England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BLACKBURN

		64 Victoria Street Blackburn
		14th August 2015

JUDGMENT
1. THE JUDGE: PBC was born on 15^th February 2007. She is described by all of those who have met her as a very bright girl. Indeed, her guardian, Mr Craig Docherty, went so far as to suggest that she may have more insight into what has gone on in her life than most of the adults with whom she is concerned. She lives with TC and his daughter, K. Mr C has a residence order in his favour and has parental responsibility. Her mother is GT. There is an order providing for her to have contact with her mother and her mother has parental responsibility. I made the orders for residence and contact.

What has the court to decide?

2. These are care proceedings brought by Blackpool Borough Council. Although the background is complex the sole issue I have to decide is under what circumstances and regimen should PBC spend time with her mother? In essence I have to decide whether:

•     it should be on her mother's terms,

•    or, if that is not in her best interests, under an arrangement that is best for PBC, and if so, what arrangement.

The background

3. Until 18 months or so ago, PBC was brought up believing that Mr C was her biological father. In the earlier proceedings that I presided over, Mrs T revealed that a man called KD was, in fact, PBC's father and scientific testing established that that was the case. Briefly, Mr D became involved with PBC with the cooperation and encouragement of Mr C but that interest from Mr D appears at the moment to have faded.
4. Mrs T has lived in Ireland since 2011. Her husband is GJT. They have twin three-year-old boys who are said to suffer from autism. Certainly the descriptions I have had of them and their challenging behaviour means that they represent a significant burden on their parents. Mrs T has two daughters, who are sisters of PBC, but with a different father. They are older than PBC and live with their mother in Ireland.
5. PBC has been the subject of court proceedings for the majority of her life. That has to cease.

The "disclosure"

6. The proceedings that I am concerned with have a slightly convoluted history but they arise out of a conversation said to have taken place between PBC and Mr T when PBC was visiting her mother and her mother's family in Ireland on 9^th August 2014. What, in all probability, happened is that PBC was having a discussion with Mr T about bath time. PBC made a totally innocent comment that, when she and her sister, K (that is Mr C's daughter), were in the bath at Mr C's home in Blackpool, Mr C would come into the bathroom.
7. Any sensible person would have been wholly unsurprised by that comment. Mr C is a single parent with two young girls in his care. However, Mr T chose to put a sinister interpretation on that remark. Mrs T became involved. There followed a report to the Garda and that set in train a child abuse investigation.

The evidence of Mr and Mrs T

8. Only Mr and Mrs T truly know what was said by PBC. They were asked to give detailed explanations in their evidence. They gave different accounts and, at points, I was quite certain that one or both of them were making things up as they went along.
9. Mr T told me that he was discussing bath time with PBC and that PBC revealed to him that when she and K were in the bath together Mr C came in the bathroom. In Mr T's statement, the sentence that ends with Mr C entering the bathroom concludes with an exclamation mark. It transpires that Mr T had prepared the first draft of his own statement and the exclamation mark was his. I am satisfied that that exclamation mark is significant.
10. One of the matters I have had to consider is why an allegation should have emerged on 9^th August 2014. PBC had been with her mother for a fortnight. There had been a number of school holiday visits to her mother since I made the order in March 2014. What then triggered something on this particular night at this particular time? I can only conclude that PBC said something that was then misinterpreted and developed – two and two put together to get five.
11. Mr T said he immediately sent a text message to Mrs T, who was at a neighbour's house, inviting Mrs T to return urgently as something had arisen. He said she did and he advised her that he had been speaking to PBC about bath time and there was something she should hear from PBC.
12. As to what happened thereafter, the accounts of Mr and Mrs T were at variance and were unclear. The most likely account, in my judgment, is that Mrs T stayed up all night with PBC investigating (as no doubt she would see it) just what was going on in Mr C's home and to find out whether she had material that would allow her to challenge Mr C and to make a case for PBC's restoration to Mrs T's household.
13. What is a known fact is that, at 5.30 in the morning, Mrs T rang the Garda. That is consistent with her being up all night with PBC. Mr T said he found both of them asleep on the sofa in the morning when he got up. From thereon in, matters began to escalate.

