England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT
(Sitting at Medway)

		Anchorage House, 47-67 High Street ME4 4DW
		18th March 2015

JUDGE CAMERON:

1. In what may be a misapplication of the phrase "collaborative law" or "collaborative justice", that approach actually has worked very well in this welfare hearing involving the placement of the four children (A, B, C and E) in family settings. It is to all the advocates' and the parties' credit, and is very pleasing, that there is now complete consensus as from day 4 of what might have been a nine-day contested case, about the way ahead - certainly for the short term and hopefully for the long-term permanent future too for each of these children with their own individual and complex needs who have already been through so much anxiety and delay. It is a great example of parties cooperating and working together to the good of the children.
2. To set the scene, in lengthy hearing days amounting to a total of 22 days, spanning July, August and September 2014 the Court had dealt with a formidable amount of allegations and evidence. I gave a comprehensive Reserved Judgment on 1^st October and had to make some fairly trenchant comments about the Local Authority's conduct of the admittedly very complex case which involved two Interveners as well as the parents and impacted on the lives of eight children in all, one of whom achieved his majority during the long history of proceedings.
3. Happily all parties have accepted the Court's findings and decisions and no party has sought to disagree or pursue an appeal. A period of digesting those findings and the need to have updated expert input and assessments has led to this next important chapter. The children that the Court has been dealing with directly in this case are now aged 13, 12, 10 (about to be 11 next month) and 6 - they being respectively Child A, Child B, Child C and Child E.
4. The parents' fourth child, Child D (now 9) has lived with the paternal grandparents since she was only a few weeks old, latterly under a Special Guardianship Order made in their favour in October 2012. They have their own children – Child G who is 9 and Child F, now 19, who at one stage had had allegations made against him which ultimately were not pursued. The Court was informed that sadly the separation between the paternal grandfather and his wife now looks to be permanent.
5. The other child, Child H, now 8 (9 in May) is the daughter of the father's partner since late 2011 or early 2012, Mrs N, and her divorced husband, Mr N. Mrs N had always been that child's primary carer since their separation back in 2006, and then finally in 2008 and 2009 until Child H's father retained her after a contact visit in April last year. Fortunately, and to their credit, during a half-day hearing during this hearing those parents were able to come to very sensible child-centred arrangements about Child H. Previous Undertakings were discharged and Child H will be able to re-acquaint herself gradually with both the father and Child C, as he moves to live with his father and Mrs N. Importantly, Child H will have increased contact time with her own mother, which should grow exponentially.
6. Having heard very thoughtful evidence from Dr. French, Janice Barton and Mr. V during the first three days of the hearing, the Court had queried with the mother's counsel as to whether she really wished or needed to contest the Local Authority's care plan for Child C. This encompasses what the Court found to be a very sensible phased transition programme which started on 25^th February this year and has already had four successful visits to allow Child C to live with his father, to whom he is very close, and Mrs N in her home.
7. I have remarked that the mother's approach to retain Child C in long-term foster care, while entirely understandable on a human level, was a non-starter effectively in the face of overwhelming and very considered expert opinion. The Court, in all conscience, could not consign young Child C - a charming and witty boy, as I have seen and read - to a childhood filled with uncertainty and shifting carers and a corporate parent. He needs to be given the best possible chance to enjoy the rest of his childhood after his 14 month period in two, sadly short-lived, foster placements, and then in a residential unit. He needs to be within a family setting where he is owned and embraced and loved.
8. Upon the Court's real concerns being properly conveyed to the mother overnight, and she having heard the evidence thoroughly ventilated, she came to Court on the fourth day having made that courageous decision, as I reflect it certainly is, to let Child C have that crucial chance to move to live with his father. I accept wholeheartedly that the mother's previously strongly expressed views, both to the social worker, to other professionals and to her own Counsel in conference on a number of occasions, were motivated solely by anxiety over the child's safety and aiming to put that foremost and paramount at all times, and not by any sort of revenge, spite or personal emotional hurt because of the way in which the father had left their marriage. She had made it plain over many months of this case that she simply could not choose between her children. That again is a very human response. It might be said indeed: which mother could choose? That was informed by her own, sad personal background of her mother choosing her sister over her. It was brave that she was able to put her own wishes aside and focus on what is best for the children, where we are now.
9. The Court is well aware also that the overlapping case concerning Child H has caused the mother some real concerns. She queried, perfectly reasonably, why if it was not considered safe at some time for Child H to return to Mrs N's care during these ongoing proceedings leading up to the Fact Finding Hearing last year, how could it be considered safe for Child C to live with Mrs N and his father? As has been conveyed to her, there is now some real relaxing of Child H both seeing her mother more and also being reintroduced to the father and Child C too in a free and relaxed way. In time Child H may well spend more time in that home under perhaps a shared residence, as we used to call it, or other living arrangement.
