Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> Torbay council v M, F Re A B C [2015] EWFC B218 (17 November 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B218.html
Cite as: [2015] EWFC B218
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
Case Number : PL15C00089
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT PLYMOUTH
The Law Courts
10 Armada Way
Plymouth
Devon
PL1 2ER
Date : 17 th November 2015
BEFORE:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HORTON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BETWEEN: |
|
|
|
|
Torbay Council |
Applicant
|
|
|
- and - |
|
|
|
Re A, B and C
|
Respondent |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Higginson appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Ms Reed appeared on behalf of the First Respondent
The Second Defendant was not represented and was not present
Mr Dodd appeared on behalf of the Children's Guardian (for the children)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment approved for publication by the court
Transcribed from the official tape recording by
MENDIP MEDIA GROUP
Rockeagle House, Pynes Hill, Exeter, Devon, EX2 5AZ
Telephone : 01392 213958 Fax : 01392 215643
Email: ttp@mendipmediagroup.com
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HORTON:
1. This is the final hearing of care proceedings brought by Torbay Council in relation to A, born on 24 th January 2010, and therefore is aged five years and ten months, B, born on 17 th June 2011, four years and five months and C, born on 15 th October 2013 and therefore aged two. Torbay Council have applied for Care Orders and Placement Orders in respect of all three children. The children's social worker, is Tendai Mundanda, and the Council has been represented by Mr Higginson, counsel. The children are represented by their children's guardian, Mrs Dawn Bishop, and their solicitor, Mr Dodd. The children's mother is M. She is, if I have done my maths correctly, aged 27 and has been represented by Ms Reed of counsel.
2. The children's father is F , who is aged 41. He has not attended this hearing. Ms Clayton, who is his solicitor attended the first day of this hearing, which was yesterday, but obviously was without up to date instructions. The father was living in the Torbay area but moved to Crewe where I believe he has other family. He had been given the travel tickets, or warrants, to enable him to attend at this final hearing, but he failed to attend either yesterday or today. Ms Clayton applied to be released from further participation in the hearing at two o'clock yesterday. I granted that application because it was clear to me that the father had no intention whatsoever of coming to court either yesterday or indeed for the rest of the case. I had given him a chance back in October to attend an appointment with Dr Gardner, the Consultant Psychologist who was instructed in this case, and he had failed to attend that assessment despite being given a warrant or ticket to get him to see her in Taunton. He has, in fact, when one looks at the papers, failed to attend many other appointments and I have formed the view that it was highly unlikely that he was going to attend the rest of hearing, therefore I released Ms Clayton.
3. The relevant date for this application is in fact the date of the application for a Care Order, which is 4 th February 2015. The proceedings should have been completed within the 26 weeks in August of this year, but due to Dr Gardner's recommendation for a piece of intensive intervention work, the time period for the completion of the case was extended.
4. The parties' position at the beginning of hearing were that the local authority, supported by the guardian, sought Care Orders and Placement Orders for all three children. The idea and plan is that the children should be adopted as a sibling group, and I have been told that there are already interested, perspective adopters who wish to be matched with these children. The plan, if the children are adopted, is for both parents to have two, twice a year, indirect contact via the post box system, and for the mother, at least and possibly the father if he engages, to be able to via photographs of the children from time to time, which will be provided to the local authority and held by the local authority's post adoption team. The mother's position is that she opposed the applications and she wishes the children to be returned to her care immediately. The father's position was that he supported the mother's case and also put him forward as a carer. His case is utterly hopeless as, in reality, he has failed to show any commitment or any sufficient commitment to his children, both by attending this hearing and to the assessment process.
5. This hearing was listed for three days. It started yesterday and due to the, as usual, excellently focussed work by the lawyers I have managed to complete this case within two days.
6. The mother, as is her right, wished the case to be contested and I will say straightaway that I am very glad that she did because it gave me the opportunity to see her give evidence, to assess her and to hear her love for her children as she expressed it.
7. I now turn to the background, a brief chronology and a summary of the relevant evidence, somewhat rolling all these three into one for brevity but also to make the case easily understandable, and I imagine that in the future these three children will be wishing to read what I have to say about them and their family. The mother and father had clearly been together for some time, but separated in June 2014, that was after there had been numerous referrals relating to domestic violence between them. There is information in the papers which, although it is hearsay I accept, that the father has been involved in other abusive relationships where domestic abuse was prevalent.
8. On 5 th June 2014, I accept that the father assaulted A and as a result the mother, quite rightly in my judgment, presented herself with the children to the local authority asking for help to separate from the father. The father had had little or no contact with his children since June 2014. A Child Protection Plan was put in place in July 2014 and was designed to deal with a number of issues that had been highlighted in the parenting that the children had received up until that point. These included such things as prioritising the children's needs over those of the adults, neglect, inappropriate supervision, a lack of attention to the children's health needs at times, and after the father had left the mother's ability to be open and co-operate with professionals in relation to other relationships that she had.
