England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT
(Sitting at Peterborough)

		No. PE15C00504 Crown Buildings Rivergate
		12th October 2015

JUDGE GREENE:

1. This case concerns T, born on 3^rd April this year, and she is represented by Ms. Shackleford through her guardian JB. The mother is P, represented by Mr. Haddon and the father is R represented by Ms. Walji. The local authority, Cambridgeshire County Council, who are represented by Ms. Gold, apply for a care order with the care plan of adoption and also, therefore, a placement order.
2. The evidence which I heard in determining this matter consisted of the bundle, which had been prepared including selected documents from the previous proceedings including the judgment of his Honour Judge O'Brien and reports of Dr Meyer, a consultant psychiatrist, who was not called and the bundle contained police evidence and other statements from witnesses who were not called. I heard live evidence from SP, the social worker who carried out the single assessment pre proceedings, and from SH, the current social worker. I also heard from mother, father and the guardian.
3. The focus of this case has been on mother, P, who is in her mid-30s and the question has been whether she can safely care for her daughter, T. Mother has had a very sad and worrying history relevant to those issues including care proceedings relating to three of her older children that concluded in August 2013. The local authority say that she has made insufficient changes since then and that the changes that she has made have been too recent, too little and are untested but, in particular, they say that she has not been open and honest with the childcare professionals and that, therefore, they could not ensure the safety of a child in her care. The position of the children's guardian was that she agrees with those concerns and supports the local authority's application.
4. P says that she has changed and that T should be in her care. R supports mother and says that in default he would like to care for T himself. P disputes that the threshold criteria exist for these proceedings and R also challenges that.
5. The background is set out in the judgment of his Honour Judge O'Brien. There has been a very long involvement of the local authority with mother and her children. His Honour Judge O'Brien found that the mother had a long history of relationships with violent men who abused drink and drugs. She had moved to Malta at one stage with a man with whom there was an abusive relationship. She subsequently left her daughter, E, there in the father's care and returned to this country with her son J. There was another relationship with another violent man which was followed by allegations from J that he had been hit by X. The concerns of similar chaotic and abusive lifestyle continued throughout the period that B and H were born. Proceedings began when mother reunited with X.
6. In the proceedings before his Honour Judge O'Brien, P conceded that the threshold criteria were met and they were as set out in the early part of his Honour Judge O'Brien's judgment. It is perhaps helpful for me to read those here and it was as follows; that the children had suffered or were likely to suffer physical and emotional harm and neglect due to, firstly, mother permitting inappropriate adults with drug or alcohol problems to live or stay at the family home and, secondly, that on 8^th January 2013 X assaulted her son, J. J suffered bruising on his leg, arm and shoulder. Mother was in the home at the time, she denied the assault had taken place and accused J of lying. X had a history of domestic violence and was alcoholic. Following the assault on J, mother allowed him to remain in the family home. P was diagnosed by Dr Meyer as having a generalised anxiety disorder with some emotionally unstable personality traits. The children were exposed to domestic violence, volatility and alcohol and drug use in the family home. Mother neglected J's emotional needs and failed to respond to his unhappiness even though it was noted by the school and his attendance at school was poor.
7. Judge O'Brien also found that mother had travelled from one unsatisfactory and abusive man to another and that she had not been open and honest. In those proceedings J had been placed with his father prior to the final hearing under a child arrangements order and P had contact. B and H were made the subject of care orders and placement orders and have since been adopted.