10. The mother, who is very vulnerable, has learning difficulties and had a very disadvantaged start in her life, has been sensitively and sensibly advised by her Counsel, with the assistance of the excellent Mrs. Christine Silk from the Valuing Parents Support Service, as well as with some input from the Guardian. She has now some understanding of the binary approach that the Court adopts; that no sexual abuse by the father or indeed the grandfather of Child C was found by the Court, and that all the expert evidence which the Court can find no good reason at all to depart from, including that of the social worker and the Guardian, is unanimous; that Child C should be able to live within his family and with his father.
11. The mother is now reassured as far as she can be that the movement away from the residential unit will be done at Child C's pace and that there is back-up and advice readily available from that source. Hopefully there is the prospect of some respite weekends back there as the need arises and support from the admirable new social worker, Ms Cleontis James-Cooke under the interim supervision order that I will make. Mrs N is there too and there are all those protective safeguards in place.
12. I record that I found the mother's responses to be entirely genuine and heartfelt, and they do her great credit in what has obviously been a learning curve for her, as well as for the father. It is helpful that she also has the support in Essex of her partner, Mr P, in the background, although the children have been critical at times of her spending more time with him than prioritising contact with them. Mr P decided not to make himself available to Marilyn Revell or to any discussions with any of the professionals involved. The mother simply cannot cope, as is plain and accepted, as a sole carer. Happily, she is now more confident and happier and has a better sense of her own self-worth.
13. Because the final objection to the care plan had been removed by then, it was agreed by all the parties that there was no need at this juncture to hear any oral evidence from either the excellent new social worker or the Guardian whose very full reports the Court has of course read.
14. Given the complexities and dynamics here, the Court was asked to, and has been happy to, prepare a reasoned judgment gathering together all the strands, as it were, which of course will be on the Local Authority's system for any professional to have access in the future. For completeness, so that again it may be found in one place, I will review in a moment the evidence that the Court heard from the witness box.
15. The Court is delighted to be able to make today child arrangement orders to Mr and Mrs M in relation to both Child A and Child B. Those are to be time-limited and to endure until the intended five day final hearing in May and until the intended Special Guardianship Orders are made to finalise those children's cases once and for all. Although originally Mr and Mrs M were viability assessed positively for only one child, it is considered overwhelmingly in Child A and Child B's best interests now that they be kept together, just as they have been over all the intervening months, and not to disrupt that arrangement.
16. I grant also forthwith party status to Mr and Mrs M to enable them both to be able to receive legal advice and assistance as they would wish, and allow them to have access to relevant documents, again as they would wish or would be appropriate.
17. There will be a mirror child arrangements and party status orders also to the uncle, Mr NL, in relation to Child E - again with the plan to make a Special Guardianship Order in his favour.
18. I also approve the agreed between the relevant parties for section 20 accommodation to cover the situation and to allow the Local Authority to remain involved in the lives of those three children for the next few weeks.
19. In relation to Child C, I have no hesitation in continuing the extant Interim Care Order as a management tool to assist with the practical arrangements and the liaison with the residential unit, and to assist the father and Mrs N and to ensure again that all appropriate services are open to them.
20. While of course there can be no crystal ball gazing whatsoever, everyone is now committed to giving these vital moves the very best chance of success.
21. The Court also puts down a market at this stage to confirm its thinking that the eventual Special Guardianship orders are not intended to be stultified by the old thinking that a parent should expect contact only four times a year or something restrictive like that. Every Special Guardian arrangement has its own particular circumstances and here these are older children, not tiny pre-school children, who know exactly who their mother is and who express love for her, and a real repeated desire to see her, which is reciprocated by the mother. She will not disappear to the perimeter of their lives. She will remain an important person for them. Whether that contact is six or eight times, or some other frequency per year going forward, will be fully canvassed and considered at the next hearing.
22. The intended Special Guardians themselves will have had a chance by then to consider what will fit in with their and the children's routines. Consistency and regularity will be the key words. Of course, contact is always to be devised in the best interests of the children's welfare and not the parents' or other parties, but I have been reassured by what has been said to date about that.
23. Similarly the father, through his Counsel, made it very plain and public at the hearing on 13^th March that he wants the mother to know that he earnestly wants her to remain involved and to know what Child C is doing at school and so on.
24. All the parties will need to work solidly and sensibly with the social worker and allow her to manage the position appropriately if any difficulties should arise, or, for example, if the pace of the placement transitions need to be slowed down, or indeed to go at a faster pace.