9. From July 2014 the IFSS, that is the Intensive Family Support Service that operates in Torbay, did a sustained period of work with the mother. I believe that was over a period of some six months or so. Unfortunately that intervention failed to bring about sufficient changes in order to satisfy the local authority that the children's welfare needs could or would be met by the mother. In short, the IFSS was of the view that the mother had failed to demonstrate any sustained change during that period of work. The mother underwent, therefore, a more in-depth parenting assessment with the Assessment Resource Centre, or ARC as it has been referred to. They first reported in January 2015. They raised the following as significant issues:
- the mother's lack of engagement with the recovery tools kit process;
- inappropriate relationship choices, associations and use of babysitters;
- the continued poor housing suggestions;
- the continuing inadequate supervision of the children leading to them suffering some minor injuries, such as bruising;
- the last administration of immunisations, some missed medical appointments;
- failure to address C's persistent nappy rash, which could cause unnecessary pain and discomfort to her; and
- also what they picked up on as being the mother's mistrust of the local authority.
As a result of that report these care proceedings were issued on 4 th February 2015.
10. The local authority believe that the conditions in the home were such that they had grounds to seek interim removal of the children from their mother. The mother contested this further application and the matter came on for hearing before Mr Recorder Sharp QC between 17 th and 20 th March of this year. As a result of the evidence that was heard and the indications that were given, the result was that whilst an Interim Care Order was made with respect to all three children, there was a direction under Section 38(6) of the Children Act made, allowing the children to remain with their mother for a period of assessment. This assessment was the subject of a schedule of expectations and various other requirements. Of particular importance is the fact that Dr Gardner, a well-known and well thought of psychologist, was permitted by the court to be instructed to assess the family; that is the mother, the father and the children.
11. There are two further factual events which intervened. On 27 th March of this year the nursery that some of the children attended became concerned when the mother turned up smelling of alcohol. Out of hours Social Services were called and because the mother was coherent and in control she was allowed home with the children. There was no further action taken. However, on 10 th April 2015 the nursery were again concerned with the mother's presentation in that she smelled of alcohol. Out of hours Social Services were not available and so the police were called. The police officers attending took the view that the factual situation that they were presented with was sufficient for them to engage their police powers, and therefore they took the children under their protection and away from their mother's care. It was the police officers' view that the mother was under the influence of alcohol on that day, in particular there was slurring of speech, which indicated intoxication.
12. The children were placed in temporary foster care. They were in a bit of a sorry state. They had head lice. They had scrapes, cuts and bite marks, or some of them did. Of more importance was that they were displaying what I would describe as abnormal behavioural patterns, and it is right after the time they were removed from their mother that there was clear evidence that the children's needs had been neglected and they were showing, in their behaviour, the lack of boundaries and appropriate guidance or (inaudible) that they had needed, and which had been missing from their care.
13. There was an order on 23 rd April making the children the subject of Interim Care Orders, and the children were to remain in foster care subject to a continued second assessment by the ARC. The ARC carried out an assessment of the father and the mother. From 5 th May they reported in respect of the father and concluded that there were significant difficulties if the father was to be caring for any of the children. He was in denial of the domestic violence, and in particular him being the perpetrator of it. He had poor mental health, which would impact on his emotional availability to the children, a significant factor in this case for both parents. He was in fact more protective of the mother than of the children. In other words he did not appear to be child focussed.
14. On 28 th May 2015 the ARC reported on their parenting assessment of the mother; that had been carried out by a Miss Gaze and a Miss Skilton. They reached the following conclusions, which are set out at C395 of the bundle. Despite over 100 IFSS visits the mother had not been able to sustain change to her parenting ability, lifestyle choices, or motivation to change. Just pausing there, the last category, that is "Motivation to change," needs to be looked at in terms of the reports of Dr Gardner and the agreement from both Dr Gardner, the social worker and the guardian, that this mother had in fact done everything she could do, given the difficulties she has, to place herself in a position to look after her children.
15. Continuing with the ARC's conclusions the ARC assessors concluded that the mother had not been able to make the necessary improvements to the care that she provided to the children during their period of intervention. They had also concluded that she would not take responsibility for her actions, that she had only superficially engaged with the professionals, and that she had limited capacity to understand and interpret the children's overall needs. I have said just a moment ago that the conclusions from this report, and indeed its predecessor from January, needs to be read in the light of Dr Gardner's assessment of the mother, which helps to explain the difficulties that she has had with parenting her children and in bringing about and then maintaining change.
16. Miss Skilton gave evidence before me and she told me that she had dealt with the parenting capacity element of the assessment. She had done this through her observations at contact and indeed she told me she had continued to supervise contact after the formal assessment had finished. She described graphically the chaotic nature of contact when the children are with their mother. Her opinion, which I accept, was that the mother had, or indeed has, difficulties setting boundaries and giving guidance to the children, so that the children did not know ... to use her terms ... "whether they were coming or going." Further they did not know how to interact with each other as a proper sibling group. During almost every session of contact some supervisor at some point had to step in, whether it was a formal assessment process where they were supposed to be monitoring or not. To be fair Miss Skilton did tell me that since May there had been some improvement in the quality of contact, and the mother's ability to work with the ARC people. The mother was not so defensive now and was more willing to listen and to take prompts from staff. However, Miss Skilton still had concerns as to whether outside of the supportive contact environment the mother could, or would, continue with, and maintain these improvements.
