England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT at Manchester
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND THE ADOPTION & CHILDREN ACT 2002

		Manchester Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester. WC2A 2LL
		27th March 2015

Introduction

1. I am concerned with the interests of the child to whom I will refer as HJW for purposes of anonymity who was born on the 19^th May 2014 and is now just 10 months old. I will refer to the parents and other family members by their initials. His mother is JW and his father is KBM and to whom I will refer for convenience where appropriate as the 'mother' and the 'father' without intending any disrespect to either. The mother and father are not married. They are in a relationship which I understand started in July 2013 albeit they were separated between December 2013 and June 2014 during which time the father was in custody. The father does not have parental responsibility for HJW.
2. The mother has one other child JDW who is aged 6 and who was made the subject of care and placement orders on the 8^th November 2011 in proceedings brought by this local authority, Bolton Borough Council. He has since been adopted. KBM is not the father of JDW. HJW is his only child.

Applications

3. The applications before the court made by the applicant local authority, Bolton Borough Council, are for a care order in respect of HJW pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act 1989 in an application issued on the 1^st July 2014 and for a placement order pursuant to section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 which application was issued on the 1^st December 2014.

Circumstances leading to the proceedings

4. The mother has had historical involvement with the local authority and the Court in relation to her previous child, JDW. JDW was subject to a Child Protection Plan under the category of neglect between July 2008 and January 2009. The reason for this surrounded numerous concerns including the mother staying with inappropriate people who themselves had their children placed into local authority care; JDW being left with teenagers who were under the influence of substances/alcohol; and his father having a violent and criminal lifestyle. In January 2009 the Child Protection plan ceased and was replaced with ongoing support and monitoring via a Child Action Plan.
5. On the 28^th April 2010 a strategy meeting was held after the mother was found at in circumstances where she had passed out from excessive alcohol use. JDW (aged 18 months at that time) was in her care at the time. An ambulance needed to be called as the mother was difficult to rouse and JDW was placed with foster carers under Police Protection powers. The mother was later arrested for child neglect and the local authority sought permission under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 from the mother to accommodate JDW and he was placed into local authority foster care whilst further assessment was undertaken.
6. The mother worked hard to have JDW rehabilitated to her care and on the 3^rd May 2010 he returned to her care. However, circumstances at that time quickly deteriorated and the mother continued to place JDW at risk by associating with inappropriate people whilst caring for him. Care proceedings were subsequently commenced. A final hearing was held on the 8^th November 2011 which was not contested as neither of the parents attended court. Care and Placement orders were granted. Subsequently, an Adoption Order was granted in respect of JDW on the 23^rd October 2012.
7. In November 2013 the local authority was made aware via Housing services that the mother was expecting a second child. She was believed to be around 12 weeks pregnant. It was believed that the then unborn child would have been conceived in late August 2013. The local authority was aware of a domestic abuse incident between the mother and her ex-partner who was the father of JDW to whom I will refer as SE, in October 2013. The mother informed housing that the putative father for the then unborn child was a KBM. The local authority questioned paternity while the mother continued to maintain that the putative father was KBM. The local authority had concerns regarding both the possible fathers of the unborn child in relation to their lifestyle, criminal history, domestic abuse, mental health, and substance misuse.
8. Between the 19^th November 2013 and 17^th January 2014, the local authority contended that the mother failed to engage with pre-birth assessment and intervention. There was a further period of non-engagement between 17^th January 2014 and the 10^th February 2014, although it was accepted that the mother was suffering a bereavement at this time. It is said there was limited engagement during April 2014.
9. On the 13^th December 2013 the local authority was informed that the mother disengaged from the support of her IDVA (Independent Domestic Violence Advocate), which was put into place following a MARAC meeting in relation to a domestic abuse incident between the mother and SE in October 2013.
10. On the 10^th February 2014 the local authority implemented the public law outline due to concerns regarding the mother's non-engagement, inappropriate associates, alleged alcohol use, and chaotic lifestyle. The mother attended a PLO Pre Proceedings Meeting on the 25^th February 2014 in which she was made aware of the local authority's concerns.
11. On the 19^th May 2014 HJW was born. On the 21^st May 2014 the mother gave permission under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 for HJW to reside within local authority foster care.
12. At the time the proceedings were commenced HJW was deemed to be at risk of suffering significant harm, due to the effects of domestic abuse within his mother's relationships, her chaotic lifestyle and instability, her inappropriate choice of associates, her historical and possibly current substance/alcohol misuse, and her unmet mental health needs. The application for a care order was issued on the 1^st July 2014. At the time the proceedings were commenced it was not the local authority intention to conduct any further assessment of the mother because the history of concerns suggested that the time the family would need to evidence and sustain change would be outside of HJW's timescales.