The Applicable Law and the Court's Approach

25. From the ventilation of all the evidence at the forensic Fact Finding Hearing and the parties being very sensibly able to move forward from that, accepting proper legal advice, this case has culminated really in the outcome in line with Lord Templeman's oft-quoted remarks in the old case of Re KD, and the full maintenance of full family ties. He had stated that the best person to bring up a child is the natural parent, regardless of whether that parent (or carer, I interpolate) was wise, foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate provided that the child's moral and physical health are not in danger - public authorities not being able to improve on nature. The fundamental approach that the Court applies is of course decision-making in the very best interests of these different children's welfare - that being the paramount consideration under s.1(3) of the 1989 Act and having properly considered all options in a holistic way so as to comply with the leading case of Re B-S.
26. I have taken fully into account the welfare checklist and analysed the case within that framework. Particularly here I have taken into account (a), the children's ascertainable wishes and feelings. I bear in mind that Child B had always wanted to return home. He has been side-lined rather perhaps because of the overwhelming individual needs presented by his siblings. He needs to develop in confidence. To Dr. French Mr and Mrs M said that Child B had consistently expressed a positive view about living with them. He had said himself to Dr. French that he did not mind being placed with his paternal grandfather or with Mr and Mrs M. He did not care where he was, but he wanted to play football. That is his passion, as we heard. To the Guardian he said that he had not enjoyed his time or respite with Mr and Mrs M as much as he thought he would, but in fact to the social worker 24 hours later he said that he wanted to remain with them indefinitely
27. Child A, as the oldest child, is very attuned to what is going on and still worries a lot about her mother. She was described by Mr and Mrs M as delightful with a lovely personality but with low self-esteem. As she had said to Dr. French at the end of January this year, she wanted to live with Mr NL so that she could be with Child E. She said she had had enough of her dad and did not want to see him any more. She placed her father and her paternal grandfather on her "no" list, while wanting contact with her mother, the paternal step-grandmother and with Child D. Then she very much enjoyed a recent period of respite with the Mr. and Mrs. M and said she loved it. She looked very happy and relaxed and she said she would like to live with the couple. Her soiling had not been as frequent as expected was also reported, and happily her health needs do not appear to faze Mr and Mrs M. As the Guardian recognised, she needs to acquire an authentic voice of her own rather than to carry on reflecting what her mother thinks and feels, as she has none so poignantly in the past.
28. Child C I will deal with in one moment. Child E, with her global development delay too, has needed constant supervision and will want to feel safe and supported in the interim stages of the move to a new environment completely with her paternal uncle, Mr NL.
29. In relation to (b), the physical emotional and educational needs of the children, those of course also have come very much into play - Child C and Child E each with their particular needs owing to global and developmental delay. It had taken six months of very firm instruction and sanctions by Child E's foster mother to bring her stubborn behaviours down from complete defiance. Child A with her long-standing bowel problems, and who has acted very much as a friend and confidante of her mother rather than as a child, needs her childhood back. Ms. James-Cooke encompassed or encapsulated all of that in her final report dated 18^th February this year by saying that Child C and Child E's needs are such that they need full-on parenting. Child B needs carers who will initiate warmth towards him as he will not seek this out for himself. Child B had said previously to Dr. French that he was sad all the time, felt like crying many days and nobody really loves him. That has got to change for him.
30. In relation to the likely effect on any change in circumstances, the moves away from these well-known alternative carers after 14 months is bound to be traumatic to an extent. That can be weathered, it seems to me, by the careful transition plans that have been implemented here. The Guardian believed it would be important for Child B to be clear about who is setting the rules and who is providing day-to-day care for him for the remainder of his minority, and for his carers to develop confidence in their role and status as providing the parental role. I endorse that entirely.
31. (d) and (e) I have also taken into consideration - those being the age, sex, background and any characteristics in relation to the children, and any harm which they have suffered or are at risk of suffering. I need not back-track into the Fact Finding.
32. In relation to (f), how capable each of the parents and any other person whom the Court considers the question to be relevant in relation to, of meeting each child's needs: well, that has been very thoroughly assessed indeed in relation to all three placements. I add, for completeness, that the grandfather was also assessed but at the children's current ages, stages and needs he was not recommended as a replacement carer, and he has accepted that currently, and he has his own accommodation issues.
33. I am entirely clear, as is fully endorsed by the social worker and Guardian here, that these children should be allowed to settle into their new placements. They will have the upheaval of the move from where they have been for those last long months, which everybody acknowledges is a very long time in the life of a child, particularly perhaps in the case of young Child E. They need time to establish routines and to build relationships with their carers, and begin to understand that they now have that sense of permanency, stability and finality in their lives.
34. There will be undoubted challenges for all and the carers will need to work alongside the Local Authority and fully exploit the help and input suggested and available. Ms. James-Cooke had inherited really quite an unenviable legacy (if I may call it that). It is not an easy case at all to inherit at this stage, but her approach has won plaudits already and she is both trusted and respected by all. Those are important words here.
35. The Court and the parties are now much more sanguine and optimistic about the future and the role of the Local Authority for as long as that is needed. Later on possibly Family Assistance Orders for three to six months or longer may well assist in befriending and supporting the carers. From now on the Court is of the strong opinion, echoing the Guardian, that all contact with the various adults should cease for the time being to allow the all-important transitions to take place and the plans really to bed in. So an embargo is placed on contact for the time being until what is hoped to be the final definitive hearing in May.
36. Regrettably the recent contact notes had come in in rather a piecemeal fashion, as had been the case in the past during the hearing and they have not been seen fully by Dr. French and certainly not seen fully by others, including the Court, until Days 2 and 3 of this hearing. Having reviewed them, I felt some qualms particularly about Child A, and Child B also, possibly feeling uncomfortable by some overtures and comments from the grandfather on occasion. Knowing that the mother too has some concerns about possible inappropriate behaviour during supervised contact, it has been decided that the issues will be committed to further statements and then be considered fully and frankly at the next hearing.
37. I am satisfied that it is necessary to investigate these matters further, although reluctantly so, but that is very much with a view to putting contact for the future on a proper footing to promote the children's welfare and to safeguard them so that the carers will have confidence and know that the proper parameters of contact can be re-established. In the meantime there will be sibling contact at the discretion of the carers as advised by the Local Authority and with the full support of the social worker. Contact for the adults in the future will need to be flexible and be focused on the children's rather than the adults' needs and wishes. Child C in particular and Child A, Child B and Child E too, will need real reliability on her part that their mother will turn up when she is expected to do so and will not further disappoint or confuse them.
