England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT (Sitting in Barnet)

No. BT14C000049

 

 

Regents Park Road

London N3 1BQ

Monday, 6 ^th July 2015

 

 

Before:

 

HER HONOUR JUDGE MAYER

(In Private)

 

 

B E T W E E N :

 

 

 

AB Applicant

 

- and -

 

LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY

& Anor. Respondents

 

_________

 

 

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.

(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)

Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers

5 Chancery Lane , London EC4A 1BL

Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737

info@beverleynunnery.com

_________

 

 

 

MISS B. MILLS (acting pro bono) appeared on behalf of the Applicant (Mother).

 

MR. P. HEPHER (instructed by The London Borough of Haringey) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Local Authority).

 

MISS J. RAYSON (instructed by Guile Nicholas Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Guardian.

 

_________

 

J U D G M E N T

(As Approved by the Judge)

JUDGE MAYER:

 

1             CD was born on 17 ^th November 2008; he is therefore six and a half years old. He is the second Respondent to this application and is represented through his guardian, Ravinder Ghale.

 

2             His Mother, AB, is the Applicant. His father is EF (also known as 'GH'). He is not a party to this application.

 

3             The London Borough of Haringey are the first Respondents.

4             This is an application by the Mother for leave to apply for revocation of a placement order made by District Judge Johns on 24 ^th August 2012. The application is opposed by both the Local Authority and CD’s guardian.

 

The Background

 

5             A document headed 'Agreed Threshold Criteria' dated 17 ^th July 2012 gives, in my judgment, sufficient detail of the concerns in respect of the Mother at the time of the hearing before District Judge Johns. I have read it and do not consider that I need to read any further documents from the original care proceedings, save for the previous hair strand tests and the report of Dr. Melanie Phelps, a psychologist.

 

6             The starting point for this hearing is the judgment of District Judge Johns, of 24 ^th August 2012. Although the case has been before the Court of Appeal twice, I believe that I am the first judge dealing with this application who has had the benefit of seeing an approved transcript.

 

7             The essence of the findings of the learned District Judge can be summarised as follows:

 

(i) The Mother's behaviour has posed, and continues to pose, significant risk to CD’s emotional and physical welfare in that he has been, and is likely to continue to be, exposed to the real possibility of physical harm from Mother's choice of partners, as she has not engaged in any work and is unlikely to sustain any meaningful work to address this aspect of her behaviour.

 

(ii) Mother was not being honest about her drug use and there is a real likelihood that CD is being exposed to the dangers of having a Mother who is engaging in polydrug use, and who is being untruthful about the extent of her use, so that there is little hope that she will be able to engage in any meaningful way with any agencies who were going assist her in that.

 

(iii) The Mother's lack of candour about her drug use (cannabis, cocaine and heroin), about CD’s contact with his father and her lack of perception of the risks involved in allowing contact between CDand his father predicted an unacceptably high level of risk to CD

 

8             The evidence before the learned District Judge was that CD would be found an adoptive placement within six to nine months. The chronology prepared for this hearing by counsel for the Local Authority (which I incorporate into this judgment) indicates that various attempts to find an adoptive family for CD in 2012 and 2013 failed, although in a statement of October 2013 (in the maternal grandmother's revocation proceedings) the social worker, Faith Connell, indicated that adopters have been found and that the matching would take place in November/December of 2013. I believe that the reference was to his current carers. The matching did not take place.

 

9             I digress to say that is now known (since April of this year) that the proposed adopters are indeed his foster carers, known to me only as LK and MK, with whom he was placed on 24 ^th August 2012 and therefore he has been with them for nearly three years. They have put themselves forward as prospective adopters as far back as the Summer of 2013. The Mother has met them and says she knows their address, consequently they have been opposed, until this year, to disclosing to her that they intend to apply to adopt CD. Due to this, and to their refusal, until recently, to permit face to face contact, the Agency Decision Maker refused the match on the 14 ^th August 2014, when the matter was before her, despite the recommendation of the Adoption Panel as far back as May of last year. I have been told that now that their identity is known and their opposition to face to face contact has been removed, there is no impediment to their approval, and the Agency Decision Maker awaits the outcome of this application.

 

10          On 23 ^rd May 2013 the maternal grandmother, who, I believe, had a negative assessment in the care proceedings, applied for leave to revoke the care and the placement order. This application, which took seven months to determine, was finally dismissed on submissions on 3 ^rd December 2013 by District Judge Johns.