Progress of proceedings

13. There was a Case Management Hearing on the 24^th July 2014 before His Honour Judge Appleby to whom the proceedings were allocated. Preliminary directions were given including DNA testing to establish paternity and proceedings listed for a Further Case Management Hearing on the 18^th August 2014 although that actually took place on the 16^th September 2014.
14. In the period between the CMH and the FCMH, it had been established that KBM was HJW's father. There had been some difficulties with the mother committing to attend at contact which had been suspended after she failed to attend on three consecutive occasions. The local authority had filed statements from an Outreach Midwife, Jayne Maguire dated 12^th August 2014 [C17-21]; a mental health social worker, Sharon Worthington dated the 28^th August 2014 [C22-28] and a Parenting Assessment of the mother completed by Lesley Anne Southern, social worker, dated the 11^th September 2014 [C48-66]. The mother had filed a statement dated the 5^th August 2014 [C10-16] in which she asserted her wish to be assessed "as a permanent long term sole carer for HJW, with the support of KBM, and my extended family".
15. The Parenting Assessment which had spanned a period of 4 months in total with the sessions with the mother starting in April 2014 prior to HJW's birth and concluding towards the end of July 2014 after the proceedings had commenced was negative in its outcome for the mother. In terms of her motivation the assessor stated that the mother

"has been unable to show any significant changes in areas of her parenting. (She) continues to live a lifestyle which causes concerns and has shown she is not able to maintain parenting responsibility despite her intent and with support offered. Although (she) has attended a number of contacts sessions, unfortunately it appears since KBM's release from prison, her commitment has deteriorated. It would appear that (she) is prioritising her needs above those of HJW." [C64 para 19.6]

and significantly in her Analysis at para 20.8 at C66 records that the mother

" continues to lead a chaotic lifestyle as evidenced in her continued associations with inappropriate males; she has renewed her relationship with KBM who has recently been released from prison. I am aware that KBM has mental health issues exacerbated by his drug use. By continuing to associate with KBM I feel that (the mother) places herself at risk not only of relapsing in terms of substance misuse which would impact on her own mental health but also by being in a potentially volatile and abusive relationship. Clearly this would not be a safe environment in which to parent a child."