38. The mother hopefully will be able to overcome any idea she may have that the father and Mrs N will not offer regular contact to her. Indeed, the Court heard that the father himself felt it should be fortnightly contact to Child C rather than the six weekly pattern that had been suggested by the Local Authority. The father wants the mother to understand and share in all that will be going on for Child C, his education and medical treatment and so on. He will update her so that she remains part of Child C's life. That was an important commitment, it seems to the Court, coming directly from his counsel during the hearing with his full assertion that that would happen.
39. Helpfully, it was also added by Mrs N's counsel that the mother certainly should not give up hope that Child C's contact will not be facilitated at the home of Mrs N and the father in the future. So that seemed to the Court to bode well for future plans.
40. The Court, in approving the orders that it does today, has taken into account not only that these are necessary, appropriate and proportionate interventions with the Article 8 rights of the parents and the children, but also that an holistic approach is required when these decisions are made, pursuant of course to the guidance in the leading decision of Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and as in the subsequent Court of Appeal case, Re R [2014] EWCA Civ 1625. In this case there are only two stark options available for these children as neither the mother nor the father, nor any other extended family members, proposes taking over the caring role for all four; nor is adoption countenanced or suitable whatsoever. The Court has therefore faced a binary decision, taking account of all the evidence and the pros and cons of each option, balancing those and also any risks as to how they may be managed and reduced, and focusing on the sensible and practical solution.
41. None of the parties now would wish the children to be maintained in foster care or residential units, to have that corporate parenting and to be subjected to changes of placement and carers, if that can be avoided. To their great credit the paternal family have stepped up to the plate to offer full-time permanent care for all four children, with unanimous approval from all. The Court has no hesitation, accordingly, in selecting and approving that option. All the positives point in that direction.
42. Turning, therefore to a review of the oral evidence heard last week, Dr. Lesley French, the Consultant Clinical Psychologist from London, who had prepared an earlier full Report in November 2013 focusing on all four children and the parents, and then a short Addendum Report of 19^th January 2014, gave sworn oral evidence speaking to those reports and to her more recent Report completed a year later on 29^th January 2015. She confirmed that none of the updated extra documents that she was able to read and had a chance to consider changed her views at all. The Court accepts her recent report in its entirety. She acknowledged that her professional view had changed over that 15 months or so period between her assessments.
43. In November 2013 she had reflected that all the children were presenting with complex emotional and behavioural needs. She believed that Child C would require care for all his life with a very high and life-long need for specialist care. Both he and his youngest sister, Child E, are developmentally delayed and likely to require specialist and educational provision throughout their childhood and adolescence. She was clear then that Child C, whose challenging needs had preoccupied the father at home over and above the other children's needs, is a boy who needs a very clear and stable routine, with calm and consistent boundary setting at home and at school. Had the Court found that accounts of him being hit at home were correct, she considered that there was an increased likelihood of him replicating those behaviours. At the time she was very clear that a child with the extent of delay that Child C presented would place an enormous challenge on any parent and on any marriage, and was not recommending that any of the children could be placed with the father on his own or be exposed to a new relationship about which at that point it was not known whether or not it may or may not be long-term. Having been asked further questions about the parents, Dr. French had re-stated in her Addendum Report that alternative placement still needed to be found outside of parental care, even allowing for the fact that there was no question regarding Mrs N's effective and capable parenting capacity with her own child.
44. She referred to the historical evidence that the father had shown volatile and frightened behaviours to the mother in front of the children. The mother had said to Dr. French, during the preparation of that previous report, that she felt that the father was a good father to the children and she did not have any worries now about the children being in the care of their father, or his new partner. Indeed, in a very recent family contact meeting held by Ms. James-Cooke on 24^th February this year, the mother was reminded that she had told the social worker previously that the father had always looked after Child C very well and only he was able to manage Child C's behaviour. She agreed with that, although it was recorded that she was still harbouring understandable grievances that the father had left them to be with Mrs N, and she said he had beaten her and the children.
45. During the private meeting with Ms. James-Cooke a month earlier on 21^st January this year, the mother had said that whilst she did not wish for any of her children to live with their father, she knows that Child C and his father are very close and that Child C would be sad if he did not live with the father. She knows that he can look after Child C fine, Dr. French said.
46. Dr. French had considered that some work should be done with the mother, perhaps by the social worker, although the mother had mistrusted professionals, to ensure that she is really able to support the children in their placements and think about their needs and not her own, while giving the mother full credit for intuitive understanding of each of her children and their needs, and capturing the core of who they are.
47. Dr. French had learned that there had been a marked deterioration in Child C's social competence in the preceding school year. That was during 2012 to 2013 which indicated a very high level of confusion about the change in routines during the week. Having met Child C again more recently in the company of two workers from the residential unit, but not seeing him at contact with either of his parents, Dr. French found him to have an engaging manner but with a range of challenging behaviours, including appearing to simulate masturbation and using foul language, saying "I hate you" while smiling, and escalating his attention and reaction-seeking behaviour. She was aware that the mother feels that Mr NL and Mr and Mrs M are very decent people, but that she had worries about the father, Mrs N and the paternal grandfather, who is now estranged from his wife. That has been said to be since 29^th January this year, but I think it is earlier than that, as I understand it.
48. Dr. French made it very plain that she would expect challenges once Child C has been placed with his father and Mrs N, and had settled in. He does present an ongoing significant parenting challenge. She commented, rather realistically I felt, "It would certainly not be plain sailing." It would all depend on the quality of the response, but she considered that the outcome would be beneficial for Child C. It really all depends on the stability and capability of the two parents in this case - his father and Mrs N, the mother of Child H of course, if there is that regression identified in the previous Judgment when Child C has to face change and the potential impact of having Child H there too, a completely different child, for part of the time when Mrs N would have to support not only her own daughter but Child C's needs too in that process, where of course there may well be bad language and behaviour, including the sexualised behaviour in which Child C does still indulge to a certain extent.
49. As she acknowledged, Dr. French, of course, had not been asked specifically about the return of Child H to the family, and she did not meet or assess Child H of course. She said that the adjustment is the primary responsibility of those care-givers. Asked about the fact that Child C currently has two dedicated staff members at the residential unit, which of course would be watered down, as it was put, if Child H was back in the picture and two untrained people were managing the situation, Dr. French commented that Child C was not a boy who had spent a length of time alone. He is used to being in a family setting with others and currently there was also a teenage girl living at the residential unit.