Further investigations

14. PBC was taken by her mother to the GP, who was invited to interview PBC and did so.
15. That general practitioner, Dr Lanigan, has provided a number of supporting documents for Mrs T. I am not entirely sure how he has seen his role. He has perhaps unwittingly allowed himself to be used as an advocate for Mrs T, so that I have difficulty taking information from him as the input of a dispassionate, independent professional. I choose my words with care because he has not been called as a witness, nor is he in a position to defend himself.
16. The allegations that Mrs T wanted to establish she described as "inappropriate sexual touching" when she gave her evidence. She said that at bath time Mr C had washed PBC and K with his bare hands over their private parts.

Allegations not proved

17. The mother accepts that she cannot prove the allegations she makes. The effect of that in law and in fact is that the "sexual abuse" alleged by Mrs T did not happen. Both in her statement to the court and in her evidence, Mrs T was clear that PBC's description of inappropriate touching by Mr C happened. The fact that PBC made no such disclosures in her subsequent ABE interview was because she was placed with Mr C's mother for nine days after her return to Blackpool so that the process was contaminated, hence the absence of revelations.
18. I am satisfied that Mrs T will continue to say that PBC was subjected to inappropriate sexual touching by Mr C. I am not at all persuaded that she necessarily believes that it is true. I cannot know what transpired in the all-night session that Mrs T had with PBC on 9^th August 2014 but I am satisfied that what started as an innocent remark by PBC about an entirely innocent matter – namely, Mr C coming into the bathroom when the two girls in his sole care were in the bath – was twisted and distorted in PBC's mind so that PBC was able to give a more damning account than was the truth, for example to Dr Lanigan, and I am quite satisfied that Mrs T was responsible for that.

Child abuse enquiry

19. As a consequence of the child abuse investigation Mr C was arrested and made the subject of bail conditions which meant he could not have unsupervised contact with the girls and K was required to live with her paternal grandparents away from her home.
20. There was liaison between the authorities in Ireland and the authorities in Blackpool. Given that PBC lived in Blackpool and was on a visit to her mother in Ireland, the decision was inevitably reached that as the events complained of occurred in Blackpool where she lived it should be investigated by the Blackpool Police and Blackpool Borough Council. That required PBC to be returned to Blackpool by her mother but that, Mrs T did not do.

Court proceedings

21. Blackpool Borough Council issued care proceedings. The case came before me on 11^th September 2014 and I transferred it to a judge of the Family Division. Mrs Justice Russell made orders whereby PBC became a Ward of Court with care and control to Blackpool Borough Council and her mother was ordered to cooperate and return PBC to England immediately. A penal notice was attached to that order.
22. In breach of that order PBC was not returned. On 26^th November 2014 an application was made for enforcement of the order of Mrs Justice Russell. On 3^rd December 2014, an order was made by Mrs Justice O'Hanlon in the Irish High Court pursuant to Mr C's application under the Hague Convention.
23. In accordance with the terms of the order of the Irish High Court PBC was collected by social workers from Blackpool on 5^th January 2015. She was initially placed with Mr C's mother but, after enquiries had been carried out and both PBC and K were interviewed by police and Social Services under an Achieving Best Evidence interview, a decision was made that there would be no proceedings against Mr C and, under the watchful eye of her guardian, Mr Craig Docherty, PBC was restored to her home with Mr C with K.
24. I have been conducting the final hearing in the care proceedings. The issues that I have had to wrestle with are relatively limited. Mrs T has accepted that PBC is going to remain living with Mr C and K in Blackpool. She seeks to have the position restored to what it was on 9^th August 2014 – namely, that PBC visits her mother and her siblings in Ireland for extensive periods during her school holidays.
25. That sounds a simple question for me to determine. In fact, it has raised a considerable number of profound difficulties.

The legal framework of the care proceedings

26. I remind myself that, throughout this investigation, I should have at the centre of my thinking PBC and her best interests. Her welfare is my paramount consideration as I make decisions about her future. I keep in mind the right to family life of PBC and the adults who have responsibility for her and who care for her.
27. I am satisfied, as I will go on to spell out shortly, that the threshold for making a public law order is well and truly crossed and there has been no dispute about that. Blackpool Borough Council invite me to make a supervision order in their favour for twelve months so that they can work with PBC and her mother on how best to develop contact. That is agreed by all parties.
28. In this final hearing, Blackpool Borough Council has been represented by Miss Moody, Mrs T by Miss Caplan, Mr C by Miss Woodward and PBC by Miss Cavanagh. I am grateful to them all for the efforts they have put in, both in providing me with written material, for the way in which they have handled the evidence and for their closing submissions. If I do not rehearse every point they have made to me, that is not because I have not taken account of it but only to abbreviate what might otherwise be a very lengthy judgment.
29. I have heard evidence from Mr Barlow, a social worker with Blackpool Borough Council. I heard evidence by video link from Mr and Mrs T. Nobody wanted to ask any questions of Mr C, although he has been in attendance throughout. Finally, I have heard evidence from PBC's guardian, Mr Craig Docherty. I have read a substantial bundle of papers.