8. The local authority in these proceedings seek findings as set out in the bundle at A7 to A9 supplemented by some additional findings which Ms. Gold put in writing at the conclusion of the proceedings. The initial threshold document, apart from reciting the relevant section from section 31 of the Children Act, carries on at paragraph 4 to say that mother is emotionally insecure with some emotionally unstable narcissistic personality traits who does not work openly and honestly with professionals (and in a sense, that is a repeat of the findings in the previous proceedings), that she has a long history of forming relationships with violent men who abuse alcohol and drugs and in a sense the remainder of that document is superseded by the additional findings which Ms. Gold seeks. They are as follows: that following the conclusion of the previous care proceedings mother continued to live a chaotic and unstable lifestyle, to associate with individuals who had histories of violent offending, addiction and mental health difficulties and that between February 2014 and June 2014 mother lived with Y who was an alcoholic and who had mental health difficulties that made him unpredictable and violent. He was well known to the police and the probation service and there were more than 40 call outs to his flat between January and June last year. His tenancy was at risk due to allegations of antisocial behaviour, alcohol and drug abuse.
9. P described herself as Y's girlfriend and said she was attempting to help him overcome his alcohol abuse but her relationship with Y was volatile. On 3^rd May 2014 an argument took place between mother and Y, which she said was caused by his heavy drinking. He called the police and asked them to remove her. She left the flat but subsequently returned and was still living there in late May when a journalist attended to interview Y. It was said that he was afraid of R who was released from prison on 10^th May having been sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm to Y in September the year before. P said to journalists that she and Y were living like prisoners in their own home, as they were afraid of R who was continuing to harass them. I simply comment as an aside that there is a clear implication in that that they were a couple. On 29^th May 2014 P said that she was threatened with a knife by Y but she did not report that to the police. On 3^rd June she was punched in the face by Y and the neighbours called the police.
10. In mid-June 2014 P commenced a sexual relationship and friendship with R. R has a lengthy history of violent offending including domestic violence and assault on his own son when he was very young. He has a history of substance and alcohol abuse and was still drinking alcohol at the relevant date. The parents' planned to obtain accommodation together in Milton Keynes and to bring T up together. Finally, during the pre-birth assessment mother lied to social workers about the identity of T's father. She told the social workers that G was the father initially denying that she knew R. She continued to say throughout the assessment that she was unaware of R's whereabouts and was not in contact with him, whereas they were communicating with each other regularly throughout the pregnancy.
11. Those are the matters which the local authority seek as a basis for the orders that they apply for. The relevant date for the threshold criteria is 3^rd April 2015, the commencement of protective measures by the local authority in relation to T. The burden of proving matters which are in dispute factually is on the local authority throughout. It is for them to prove what they allege and the standard to which they must do so is the ordinary civil standard of the balance of probabilities. I considered the evidence of the social workers (indeed both of the social workers) to be balanced, fair and honest. Where their evidence differed from mother's or from father's on relevant factual matters in dispute I found their evidence to be credible and mother's to be unreliable as was father's. There was no doubt in my mind having heard and considered carefully all of the evidence that mother was not open and honest, particularly during the single assessment. It is not credible, in my view, that the two social workers who saw her would have both misunderstood what she said to them about her relationships with the various men she associated with in Milton Keynes and as to who was likely to be the father of the child she was then expecting. They had no motivation to invent anything and there are in any event a number of aspects of what they report mother as saying which are corroborated by other evidence.
12. P clearly told the police and a journalist that she was in a relationship of some sort with Y. R also clearly understood that to be the case referring to her at one point as Y's ex. It is also clear that she gave conflicting and intentionally confusing accounts as to the identity of the likely father of the baby she was expecting. So, certainly in respect of the single assessment, it was quite clear to me on the evidence I heard that P was neither open nor honest at that time and in the lead-up to the birth of her daughter. Much of what is contained in the amended threshold criteria is indisputable and much indeed is admitted.
13. In the light of the history which was so serious that her previous two children were permanently removed from her care and with evidence that she had not only continued that lifestyle but had dredged the depths of society and had then lied about it, I have no doubt that at the time of the commencement of these proceedings, any child in her care would have been at clear risk of significant harm. I find the threshold criteria are met as set out in the local authority's document with the additional addendum findings.