50. She said that she imagined the father could achieve it in the context of his supportive relationship with Mrs N and them using an important partnership approach. While she did not know, obviously, whether Child H would come back, she thought it would be helpful for Child C and his settling in if he did have a little bit of time on his own before Child H re-joined the family. It was reasonable to say that a further change will disrupt him, but he would be moving in with a highly significant figure - his father. Dr French was aware that there was a possibility of Child H spending time in her mother's home, if not wholly resident there, but none of that changed her view in relation to the father offering a permanent home there.
51. Having had the opportunity to see the father at various stages, she viewed the father and Mrs N's relationship as being strong, solid and supportive. They have a real and genuine commitment to each other which has been tested over some three years. It was no longer the father putting himself forward as a sole carer. Mrs N provides that important protective factor. She felt that the father had matured through these lengthy care proceedings and the various assessments of him, and has continued to change. He has accepted that he made a number of mistakes, but has shown commitment to the process by undertaking courses and so on. All of that has been a learning process for him.
52. She had reviewed the previous volatile and aggressive behaviours of the father over some years. There was the troublesome conduct at school. There was what was called robbery or theft of a bike as a teenager when much younger; and there was the head butting incident aimed at the mother about which the Court had made factual findings and, of course, the end of their relationship. There was the shouting in the face of both Child C and the young Child E - properly concerning and criticised by the previous social worker Krista Martin. She factored in the stresses and strains that he was under at home with The mother and the demands of their 4 children. She took all of that into account in the context of his now very different relationship with Mrs N. The father was now on a different footing and she did not expect Mrs N to tolerate any such behaviour in front of a child, and therefore there was that new and different protective factor.
53. Her clear view now, weighing up the risk to Child C of being in long term foster care or being placed with his father and his father's partner, was that certainly the family placement was to be preferred. The father needs to focus on the job in front of him and be an effective parent to Child C, not to shy away from the inevitable stresses and strains. He needs to move away from the rigid concrete thinking that he had before - the "straight-jacket thinking", Mr. Fletcher had called it - and focus on Child C and the new situation, and change to encompass all of that.
54. Dr. French admitted that she is troubled by both the father and Mrs N's denial of any challenging behaviours or escalating attention seeking behaviour at all from Child C when he had been in either of their homes. As she had no material to go on, as these behaviours had not emerged in front of that couple, she could not comment on what his behaviour would be like or how they could manage it. She was clear that there would be grounds to review the plan if the father, under stress, ever hit or shouted at Child C in the future. That would be particularly worrying for Child C as a child with special needs.
55. What was absolutely critical in her opinion was that the people who cared for Child C must be prepared to work with the professionals. There would be a new school in the next academic year and the father must show his capacity to run with the changes and not be irritated, but to be able to understand that people are likely to be right at different times and to accept that advice. She added that in the past the father had not always understood the impact of his behaviour on the professionals, and there should not be any further adult challenges about lawyers and his human rights and so on and so forth, but just a real focus on Child C's needs. Janice Burton had experienced this very recently, so it is not entirely in the past, of the father telephoning her twice on a Sunday, which is simply unacceptable and inappropriate, and is not to be repeated.
56. Dr French agreed that there was plenty of evidence that Mrs N has had a significant impact on the father. She would, as it were, put him right if appropriate. He had turned over a new leaf and he looked forward now to cooperating with professionals. Dr. French agreed.
57. Child C, of course, was now an older boy, not far off adolescence and the usual maturation changes. Once settled Dr. French thought it would be very helpful for him, in due course, to have a referral to CAMHS or similar, and to see an expert with learning disability experience who could advise about his global developmental delay in functioning. The medication may need to be reviewed in the future also.
58. The network, as she called it, under the intended Supervision Order should support that help being accessed, and certainly that was the Court's understanding. She expected Child C to progress in the right environment. Her clinical opinion was that he continued to need multi-agency support around him. She considered that the transition plan framework, which should not be fossilised and could be subject to appropriate change, gave a nice pace and a nice frequency for Child C to experience life in a family home again. She did want respite care to be built into the plan from the start, and that was discussed with Mr. V from the residential unit, whose evidence I deal with shortly. It would be a good habit for Child C to understand that every so often his carers need a break but importantly he would not experience that as "just another move" and be disrupted by that. While she was not able to predict how Child C will be and what triggers there might be, with the cooperation of the present school and any new school, the social worker, Mrs N and the father, the transition needs to take place as smoothly as possible. She was clear about that.
59. About contact going forward in the new arrangements, Dr. French said that she had found no evidence of any plans in the paternal family to block the mother's contact at all - something that the mother continued to raise as a real concern of hers. Dr. French was unequivocal that the children had been harmed by the mother's inconsistent contact in her professional opinion. The mother remains very vulnerable and has multiple losses in her own life. There is the continuing significant impact on her of the loss of her very important relationship with the father, which of course goes right back to when they met as teenagers, now more than 15 years ago.
60. Dr. French said that the mother is very affected by her own mood and her state on any particular day. She considered that the mother had demonstrated limited insight and judgement to hold steady in these very different times for her especially when it was mentioned to her that the social worker had been very shocked at the mother's wish for a lifetime of foster care for Child C rather than life in a family placement. As stated, the mother had moved on very significantly, only two or three days later from Dr. French's understanding and her evidence.
61. Dr. French did recognise the father as being very committed to contact, understanding fully the important role that the mother has to play. Dr. French wanted that to be stressed in black and white in the care plan. She had been very encouraged by the father and Mrs N's verbal assertions about contact, and their wish to open up their home to the mother for contact to be enjoyed in that home setting, if possible.
62. It is obviously a very great shame, and it is right to mention this in the Judgment, that the mother's half-brother (never mentioned before at all during this case) has suddenly been introduced on to the scene at this very late stage and had made what I am going to call verbal threats against the father in a Facebook message sent out of the blue to the teenage and vulnerable Child F, his younger brother, on 25^th February this year. While Dr. French was not privy to all the details of that, she could empathise that Mrs N had now expressed anxiety and things were more tense about opening up her home in that way, and was now proposing that future contact would need to be at a contact centre. Dr. French considered that it would be more stressful and not so relaxed for the children and Child C, in particular, to have contact with their mother at a contact centre. She queried if the half-brother would issue an apology which might help contact.