 

11          Neither District Judge Johns' judgment in the care/placement proceedings, nor her dismissal of the maternal grandmother's application, have been subject to appeals.

 

12          On 18 ^th June 2014 the Mother applied for permission to revoke the placement order.

 

13          The matter was listed before HHJ Levy on 23 ^rd September 2014. The Mother appeared in person, the Local Authority and the guardian were represented. The learned judge dismissed the application.

 

14          On the 7 ^th October 2014 the Mother appealed for leave to appeal HHJ Levy's decision. On the 21 ^st November 2014 the oral application was heard by Black LJ, who granted leave to appeal. The appeal was heard some three months later, on the 20 ^th February 2015, by Macur LJ, Sayles LJ and Dame Janet Smith. Macur LJ gave the lead judgment. The appeal was allowed for the following reasons:

 

(i) HHJ Levy did not have before her a transcript of District Judge Johns' judgment; she had an unapproved note of counsel for the Local Authority, written to his solicitor. HHJ Levy therefore lacked a proper baseline to measure change against. I digress to say that having read the note and the transcript of District Judge Johns' judgment, I am satisfied that there is very little difference between them in respect of the substantive issues.

 

(ii) HHJ Levy accepted the contentions of the Local Authority on matters which were disputed by the Mother without hearing oral evidence, thereby prejudicing the case against the Mother.

 

(iii) It is clear that the Court of Appeal made no findings nor expressed an opinion on the substance of the Mother's application or the merit of her case, but rather sent the case for rehearing by a different judge, with the indication that that judge should not read HHJ Levy's judgment. That judgment is not in my bundle and I have not read it. What information I have about it comes from the judgments of Black and Macur LJ's.

 

15          The case was listed before me for 9 ^th April 2015. The Mother, who, in the Court of Appeal, represented herself, obtained the invaluable assistance of Miss Barbara Mills on a pro bono basis. Miss Mills, to whom I am very grateful for her assistance, was not available on 9 ^th April, and the case was therefore re-listed on 11 ^th May 2015.

 

16          On that day, I took the view that a hair strand test was necessary so that I can deal with, inter alia, the change in Mother's drug use from the findings made by District Judge Johns, and, interlinked with this, the Mother's veracity. I have therefore ordered a hair strand test to be paid for by the Local Authority. The hearing was adjourned to the 30 ^th , to suit the availability of Miss Mills.

 

17          I made further directions, ordering the Mother to file and serve a statement by 18 ^th May, dealing with, inter alia, the extent and nature of her drug use, the extent of her engagement with substance misuse services, details of her engagement with support services, which was to be supported by independent written evidence, and her engagement with counselling and therapy. The Mother failed to comply with most of these directions. She filed a statement dealing with her drug misuse only after the results of the hair strand tests were known. She filed little evidence to support her engagement with support services, and what evidence was provided was filed the day before the hearing or on the day.

 

18          On 5 ^th June I received an email from the Local Authority, to which the laboratory results were attached. The Mother tested positive for cannabis, heroin and cocaine, including crack cocaine. The Mother, in an email, disputed the results. I therefore listed the matter for a short directions hearing on 17 ^th June, to give the Mother an opportunity to explain and adduce further evidence.

 

19          On 17 ^th June the Mother did not attend, complaining of severe hay fever. She sent an email to the court explaining that she disputed the results of the hair strand test, demanded another test and offered to provide blood and urine tests between 17 ^th June and the hearing on 30 ^th June.

 

20          I heard submissions from the solicitors on behalf of the Local Authority and the guardian. The Local Authority refused to pay over £1000 for another test and I took the view that, in all the circumstances, ordering the Local Authority to pay would not be justified; I did not consider this evidence necessary. I ordered the solicitors representing the Local Authority and the guardian to compose questions for Dona Cave, the scientist who tested the Mother's hair and prepared the report. The questions, approved by me, have been forwarded to the Mother forthwith. I also provided for replies by Dona Cave to be available no later than 24 ^th June, and gave the Mother an opportunity to ask more questions by 4pm on 25 ^th June, after Miss Mills returned from leave. I made ancillary orders, providing for Dona Cave to see the laboratory reports from three years ago and comment on them. I made it clear that I was anxious to hear the case on 30 ^th June, and suggested that Dona Cave is warned about having to give oral evidence.