16. Significantly, the assessor draws upon information provided to her from the police FWINs about the incident in August 2014 when the police attended at the mother's home when she was very drunk and had been self harming as a result of having an argument with the father and which resulted in her being detained under the Mental Health Act. The significance of this incident was that it involved the constellation of all relevant factors – abuse of alcohol; relationship issues and difficulties; mental health issues – which the local authority had identified as concerns for commencing the proceedings and showed that these were live and continuing issues despite for example the mother's assertions that she no longer drank alcohol since her father's death in December 2013.
17. At the FCMH on the 16^th September 2014 the order made records that the mother had missed a number of recent contacts and had not engaged with the local authority assessment of her. The mother confirmed that there had been two recent domestic violence incidents in August described as verbal to which the police had been called and an agreement for her to resume contact with effect from the 24^th September 2014 was made between the mother and the local authority. Despite the mother's assertion that she wished to be assessed as a sole carer for HJW, the order records a change of position in that the mother and KBM were seeking placement of HJW in their joint care. The father was directed to file and serve a report from his GP as to his mental health etc by the 14^th October 2014. The local authority was directed to file and serve a Children and Family Assessment of the parents by the 24^th October 2014. Kinship Assessments of the paternal grandmother, SM, and the mother's step-grandmother, JB, were to be filed and served by the same date. The proceedings were listed for an Issues Resolution Hearing on the 17^th December 2014 with directions for the timetabling of the local authority final evidence, care plan and placement application, if appropriate, together with directions for filing and service of the parents final statements and the children's guardian's Final Analysis report.
18. The Kinship Assessment of the paternal grandmother, SM, was negative and the assessment of the step-grandmother JB was never completed since she decided to withdraw from the process. The social work assessment of the parents was completed by the key social worker and concluded that the parents did not have the capacity to parent HJW. The local authority final evidence and care plan concluded that the parents did not have the capacity to care for HJW and, in the absence of any other available options, concluded that a plan of adoption for HJW was appropriate. That decision had been ratified by the Agency Decision Maker and a placement application made by the local authority was issued by the court on the 1^st December 2014. Statements were filed by the parents although the father never complied with the direction to file and serve a report from his GP. The parents opposed the local authority plan of adoption and asked to be considered as joint carers for HJW. The guardian filed a Final Analysis in which she strongly supported the local authority and endorsed the plan for adoption for HJW.
19. The parents had moved to new rented accommodation in Radcliffe, Bury in December. They were visited in the property the day prior to the IRH by the key social worker. The order drawn at the IRH records that they had moved into that property together. The parents apparently wanted a further chance to demonstrate that they had changed sufficiently to justify HJW being placed in their joint care. In the event the court listed the final hearing on the 16^th March 2015 which was some 3 months on from the IRH. The parents had made it clear that they intended to engage with services to demonstrate that they had addressed problems in relation to alcohol and substance misuse. Directions were made for them both to file and serve reports from BIDAS and for the mother to file a report from her GP by the 27^th February 2015. The father was directed to file a further statement along with a report from his Probation Officer by the same date.
20. It seems clear to me that at the IRH on the 17^th December 2014 all the relevant evidence had been filed and the case was ready to be listed for final hearing. The case management judge apparently did not have the available time to list the case before him until March. As the former Designated Family Judge for Greater Manchester, I would have expected the judge faced with such a difficulty to have asked for arrangements to be made for the case to be listed at a much earlier date than he was able to accommodate before another judge or recorder. This is a case which could and should have been tried before the end of January 2015 by week 30 at the latest. There is no recording in the order made at the IRH which reflects the reason for the delay in listing and I have not been provided with any proper explanation as to why the decision was made. Whilst I do not wish to be unduly critical, the simple observation I make is that it was not a decision which anyone could say was based on the child's welfare needs.
21. In the event I was asked to come in to try this case as a Deputy Circuit Judge since the allocated case management judge was no longer available. At the commencement of the hearing on the 16^th March 2015 what was clear was that neither the mother nor the father had complied with the directions given at the IRH save for the father's solicitors filing an updated report from the Probation Service on the father's progress under his Community Order which has been revoked early because of his positive response and compliance with it.

The parties' positions

22. The local authority position is that it seeks a care order for HJW based on its care plan which is predicated on the basis that he should be placed for adoption. If the court approves the local authority plan and makes the care order, the local authority invites it to proceed to deal with the placement order application, to dispense with the parents' agreement to adoption and make the placement order. It is proposed that the parents' contact with HJW should be indirect contact on a yearly basis through the "letterbox" system. If the placement order is granted, the local authority proposes to reduce the contact between HJW and his parents to weekly for a period of two weeks, and then reduced to fortnightly for two sessions and then monthly until an adoptive placement is identified at which point a final contact will be offered. The children's guardian supports the local authority's plan for HJW and the orders which are sought.
23. The parents remain opposed to the local authority plan. They both wish HJW to be placed in their joint care. I was told by Ms Houghton for the mother and Ms Lau for the father that their respective clients conceded the 'threshold criteria' for making the care order.
24. I heard evidence from the key social worker, the mother, the father and the children's guardian. At the conclusion of the submissions on what was day three of the hearing, I indicated to the parties that I would take time to prepare a judgment which I would hand down in type script by no later than the 30^th March 2015. I have listed a hearing on the 1^st April 2015 to deal with any issues which might arise on or from the judgment on the understanding that if no such issues arise that hearing should be vacated with the final orders being drawn on that date.
25. In fairness to the parties, I took the view that I should inform them of the clear decisions at which I had arrived and which would be confirmed in my judgment. I confirmed that my decision was to grant the care order on the basis of approving the local authority plan for adoption. It followed from that that I would dispense with the parents' agreement to adoption and make the placement order. This is the judgment.

Legal Framework

26. A care order or supervision order may only be made on the application of a local authority if the Court is satisfied that the "threshold criteria" under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are established. Section 31(2) provides that:

"A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied – (a) that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm; and (b) that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him; …….."