63. The content of that email, which the Court asked to see, was that mother's half-brother wanted to talk to the father and wanted his contact details from Child F. He said that the father had beaten up his sister, and threatened his mother, and he wanted to "sort it out with him". The message ended after some nasty language directed at Child F with these words "anyway, I'm bound to see you soon" which had an intimidating ring about it to my mind, and was certainly most unhelpful. Perhaps the least said the soonest mended in relation to all of that, but a strong message went out that that should not re-occur in any shape or form.
64. In relation to contact in the first few weeks when the children have moved into the family homes, Dr. French said that she did not want Child C to experience too much contact with his brother and sisters in the early stages, or to have too much pressure. He needs to understand that his new home is with Mrs N and his father - and it is a question of priorities. Sensibly, I felt, she opined that the social worker who, of course, has observed the children in contact, was the best placed person to gauge the timing and frequency of the sibling contact, not taking too much away suddenly, not banning it, but allowing Child C to settle into a clear and stable routine and also taking into account the views of the older children, Child A and Child B, of course. There must be calm and confident boundary setting in the new placement.
65. Dr. French described contact as being a fraught issue. She wanted to hear what Child A and Child B would say about what was helpful for them. They should be listened to about their own needs, which they can express very competently. There would be a bit of a pause, not immediate and frequent contact being set up, to allow the focus to be settling in, and the new carers dedicating their time solely to the children, and not having to be under pressure for the first few weeks as to who was seeing the children, where it was going to be happening and when. There must be, of course, the usual balance with school, friends and activities and so on. The Court very much echoes Dr. French's slow approach.
66. She mentioned particularly that Child A needs to be reassured that Child E is doing well and has settled in. Child A had taken a parenting role in the past for her younger sister. There needs to be flexibility there for the two girls, and possibly telephone contact between them might normalise the situation. It was noticeable to Dr. French that Child A had visibly brightened when she said that she had recently seen Child E.
67. Child E had struggled at school and although compliant in her placement had started to soil, emulating her siblings, which of course has been that ongoing problem for her older sister in particular. She had manifested similar behaviour to Child C too. Her foster carer told Dr. French that it had taken her months to get Child E's behaviour down to age-appropriate levels. Dr. French was loathe to support any further psychological input now for Child E, and hoped that the new and final placement would ameliorate some of her problems, although there may need to be a possible change of school in the future.
68. Mr NL, of course, has no direct parenting experience at all and is very much going to rearrange his life around the needs of this child. Dr. French felt that Child E had special needs, although the foster carer did not believe this to be the case. While Mr NL is not familiar with services available, he struck Dr. French as someone who would very much welcome expert advice and wants to get the balance right between parental authority and warmth. Obviously the Local Authority will be helpful in sign-posting and facilitating him accessing the right services to assist Child E. Dr. French felt that if there was any inappropriate behaviour by the grandfather in the background, that the father and others now have the strength of character to challenge and deal with that - and that will be a matter for the next hearing. The Court accepts entirely the contents of Dr. French's reports and her oral evidence in this hearing.
69. The very well-respected Independent Social Worker, Miss Janice Barton, also gave oral evidence. She informed the Court that the father had acknowledged that his previous punitive behaviour of shouting in the face of the children would have been distressing to them and should never be part of parenting a child. That reflected his behaviour and the type of person he was a couple of years ago when he was caring for four children and where his relationship with their mother had its own problems, and all of that had been a trigger for stress.
70. Compared to the past concern about the father's empathy, Janice Barton found him now wanting to do his very best for all the children. Both the father and Mrs N had been very welcoming to her and always wanted to learn. They did not just pay lip service or cut short her sessions with them. They want to provide Child C and Child H with a very good standard of care. They want to improve and learn. When she, Miss Barton, had pulled the father up on occasion on his behaviour, he was able to internalise that and improve, and he continued to make changes. She had observed the father and Mrs N with Child C on two occasions. Although his attention was focused on Child C, the father still had a tendency too to look at her to gauge how he was doing. Of course, Child C himself does that, as the Court saw in his ABE interview, carefully watching the adults' faces and reaction to see how they were responding to his behaviour or words.
71. The father had arrived early and was always very well prepared for contact. She was satisfied that the two adults were highly motivated and enthusiastic and proactive to learn new skills in the future, and engaged extremely well in her assessment of them. The father had undertaken those extra courses and she only had to mention something once, including a particular book, and the couple had responded immediately and gone and got it from the library.
72. Although she accepted that the move away from the residential unit and the one-to-one attention there could result in a lot of Child C's concerning behaviours re-surfacing, her view was that the father and Mrs N do have capacity to care for Child C. While there was always an element of risk moving a child from one placement to another, whether or not they have special needs, the risks in her view were there anyway. Should he remain in residential care, the staffing will not remain the same and there will be inevitable changes and differences in the dynamics there as well in one or two years with turnover and other residents coming and going and so forth, all of which would have an impact on a child in Child C's position. As she said in residential care that is not what family life is about.
73. At the end of her assessment with all the information she had, she was satisfied that the combination or package, as she called them, of the father and Mrs N, were highly motivated to learn new skills in the future to assist Child C, and the two of them together in their good relationship had that important capacity to provide care for him. He needs stability and a calm, caring and controlled environment. The commitment shown by them both, she felt, to be a good prognosticator for Child C's future. She felt the father to be in a better place now than when he was in a relationship with the mother. His personality traits of two or three years ago have now mellowed and softened in the more therapeutic and equal relationship with Mrs N. She tends to dilute or moderate certain aspects of his personality.
74. His well-developed sense of humour, the lighter side of him, could be a powerful tool to help deal with Child C who had quite a sweet sense of humour himself, as Miss Barton described it. Fundamentally it was about the father' anxiety and confidence. If he could overcome his lack of confidence, that would be helpful. As he grows, he has some very good abilities and he needs to have more confidence in his own abilities. She found a direct, frank approach worked well with the father. If he was given time to discuss his concerns, that assisted him, and she certainly never felt threatened or frightened by him in any way at all. The couple had coped with a lot too over the last couple of years - a very stressful and lengthy Court hearing, the tragic loss of Child I and of course Child H's grief too over that. Mrs N had dealt with it all very rationally, and they had come through it together as a family.