17. She was also concerned that such improvements as she had witnessed might in fact be due to the children being calmer and more settled as a result of their care in foster care, rather than because of any significant changes to the mother's parenting ability. Overall Miss Skilton did not think there had been any significant changes in the mother's ability between January and May, and the changes that she had seen between May and now she did not think would be maintained. An important part of her evidence for me was her account of the significant, positive changes that she had seen in the children since they had been removed from their parents' care, which in my judgment was a striking indication of the poor care that they had received from their parents, and the excellent care that they had received from their foster family. In my judgment Miss Skilton was a thoughtful and careful witness and I accept and rely upon her evidence.
18. As I mentioned earlier Dr Gardner was instructed to report. She did so. The first report was dated 10 th June 2015. In relation to the father she had little to go on because he had failed to engage with the assessment, and indeed continued to fail to engage. However she had some comments to make based on her reading of the papers and her reports from mother, which she described as frank. In her opinion the father has a history of psychological and mental health difficulties, and there is evidence of complex and depressive interpersonal function. He had immature egocentric coping strategies and absented himself when things were too much for him only to reappear later when his feelings of anxiety had subsided. In her opinion, which I accept, these facts would have a negative impact on any children in his care.
19. With respect to the mother I will, if I am forgiven for doing so because it will take some time, read from her report directly. She has set out at E14 an executive summary and I think it is important that I give this in full, as I have said, because I am conscious that in many years time to come, these children may well be reading this judgment and it is important for them to have the full picture of their early life. The first point to mention of course, is that the mother does have some difficulties in cognitive function, particularly in terms of what Dr Gardner described as her "her mental notebook"; that is her ability to recall things and to therefore be able to put things consistently into practice. It is a significant difficulty but jumping ahead somewhat I am also satisfied that all the assessments and interventions that have been tried with this mother have been appropriately aimed at her, and have taken account, whether consciously or unconsciously, of her specific difficulties.
20. At E14, starting at 1.1.2, she says: "I have provided the opinion that as a result of the emotional function of both her parents and a series of complex life events the mother has experienced insecure attachments, emotional distress and emotional deprivation throughout her childhood, which have affected her psychological functioning and development. She has also suffered a number of emotional difficulties and challenges as a young adult, including premature separation from both parents, the loss of her father and the abuse and trauma she endured from the age of 17 in the context of her relationship with the father."
21. She said, "There is evidence that as a result of this protracted history of emotionally very painful experiences the mother has now developed depression and anxiety, and symptoms consistent with a complex grief reaction. She has evidently experienced difficulty in coping with very high levels of distress, but from around the age of 14 she began to develop complex defensive functioning in her efforts to maintain emotional pain and to cope with the demands of her life. She has developed a number of robust, maladaptive psychological defences, including repression and denial. She has also turned to alcohol on occasions to help her manage acute, emotional distress. The mother evidently did not have her needs met in the context of the relationship with the father, and the emotional dynamic that for her formed the basis of the relationship served only to increase her emotional vulnerability and psychological distress. It was evident that as her distress intensified, her mental health deteriorated."
22. She continues on E15. "It is my opinion that the profound psychological vulnerability that form the basis of her relationship with the father remains, and is probably only superficially modified by the effects of the experience within that relationship and the direct involvement of the local authority." In Dr Gardner's opinion, "The mother had developed attachment difficulties as a result of her experiences, which have had a profound and enduring impact on her capacity to promote positive and secure attachments in her children. She had profoundly insecure, internal working models of attachment and has a tendency to block or distort the children's attachment related signals because the signals are experienced (I think by the mother) as threatening to her own model and experience of attachment. For the mother this mechanism has been intensified by low mood and depression, by the acute distress that she experienced within the relationship with the father, and by her own defensive strategies. These robust psychological defence mechanisms have augmented her defence against the emotional signals and demand of the children, and have therefore significantly reduced her capacity to emotionally attune to the children."
23. She continues at E15, 1.1.11, "From the history provided and from the current presentation of the children, it is my opinion that when they were in the care of both parents they experienced chronic neglect and emotional deprivation. There is also evidence the children continue to experience physical and emotional neglect after the relationship between the parents ended and the mother provided care as a single parent. The experience the children had left them with a difficulty that is described in this report, which includes significant abnormalities in the psychological functioning and attachment behaviour of all three children."
24. She then goes on to make the recommendation that the mother be provided with a brief intervention in order to assess if she can develop appropriate emotional parenting skills, such that she would be able to provide pro-attachment parenting for the two girls. She sets out that it could be done during a timeframe in order to avoid delay. At that stage she was not of the opinion that A should be included in this piece of work due to the extent of difficulties that he had, which led her to conclude that it was not in his interests to be involved in the intervention or to be returned to the care of his mother.