14. Of course the finding that the threshold criteria is met simply makes care or supervision orders available to the court as a potential outcome. It does not necessarily mean that any such orders should be made. This case has always in reality been about welfare and what orders, if any, there should be rather than about threshold.
15. T's welfare throughout her life is my paramount concern and as the care plan is for adoption and, therefore, for a placement order, I have considered the welfare checklist in the Adoption and Children Act in addition to that in the Children Act. The local authority say that I should look at the situation overall starting from the judgment of his Honour Judge O'Brien. In those proceedings they say that mother had said similar things about having realised the folly of her ways, having made significant changes and saying that she would not repeat the same mistakes, yet shortly after that she was living a chaotic and unstable life veering between homelessness and violent criminals with drink, drug and/or mental health problems. It is difficult to imagine a more unsavoury life than the one she had at that time when one pieces together the information from the police and the numerous call outs that there were to violent disturbances and disputes, often involving excessive drinking by one or another. It almost beggars belief that knowing that R had only just been released from prison for fracturing Y's skull, requiring over 30 stitches, she could be so astonishingly naïve as to believe his fantasy about it being in self-defence and move from a relationship with the victim to a relationship with the violent attacker.
16. There is clear evidence that once she knew she was pregnant she made a housing application in Milton Keynes with a view to living with R and the baby as a family. That misconceived plan was one which would have placed the baby at real risk of significant harm. It is difficult to understand how she could ever have thought it could be appropriate. It is clear from the evidence I have heard, both from mother and from father and from the information from his probation service recited in the single assessment, that P should have been aware within a very short time that not only was he a man with a propensity for serious violence but that, having admittedly been an alcoholic at the time of the offence and having been released on licence to live at an alcohol-free house, he had begun to drink again. There are reports at he had even been drunk and aggressive when visiting his probation officer. When one tries to unpick the reality from the obfuscation of R's evidence, it is clear that he had begun to drink again during the period of his relationship with mother when T must have been conceived. I have no doubt at all that if that situation had remained as it was then, this would have been a very short hearing and an inevitable decision and a care order and placement order would have been made.
17. However, in assessing the welfare needs of T, I have to look at the situation as it is now not as it was at the start of the proceedings or earlier as is the case for assessing the threshold criteria. The position of the local authority and the guardian is that whilst P may have made some changes since then, they are recent and untested and that, in any event, her dishonesty and lack of openness means they could not rely upon what she told them and so they could not have any confidence that a child in her care could be kept safe by her. They say that they would never know what was going on or what the true position was in mother's household. They point out that her lies previously contributed to the serious harm that her older children were found to have suffered in the previous proceedings.
18. It is, however, now trite law that I cannot approve a care plan for adoption unless I am satisfied that there is no other realistic option that could meet T's welfare needs. In other words, that nothing else will do. The case of Re B-S and Re B are now very well-known and often recited. They really made no change to the law but were by way of reminder as to what the law had always been but had been overlooked for some time and they really followed on from earlier European decisions such as KD v Finland and earlier English authorities to the effect that the State interference in private family life can only be justified where there are no other options, that any such interference should be the least interventionist approach and should be with a view to reunification unless the child's welfare needs absolutely require otherwise.
19. So the questions for me are whether mother has made changes and, if so whether they are sufficient to justify a re-evaluation of the risk she undoubtedly posed previously and tip the balance so that rehabilitation it a realistic option. I have to ask myself how relevant is the assertion that her changes are untested and, moreover, do the untruths and lack of openness necessarily lead to a conclusion that T cannot be safe in her care.
20. I found in looking at these questions that it is helpful to look back at the timeline to put things in context. The lack of honesty about her relationships in Milton Keynes and as to who the putative father was likely to be were made in September and November 2014, soon after she had moved back to Cambridgeshire, having ended the relationship with R and before she had undertaken the significant courses which she then later embarked upon. In December 2014 she had disclosed the details of R. She still did not disclose, however, that they had remained in touch by text and sometimes by telephone. Thereafter, however, P began to engage with antenatal services on her return to Cambridgeshire and throughout her pregnancy entirely appropriately. She also engaged with the perinatal mental health service to her credit. She referred herself to her GP for counselling and attended all of the sessions and she then enrolled on the Freedom Project, something which she had done previously online but on this occasion she enrolled on the face-to-face group session project and she described in her evidence, convincingly, some of the benefits and lessons from that course.