Mr and Mrs T's failure to attend the hearing

30. One matter on which I need to make findings arises directly out of this final hearing. Up until Friday of last week (the case being due to start on Monday with a reading day for my benefit but with live evidence on Tuesday) Mrs T and the rest of her family in Ireland were expected to present themselves in Blackpool so that she and the other children could have contact with PBC, so that she and Mr T could meet with PBC's guardian, Craig Doherty, so that he could discuss that meeting with PBC and then conclude his final report. That would have allowed Mr and Mrs T to give their evidence live and to hear directly the arguments and the decision that I made.
31. In the event, neither Mr nor Mrs T nor any of the children in Ireland came to England. I have listened with great care to both Mr T and Mrs T's explanations as to how that decision not to travel had been reached and the difficulties they say that such a journey would have presented for them and their children, particularly their twin boys.
32. The arrangement for them to travel was originally established in April 2015, when this final hearing was fixed. Having listened to Mr and Mrs T and noting the inconsistencies in what they say, I was left with the very clear impression that they had not the remotest intention of ever coming to attend this hearing or bringing their children to England or allowing Mrs T to meet PBC or for Mrs T to meet Craig Docherty. Throughout their evidence, they were keen to stress the difficulties that their twin boys' behaviour puts in the way of them doing things. Their explanation as to the efforts they had made to at least get Mrs T either to Blackpool or to this hearing were totally absent. She made it plain that she had never spent a day (she really meant a night) away from her twin boys since the day they were born.
33. If I am to accept her evidence at face value, she has no intention of ever spending a night away from them. If that is right, any suggestion that she should come to Blackpool to spend time with PBC is something that simply is not going to happen.
34. It is Mrs T's case that PBC should come to her and to her children in Ireland. Although she and Mr T have family in this country, there was no suggestion for example that her older daughters might travel over and stay with family members when they could then meet up with PBC.
35. I was left with the very clear impression from her demeanour when she was asked about the future of contact in this country with PBC that Mrs T had, effectively, said her goodbyes to PBC and has no intention of coming to Blackpool to see her daughter.

