y said he had taken steps to deal with some of his issues, having attended a project looking at anger management and abuse within relationships, and he was starting counselling with a view of looking at the issues in his past.
44. Whilst ideally Y would have hoped to care for his children he accepted, with huge regret, that was not possible at this time. He therefore supported X in her desire to be given more time to improve her parenting as such the children could be with her. By the time this final hearing began the court had the benefit of the psychologist's view of the work carried out by the Project and in early on the first morning the view of the PAMS assessor was confirmed. Having understood they did not support further delay for the children, Y decided to take a neutral position and leave it for me to decide whether the plans for the children should be delayed for further work with their mother or whether the right thing now was for the children to be placed in a long-term placement elsewhere.
45. He was however very clear he would want them to remain in foster care rather than being adopted as he wants to continue to have contact with them. He pointed out that he had grown up without his father, wondering why his father did not want anything to do with him, and he did not want his children to grow up feeling abandoned. I should also say that he was very clear when he talked about "his children" he included J in that.

Z’s position

46. Z did not attend the final hearing so I have had to turn to his statement to see his position. He did not seek to challenge the assessment of him by the social worker. He explained in his statement he had not known that he had a son until located by the local authority. He said after only a month of being in a relationship with X she came to him to say she was pregnant. He said he did not take it seriously at the time and thought she was “just saying it”. Z acknowledged his difficult childhood and upbringing but said he was now working and was in a settled relationship, having been together with his partner for two years. They are expecting their first child together, due to be born in about three months. Z has been able to accept that the best thing for his son would be for him to remain with his siblings and he does not therefore oppose the plan of adoption for J.