21. Since moving back to Cambridgeshire she has also reconciled with her mother and stepfather and this appears to be on a sound basis. They had been criticised in the past for voicing their adverse opinions about her partners. She had had a volatile relationship with them as a result of their criticisms of her lifestyle. The notable point there of course is that those same criticisms were made by the local authority and echoed by his Honour Judge O'Brien. P now says very clearly, and convincingly, that her reconciliation with her parents is because the courses that she has done have opened her eyes and she realises that they were right and she was wrong and she has told them so. That, therefore, gives some basis for optimism that this is more likely to be a lasting reconciliation and that they are likely to be a source of protective support. The indications are that the maternal grandmother can be relied upon to speak her mind if things go off the rails again, so that is another relevant change. P referred herself via her general practitioner for cognitive behavioural therapy. She saw an accredited therapist and provided that therapist with the reports of Dr Meyer and she has received a positive report at the conclusion of that work.
22. It is perhaps at this point relevant to refer to the report of Dr Meyer, who saw P again for the purpose of these proceedings on 9^th June this year at her parents' house. She had been living partly with them and partly at a hostel, as I understand it. Dr Meyer found that her mental health overall had improved since he had seen her previously and that she had a higher level of functioning. He considered that she had a generalised anxiety disorder but with some emotionally unstable and narcissistic personality traits but said that it may be that she is entering a more settled phase. He said then that it was only recent, a matter of months, and was untested. Of course that was now some four months ago. He said he was uncertain about the extent of her anxiety disorder and the extent to which she still had an issue with agoraphobia. He went on to say that she has the ability to protect her daughter from harm by others but added that he did not know whether she would succeed given the previous pattern of her behaviour. He recited the therapies that she had already accessed and confirmed that he had no other treatment recommendations to make but added that practical considerations are important and, in particular, moving to suitable accommodation.
23. I have looked at what has occurred since that report following his meeting in June and following on from his last comment the most notable thing, of course, is that she has obtained and moved into suitable accommodation. That has been seen by both the social worker and the guardian and confirmed as being satisfactory. She is also reported to be leading a more settled and acceptable lifestyle. The fact that she is going to appointments and is shopping and has joined a gym may seem comparatively trivial but not when seen in the context of her previous difficulties with anxiety and agoraphobia. There are no reports of inappropriate behaviour of any sort, nor of any relationships unsuitable or otherwise. In other words, since seeing Dr Meyer some four months ago, her life appears to have continued on the same positive trajectory and the way that she has been able to conduct her life seems to indicate that she is continuing to overcome the anxiety and agoraphobia.
24. It is also notable that there are supportive letters not only from her stepfather but also from the father of her son, J, with whom she has unsupervised contact and he has sent a very supportive letter indicating that he praises the way she behaves towards J and in contact saying that she has acted entirely appropriately.
25. There is no doubt at all that P is committed to contact, there are no reports about contact which I find to be of a nature that could justify separating a child from its mother. The few comments that have been made which have not been entirely positive are not matters that should influence my decision.
26. There is also no doubt that she loves T and is devoted to her. On one view it is difficult to see anything further that she could have done after moving back to Cambridgeshire that she has not already done, so I have to look at the matters put forward by the local authority as to whether there is anything which could be seen as a negative indicator other than the initial lack of openness and honesty which concerned them, understandably. The only real criticism seems to be continuing evasiveness about questions concerning that very low period when she was in Milton Keynes. There is an understandable concern that her mind-set it still not one of complete openness and honesty with childcare professionals. It is perhaps understandable in view of her history that she has some difficulties in that respect. It would of course have been preferable if the really significant changes which I find that she has made had come sooner but, nevertheless, I find that they have been made steadily and consistently for a period of approximately a year now and those changes cannot be overlooked simply because they were not made sooner.