25. On E16, 1.1.16, she went on: "If the mother is unable to engage with the interventions and/or is unable to make sufficient change or development in her parenting capacity within the context of the intervention recommend, it is my opinion, unless the capacity of the father can be assessed, that all three children should remain in their current placement together until a permanent placement is found for all three children and for them to remain as a sibling group. It is essential for the children to have the least possible number of moves, due to the experiences that they have had and the attachment difficulties that they developed as a result."
26. The short, intense intervention did take place. It was, and has been, described as 'attunement' work. It was carried out by staff from the Residential Unit that Dr Gardner runs called Orchard House. I am afraid to say that the intervention appears to have been largely unsuccessful in demonstrating the mother's ability to become more attuned to her children. Dr Gardner was asked to provide an addendum report and to give an assessment of how this piece of work had gone. That report is dated 6 th August 2015 and at E82 she gives an executive summary.
27. At 1.1.3 she says this: "The mother evidently continues to find balancing the at times competing separate emotional needs of both B and C a challenge, though she did demonstrate that with some prompting she could put some of the techniques discussed during the intervention into practice. Whilst mother demonstrated some improvements and acted on some of the advice suggested by the workers, this progress remained inconsistent over the course of the available sessions. Unfortunately significant change in the parent/child relationship and in the application of pro-attachment child management techniques was not made. The contact session, which I observed, was entirely consistent with the observations made by the intervention workers. It is my opinion that although the mother has evidently learned some of the skills to improve her interaction with the children, there was no evidence of significant change in her affective presentation with either of the children. It is my opinion that the mother has unfortunately been unable to demonstrate sufficient change or development in her parenting capacity within the context of the brief intervention recommend, in order for reunification of the girls to her care to be a viable option."
28. In her evidence she was very clear. She said, and told me and I accept, that the short piece of intervention, although short, was sufficient and was properly delivered in order to allow the mother a proper and fair opportunity to evidence her ability to change. It is clear that Dr Gardner was not looking for complete resolution from that period of work, but she was looking for sufficient change to warrant further delay to the making of a final decision for these children. In terms of her overall conclusion she reiterated the conclusions of her two reports. She said that the mother was unlikely to achieve sufficient change within the timescales of any of the children, and that the changes the mother had made were at the cognitive rather than emotional level. She told me, and I unfortunately accept this, that the work required by the mother would be in excess of two years, and that would be before she could provide the level of therapeutic parenting that the children need now and would still need in two years time.
29. She went on to tell me, and I accept it, that because of the harm the children have suffered, in particular to their disruptive attachments, that they need permanence as soon as possible, indeed now, and that they cannot wait any longer for their mother to demonstrate the necessary changes to her parenting style. The mother, I was told, needs attunement work, long term emotional based counselling, and to attend various projects and courses, such as the Freedom Project. Such work, Dr Gardner told me, is complex. It is difficult and demanding and this difficult and demanding path that the mother needs to travel in order to achieve recovery, both as an individual and a parent, is outside the timescales for these children. Of particular importance, in my judgment, was her evidence that if the mother did undertake such work it would have a very negative impact, in the short term, on in particular her ability to attune to her children's needs. This evidence was important as the mother, during her evidence, asked to be able to carry out that work alongside having the children returned to her. It seems to me from Dr Gardner's opinion that such a proposal of carrying out work and parenting at the same time is just simply not viable. Despite Dr Gardner's conclusions she accepted that the mother had done everything she could possibly do to try to be able to look after her children, and she further accepted that the mother loves her children and that they love her.
30. She was asked about the potential risks of adoption for A, given his age and behaviour. Her opinion was that A in fact has responded incredibly well to a safe, secure and emotionally stable parenting environment. She was also of the opinion that he will make a full recovery from his childhood difficulties. In her opinion A would settle in a new family, and indeed would turn out to be a rewarding child to parent. Therefore she had no concerns about the local authority's plan for A, or indeed the other children, to be adopted. Dr Gardner was an impressive witness and I accept her evidence as, to be fair, did the mother in most respects.
31. I turn now to the mother's evidence. The mother presented as a polite and pleasant young woman, who listened carefully to the evidence throughout the case and who gave her evidence in a dignified manner. She was understandably and appropriately tearful at times, but maintained her composure throughout. She clearly loves her children and I accept Ms Reed's submission that the mother has made a demonstrable and sustained commitment to improvement, and has tried to the best of her ability to look after her children. During the process of this case, and in particular during this hearing and her evidence, the mother has demonstrated some intellectual understanding and insight into the difficulties she has and has had with parenting her children, and her relationship with the father. To her very great credit she has made a very significant number of admissions with respect to the threshold criteria, which I will set out later. She has also been able to recognise the efforts that professionals have made towards helping her. She has also shown in her evidence that she understands the weight of the evidence that is against her case, which is to have the children returned to her immediately. Parts of her evidence were particularly poignant and revealing.