27. Section 31(9) defines "harm" as meaning ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development and "development" as meaning physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development and "health" includes both physical and mental health.
28. If the threshold is established, the court then has to pass on to the 'welfare' stage with a view to considering what, if any, order is to be made. Consideration of this requires me to have regard to section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and to treat the child's welfare as paramount and to apply the 'welfare checklist' or relevant parts of it in arriving at my decision.
29. The "welfare checklist" is set out in section 1(3) of the Act and requires the court to particular regard to:

(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);

(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;

(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;

(d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;

(e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

(f) how capable are each of his parents, and any other person or relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

(g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question."

30. An order should only be made if I consider that making an order is better for the child than making no order at all. If the court considers that an order is necessary it should go on to consider the range of options available to it, which include where appropriate private law orders under section 8, Special Guardianship Orders under section 14A as well as supervision or care orders under section 31. Before making a care order the court has to consider the local authority's proposals for contact with the child and has to have considered the local authority's care plan for the child. Since the care plan is one of adoption and the local authority is seeking a placement order in the event of a care order being granted on that premise, I am bound to have regard to the welfare checklist as set out in section 1 (4) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 (see paragraph 31 below) at this stage.
31. The court should only make such order as the facts require, and only then in compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality set out in Article 8 (2) of The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.
32. If, however, I approve the local authority plans and conclude that a care order should be granted in accordance with the local authority application, I then have to go on to consider the application for a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 .
33. By virtue of section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the child's welfare throughout his life is the court's paramount consideration. The court also has to have regard to the 'welfare checklist' set out in section 1 (4) of the Act. The matters to be considered are:-

(a) the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings;

(b) the child's particular needs;

(c) the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of his original family:

(d) the child's age, sex, background and any of the child's characteristics which are relevant;

(e) any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

(f) the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the relationship is relevant, including –

(xcviii) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of it doing so;

(xcix) the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise meet his needs;

(c) the wishes and feelings of any of the child's relatives or of any such person regarding the child.

34. Section 21 Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides that a placement order shall not be made unless the child is subject to a care order or the court is satisfied that the conditions for making a care order are met and only then if either the parents have consented to the making of such an order or, in the event that no such consent has been given, if the parents consent should be dispensed with.
35. Section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides that the court may only dispense with parental consent either if the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or the welfare of the child requires consent to be dispensed with.
36. I have reminded myself of the guidance from the Supreme Court in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and the Court of Appeal in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 to be applied in cases involving care applications for children in respect of whom the plan is for placement for adoption. These authorities in line with the many other recent Court of Appeal cases dealing with care proceedings revisit and restate the key principles which underpin public law proceedings and provide a reminder that adoption for any child who has had to be removed from its parents care by state intervention must be seen as being the last resort.
37. In Re B-S we are reminded that there must be evidence from the local authority and the children's guardian to address all options which are realistically possible and should include an analysis of the arguments for and against each option. There must also be an adequately reasoned judgment which should demonstrate that the court has undertaken a global, holistic evaluation of the options for the child's welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each option.
38. During the hearing reference was made to the recent decision of the President in Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11 in relation to discussion of issues raised in connection with the threshold. I have read and considered the judgment with some care but in the event found it to be of little assistance since this is not a case, as will be seen from my review of the evidence, which does not have a proper factual framework or in which the local authority can be criticised for its handling of the case and its conduct of the litigation.

The Evidence

Threshold Criteria

39. The threshold is accepted by the parties as having been established. The threshold document is to be found at pages A25-26 of the bundle. As Mr Crabtree who represents the local authority conceded the document which was not drafted by him is not a satisfactory or well drafted document. However, given that the parents representatives had indicated that they accepted the threshold subject to the mother seeking to challenge the issue at paragraph 6.3 about her consumption of alcohol in her pregnancy, Mr Crabtree had realistically taken the view that it would not be a proportionate step to redraft the document with all that would then be required for the parents' further instructions etc to be taken which would have delayed the commencement of the hearing.
40. On the basis of all the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the threshold is crossed. Acknowledging the mother's denial that she drank heavily in her pregnancy and taking into account the father's explanation that he lied about this when he reported it out of spite when their relationship had finished when he was in custody coupled with the fact that there is no evidence from the health service or elsewhere which would support the allegation, I consider that paragraph 6.3 should be deleted from the threshold document. Additionally, paragraph 6.8 relating to the father having a long history of committing offences of violence should be deleted since that of itself without more does not go to threshold. Subject to those alterations and despite the unsatisfactory nature of much of the document I am prepared to adopt it as the threshold.