 

21          Dona Cave 's replies were received on 19 ^th June. They confirmed her initial report, excluded the possibility of contamination and excluded passive ingestion by inhalation of smoke of others.

 

22          The Mother has not forwarded any further questions to Dona Cave. I pause to say that the day before this hearing, she wrote to Ms. McNamara, the Local Authority solicitor, to say that she composed questions and thought she had sent them, only to find them later in her 'drafts' box. When asked in cross-examination about the questions she prepared, she said that they would have been very much the same as those prepared by the Local Authority and the guardian, therefore she did not bother. She clearly forgot the account about the unsent draft. This, in my judgment, is but a small example of the Mother's dishonesty.

 

23          On the morning of the hearing, she provided a letter, dated 29 ^th June, from a Dr. N. The doctor explained that in April 2015 the Mother had undergone a short gynaecological procedure and detailed the medication she was prescribed. Another gynaecological procedure (a termination, according to the Mother) appears to have been carried out in November of last year, where the same medication was prescribed.

 

24          Miss Mills, on behalf of the Mother, applied for an adjournment to give the Mother an opportunity to provide evidence of the medication administered in the November procedure, since it is the Mother's case that the medication she took adulterated the results of the hair strand test. I suggested to Miss Mills that I hear evidence from Donna Cave, and invited her to renew her application, if so advised, after hearing from the expert.

25          There was also an attempt by the Mother to suggest that the hair strand collected was not sealed; in my judgment it was a last minute half-hearted attempt, which the Mother did not pursue seriously once Dona Cave said she received a sealed sample.

 

26          Although Miss Mills renewed her application (not on the instructions of her client, apparently) after Dona Cave's evidence, I refused it.

 

27          On the morning of the hearing, I received a note of a contact supervised by the social worker, Faith Connell, on 3 ^rd June. This note caused me great concern. I deal with it below.

 

The Respective Cases .

 

28          When she first applied, one year ago, the Mother's case was that she has turned her life around. She described engagement with various organisations and cessation of the use of cannabis, save for one spliff a month. She wanted CD to return to her. She complained about the placement with LK and MK and about CD being unsettled after two years of being there. By the end of her evidence, she proposed that if CD were not to be returned to her now, her final alternative suggestion was that he remains where he is until a better placement was found for him, and he eventually returns to her. Meanwhile, she sought increase in contact. I hope I express this correctly, since she kept changing her position in the witness box. She maintained that CD has a strong identity with her and her family and, in her words, "was not adoptable".

 

29          The Local Authority say that there is no change in circumstances to justify granting leave to apply for revocation of the placement order. They rely, foremostly, on the results of the hair strand test, but also on the mother's failure to engage with the various organisations she mentioned in her statements. Their contention is that the Mother continues to lie about her drug use, and cannot be relied on in any sense so far as CDis concerned.

 

30          At the same time, CD’s carers, with whom he has lived for three years are wanting to adopt him and have been all but approved by the Agency Decision Maker. The carers agree to direct contact and, therefore, say the Local Authority, CD is effectively placed in a prospective adoptive placement.

 

31          The Local Authority accept that CD is having difficulties at school and needs assistance from CAMHS but contend that these difficulties arise as a result of him not understanding why he has been removed from his Mother and not knowing where his future lies. The Local Authority submit that, even if I consider this to be a sufficient change, and move to the second stage, the Mother's application has no real prospect of success and I should dismiss it.

 

32          Ravinder Ghale was not CD’s guardian during the original proceedings. She had limited involvement with this case. She supports the Local Authority's position.

 

The Law .

 

33          Applications for revocation of placement orders are governed by s.24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. An application cannot be made without leave: s.24(2)(a). Granting of leave involves a two-stage test. The court has first to consider whether there has been a change in circumstances and, if so, go on and apply judicial discretion in deciding whether leave to apply to revoke the order should be granted. Leave to revoke the placement order does not mean the child going home.

 

34          The extent of change of circumstances required for the first part of the test has been dealt with in the case of Re P(Adoption: Leave Provisions) [2007] 2FLR 1069. In this case the application was for leave to oppose an adoption application. Wall LJ (as he then was) giving the lead judgement of the Court of Appeal said that the bar should not be placed too high, and the change does not have to be significant, although has to be:

 

". . .material, and of a nature and degree which is sufficient to open the door to a consideration by the court of the exercise of its discretion whether to give the parent leave to defend . . ."

 

an adoption, or, in this case, to apply to revoke a placement order.