32. I am satisfied that in reality she realises that the children cannot wait for her to do the two years plus work that she needs to do before she will be, or could be in a position to give them the reparative and necessary parenting that they require. She accepted in evidence that they had enough disruption in their lives and that it was not right for them to wait for her, and that the children indeed were ready to move on now and had said as much. This must have been painful for her to accept and admit to me, but she did it and she did it without flinching and I give her great credit for that.
33. In her evidence she accepted Dr Gardner's evidence that in reality her idea of being able to do the therapy and the work at the same time as parenting the children was not viable, and in her words, "that this would not be the right plan for the children." As I think is clear from my brief words about the mother, I was very impressed by the mother's evidence. It showed her love for her children and a recognition that, although she does not want them to be out of her care, she knows that in reality they need a permanent home now and that they cannot be with her.
34. I finally heard evidence from the guardian. She has provided two reports, an interim report and a final one. The final report is at E107 and is dated 4 th September 2015. It was with obvious sadness that she recommended to me, and confirmed to me in her evidence, her recommendation. But she was also clear that in her professional opinion only adoption could give the children the much needed permanence and place in which to recover. She too was able to recognise and praise the mother for all that she had done in order to try and put herself into a position of being able to care for her children.
35. I turn now to the law. The State has no power to interfere in a family's life by the making of Public Law orders unless the threshold criteria, set out in Section 31 of the Children Act 1989, have been proved to the requisite standard. That is that the local authority must prove that at the relevant date that the relevant child was suffering or was likely to suffer significant harm as defined by the Children Act, and that the harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care the child had received or was likely to receive if an order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to that child. If the threshold criteria are proved a court can then consider a child's welfare by reference to the relevant welfare considerations, and decide whether to make orders and, if so, which. When considering an application for a Care Order the basic principles are as follows; that the child's welfare is my paramount consideration; that I should not make an order unless it is better to do so than not; that delay in determining a question with respect to the upbringing of a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of that child, which applies particularly to this case; and in addition when considering whether to make an order under Part 4 of the Act I must have regard to the matters set out in the welfare checklist in Section 1(3).
36. In terms of considering making a Placement Order I must have regard to Section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The principle enshrined in Section 1(2) of the Act is that my paramount consideration is the child's welfare throughout their life. In considering welfare I must take into consideration the welfare checklist in Section 1(4), which directs my attention to the whole life and wider family implications of such an order. In addition I must have regard to the no order and delay principles, which are similar to those set out in the Children Act.
37. Pursuant to Section 21(3) of the Adoption and Children Act, I may only make a Placement Order if I am satisfied that each parent has consented to the child being placed for adoption, or that the parents' consent should be dispensed with pursuant to Section 52 of the same Act. Section 52(1)(b) of the Act makes it clear that the court cannot dispense with the consent of any parent unless it is satisfied that the welfare of the child requires that their consent should be dispensed with. "Requires" has the connotation of the imperative, which means, following the speech of Lady Hale at Paragraph 198 in the matter of Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33, that the court must only make an order approving the severing of the relationship between parent and child against parental consent, "... in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do." "Nothing else will do," is not meant literally. It means that after a process of deductive reasoning there is no other comparable option that will meet the interests of the child.
38. Ryder LJ summarised the approach the court must take when considering whether to make a Placement Order against parents' consent in CM v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, MBC [2014] Civ 1479, or Re M (A Child) [2014] Civ 1479, as it is sometimes referred to, at Paragraphs 33 to 36. A court considering making a Placement Order decision must conduct a five part exercise. "It must undertake a welfare analysis of each of the realistic options for the child, have regard among any other relevant issues to the matters set out in Section 1(4) of the 2002 Act. That involves looking at a balance sheet of benefits and detriments in relation to each option. It must then compare the analysis of each option against the others. It must decide whether an option and if so which option safeguards the child's welfare throughout their life ... That decision then feeds into the statutory test in sections 21(3)(b) and 52 of the 2002 Act, namely whether in the context of what is in the best interests of the child throughout their life the consent of the parent or guardian should be dispensed with ... In considering whether the welfare of the child requires consent to be dispensed with, the court must look at its welfare evaluation and ask itself the question whether that is a proportionate interference in the family life of the child."
39. I turn then to the threshold criteria. As I have said earlier, the mother to her great credit has made significant and important concessions as to the threshold criteria. Those have been reduced to a document entitled, "Final Threshold Criteria," dated 17 th November 2015, ie today. I am not going to read that document out in full but I will, for the sake of completeness of this judgment, pick out the headings as these are relevant to my consideration of both past and future harm when looking at the welfare checklists.