Local authority evidence

41. At paragraph 14 above I set out what evidence had been filed by the local authority by the time of the FCMH on the 16^th September 2014 and described at paragraph 15 some of the conclusions of the Parenting Assessment undertaken by Lesley Southern in the nine sessions attended by the mother between the 9^th April 2004 and the 23^rd July 2014. I also made reference at paragraph 16 to the worrying information included by Ms Southern in her statement at page C64 in respect of the incident to which the police were called on the 7^th August 2014. The assessment while acknowledging that the mother had been able to demonstrate her ability to meet HJW's basic and emotional needs during contact and assessment sessions concluded that she had not made effective changes to address the past difficulties in her life. She had "not been fully able to recognise both past concerns in relation to her parenting abilities and current concerns regarding her lifestyle choices" [C64] and led to the conclusion that there was "little likelihood that she would be able to meet HJW's emotional and developmental long term needs" [C66].
42. The statements from the first social worker, Jennifer Kenny [C1-9], the Outreach Midwife, Jayne Maguire [C17-21] and the mental health social worker, Sharon Worthington [C22-28] which are unchallenged by the mother confirm a lack of effective engagement with the midwifery services in the last 12 weeks of her pregnancy and a lack of effective engagement with the Community Mental Health Team.
43. Despite the negative statements and reports concerning the mother's engagement and motivation and continuing difficulties which were coupled with the mother failing to attend at contact for an extended period of time, the local authority agreed to undertake an assessment of the parents which was to be done by the newly allocated key social worker, Frances Standring, who took over the case on the 4^th September 2014.