 

35          In the exercise of discretion on the issue of whether to grant leave to apply for the revocation of a placement order the child's welfare is a relevant but not the paramount consideration: M v Warwickshire County Council [2008] 1 FLR 1093.

 

36          The question for the court is whether, in all the circumstances, including the mother's prospect of success in securing revocation of the placement order, and the child’s interests, leave should be given; see Re B-S(Children)[2013] EWCA Civ 1146. I have reminded myself of the 10 points in which the President describes the proper approach to the second stage of the test whether to grant leave to oppose an adoption, and applied the relevant ones to this case.

 

 

 

The Evidence .

 

37          I read three statements from Faith Connell, CD’s allocated social worker, dated 2 ^nd September 2014, 12 ^th January 2015 and 7 ^th April 2015. I read a lengthy email from the mother dated 21 ^st August 2014 and two statements filed in this application, the first of 20 ^th March 2015 and the second undated but filed around 15th June, some 10 days after the hair strand test results came in. I read the guardian's analysis dated 20 ^th April 2015, and sections E and J of the bundle in full.

 

38          I heard evidence from Dona Cave, the mother and the social worker, and very brief evidence from the guardian. The evidence and submissions concluded in one day, on 30th June. Due to the mother's preference, I give judgment today, 6th July, rather than on the 2 ^nd July. The mother did not attend for judgment, although her mother, who attended the hearing, arrived for the last 15 minutes my reading it out.

 

39          Dona Cave is an experienced forensic scientist. She has over 11 years of experience in forensic laboratories dealing with drug abuse. Her qualifications and experience are to be found in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.3 of her report dated 4 ^th June 2015.

 

40          Her analysis took into account the mother's pre-declared use of medication.

 

 

41          She concluded the following E22:

 

"(i) AB has tested positive for cocaine and the cocaine metabolite in all six hair sections analysed, which cover approximately from the middle of November 2014 to the middle of May 2015. In addition the crack cocaine marker, AEME, has been detected in the two oldest sections. For guidance and from experience the levels of cocaine detected are in the high range in the two oldest sections and in the medium range in the four most recent sections.

 

(ii) AB has also tested positive for two constituents of cannabis, delta-9-THC and cannabinol, in all six sections analysed. In addition further cannabis constituent, cannabidiol, has been detected in the three oldest sections. For guidance, and from experience the levels of delta-9-THC detected are in the high range.

 

(iii) The heroin metabolite, 6-acetylmorphine, has also been detected in all six hair sections analysed from AB. In addition, morphine has been detected in five oldest hair sections analysed. The presence of 6-acetylmorphine indicates the use of heroin. For guidance and from experience the levels of morphine detected are in the low range.

 

(iv) The opiate drug, Dihydrocodeine, has been detected in the four most recent hair sections analysed, which cover approximately from the middle of January 2015 to the middle of May 2015. Dihydrocodeine may be present as a result of taking painkiller preparations containing dihydrocodeine. For guidance and from experience the levels of dihydrocodeine detected are in the low range in the 1 to 2, and 3 to 4 cm sections, and in the medium range of the zero to 1 and 2 to 3 cm sections.

 

42          I pause to say that despite my direction of the 11 May, the mother failed to provide an explanation as to why she used Dihydrocodeine for four months.

 

43          In answers to questions provided to her, Dona Cave confirmed her findings. She considered that the Mother under-reported her use of cannabis even in her most recent statement, where she said that in addition to one or two spliffs a month she would smoke a little when with friends.

 

44          The letter from Dr. N, provided by the mother on the morning of this hearing, confirmed that she had Fentanyl and Paracetamol during anaesthesia, and Tramadol 100mg and Ondansetron 4mg, all on the date of her short gynaecological procedure, on 23 ^rd April 2015. In her oral evidence Dona Cave confirmed that none of these would explain the presence of cannabis or the Class A drugs. She was asked to consider whether, had the same medication been taken during a similar procedure last November, this could have affected the test results. Her answer was a categorical "no".

 

45          She was further cross-examined about passive inhalation of any of the Class A drugs. I pause to say that mother has never explained where it might have been that she has passively inhaled any of these. Dona Cave's view was that it was not possible. The presence of active metabolites of each of the drugs was clear evidence of active ingestion.

 

46          She confirmed that the previous tests, which covered periods of May to November 2011 and April to July 2012, were all carried out by scientific laboratories with suitably trained experts, and she had no reason to doubt that all the positive results for cannabis, cocaine and heroin were accurate.