The local authority case

36. The local authority has prepared a document of agreed and disputed facts and proposed inferences to be drawn. That document sets out the history of the case. As I make the findings that I need to make I will incorporate the inferences that I draw from those findings.
37. Mrs T and Mr C were in a relationship from 2006 to June 2010. Since that separation, relations between Mrs T and Mr C have been acrimonious. Mr C made an application for a residence order for PBC on 20^th July 2010. Those proceedings concluded on 16^th June 2011 with a shared residence order. That order was varied by consent on 7^th September 2011 to a sole residence order for Mr C. At that time, Mrs T had moved to Ireland. On 20^th July 2012, Mrs T applied for a residence order and for leave to remove PBC from the jurisdiction to reside with her in the Republic of Ireland.
38. In those various proceedings Mrs T has raised allegations with professionals about Mr C's care of PBC. Firstly, on 20^th September 2010, Mrs T took PBC to a general practitioner with concerns that PBC had returned from contact with Mr C with scratches on her abdomen and what appeared to be a cigarette burn. Mrs T alleged that Mr C had allowed K to assault PBC. Dr Finney, the general practitioner, was of the view that this was nothing more than sibling play and that the "burn" was impetigo. Dr Finney noted animosity from Mrs T towards Mr C.
39. Mrs T telephoned the police stating that Mr C's dog had bitten PBC. The police went to the family home in the late evening and insisted on seeing PBC. Mr C explained that the dog's claw had caught her. The police took no further action.
40. On 15^th July 2008, Mrs T raised with the health visitor that she was concerned that PBC was small in stature and she was advised to take her to the baby clinic.
41. On 13^th July 2012, when PBC was in Ireland, Mrs T took PBC to the general practitioner in Ireland Dr Lanigan for assessment and treatment of mild sunburn. She informed the doctor that this sunburn had been present on her arrival from England. PBC was noted to be small in stature for her age. Mrs T was advised that her growth pattern was below average. Her weight was 17.5 kilograms and her height was 104 centimetres.
42. On 3^rd April 2013, Mrs T again took PBC to her general practitioner Dr Lanigan during a visit to Ireland to measure her weight and height. Dr Lanigan was of the view that her growth was, again, below the normal growth pattern (weight 19 kilograms, height 106 centimetres) but she was otherwise in good health. Possible causes for her growth pattern were discussed with the mother.
43. On her return Mr C took PBC to a doctor in Blackpool to confirm that PBC's weight (19.5 kilograms) was commensurate with her height (105.3 centimetres with a BMI of 25).
44. Members of the maternal household in Ireland have, during the course of ongoing private law proceedings, been critical of Mr C's care of PBC and of the investigations by professionals such as CAFCASS.
45. Mrs T was unsuccessful in her application for residence and removal from the jurisdiction and, on 24^th March 2014, I made a residence order providing PBC to remain living with Mr C and a contact order providing for staying contact with the mother in the Republic of Ireland during school holidays.
46. I am invited to conclude, by inference, that Mrs T makes allegations about Mr C's care during proceedings in order to make a case for PBC to live with her and so to limit the role of Mr C.
47. It was clear from Mrs T's evidence, and that of Mr T, that, despite her concession within these proceedings that PBC should live with Mr C, that is not an outcome that Mrs T is at all satisfied with. She wants PBC to live with her. She regards it as an affront to have her daughter living with a man who is not even as she would see it a blood relation. Indeed, Mr T went so far as to claim a greater status in PBC's life than Mr C by reason of being her step-father through marriage to her mother.
48. There is no doubt in my mind, having seen Mrs T give evidence by video link in the previous proceedings and again in these proceedings, that she is engaged in a battle to have her daughter restored to her care. In order to further that aim, I am satisfied that she will take innocent matters and twist or embellish them in order to discredit Mr C.
49. It is noteworthy that in these proceedings she does not try to make a positive case for PBC to live with her or to spend time with her. Her focus is her attack on Mr C and to establish facts against him that would render him unfit to act as PBC's father. Both Mr T and Mrs T were questioned at length about Mr C's psychological relationship with PBC. It was only with the greatest reluctance that either of them acknowledged that relationship and neither of them was prepared to acknowledge the depth of it.
50. Pursuant to the order I had made in March 2014, it was on 26^th July 2014 that PBC travelled to Ireland for staying contact with Mrs T. She was due to return on 23^rd August 2014. As I have already said, she was not returned until 5^th January 2015.
51. Mrs T refused to cooperate with the police and Children's Services in Blackpool by returning PBC to England to ensure that the allegations were properly investigated.
52. Instead, she took PBC to her own doctor in Ireland Dr Lanigan and to the Garda. She justified that by insisting that the allegations were to be investigated in Ireland. She told the doctor in August of her intention to make arrangements to keep PBC in her care in Ireland. PBC was enrolled in school in Ireland and Mrs T made a claim for child benefit. What emerged during the course of the evidence this week was that, throughout her time in Ireland, PBC was known by the name "Cooke" (Cooke being the name of Mrs T's two older daughters).
53. It was Mr and Mrs T's evidence that they simply never discussed with her Mr C or PBC's life in Blackpool. With the caveat that they plainly were prepared to talk about matters that they saw as potential allegations, I have no reason to doubt that they spoke sparingly, if at all, about Mr C and PBC's time with K and her home life in Blackpool.
54. I share the view of Mr Craig Docherty, PBC's guardian, that changing P's identity so that she lived under a different name whilst with her mother in Ireland was a profound statement of intent by Mrs T and a matter of significant potential harm to PBC, depriving her of her real identity.
55. The finding of Mrs Justice Russell on 16^th September 2014 was that PBC was wrongfully retained in Ireland within the meaning of the Hague Convention. The finding was made after a contested hearing in which the Mrs T was represented by counsel who made submissions on her behalf on welfare grounds concerning mother's objections to returning PBC to England. Mrs T opposed the court's findings but did not ask for a further hearing. That rendered the decision by Mrs Justice Russell a final decision. That decision was not appealed.
56. Mrs T failed to comply with the order and failed to bring PBC back to Blackpool. Three weeks passed with no action. On 8^th October 2014, Mr C applied to the Irish Court for a return order in the light of the wrongful retention finding in the English proceedings. Mrs T opposed the making of a return order in Ireland and attempted to defend the Hague Convention application. She sought to defend the Hague Convention application first by disputing that the retention was wrongful and, secondly, disputing the suitability of the care arrangements approved by Mrs Justice Russell – namely, the placing of PBC with Mr C's parents together with K. In the course of the application Mrs T asserted that the child's best interests were for her to remain in Ireland.
57. The High Court in Ireland ordered that PBC should be examined by a clinical psychologist. During that interview, PBC made criticism of the children's guardian and Mr C's mother. The clinical psychologist concluded that some of the child's descriptions were "overly adult" and that the child had not come to the view completely independently. She further noted that some of the decisions and statements described by the child:

"Would be unusual coming solely from a seven-year-old child."

This examination of PBC came four months after her arrival in Ireland for contact.

58. On 3^rd December 2014, Mrs Justice O'Hanlon declared that there had been a wrongful retention by the mother and made a return order. The mother contested this up until the beginning of the hearing.

59. Mrs T suggests in her statement made to this court that:

"Following the High Court case in Dublin, I fully complied with the return of PBC on 5^th January 2015."

In relation to the handover of PBC to the social worker, Mr Barlow records that:

"Mrs T was initially aggressive, threatening, abusive and refused to cooperate stating that we should call the police to have her arrested. However, through a sensitive conversation and careful negotiation, Mrs T agreed to calm down."

58. I much prefer the evidence of Mr Barlow. He has no reason to give the court anything other than an accurate description of what happened. Having witnessed the mother give her evidence and seen the degree of agitation that she displayed both during Mr T's evidence, and indeed during her own evidence, I find it quite impossible to believe that she is capable of being calm and collected at an emotional time such as the handover of her daughter.
59. It was equally clear when she was asked about her attitude to court orders that she treated decisions of the courts with complete contempt. It was her view that, as PBC's mother, that would entitle her view to prevail, whatever a judge might order. Having listened to her evidence with care, I have no doubt that she retains that view to this day. When asked whether, with the benefit of hindsight, there was any aspect of what happened that she would do differently a second time around, her answer was a defiant, "Nothing different." It is equally clear that Mrs T has no thoughts in her mind as to the potential consequences of her ignoring the authority of the courts and retaining PBC in the face of court orders.
60. Mrs T has maintained that PBC wanted to remain with her mother in Ireland, that she was frightened of Mr C and did not miss K. Those observations are at odds with the social worker's observations of PBC when she was reunited with K and Mr C. I am asked to make an inference that mother was being untruthful and was misrepresenting PBC's true feelings. That is a difficult inference to draw. PBC has been noted to have chameleon-like characteristics whereby she has the ability to blend into her surroundings. It is clear that she was prepared to say what either her mother wanted her to say or she thought her mother wanted her to say.
61. I have no doubt that PBC was well aware of what her mother wanted to achieve – namely, to keep her in Ireland - and that, to do so, PBC would be required to say adverse things about Mr C. In my judgment, that has arisen as part of the emotional harm suffered by PBC as a result of the wrongful retention.
62. PBC experienced an unplanned and prolonged retention of some six months away from her home with Mr C and K and her school. She was placed in an Irish school where the language of the teacher was Irish and where she has complained that she did not understand the language.
63. She was exposed in mother's household to negative views of the care given to her by Mr C. PBC had reported to the GP in August 2014 that Mr C had had chips and beans which she referred to as "junk food" – an allegation in the same words that Mrs T had previously made.
64. PBC was exposed to the maternal household's negative view of Mr C and his family. The mother reported to Children's Services in September 2014 that PBC did not want anything to do with "him or his family". She was exposed to adult issues – for example, the maternal household's negative views of court proceedings, professionals involved and other family members.
65. Above and beyond the harm that was done to PBC, harm was done to K, who was wrongfully and precipitously removed from the care of her father, Mr C, and placed with her grandparents and remained away as a result pending PBC's return and ABE interview.
66. I have no doubt that it was the way that PBC was spoken to by the adults in her life in Ireland that influenced her descriptions and choice of language throughout her interviews in Ireland and in particular with the psychologist who interviewed her. That process of either planting or developing PBC's thought process was emotionally abusive and I am satisfied that, as a consequence, PBC suffered emotional harm.