27. The appallingly low period in her life in Milton Keynes should be seen in the context of the depths of despair and hopelessness that it is not surprising for a mother to feel after her children have been removed and placed for adoption. It is also relevant that she had no child in her care at the time and that her changes and her new focus seem to have been triggered by her discovering that she was pregnant and by a determination to change her life. She has to be given full credit for that.
28. It is always hoped that parents who have had problems and deficits will take steps to put things right and it cannot be right for those real positive changes not to be recognised when they are so extensive as those in evidence here. I accept that it is not all positive. I can understand the concerns of the guardian and the local authority about working with a mother who has not been open and honest and has gone so far as to make formal complaints about allegations which I find in these proceedings were unsubstantiated. It does, therefore, give rise to some concerns and it may not be plain sailing. There are bound to be doubts and misgivings. I do not find, however, that those matters are so fundamental that they justify severing forever the bond and relationship between mother and child. Where there is doubt it cannot lead to that outcome unless I am satisfied that the likelihood is so clear that T's welfare requires adoption as the only way to ensure her safety and welfare.
29. On that basis, whilst recognising the concerns of the guardian and whilst respecting her experience and sincerity and motivation in wanting to achieve the best for T, I do differ from the guardian in finding that the lack of honesty and openness, which, at its height was in September and November of last year, should not be a barrier to reunification. It would be entirely wrong for me to look at the alternative for T of adoption and carry out a balancing exercise. Adoption is something I should not even consider as a care plan unless I am satisfied that there is such clear evidence that mother cannot meet her needs, that she would be likely to suffer harm of a significant nature. I have considered that as part of the full welfare checklists under both the Adoption and Children Act and the Children Act along with all other relevant matters.
30. In doing so I have reminded myself of the words of Hedley J in the case of Re L in 2007 where he said that basically it is the tradition of the United Kingdom that children are best brought up within natural families and he referred to the words of Lord Templeman in Re KD that the best person to bring up a child is the natural parent, it matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided that the child's moral and physical health are not in danger and that public authorities cannot improve on nature. Hedley J then went on to add this:

"Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows, too, that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. Some children will experience disadvantage and harm whilst others will flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity. It is not the provenance of the State to spare children all of the consequences of defective parenting."

31. He then added that it follows that if our childcare system is functioning properly there will be some occasions when children are not removed from or are rehabilitated to homes where it is beyond doubt that the care they will receive will be suboptimal and clearly below what they would receive in foster care or with adoptive parents. He concluded by saying that in an appropriate case that outcome should be viewed as a success rather than a failure.
32. It is, therefore, not appropriate for me to give any thought to whether T's life might be safer and more secure with her brother and sister in their adoptive family where she is currently a foster child. The only consideration at this stage is whether mother, despite all the changes that she has made, poses such a high and unmanageable level of risk that her care will inevitably fall below good enough, even with appropriate support, supervision and monitoring. On the evidence I have heard I am not satisfied that that is the case. I have, therefore, reached the conclusion that I cannot approve the care plan for adoption.
33. I have considered the way forward. An application was made as to whether there should be further assessments. I do not agree with the submissions that there should be an adjournment for a further assessment of any sort. Dr Meyer says in his report that he sees no case for a psychological assessment and I agree. I also do not agree that there is any necessity for an independent social work assessment. I have heard all of the evidence over a period of three days in addition to reading the bundle and I consider that it would at this stage be an inappropriate delegation of my function to appoint an independent social worker. I have as part of my role assessed the parties in the light of the evidence and I have had the advantage of seeing their behaviour in court over a period of three days, not only when they were giving evidence.