40. The mother has accepted that at 4 th February 2015 the children were suffering and were likely to suffer significant harm, and that harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given to the children, or likely to be given to them if the orders were not made, not being what it would be reasonable for any parent to give to a child. That harm is as follows. It relates to the failure to prioritise the needs of the children above those of the parents, that there has been domestic violence and abuse within the relationship, which is either, as the mother says, been witnessed or has affected the children. The mother has failed at times to work openly, honestly and consistently with professionals in the best interests of the children. The father failed to maintain contact with the children between June 2014 and February 2015, and indeed has continued to fail to keep in contact with professionals or take part in assessments. The mother has failed to maintain appropriate home conditions for the children, and examples are given. She has failed to ensure the children are cared for appropriately, leaving them with different individuals and on occasion, for instance, she was asleep in bed and the children were being looked after by other children, aged seven and nine.
41. The mother has also failed to ensure that the children's medical needs were consistently met, and examples are given there, in particular in relation to C's nappy rash. The children have sustained minor physical injuries in each of their parents' care through a lack of supervision. The children have been exposed to male adults in the mother's home about whom the mother has not always been open and honest about. She has failed to ensure that they receive appropriate and consistent care, which has led to neglect. F , I am satisfied, assaulted A on 5 th June by grabbing him by the neck, shouting and swearing at him. He has also exposed the children to drug and alcohol use.
42. As to future harm the mother accepts Dr Gardner's evidence that the mother has developed attachment difficulties as a result of her experiences, which have had a profound and enduring impact on her capacity to promote positive and secure attachments to her children. Dr Gardner concluded that she was unable to demonstrate sufficient change or development in her parenting capacity within the context of the brief intervention.
43. I turn therefore to a consideration to these children's welfare and what, if any, orders are necessary to protect them. The two placement options I must consider are, on the one hand, a return to their mother's care and, on the other, adoption. No party has suggested that I give serious consideration to long term fostering, and that is not surprising given their age and welfare needs for permanence. I entirely endorse and agree with the approach that has been taken by all parties, but even if it had not been and I had been asked to consider long term fostering I would have swiftly ruled it out as, in my judgment, it cannot meet the children's needs that they have for as much security and stability in their placement as they can get in order to repair the damage to their attachment behaviour.
44. I turn therefore to the welfare checklist in looking at these two options. In terms of the children's wishes and feelings, C is obviously too young to express a view. A and B have expressed views, and in particular the guardian has done some direct work with them. In June 2015 the children seemed to be saying that they wished to return to their mother, and that is an appendix to the back of her report. Three months later, by the time she did her second piece of direct work in September, it was clear that the children, B and A, were saying emphatically that they did not wish to return to their mother and that they wished to stay in foster care. It is the guardian's view that this shift in their wishes and feelings is a function of them settling further into foster care and going through a process of understanding that, whilst they love their mother and she loves them, in an age appropriate way they understand and have come to understand that she has not and cannot meet their needs, and that therefore they will need to be in the care of other adults. Obviously given the ages of A and B I cannot regard those expressions of their wishes as being an informed or balanced decision, but nevertheless it is useful information because it does indicate that they are indeed ready to move to their permanent home, wherever and with whom that may be.
45. In terms of their physical, emotional and educational needs, I am satisfied that they all have an urgent need for safety, security and stability. They have all suffered significant harm through the parenting they have received, and as Dr Gardner said they urgently require good quality, reparative ... that is better than good enough ... parenting. They require an emotionally stable environment in order for their needs to be met with carers, or a carer, who are attuned to what those needs are. In terms of the effect of any change in their circumstances and with the likely effect of them ceasing to be members of their original family, the children are currently in foster care, where they have been since April. A return to their mother's care would mean a move, but it would be a move back to their old home, albeit perhaps for a short period of time as she is faced with eviction, and the environment in which they were living at the beginning of these proceedings. This could mean if they were returned home that they would have a direct relationship with their mother, and possibly with their maternal grandmother, although the relationship between the mother and her is fraught with difficulties, and possibly the father if he could maintain sufficient commitment to his children to do so. There could be therefore some advantages to them being with their mother through such a change. However it would bring with it many disadvantages, which I will look at briefly in a moment. I accept that if the children were not with their mother that this would represent something of a loss for them. However, if I were to place the children back into their mother's care they would, I am satisfied, be being placed back into an environment in which they have previously come to harm. Unless the mother's parenting had improved, this would expose them to the risk of yet further significant harm.
46. If the children were adopted they would lose their direct relationship with their mother and the relationship, such as it is, with their father. I am satisfied that losing the relationship with their mother would be a significant loss, but I am also satisfied that even now they are showing signs of emotionally drawing away from her and being ready to move on to a new life. I am conscious that if these children are adopted that statistically they are likely to be alive until their late 70s, if not well beyond, and there will be times in their lives if adopted when they will look back and reflect on how they came to be adopted and what it has meant for them. Whether they would regard their adoption as overall a good or a bad thing it is not possible to say, but I am well aware of the difficulties that can arise for adopted people in such circumstances. To be balanced against the loss of relationship with their mother, and their father such as it is, is the fact that if adopted they are likely to have a sense of being chosen by and belonging to their adoptive family or families, with the security and reparative effect that such a feeling is likely to bring with it. In addition they would probably be protected from the likelihood of suffering further significant harm.