75. Janice Barton suspected that the father and Mrs N were not the same people as they were back then, and he had held his hands up to lying at the start of their relationship which he agreed he should never have done, and they had worked through it as a couple, were very much together and stable together.
76. Mrs N's parents and other people in her local network were a good source of support too so it would not just be the paternal family supporting the placement. In fact Mrs N's own mother had worked in schools for special needs children for 20 years, so she could add that insightful support as well. Miss Barton was quite clear that Mrs N genuinely wanted to promote contact for the mother and it was not an unreasonable stance for her to take, not to want to facilitate that in her own home immediately or for the time being, given that recent unscheduled and unhelpful Facebook messaging to Child F from mother's half-brother. Miss Barton said she had received no sense of the father or Mrs N being in any way vindictive or hostile or resentful to the mother - far from it.
77. Child C asked about his mother and clearly has a relationship with her, and yes it had been very disappointing when the mother did not turn up at contact with Child C and the other children. Miss Barton knew about the father and Mrs N taking the mother out shopping and being prepared to help her. They were able to work in that sort of trio. Miss Barton wanted to see the the residential unit's techniques being transferred to the father and Mrs N to use, including in relation to the dynamic of Child C living there with a teenage girl and her not being harmed by what he said or did, and the residential unit passing on its approaches and ways to tackle Child C.
78. Miss Barton agreed with the Guardian's suggestion that some written ground rules and expectations might well be helpful for the father and for Mrs N to assist them in their care of Child C whose behaviour might helpfully ameliorate over time. Child H too, she felt, needed work in her own right to understand that there are different children and why Child C behaves how he does sometimes, whether or not she just dips in and out of the household, as it were, on visits or came to live with her mother again full time.
79. She concluded her evidence by saying decisively that it was much better for Child C to be with his father and his father's partner at home there than for him to continue his life in a residential unit. Again, the Court entirely accepted her oral and written evidence, which was considered, thoughtful and very cogent.
80. Mr. V, who was one of the support team working with Child C at the residential unit has worked there for one and-a-half years. Prior to that he had had five-and-a half years' experience working in a residential school dealing with children with autism and challenging needs. He in fact had facilitated those four contacts, implementing the transition plan for Child C to move away from the residential unit and to live with his father and Mrs N. Those experiences have all been very positive, he said. Child C is always in a very good mood and has interacted very well with his father and Mrs N. He has always been very happy when he has been to their home. He had asked to see where he slept before, and he had re-familiarised himself with the layout and the bedroom and so on. Mr. V had been able, during those visits, to take a back seat and to observe quietly.
81. Child C has spoken about Child H in an affectionate way. He expressed no hatred about her or Mrs N at all, and stated that he wanted to see Child H again. He has freely and happily played with Child H's toys and games when in the house, which is a child friendly environment. He certainly has not displayed any of the difficult behaviour, including swearing or trashing things in their home at all.
82. Mr. V gave the Court some very useful evidence about the very short outbursts that Child C still can experience. They only last between one and five minutes, he told the Court. They tend to occur when he is asked to do something - when it is time, for example, to pack up and to have a bath or go to bed. The strategy employed to deal with them is to guide him to their education room or to ask him to go there. If he is swearing continuously he likes writing things down the white board, and once he starts doing that, he often forgets why he is there in the first place. The father can adopt that strategy, encouraging Child C to write replacement good words, such as "fudge" which is one of the words they use, on the white board. That plainly works well as a diversionary tactic.
83. Often the swearing and negative behaviour is exhibited around the usual morning and evening routines when he does not yet have the medication in his system or when it is wearing off in the evening. On 18^th January, for example, he had woken up in an unsettled mood for some unknown reason and he had ripped down the curtains and posted some books and his clothes out of the window. At the unit they do not see any of the sexual behaviours at the home that Child C has indulged in at school. A recent report from the school was circulated to all parties. The most that Child C has done at the residential unit is to pull his trousers down and laugh about it, and then quickly pull them up again.
84. He has been known to kick or bite staff, but in the last couple of months his behaviour has been more verbal than physical. He can become verbally abusive in that way, as the Court read, using lots of swear words at the staff and indeed to the other resident - that 16 year old girl - although they are able to have lunch and dinner sitting down together in the unit. There has also been some threatening language logged, saying he wants to smash someone in the face or smash their glasses on their face. He cannot be stopped, Mr. V agreed, if he is using colourful language. There had been a decision that a staff member's nine year old grandson, whose scooter Child C had enjoyed using, should not be exposed to this language. Therefore, of course, Child H too needs to be protected as far as possible. He has also thrown objects around the room. They are not his own things though, but things like cushions near to hand if he is sitting on the sofa where he sits if he is misbehaving.
85. Mr. V said that all his obviously helpful approaches have been discussed with the father and the social worker, and that help can go on through the transition period, which is obviously very good news. That can only assist in Child C feeling in a familiar and comfortable structure and containment for him. Mr. V was confident himself that the father and Mrs N can mirror the techniques employed at the residential unit at home, including recreating the white board at home. However, it was probably not possible for the father to actually attend at the residential unit in the location, as it were, because that other resident very rarely goes out. Mr. V agreed that the father was keen and enthusiastic, and very willing to take helpful advice which he had asked for over the phone and had undertaken those relevant courses, and the Court had seen those certificates of course.
86. If Child C refused to get out of the car, for example, when coming back from school, again employing a diversionary tactic worked well, sending out another member of staff to talk to him there. In this case it could be sending out Mrs N or the father, asking him how his day had been and what he had done at school, and he can quickly forget his defiance.
87. Very encouragingly indeed, Mr. V, who the Court found an impressive and constructive witness, believed that there should be no problem in the unit gaining a necessary licence within 28 days or so to enable them to become a three bed unit if necessary and able to offer occasional weekend respite for Child C at obviously a fraction of the cost of the current weekly rate. They had a bank of people, he said, who are ready to come in as additional staff members as required. I do not think that had been fully thought through or considered with the manager, but obviously that would be enormously helpful, as everybody has agreed, if there could be some respite prospect there.
88. There was no difficulty at all from Mr. V's perspective of he and his colleagues having an ongoing role, even after the end of the transition period, and being available, he said, even in the middle of the night to help the father and Mrs N over the phone, if that was required. In essence they are offering a 24 hour help service. It would obviously be very comforting and supportive to know that all of that was available at short notice, if required.
89. Rather than summarising it myself, I consider it helpful simply to read into this judgment some of the social workers' analysis and conclusions. It is p.13 of internal p.18. It is at D329 of our bundle. Ms. James-Cooke said this:

"Previously [the father] would shout and react to [Child C] in a negative manner but this has changed. Janice Barton's report states: 'As [Child C] was becoming more upset the father moved him over to the sofa, as this was more comfortable. [Child C] laid his head on the father' lap and gently stroked his head. [Child C] said to his father, "I hate you". [The father] responded by saying "I love you [Child C] and you have kind hands." [Child C] said "I'm laying on my daddy. He's my friend." This clearly highlights a father who loves his child and has learned new strategies of responding to negative behaviours. It is through these markers that the Local Authority endorses the plan for [Child C] to be rehabilitated home with [the father] and [Mrs N]. Given the needs of [Child A], [Child B] and [Child E], it is right that [the father] acknowledges his limitation in meeting their needs and withdrawing his application to meet the needs of all four children. [Child C]'s complex needs present a challenge for any relationship and ongoing professional support will be needed throughout his life. Through their commitment throughout their proceedings, the turbulent and difficult experiences of the past year, it is with confidence that Miss Barton, Dr. French and the Local Authority makes the recommendation that [Child C] be placed with his father and with [Mrs N], as they have evidence that they will be able to prioritise his needs."

90. At p.331 she says this:

"Since being accommodated into Local Authority's care the family has effectively come together and discussed care arrangements in respect of all the children. Despite the barriers they faced and in spite of allegations made against them, they have remained committed more than ever to date to meet the children's care on a long-term basis. The recommendation for the children to be placed with extended family members was not arrived at effortlessly. All the family members regardless of their work or other obligations had to demonstrate their commitment to the children by meetings with social workers, attending contact, making themselves available for appointments and discussing personal and intimate details about their lives.

[Mr and Mrs M] stated from the beginning that they would be willing to care for [Child B] and [Child A] together. [Child B] and [Child A] have known the couple from when they were babies and despite [Child A] making an allegation that [Mrs M] has hit her, she appears to be close to them. I am of the view that [Child A] has said this as a means of trying to appease her mother. I do not actually believe that this occurred. At present [Child A] and [Child B] are in respite care with [Mr and Mrs M] and she has reported that she loves it, and would like to live with the couple. Indeed, [Child A] looked very happy and relaxed when she was seen in this placement and I was also informed that her soiling had not been as frequent as expected. [Mr and Mrs M] are aware of [Child A]'s health needs and do not appear to be fazed by this.

Being a former social worker, [Mrs M] is aware of the implications that being a long term Local Authority care can have on a child and as a result does not wish for this to be a part of [Child A] and [Child B]'s lives. They are softly spoken and upon meeting them they demonstrated a great level of warmth and dedication. They speak about the children in affectionate terms and I have no doubt that they will be able to provide [Child B] with the love and due care that he so truly needs for his development. They are aware of issues in relation to child development and the need for stability and consistency. Areas in which they are lacking, they will undertake independent research and query with the social worker. They have demonstrated that they are able to meet both the needs of [Child A] and [Child B].

[Mr NL] has shown equal interest in meeting the needs of his great niece, [Child E]. He is aware of her complex needs and of her developmental delay. While he reports that he remains committed, it is with a very great deal of support and input that he will be able to meet [Child E]'s needs on a long term basis. Consequently the extended family members have been proven as competent for [Child A], [Child B] and [Child E] remaining within their natural family. I am in no doubt that the level of commitment demonstrated by extended family members highlights that they have an awareness and understanding of the children's needs, and that they will remain committed to caring for the children throughout their minority."

91. The Court entirely echoes all of that. Referring to the Guardian's final analysis dated 4^th March 2015, she had wholly endorsed Dr. French's view that all contact, including sibling contact in fact, should be stopped for at least a month during that transition to permanency and until Child C is settled so that he may process the change of living arrangements. In the future she did not support the differentiation that had been suggested between contact for Child A fortnightly and Child B weekly with their father. That, of course, can all be considered later at the next hearing in a few weeks' time. Again, I can do no better than read into this Judgment her conclusions. At internal p.18 of 21, at p.364 of the bundle, she said this.

"It is the Local Authority's proposal that the four children should remain within their birth family within three separate placements where each child will have greater opportunity to have their individual needs prioritised whilst maintaining their links to their parents and potentially more significantly to each other. Whilst I am of the view that each of these placements will provide ongoing challenges and require significant professional support, I would fully support the placement of [Child A] and [Child B] with Mr and Mrs M], [Child E] with [Mr NL], and [Child C] with [the father] and [Mrs N].

Whilst in their parents' care all four children experienced chronic neglect and emotional harm, which has left the children with lasting emotional and behavioural difficulties, which the children will inevitably carry into adulthood, in addition to the impact of the diagnoses of global development delay in respect of [Child C] and [Child E]. I believe it is clear to all professionals who have been involved with this case that there are considerable strengths within the wider family in terms of family unit and self-reliance, and that the proposed carers are all highly committed and motivated to care for the children within their birth family.

I feel strongly that it is these strengths which will guard against future placement breakdown when faced with the considerable challenges ahead. However, I feel that it is important to state that it will remain extremely important for family members to feel able to acknowledge the difficulties to professionals as they arise, and to accept constructive criticism from the professionals, and the inevitable uncertainty which comes along with the parenting role, particularly in relation to children with complex needs and uncertainty prognoses.

While the assessments are extremely positive, I am mindful that none of the proposed Special Guardians have any direct experience of parenting, and the children each have a high level of need as well as having spent a considerable period of time in foster care. It is my view that these facts will significantly increase the complexity of the transition, and the need for the prospective Special Guardians to work closely with the Local Authority to ensure that the children's needs are fully understood and the placements are properly supported, including ensuring that the support recommended is in place rather than simply aspirational. "

92. Finally she said this:

"Given the historic difficulties in [the father]'s parenting of [Child C], including resorting to physical chastisement, I would strongly support the Local Authority's request for a Supervision Order, and would propose that the Local Authority provide a detailed supervision plan, including strategies for ensuring that [Child C] is linked into the Children with Disabilities team prior to closing the case."

93. Having made the appropriate Orders already, that is the conclusion of this judgment. We will now have those few weeks of purposeful delay and I can only say that I sincerely hope that all goes well and I wish all the parents and carers the very best of luck.