 

47          Finally, when asked about urine and blood tests she considered, although it was not her area of expertise, that these would only cover the past few days before the collection of the samples.

 

48          I move on to deal with the mother's evidence. She insisted that she has never used Class A drugs. When it was put to her that the results this year mirror the results of 2011 and 2012, she said that those result were wrong too, despite District Judge Johns' findings. In the original proceedings, she claimed that her cannabis was adulterated with Class A drugs; in these proceedings she blamed medication. She continued claiming this, in the face of Dona Cave's very clear evidence. When cross-examined about disengaging with JR, her drug counsellor from Lifeline, she attempted to play it down. The reality is that she last saw him on 4th September 2014 and, despite his efforts to re-engage her, she did not respond, even to his threat that he would close her case (which he did on 1st April 2015). Thus, as the mother was signing her statement claiming that she spoke to JR once a week, he was closing her case for non-engagement. I can only surmise that the Mother thought that nobody would attempt to verify her accounts.

 

49          In her statement she explained that she stopped attending JR because she has been reducing her drug use regularly, and she wanted to prove to herself and others that she was strong enough to stop using without assistance. Her contention that she disengaged because of wanting to prove this point is, in my judgment, nonsense. It is much more likely that her continued urine tests would have served as evidence of her continuing to use not just cannabis but heroin and cocaine too, if tested for these substances. She told me she re-engaged with JR on the 26th June of this year, the Friday before this Monday's hearing. This last minute engagement is reminiscent of her behaviour in the 2012 proceedings.

 

50          Insofar as engaging with counselling or therapy, it became clear in cross-examination that the mother's engagement with any real assistance was cursory at best.

 

51          She did not engage with any of the therapies recommended by Dr. Phelps. The latter, who diagnosed the mother to have narcissistic traits, indicative of possibly narcissistic personality, recommended Dialectic Behaviour Therapy and Cognitive Analytical Therapy. The mother explained that she did not engage with these because the Local Authority did not organise this for her.

 

52          She saw somebody called NP, from an organisation called 'Tower Hamlets Floating Support Service', once a month, from August 2014, two months after she issued her application, until March or April of this year. How she managed to impress this lady, who appeared to believe every word she told her, is clear from the former's letter dated 5 ^th May 2015, to be found at p.E11. She also saw somebody called PP from 'Adoption plus' once, and then, apparently, attended her by telephone, the mother says weekly, having said that she was overwhelmed by the face to face meeting. She did not attend domestic violence projects, and she told me that both these counsellors dealt with issues of domestic violence.

 

53          She said that she does not see EF. I accept that, other than suspicions, there is no evidence that she either rekindled her relationship with EF or had another violent relationship. She explained that her pregnancy last year was a result of casual sex. There is no evidence to the contrary, and she was not cross-examined about this.

 

54          She told me, contrary to what she put in her original statement, that she wanted CD to stay in long term fostering until he can come home to her. In her view, the foster carers, LK and MK, were not managing him, and the Local Authority are leaving him there as an act of desperation. She told me that last week he has been excluded from school because of his behaviour, he apparently urinated on another child. Her view is that all his difficulties relate to him wanting to come home to her and to his separation anxiety. She did not accept that she corrects him when he refers to LK and MK as 'mummy' and 'daddy'. She could not see that the difficulties in separation at the end of contact are at least partly of her making. Paradoxically, she did not suggest that he is removed from his foster carers until it was put to her that, despite her harsh criticism of them, (she suggested, amongst other things, that LK inflicted corporal punishment on CD, something that was investigated by the Local Authority and found to be without foundation) she was prepared to accept LK and MK as foster carers but not as adopters. It was then that she said she wanted CD moved.

 

55          The mother gave her evidence in a defiant manner, and lied with ease. I agree with those who describe her as intelligent and articulate. I have also found her manipulative, ready to abuse the system which was there to assist her, and quite oblivious to the needs of anybody but her own. In this I include CD’s needs. I accept that she loves CD Equally, I have no doubt that she had hoped that she would not be found out and would have him back on her word alone.

 

56          Faith Connell has been CD’s allocated social worker since September 2013. She provided information about the mother's engagement or, rather, the lack of it. I thought she was very fair in her evidence. She accepted that in her relationship with the mother, the latter was mostly courteous and polite. She, nevertheless, doubted the change in the mother, even before the hair strand results became known. She made it clear how the enormous delay in dealing with this young boy harmed him, and continues to harm him.