47. In terms of their age, sex, background and relevant characteristics they are three young children who urgently need to be in their permanent home. I accept the evidence of Dr Gardner, the social worker and the guardian that they all need this urgently, A in particular. Their backgrounds are ones of having suffered emotional harm, which has resulted in serious damage to their attachment styles. This means they need to be in a placement that can provide reparative parenting and establish healthy attachments. Without this the outlook for the children's long term emotional development and outcomes is bleak.
48. I have already set out, when looking at the threshold, the actual harm that these children suffered. I do not repeat it here, save to say that I am satisfied that the harm was very damaging to them, particularly to their attachment behaviour and has left them with very significant emotional needs. Dr Gardner has put it, in her report, in this way. At E53, 6.5.2 she says, "Although there is a bond between A and his mother there is an absence of security in his attachment relationship." From the presentation and function of the mother it is Dr Gardner's view that A has experienced her as being avoidant and probably disengaged. This had led to profound insecurity in this attachment and disorganisation in his attachment system.
49. In relation to B, at E58, 7.5.3, she says this: "The overwhelming presentation of the attachment between B and her mother is the lack of security and the associated expectation that her emotional and other needs will be met in the context of the relationship. This is evidently very difficult for B and she will develop additional psychological difficulties if she is unable to achieve security within an attachment to her primary carer."
50. In relation to C, E62, 8.5.3, she says it is her opinion that there is evidence of a bond between C and her mother, and also evidence of profound insecurity in her attachment behaviour. C, like B, appears to have adapted to the emotional behaviour of her mother and appears to have learned not to seek out her attention or proximity. Thus it can be seen the past harm that the children have suffered has had a profound effect on them.
51. In terms of future harm I am satisfied that if returned to their mother's care that they would be living in an environment that is effectively unchanged to the one in which they suffered past harm. The mother has tried her very best to change, but has not managed to show that she can change sufficiently within her children's timescales. I assess the children's timescales as requiring permanence now and not for them to wait for the possibility that their mother can change in about two years' time, or perhaps more.
52. In terms with the children's relationships with their relatives and relevant others, including the likelihood of those relationships continuing, the value of those relationships, and the ability, which I take as synonymous with capability under the Children Act, and willingness of any of those relatives or relevant person to provide the children with a secure environment in which they can develop and otherwise meet their needs, together with the wishes and feelings of those relatives and other persons, I have the following comments.
53. In terms of the relationships with the mother I conclude that despite her obvious love for the children, and their love for her, the relationship is not overall a positive one and not one that will enable them to stay free from suffering significant harm to their emotional development. Despite her love for the children I am quite satisfied that she cannot care for these children in her present state without causing them further significant harm. As to the father, I accept the social worker's, the guardian's, Dr Gardner's and ARC's assessment of him. The evidence I am satisfied demonstrates that he cannot care for these children without causing them significant harm. He is, in my judgment, an unstable character with psychological or mental health difficulties, and he also has aggressive tendencies, particularly within close interpersonal relationships. In my judgment he should not and cannot be looking after these children. If he is in a further relationship at the moment, and I know not whether he is or not, in my view if there are children within that relationship the relevant Social Services department should become involved and assess whether it is a good thing for him to be involved in those children's lives.
54. As to the future value of continuing relationships with their parents there would, of course, be positive and negative elements to that. I have already set out those when looking at other factors above. Maintaining a relationship with their mother in the future would be nice and would give them some value. However the downside of that is if she is caring for them they would be likely to suffer significant harm. As far as I can see the father is, at this stage, not a positive influence in the children's lives and should not and cannot be seeing them. I am conscious that, of course, if I make Placement Orders which leads to adoption that the relationship between parents and children will be severed irrevocably. However I am conscious that the plan is for there to be some indirect contact, which from the children's perspective will enable them to know that their parents are well, that they think of them, and they wished them the best in their lives. This will therefore help the children with maintaining their sense of identity and help them make sense of their early lives.
55. In terms of wishes and feelings of relevant people, the mother's wishes and feelings have been made very clear to me, both through her written and through her oral evidence. She wants to care for them. She would like to have them home. However those wishes, I am afraid, must be looked at in the context of the evidence as a whole and in particular the harm that the children have suffered and would be likely to suffer if I return them to her care. In terms of the father his instructions to Ms Clayton were to support the mother and also to put himself forward as a full-time carer. But in my judgment he has totally failed his children by failing to take up the opportunities offered to him for further assessment and contact. He has demonstrated that his defence mechanisms of absenting himself have had, and would have, a very significant negative impact on the children and one dreads to think what would happen if, having the care of the children, he could not absent himself when under pressure.