34. I am not impressed by the argument that P's changes are untested. The positive progress has been maintained, moving in the right direction for around a year. I formed the view that although she was evasive about some aspects of her past and was also reticent to express her views about R whilst he was in court next to her, there is insufficient evidence that those matters should adversely affect the outcome and there is sufficient evidence before me to form the view that she is genuine in the changes that she has made, that she is genuine in her expressed determination to maintain them. I found her convincing in her evidence about what she had learned from the Freedom Project by way of example and, as I have already said, it is noteworthy that despite the difficulties she has had in such situations in the past, she attended and engaged fully in a face-to-face group course. She did demonstrate to my satisfaction the awakening of insight of a sufficient degree, although there is of course room for improvement; for example, although she said that her living arrangements and relationships in Milton Keynes were unsuitable and unsafe, I did not detect a real horror at the recollection or appreciation of how she could and should have just got away entirely and never had anything to do with such people, nor was there any indication of a realisation of how naïve she was in being taken in by R. She said that alarm bells rang but unfortunately she did nothing about it. She still has to learn to run when she hears those alarm bells.
35. However, I do not consider that any of those concerns are of such a magnitude that they should be a bar to P and T being reunited. The local authority's main concern is as to whether they can trust what P tells them. As I have said, the height of the deception and dishonesty was some time ago now. It is a matter which needs to be tackled by both sides. P needs to be very sure that from now on she is as open and honest as she can be. She needs to recognise that the complaint that she made was entirely inappropriate. There was no basis for it, the local authority were entirely right in coming to the conclusions that they did and saying what they did and they were justified in having the concerns that they expressed. She should instead devote herself to working with the social worker and relying upon her as a help and guide. She should ensure that she maintains a relationship with her mother and stepfather so that they, too, have free access and she should allow the social workers to have unannounced visits so that they can reassure themselves about the situation at least for the foreseeable future. She also needs to ensure that she does not even think about renewing any sort of relationship with R nor starting any new relationships without having first discussed it with the social worker and having that person fully checked out because there are still question marks over her lack of judgment.
36. The local authority for its part should devote sufficient resources to meet the level of concern that they assert. As they consider that they cannot rely on mother to be open and to tell them everything that is going on, they should ensure that the supervision is appropriately intense. They should put in support services to help P and the visits should be frequent until the trust is built up. They should consider whether the circumstances are such that the supervision order, which I intend to make, should be extended after the first year. P needs to cooperate in all of that and she must be in no doubt that if the matter comes back on another application, because there has been any repetition of the sort of relationships and behaviours of the past, then the outcome is likely to be one that she would not wish. She has asked for a chance and I am giving her that chance but I am doing so because I consider it to be in T's best interests and P should be very clear that it is her last chance and that it is absolutely essential that T should be her focus and her absolute priority.
37. On that basis it is my intention to make a supervision for one year and a child arrangements order to P. I expect there to be a rehabilitation plan for an early reintroduction supported by a written agreement and a short period of section 20 accommodation for the transition period. I would not expect more than three to four weeks for that to take place.
38. I have not said very much about R yet. He did not put himself forward in opposition to mother but as a fall back. Unfortunately on the evidence I heard he would have failed completely on both counts. It is, however, relevant for me now to deal with my findings in respect of R because it needs to be determined what role, if any, it would be appropriate for him to play in T's life.
39. My starting point of course is that unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, it is in the child's interests to have knowledge of and a relationship with both parents. The final evidence of the social worker at C49 to C54 of the bundle contains details of the assessment of R and the information in there explains the decision not to pursue a more thorough assessment. The evidence which I heard justifies that decision. I did not find R to be a helpful witness in any respect other than in reinforcing the view that he is a man who would present a serious risk to T or any child in his care during contact that is not closely supervised. His evidence was self-serving and demonstrated distorted thinking on a number of levels. He is a man with around 40 convictions for 120 offences between 1989 and 2013. The most recent was for an extremely serious assault in which he fractured his victim's skull with a bottle which required over 30 stitches. R, however, says that he was the victim and that his victim was to blame for that assault. Clearly the court did not see it that way in sentencing R to twelve months' imprisonment. It would be too generous to say that R minimises the offence. His position is that he says he lost everything because of the victim, not because of his own actions. He takes no responsibility and has no victim empathy. It is clear to me that he is a dangerous man who poses a high risk of further violence.