 

57          She dealt with CD’s psychological state and the deterioration in his behaviour. From recent tests he is, apparently, a candidate for serious mental health issues when he grows up. These are important aspects of this case and require, in due course, closer examination.

 

58          She explained that LK and MK are totally committed to CD, although they do find aspects of his behaviour difficult to cope with. There was a period of time when he could not sleep. He interrupted their sleep every night, so much so that they had to sleep separately, so that just one woke up at a time. LK had to go away alone for two weeks in January of this year so as to catch up on her sleep. CD’s sleep has improved only after melatonin has been administered.

 

59          The social worker told me that there has been deterioration in CD’s behaviour in recent months. He attended CAMHS in 2014, but his attendance stopped this January 2015, since CAMHS said that there was no point working with him until his future was resolved. Recently, he has been more aggressive than before to other children (I accept that he was aggressive when he first came into care). He urinated on another child in the school bathroom, he threw a chair at a child and bit the head teacher. He has been temporarily excluded from the school.

 

60          She said that when she first met him (a year after he came into care), there have been no problems with contact and no problems separating from his mother at the end of it. Things have deteriorated since. He cries at separation and the mother is unable, or perhaps unwilling, to help him to leave. His mother openly disapproves of him referring to LK and MK as 'mummy' and 'daddy', even when told by the social worker that her disapproval is difficult for CD I pause to say that the guardian told me that in the contact session she observed on 26 ^th March this year, she saw the mother "shooting" CD a look when he did refer to them as 'mummy' and 'daddy', and he immediately corrected himself. I accept the guardian's evidence despite the mother's denial. I accept that the mother is focused on her own feelings rather than those of CD

 

61          The mother has contact every eight weeks. She is meticulous in attending, engages CD well, brings him presents and brings with her occasionally other members of her family, particularly her parents, whom CD loves and is pleased to see. He loves getting presents and is becoming inquisitive about his past and about members of his family. I have not been told how much, if any, life story work has been done with him, but from his questions (see below), it seems to me that it has been rather minimal.

 

62          On the morning of the hearing I received a contact note of 3rd June. I said before that his note caused me very serious concern. I incorporate it into this judgment, for I think it has to be read in full, but I quote one passage from it:

 

"CD said: 'Can I talk to daddy?' and AB said: 'No, I am not allowed' and went on to say that they are not together any more 'you are the only man in my life. I love you.' CD said that he wanted to go outside to play with his new football and we all went out to the back garden. As we were walking through the centre CD said: 'Why can't I come to your house?' AB said: 'I live alone, Jayden', and he responded: 'Why did Faith (the social worker) say I can't live with you if you live alone? She responded: 'Just know I am fighting for you every day' (my italics). She then said: 'Why do you only listen to me?' and he said: 'I only listen to you, granddad and nanny'. AB replied: 'Why?' and he said: 'Because I love my family'."

 

63          The parting described at the end of this contact session was as difficult and badly managed, in my judgment, as previous partings in the course of this year. I am satisfied that parting is very distressing for CD

 

64          This contact session has suggested to me that CD may not understand why he has been removed from his mummy and why he does not see his daddy. I am not sure whether he has been given an anodyne version of the reasons he cannot live with his mother. The social worker did not correct her when she told CD that she fights for him every day. It seems to me that CD needs to know, in an age appropriate manner, the truth as to why it is that he is not living with his family.

 

65          The social worker told me that she considered contact to be very disruptive. There have been reports from the school that CD’s behaviour is worse after he sees his mother. In a report of the13th March 2015 it says this:

 

"He struggles to cope with a whole class of children and seeks constant attention by calling out, burping, farting, or hitting other children during whole class teaching sessions. This type of behaviour becomes much worse following a visit to see his birth mother. His inability to cope with the whole class has resulted in him having to be removed from the class for a period of time having one to one teaching."

 

66          Miss Connell said that the fact of seeing his birth family every eight weeks has provided the opportunity for his birth family to become increasingly important to him in his search for certainties. Although in many ways he appears to be settled in his foster placement and school, seeing his family reminds him that his life is not stable and secure. CD has said to her in the past that he did not want to stay in his foster placement; this was in the context of being provided with firm boundaries which he did not like. He had asked to visit his mother and asks the social worker, every time he sees her, when he would see his mummy. He also told the Independent Reviewing Officer that he loved his mummy, AB. It is Miss Connell's view that CD is frustrated at not being given a solid indication as to where he would be living in the long term, and that this is the main result for his worsening behaviour.