56. I now turn to a brief comparison of the placement options although I think it is pretty obvious where I am going with this judgment. Placement of the children with their mother would mean, of course, that they were being brought up by their mother, that is within their birth family, and they could therefore maintain their relationships with the mother, perhaps their father, and perhaps other family members. However living with their mother brings with it a high likelihood of them suffering significant harm from her lack of attunement to their needs, and her lack of current parenting ability. There is also a risk of her entering a further volatile relationship or continuing in some way the relationship she has with the father. She told me today that he is still in contact with her, because he had contacted her last night asking how the case had gone. In my judgment these children have been badly damaged by their experiences of previous parenting and suffering further harm, in my judgment, would be devastating. Given the evidence I am satisfied that the mother cannot change psychologically so that she could safely parent these children within their timescales. Currently she has made little progress and is pretty well in exactly the same position as she was at the start of these proceedings.
57. In terms of the other placement option of adoption, I am satisfied that all three children are adoptable despite their ages and difficulties. I accept the evidence of Dr Gardner that such a plan for A, in particular, is realistic and indeed I accept the evidence of the social worker that there are already prospective adopters expressing interest in being assessed and matched to these children. I accept that adoption would bring a significant loss to them, namely the relationship with their mother and to a much lesser extent the father. That loss of relationship would be both physical and, of course, legal. This will give rise to a sense of loss and no doubt will be reflected upon by the children in years to come. It is too difficult to predict, as I said earlier, how that loss will be felt and what view they will take of it as the years pass by. However such loss could be ameliorated by the life story work and continued twice yearly letterbox contact that is proposed.
58. On the positive side of adoption the children will be claimed by new adoptive parents. This is likely to give them a sense of being chosen by those people. This sense of belonging to a family who want to have them, in my judgment, will be an important contributory factor to their recovery and will ameliorate to some extent the sense of loss that will come from being separated from their birth family. For children with attachment disorders, such as these children, the benefit of being claimed is, in my judgment, very important.
59. I have compared the advantages and disadvantages of the children being returned to their mother and being subject to Placement Orders with a view to adoption. I am satisfied that adoption best meets my duty to afford paramount consideration to the children's welfare throughout their lives. I am afraid I do not regard the mother at this moment in time as a realistic placement option, given the conclusions that I have reached with regard it her. However, if I am wrong and she is a realistic placement option, if I compare the placement with her against placement under an adoption order it is clear that the children should be placed for adoption rather than with her. Placing the children with her would put them back into the same environment in which they suffered significant harm, and where they would be likely to suffer further significant harm. The mother has, despite her love for the children and the efforts she has made, made insufficient changes to her parenting style and is, I am afraid, incapable of doing so within the children's timescales.
60. Given that there is no family placement for these children, in my judgment the State must make provision for their care and that the best option for the children that the State can make is by way of an adoption. Adoption will, I am certain, give these children the best opportunity of receiving good quality, committed, consistent parenting for the remainder of their childhood and beyond, and will give them the best chance of continuity of care in a normal family environment, free from State interference.
61. To put it into its legal context I have concluded that I should approve the orders for severing the relationship between the parents and their children, because in my judgment the circumstances of this case are exceptional and the need for a Placement Order and Care Order and motivated by the overriding requirements pertaining to these children's welfare. In short, in my judgment, nothing else will do. I am satisfied that the parents' consent to placement for adoption must be dispensed with on the grounds that the children's welfare demand it, because I am satisfied that these children's welfare means that they need an adoptive placement in order to best promote their welfare throughout their lives.
62. For these reasons I therefore make Care Orders. I approve the care plans for adoption and indirect contact for all three children. I dispense with the parents' consent to making Placement Orders, and indeed make Placement Orders in respect of all three children. I finally make orders for detailed public funding assessments of the costs of the publicly funded parties.
63. My final comments I address directly to the mother. I meant what I said when praised her for the efforts she has made and for the way she has conducted herself. You are a young person still. You are still capable of parenting children, but you have work to do. I implore you, I ask you very strongly please, please take what work is on offer, work hard at it, and maybe in the future you will be a parent. I really hope you will be.
M Thank you, your Honour.
HHJ Horton Thank you. Now first of all, have I made any factual errors please? Did anyone pick up anything glaring? No? Any errors of law? No. All right. Any other matters?
Mr Higginson Your Honour, I am going to ask for a transcript to be obtained.
HHJ Horton I think it should be. I will get the transcript, approve it ...
Mr Higginson Thank you.
HHJ Horton ... and then I will email it back to the local authority for anonymisation.
Mr Higginson Your Honour, yes.
HHJ Horton I think this should go on BAILI because it is Care and Placement Orders against parental consent.
Mr Higginson Your Honour, yes, thank you. May we file an amended care plan within seven days?
HHJ Horton Yes.
Mr Higginson Thank you. Those are the only directions I have.
HHJ Horton I would like the final threshold please to be annexed to the order. When you send the order in ....
Mr Higginson Yes I will do that.
HHJ Horton ... could you annexe it directly to the back of the order and refer to it in the order please?
Mr Higginson I will, and can I file that by lunchtime tomorrow?
HHJ Horton Yes, thank you. All right, thank you very much indeed. You may send your form into me, Mr Dodd.
(Court adjourned)