40. As far as drink is concerned he says he has no problems with it. He admits that he had been an alcoholic for some time leading up to his latest term of imprisonment. He was released on licence to live in a dry house and to engage with drug alcohol support. By his own admission in his evidence he soon began to drink again. There are reports that he was even drunk and aggressive towards probation staff during their sessions with him. The social worker in her final evidence states that in a meeting with her and a colleague, R appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. They said that his speech was slurred, he was unpredictable, angry and agitated. I found R's explanation of that in his evidence not credible and I fully accept the evidence of the social workers as being honest and reliable on all factual matters.
41. I observed that R's behaviour throughout the hearing before me was agitated. He would respond to almost everything that was said by anyone by waving his arms, mouthing responses, gesticulating and sometimes making audible comments. When he had to be asked to be quiet on a number of occasions he would instead demand sheaves of paper and continuously scribbled notes which he would pass theatrically to his counsel. Occasionally he would slump with his head down, occasionally he would get up and leave the court, sometimes for protracted periods. He created a pantomime of arm waving, gesticulation and mouthing typical of someone affected by drink. The guardian said in her evidence that he had in fact smelled of alcohol for the second and third days when she was sitting next to him. I accept her evidence in that respect.
42. I find that R clearly does have a serious problem with drink, made far worse by the fact that he does not recognise or accept it. He will continue to have a serious problem that will impact on his ability to have any positive role in the child's life until he has completely given up alcohol and abstained continuously for at least a year. He also saw himself as a victim in these court proceedings. As he saw it, he risked losing his baby because of mother's background. He has absolutely no insight into the fact that mother's major problem was in choosing him as a partner. Had she chosen someone who was a positive influence and who lacked all of R's multiple deficits, then there may well have been no proceedings. If this had been a choice between R and adoption, then it would have been a very short hearing and adoption would have been the only possible outcome. Mother has not been helped by R to have T returned to her care. She has been returned to her care in spite of R.
43. In order for the placement of T at home with her mother to have the best chance of success I find that she needs to have a similar level of support and protection as would have been there for an adoptive placement. I consider that continuing contact at anything other than a low level is likely to be disruptive and destabilising. It is T's needs and welfare that are paramount not R's. Unless and until R has been able to demonstrate that he has made thorough and lasting changes, then the benefit to T of contact can only be for identity purposes. In my view, it must be closely supervised. It should not go ahead if he has been drinking and it should be ended if he acts inappropriately. I consider that the level of once a month suggested by the guardian is too frequent. It is likely to be destabilising and confusing. I consider that a frequency of four times a year is appropriate after a short period of reduction, firstly, to monthly. For it to progress beyond that, I would suggest that the local authority should expect to see total abstinence from alcohol for at least a year coupled with R having made significant changes to his lifestyle, undertaken work to address successfully his anger, his lack of insight into his behaviour and its effect and lack of victim empathy.
44. At the moment, as I understand it, R does not have parental responsibility. I do not consider that he should unless and until he has done all that I have indicated and is therefore able to satisfy mother and the local authority or otherwise the court that he is a changed and reformed person who could bring something positive to T's life rather than pose a risk to her as he does now. P will be well advised not to permit contact beyond that which I have outlined and to rely upon the social worker for advice and guidance, permitting only the contact that they have agreed or that has been ordered by the court if any further application is made.
45. On that basis I make a child arrangements order that T should live with P, that there should be a supervision order to Cambridgeshire County Council for one year and limited contact, as I have indicated, to R.