Frances Standring – social worker

44. Ms Standring was the only local authority witness from whom I heard evidence during the hearing. She undertook the Social Work Assessment of the parents which report is dated the 24^th October 2014 and is found at [C84-112]. She has prepared and filed two statements in the proceedings which are to be found at [C113-130] dated the 24^th November 2014 and [C148-155] dated the 16^th February 2015. She was also responsible for the care plan at [D10-16] dated the 24^th November 2014. In addition, she had prepared and filed the relevant documents in connection with the placement application including the Child's Permanence Report.
45. The key social worker is young and relatively inexperienced but the quality of the work she has done in the proceedings in terms of the assessment and the way in which it was written up along with the other statements, care plan and reports has been of a very high standard. There has been no issue taken with the content of the assessment or her statements. I was very impressed with the oral evidence which Ms Standring gave and the way in which she gave it. She was very clear in her evidence and was not afraid to make concessions about the evidence which the local authority did not have of parental difficulties or inappropriate alcohol abuse since the IRH in December.
46. The social work assessment undertaken by Ms Standring was a sound piece of work which was well informed with a good analysis of the issues weighing the positives and the negatives and concluding that taking all the issues into account that as a couple their individual issues are compounded and additional concerns surface in respect of their behaviour to each other and their joint perspectives on parenting. The assessment concluded that the parents cannot parent HJW since concerns for each both individually and as a couple overshadow any strengths which they have.
47. The assessment shows at C110 that KBM has no recognition or understanding of the consequences of the parenting which he has received in his life or how that has shaped his life. The assessment demonstrated that the mother had not taken any sufficient or effective steps address issues relating to her drinking or the other concerns about her chaotic lifestyle or the men she engaged with in relationships. In addition it was clear that both minimised issues relating to their mental health in relation to the consequences in terms of parenting a child.
48. The criticism made on behalf of the mother by Ms Houghton in the assessment was the limited number of sessions which the social worker had with the mother and the failure to update the assessment since it was completed on the 24^th October 2014. I reject that criticism as being unfair given the timescale and timetable to which Ms Standring was being required to work within the proceedings and that this assessment was additional to the work already completed with the mother in the earlier assessment. There was no direction made at the IRH for the assessment to be updated.
49. Another criticism made of the key social worker was that she had never sat down with the mother to consider a plan of the issues which the mother needed to address and how those should be dealt with. Ms Standring acknowledged that there was nothing in writing such as a contract of expectations but said she had been clear when she had discussed with the parents what was required in respect of BIDAS, the need for the mother's engagement with the mental health services, and issues in respect of the relationship between the mother and the father and the need for counselling through Relate and other services. Her very firm evidence on these issues was that the parents were clear that they wanted to take the steps themselves.
50. A social worker with more litigation experience might well have recognised the need to sit down with the parents to agree a contract of expectations with a plan which set out what objectives would have to be met if consideration was to be given by the local authority to returning HJW to their care. The fact that this was not done may have been as much a failing on the part of the parents and their legal representatives as the social worker and the local authority legal team and possibly also the children's guardian and the solicitor. However, it does not undermine the local authority case since on the basis of the evidence which I have heard it is clear that the parents had a very clear idea of what they had to do.
51. In her final statement Ms Standring reviews in summary the key events in the proceedings including the observations about the volatility in the parents relationship and the fact that their lifestyle has remained chaotic with reports of incidents which have involve the police. She undertakes an analysis of the social work and parenting assessments of the parents and the Kinship Assessment of the paternal grandmother and her partner which was negative and the Proposed Kinship Assessment of JB, who is the mother's former step-grandmother, who withdrew from the assessment process. She concludes that neither the mother nor the father have the ability to care for HJW who needs a permanent long term placement to be secured for him throughout his childhood. As there are no other family members willing or able to care for him, the local authority has concluded that HJW should be made the subject of a placement order with a view to adoption. Whilst consideration was given to the possibility of a placement of HJW with his half-brother JDW that had to be discounted because the mother is aware of the identity of JDW's adopters and placement of HJW with them would have posed a risk to the stability of the placement.
52. She addresses an assessment of HJW's needs by reference to the welfare checklist including the risk of harm to HJW and assessment of the parents' capacity to care for him. Significantly, she identifies the local authority concern in respect of the mother having been seen highly intoxicated on the 13^th October 2014 [C125] which she says was not accepted by the parents as being "concerning". Ms Standring addresses the placement options for HJW on a basis which demonstrates to me that she has considered the requirements of Re B-S . She discounts long term fostering as an option and concludes that HJW should be placed for adoption. She also properly addresses the issues in relation to contact not only in respect of the parents but also HJW's half-sibling premised on the basis of HJW being adopted.
53. In her updating statement at C148 onwards Ms Standring provides what can only be described as worrying information about the parents circumstances as she sets out examples of conflicting information the mother and the father have given to different professionals about where they are living; describes the mother's lack of engagement with BIDAS or the Drug and Alcohol Service in Bury; and also describes her lack of engagement with her mental health social worker and failure to attend a CPA Review leading to her case being closed to the CMHT.

JW (Mother)

54. The mother has filed two statements of evidence dated the 4^th August 2014 [C10-16] and the 5^th December 2014 [C131-137]. I have read and considered these.
55. In her final statement filed before the IRH the mother asserts her wish for the proceedings to be adjourned to enable her to prove that she is able to care for HJW. She asserts that her mental health is currently stable, that she has not used cannabis for a while and that there have been no domestic violence incidents since August 2014. She says she has her "drinking under control. I have not had a drink at all for about a month" [C134]. She also says she has been taking extra medication to help her get to sleep at night. She also says that "KBM and I did not have arguments it was simply disagreements" which she suggests arise because of pressure of the proceedings and suggests that "sometimes my emotions get the better of me a bit" [C135]. She also said that she did not engage with BIDAS as she did not need the service but says at paragraph 19 on C136 that her CPN worker is speaking to her about staying away from alcohol and drugs and that she found this supportive and is "able to get the guidance and support from my CPN rather than BIDAS".
56. In her oral evidence when subjected to cross-examination by Mr Crabtree the mother conceded that she was no longer taking her medication but asserted that her CPN had disengaged with her. It became apparent that this was blatantly not true as she conceded under further questioning by Mr Crabtree that she had missed 5 appointments, missed an Outpatient Appointment on the 16^th January and failed to attend her CPA Review on the 19^th January 2015.
57. At the commencement of her oral evidence the mother said that she stayed with KBM in Radcliffe 3 or 4 times week but that most of her belongings were at her flat at [an address] in Bolton. She said that she kept the flat on because she would need somewhere to live if HJW was to get adopted and her relationship with KBM might come to an end. Although she said that her relationship with KBM could not be better and that since he has been off the drugs his personality has been better and he has been kinder. He does sometimes get stressed she said.
58. She asserted, somewhat unconvincingly I thought, that she would like to attend BIDAS and immediately went on to contradict what she had said in her last statement when she said "(my CPN) was of no use to me". She later said the CPN was off all the time and she "needed someone she could connect with". She then went on to say that she had stopped taking her medication which she had been prescribed for "anxiety, depression and sleeping" some 3 or 4 weeks ago but had not got advice from a GP before she stopped taking the medications.
59. She acknowledged in her evidence that she would need support before HJW could return to her care and suggested she would need