Decision

47. I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of J, K and L. 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”.
48. 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.”
49. 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 these children, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer.
50. In reaching my decision I have taken into account that the welfare of the children throughout their lives is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. 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 the children’s rights and be proportionate.
51. A placement order is sought by the local authority in respect of each of the children. 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. A court cannot dispense with a parent’s consent unless either the parent cannot be found, or lacks capacity to give consent, or the welfare of the child “requires” consent to be dispensed with. In that context I am conscious that “requires” means what is demanded rather than what is merely optional.
52. Another very important principle I must have in mind when considering what is best for the children is that any delay is likely to prejudice the welfare of the children. I should only agree to this case being delayed if I think that delay is purposeful and will have value in assisting me determine what is right for the children.
53. Overall in this case, the central question I have to ask myself is whether I should delay any final decisions for the children to allow a further period of teaching and assessment in respect of X. If not then the question is whether I should make both care and placement orders in respect of the children. When looking at those decisions 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.”
54. 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 I propose to consider the evidence in the light of those factors.
55. I do want to make one other general point first, which is that of course a person with a learning difficulty can parent a child. I would not want anyone to think this court had ruled out the mother as soon as her difficulty became evident. The psychologist, with significant experience in this field, kept coming back to that in his evidence. The question for me, as for him, is whether this mother with her particular difficulties can parent her children.
56. First in both checklists comes the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned regarding the decision (considered in the light of his age and understanding). Obviously these children are far too young for anyone to ask them what they want but I accept in an ideal world they would want to grow up with their mother were she able to meet their needs as they have a clear bond with her.
57. I have to consider the children's physical, emotional and educational needs and also their age, sex and background. These are a group of very young children who are therefore inevitably very vulnerable. They have the same needs as all small children, for their basic care needs to be met, for a warm and loving home, to be stimulated and assisted in developing into healthy young adults. It is also crucial that each of their needs is met consistently, all of the time.
58. Key in this case is the harm which the children have already suffered in their mother's care, as conceded by her, and then the risk of harm in the future. Given all the professional evidence it is very clear to me that the risk of future harm is very high given X's difficulties, for which she is not to blame. Were the children to be back in her care, their experiences of being brought up would be no different to how they have been to date.
59. I cannot emphasise clearly enough that the situation X finds herself in is through no fault of her own. She has a specific learning disability as a result of an injury and it is this in large part which is preventing her giving her children the care I am sure she wants to give to them. A consistent theme throughout both written and oral evidence in this case is X's clear love for her children. The social worker used the expression that she would “walk over hot coals” for her children and I do not doubt that. Everyone spoke of her lavishing praise on the children. She has been committed throughout the court process and in all the assessments, keeping appointments and engaging as best she can. She has also already been able to face up to the children’s need for life story work if they are indeed adopted and she has started gathering information for them. Equally I acknowledge that X did manage show some improvement in her parenting skills during the intensive parenting work in May. The PAMS assessor acknowledged that there was some improvement in hygiene, in X's ability to change nappies, in cleanliness and safety in the home, and around mealtimes, and other witnesses acknowledged that.
60. The problem though is whether X is capable of meeting the needs of the children in the short term and in the long term. As the PAMS assessor identified, there are problems with her inability to multitask, her ability to keep pace with the needs of the children, and to meet their needs without prompting and support, and it is to that issue which I keep coming back.
61. X wants the chance to learn the skills in the way she feels would be better, focusing on one skill at a time and giving her time to practice that before introducing a new skill, but that simply is not how parenting works. I am satisfied that if we were to wait for another one or two or three months’ work with X we would still not be in a position where that risk would be significantly reduced. I have no doubt whatsoever that X would continue to work with all the professionals to try to improve her parenting. The question is what would be achieved by such delay. The reality is X needs a level of support far higher than society can provide; there is no one in her family who can do this, particularly given the grandmother's failure to do so to date and the difficulties that Y has. It is also not a case where professional support could make up the deficit - the reality is X would need somebody in her home the vast majority of the time and that person would in effect be doing the parenting, as the psychologist put it “conducting the orchestra”. And even if professional support were available for the number of hours required, the reality is that the people providing that support would be doing the significant parenting for the children so they would not have a single parent figure but professionals who may come in and out of their lives. The consistent presence of their mother could not make up for the significant disadvantage of such “team” parenting.
62. I cannot deny that the children will suffer emotional harm from the loss of their mother with whom they have a good bond. Their circumstances are going to change as they will have to move to an adoptive placement when one is identified and that is going to be hard for them to understand. They and their carers will however be well supported by social workers in the transition and their prospective adopters will have been well trained to anticipate the difficulties and deal with them. I do not say this lightly as I acknowledge the potential impact on children of losing their birth families and becoming adopted. Clearly it means a loss of a real relationship with their mother and father. J particularly has an extra loss as Y has been J’s father in every practical sense but J loses the possibility of a relationship with his natural father. The loss of those relationships however cannot outweigh the importance of the children having permanent secure homes for the whole of their childhoods and beyond. I am also confident the children will be able to maintain the relationship between themselves, because it seems extremely likely they will be placed together but if not by way of regular and direct sibling contact
63. In conclusion therefore I look at the options available to the children. X asks me to wait while more work is done with her and she is reassessed. This has the obvious advantage of keeping alive the possibility of the children being placed with their mother and keeping links with their extended family. However I simply do not think this outcome is likely - it flies in the face of all the expert evidence, including that of the psychologist and the PAMS assessor.
64. I entirely agree with the guardian that foster care would not be appropriate for three such young children. The risk of them having to move placements and potentially being separated is far too high, quite apart from the unnecessary ongoing statutory involvement in their lives. I know the parents may not believe this but the commitment offered by adopters, to keep children in their family throughout their lives whatever happens, really is more significant than that offered by foster carers. Black LJ in Re V [2013] EWCA Civ 913 summarised the advantages to children of adoption over long-term foster care in terms of what both types of placement would offer by way of security and when I revisited this judgment what she said there entirely mirrored what was said by the social worker in her evidence.
65. The third option put to me is that of adoption which means they will have a secure long-term home, which is very likely to be together, with all the advantages that that brings. I acknowledge that this means the loss to them of their birth family but I am certain that loss is outweighed by the advantages that come with adoption. I accept that interferes with the rights of the children and their parents to a family life together but the making of such an order is proportionate given that there is no alternative which would meet the children's needs which must be my priority. I feel very strongly these children should be placed together but I know I do not need to spell that out to the local authority given the clear plans they have put before the court.
66. In this case, having carried out the balancing exercise that I must, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of any of the children being returned safely to their mother’s care in a reasonable timescale. I do agree with the PAMS assessor and psychologist that delaying for further assessment whilst more work is done with X will not lead us to a different place or me to a different decision. The children’s needs for stability and permanence can only be met in an adoptive placement. I am satisfied that nothing else will do for these children but adoption. The local authority’s final care plans (including amendments regarding the reduction of contact and confirming that there will be letterbox contact between J and Y) are a proportionate interference in their family life and (in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002) in their best welfare interests . I therefore make care orders in respect of each of the children. Having concluded that the children’s welfare requires me to dispense with X’s consent and with Y’s consent (the latter in relation to K and L) to placing them for adoption, the word “require” here again having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, “the connotation of the imperative”, I also make placement orders authorising the local authority to place J, K and L for adoption.
67. 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. Very importantly it will tell them that their mother loved them, how hard she tried to get herself to a point where she could give them what they needed, but how through no fault of her own she was not able to do that. Whilst it 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 the children up. I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment must be released by the Local Authority to the children’s adopters so that it is available to them in future. It is very important that it is passed on to the Adoption Team to give to them. I have written this not for the benefit of the adults but for the children and wish to be sure it reaches them.
68. Finally I also make an order for a 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.

 

ACCEPTED FACTS AS TO THRESHOLD

1.       There were difficulties in relation to X’s care of the children prior to removal, which was not of a good enough standard.

 

2.       There have been arguments of an abusive nature between X and Y, including over the telephone. Some of these arguments have been heard by the children. X and Y accept that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and would likely expose the children to emotional harm.

 

3.       X has reported that Y has been has been physically violent to her but has been inconsistent.

 

4.       X has missed medical appointments for the children.

 

5.       X missed some antenatal appointments whilst pregnant with L.

 

6.       The home conditions were at times unacceptable, including being dirty and unhygienic.

 

7.       X has not always worked openly and honestly with the Local Authority, for example she was not open and honest about J’s paternity.

 

8.       Prior to the children’s removal X did not work consistently with the Local Authority.

 

9.       Y has mental health difficulties which he has not taken adequate steps to address.

 

10.   Y accepts informing professionals that he wanted to set his flat on fire.