The outcome of the care proceedings

67. It is accepted that the threshold for making public law orders is crossed. On the basis of the extensive findings I have set out above, I have been invited to consider the nature of any order I should make. PBC will remain living with Mr C and, as I indicated at the beginning of this judgment, the real issue that has fallen to be decided by me this week has been over the question of time to be spent with mother.
68. Given the findings I have made in relation to Mrs T's actions and beliefs, PBC would plainly be at risk of further emotional harm if she were to spend unsupervised time in the company of her mother. Particularly if something was said by PBC that might restart the kind of process that went on in August 2014. Plainly, it is not healthy for PBC to hear from her mother and the other adults associated with her mother disparaging, critical and plainly false comments about Mr C. Given what I have heard from Mr and Mrs T that, too, is a risk that can only be avoided if contact with Mrs T is supervised by somebody from outside Mrs T's family.
69. Mrs T will not acknowledge it but she needs help to understand the harm that she has caused to her daughter by pursuing what I can only describe as a vendetta against Mr C. She is determined not only to blacken his name but to destabilise PBC's home life with him to such an extent, as she sees it, that PBC would have to be returned to her care. Mr Craig Docherty, PBC's guardian, was of the very firm that, were PBC's placement with Mr C to break down, there would in his mind be no question of PBC being placed with her mother in Ireland.

Ireland or Blackpool?

70. It is noteworthy that Mrs T has not returned to England at all since she went to Ireland in 2011. It is unrealistic for PBC's contact with her mother to be supervised in Ireland – where would she stay, who would supervise, etc. Contact with her mother in Ireland unsupervised, in my judgment, simply is not safe. There remains a very real risk she would not be returned. There is a very real risk of further "allegations" being made. She would be at risk of further emotional abuse.
71. In order for PBC to have time with her mother, her mother will have to come to Blackpool. Mrs T has said that is impossible. I do not accept that. I do accept that it might be difficult but I am satisfied that the obligation falls on Mrs T to make the effort for contact and not rely on PBC going out to see her.

Other communications

72. At the moment, PBC is seeing Mrs T and her siblings by Skype communication once a fortnight. That should continue. In the intervening weekends or weeks, there is telephone contact. Both those forms of communication are supervised by the Local Authority and that should continue. In defining the order for indirect contact by Skype and telephone, I am satisfied that it should be no less than once a fortnight by Skype. Whilst it remains in PBC's best interests, it should be fortnightly by telephone.
73. Whilst the Local Authority supervision order remains in place, they can determine that. Once the supervision order ceases to be in place, PBC is likely to be the subject of a child in need plan. I hope that that can be the decision making forum to reach agreement on future arrangements.

Restrictions on applying to the court

74. I am asked to make an order under section 91.14 of the Children Act 1989 to restrict access to court proceedings by putting a filter in the way so that leave is required to make an application for a child arrangements order. I indicated at the very beginning of this judgment that court proceedings in respect of PBC have to stop. Both the local authority and the guardian want that restriction in place for a period of four years so that PBC is established at secondary school. There would be a window of opportunity to alter the arrangement for her before she makes her choices for GCSEs, whereupon a move of school might be difficult. So that, if Mrs T wishes to pursue a case for PBC to live with her, that would be potentially open to her when PBC was twelve or so years of age.
75. A section 91.14 order is a draconian order. I have reminded myself of the authorities set out in the notes to the Red Book. I am not going to read them into this judgment. I am satisfied that PBC's welfare requires such an order. She cannot remain in litigation.

The future

76. I hope I am wrong when I said that I believed that Mrs T has said her farewells to PBC and will not be coming to England. I hope she will reflect on this judgment. I hope she will reflect on the damage that she has done to PBC and her relationship with PBC. She has not helped PBC by refusing to come to court at the very last minute and stringing everyone along to believe she was coming.
77. I propose to make an order in positive terms for PBC to have time with her mother. That will be subject to conditions as to the work required to be done by Mrs T to demonstrate that she has understood what has gone on, that she can restrain herself in the future and that she can demonstrate that she can work with the Local Authority and with Mr C in PBC's best interests.
78. I hope, for PBC's sake, that there can be some contact with Mrs T. I see absolutely no reason why PBC should not have time with her older sisters and I hope, in the fullness of time, that an arrangement can be made for her to have time with her younger brothers.
(End of judgment)