to attend a Parenting Class

have a Family Support Worker

engage with BIDAS

engage again with her CPN

Attend a further Freedom Programme

She acknowledged that access to services would depend upon where she would be living but again stressed that she was living at [an address], Bolton and all her mail went to that address. She described it as keeping one's options open. She concluded her evidence by saying that if she had HJW in her care she would immediately terminate her tenancy and move in to live permanently with KBM. Her evidence was not convincing on any issue. She struck me as a witness who was expedient in what she said in answer to the questions asked of her and left me with no confidence that I could place any substantial reliance on anything she said.

KBM (Father)

60. The father has only filed one statement which is dated the 16^th December 2014 [C138-141] the day prior to the IRH. It is actually a statement which must have been prepared sometime prior to the 12^th September 2014 when he was due to have his electronic tag removed. The statement does not add much of any evidential value but confirms the parents commitment to each other and desire to be assessed together as carers for HJW. Of some note is the acknowledgement at C140 that the father has had periods of mental illness and been an in-patient on the mental health unit at Bolton Hospital. Although he asserts that he is no longer under the care of the mental health team and does not have a CPN he does take antidepressant medication which he says is prescribed by his GP. Additionally, he acknowledges that he had a chaotic childhood and spent periods of time in care. He wants to ensure that HJW does not have the same childhood he had and wants to parent him as best he can.
61. A Position Statement prepared by his solicitor for the IRH hearing on the 17^th December 2014 appears at C142-3. This asserts that the father and the mother have recently secured a private rented property in the Radcliffe area. The move has been financed by the father who is being assisted by his parents with the redecoration. in addition it says the father denies that there has been any violence between him and the mother and that he is aware of the local authority concerns the local authority has in respect of his childhood and offending behaviour. However, neither this Position Statement nor his evidential statement address any of the incidents etc which have arisen within the context of the proceedings. There is an acknowledgement that HJW is likely to be made the subject of a care order but disagreement with the local authority plans for a placement order and placement of HJW outside the family.
62. Although the father had been directed to file and serve a statement by the 27^th February 2015 he did not do so. No explanation was forthcoming to explain what I regard as a serious omission.
63. In his oral evidence he said that he had acquired the property in Radcliffe on the 24^th November 2014. The move to Radcliffe was to allow them to make a fresh start and he wanted to help the mother move away from Bolton as it was not good enough for her. Contrary to the evidence of the key social worker, he said he had never been to "One Recovery" the drug and alcohol service in Bury. He said he had never been advised to attend and had never been given an appointment. He said he had got off his prescribed medication of Subutex 6 days ago. He said he felt okay not taking it. He had had enough of being stuck on medication "every day for 7 years".
64. He said he loved the mother and needed her. In response to being asked about using aggressive tone to the social worker in a meeting he said he had been stressed because he thought the mother was going to "kick off" because she was annoyed and he reacted as he did because he felt pressured. In respect of what he had said about the mother drinking during the pregnancy as recited at paragraph 6.3 of the Threshold Document at A25, he said that he had said it out of spite at a time not long after they had split up.
65. In response to the questions asked by Mr Crabtree for the local authority, the father acknowledged that he had not told the social worker when he had acquired the house in Radcliffe. So far as the issue about Relate was concerned the father said he had wanted support for the relationship. He said there was a lot of bickering in the relationship because he and the mother kept blaming each other for their shortcomings. He agreed that he had told the court in September he intended to go to Relate. In respect of BIDAS he said that what the social worker had put in her statement at C151 paragraph 3.11 was lie.
66. He acknowledged that he had had drugs issues in the past and had suffered psychoses through taking amphetamines. He had mixed drugs he used and had started taking heroin when he was 18. He used to like the effect of drugs and used them as a coping mechanism. When his convictions were discussed with him he acknowledged that he had spent half of his adult life either in prison or on supervision as a result of his offences which were all linked to getting money for drugs. He said that having his son, HJW, has changed things for him.
67. As a witness the father was sadly as unconvincing as the mother. My impression is that he lacks maturity which, given his past life circumstances, is not surprising. That immaturity is unfortunately accompanied by what I consider to be a degree of arrogance based on his belief that he knows best. He did not impress me as someone who would willingly seek advice and assistance unless he absolutely had to do so.