 

67          Despite all these rising concerns, the Local Authority have never applied to reduce the level of contact, nor has Miss Connell corrected the mother about saying to CD things like: "Just know that I am fighting for you every day".

 

68          The Guardian told me that supports the Local Authority's position. She has had a limited involvement in this case, but considers that he should stay with his carers. Although she told me that she thought he should be adopted by them, I do not think that she has, so far, considered the full implication of an adoption order in this case, as opposed to CD staying with his carers under other orders.

 

Discussion .

 

69          In my judgment, so far as the mother is concerned, there has been no change since the judgment of District Judge Johns. Without wishing to be unkind to her, I consider her approach to the court process brazen and, frankly, quite astounding. She made the application knowing full well that she was using both cannabis and Class A drugs, disengaging from drug counselling within weeks of making her application, and that did not seriously pursue any of the proposed courses (with a small 'c') to help her to resolve the issues which have been identified by District Judge Johns in 2012. She lied openly in her statements and in the witness box. She was using drugs when she appeared both Black LJ and the Court of Appeal. The gradual reduction in use apparent from the reports appears to coincide with the leave granted to her in November 2014, although she denied a causal connection. Her lies to me in the witness box were unsustainable and matched her lies about use of Class A drugs in 2011 and 2012.

 

70          Due to her application, the resolution of CD’s legal and emotional status has been delayed by one year. The delays in the previous two years in addition to this delay, in my judgment, are disastrous for CD, especially as there is absolutely no prospect of him returning to his mother in the foreseeable future, or perhaps even throughout his minority.

 

71          I find that the concentration in the course of this application, perhaps not surprisingly, has been on the mother.

 

72          However, the six and a half year old CD, with what appears on the face of the evidence to be a strong birth family identity, is not the three and a half year old boy in respect of whom a placement order was made in August 2012. I have concerns about changing his legal status and identity and about him ceasing to be a member of his birth family without having some further evidence. I know virtually nothing about LK and MK, save that they are completely committed to CD I do not know whether any other orders for keeping CD with them have been discussed with them.

 

73          In my judgment, the circumstances of the past three years, the delay in matching him with LK and MK, the increasing disruptive effect of contact and, consequently, his seemingly increasing insecurity, constitute sufficient change in circumstances for me to go on to consider whether leave to apply to revoke the placement order should be granted.

 

74          I have come to the conclusion that in order to decide this point, and especially to decide the likelihood of success of the mother’s application, I need further evidence about CD’s suitability for adoption. I have it in mind to order the Local Authority to commission a piece of work by either an independent social worker or a child psychiatrist to advise whether adoption is still the course which would best promote CD’s welfare throughout his life, but I will listen to submissions by the parties as to who should carry out this work after they have had an opportunity to consider my judgment. I want this work to be done within a period of four to six weeks; I consider this possible. The scope of this work is limited. CD is not returning to his mother. I need to know is whether he is still adoptable. Although this question cannot be totally divorced from the question of his placement, and I need some basic information about the attitude of his carers to other orders, the question I deal with is not about his placement. Subject to my decision, this would be a matter for the Local Authority.

 

75          I am satisfied that contact has been disruptive to his placement. The mother is a strong personality. Having heard her evidence, I am satisfied that whatever she may say, she will never accept her son being placed away from her, and she will seek to undermine any placement in a subtle and less subtle manner, consciously or perhaps unconsciously. The question of future contact will be dealt with by this court at the conclusion of this hearing, or at an adoption hearing if I dismiss this application. In the interim, I suspend contact until the next hearing, the date of which I will discuss with the parties when they have had time to consider my judgment. I make it clear that the suspension is temporary, with the view of this case being concluded before the end of August.

 

76          I am, of course, aware that obtaining the evidence I consider necessary could be done in an application for revocation, were I to grant leave. I have considered this carefully. I have come to the conclusion that the missing piece of evidence is missing in determining this application. I also think that dealing with it in this way is more expeditious, especially as the mother is unrepresented and I may have to rely on her to issue an application for revocation of the placement order, which may put her at a disadvantage.

 

77          I list this matter for directions this Thursday, 9 ^th July, at 9.30. I make it absolutely clear that no further time should be wasted in this case.

 

__________