Elizabeth Moxham (children's guardian)

68. Elizabeth Moxham, the children's guardian, has prepared and filed two reports during the proceedings which are an Initial PLO Case Analysis report dated the 22^nd July 2014 [E1-11] and a Combined PLO and Placement Analysis report dated the 15^th December 2014 [E16-25].
69. In her first report the guardian clearly sets out at E4 the risk factors which give rise to the risk of HJW suffering significant harm were he to be placed in the mother's care and identifies the evidence base for those assertions she makes. She does similarly at E6 in relation to her analysis and assessment of the mother's parenting capacity. Supporting the local authority position in relation to the interim care order and acknowledging the local authority proposal not to undertake any further assessment, the guardian properly indicated that the mother could not be precluded from consideration as a carer at that stage but "should be given the opportunity to reflect and act on the identified issues of concern". She suggested that there "should be sufficient information available that could limit further assessment to a few focussed sessions" [E10 para 20].
70. In her final report she undertakes a similar exercise in relation to the analysis of risk at E19. The risk factors in respect of the mother largely remain as described at E4 at the commencement of the proceedings including alcohol use; substance misuse; emotional health; vulnerability to domestic abuse; lack of stable secure accommodation; and limited support network. Into this analysis she describes the risk factors in respect of the father which include, arising from his chaotic and disrupted childhood and emotional and behavioural issues in adolescence and early adulthood, "longstanding alcohol and substance misuse difficulties, mental health problems and associated criminal activity"; not having received any significant therapy to support him to address the issues; questionable ability to be open and reliable regarding his current drug usage; complaints from housing of anti-social behaviour around his property; and his limited support network. The guardian asserts that the "parents' individual and combined difficulties are such that there would be a significant concern that HJW would be at risk of neglect and emotional harm if returned to either of their care" [E19].
71. In her analysis of the parents' ability to care for HJW and meet his needs set out at E20-22 the guardian identifies the positives in their contact with HJW from late September confirming their love and affection for him and ability to meet his physical needs. She also identifies their commitment to being together to provide a home for HJW. However, she goes on to identify the continuing problems which she identifies based on events and issues which have occurred or arisen within the proceedings and their lack of engagement with services or action taken to address their identified difficulties. She considered that "they underestimate the individual and collective personal difficulties they both face that have not been addressed" and goes on to assert that they "need to engage in therapeutic and advice services to address their difficulties. They have little insight into this at present which is a concern in respect of the likely success of any engagement" [E21-22]. Having undertaken a "Permanence Analysis" at E23-24, the guardian concludes with the view that HJW's needs will best be met by placement for adoption and recommends that the care and placement orders are made.
72. In her oral evidence the guardian confirmed that she had made limited enquiries since the IRH but had met with the parents again during the last week. She said the mother was clear that she did not want her medical records disclosed and was concerned about invasion of her privacy. She had given the guardian the impression that she was resigned to the inevitable outcome of the proceedings and had no confidence in any of the services. The guardian considered that she was despairing about the outcome.
73. The guardian referred to the mother's continuing use of alcohol in the proceedings and the report of her being intoxicated in the autumn. While acknowledging the mother's self report of not using alcohol since before Christmas, the guardian made it clear that she and others would have had greater confidence in the mother had she accessed support services and discussed coping strategies. The mother had reported a loss of faith in the mental health services but the guardian was concerned that the mother had taken herself off medication without getting medical advice since she had experienced longstanding issues around depression etc. Although the father's engagement with the Probation Service had been positive the guardian considered there were still issues around drug and alcohol misuse and the original concerns remained.
74. So far as the relationship between the mother and father was concerned the guardian considered that they were working hard to maintain their relationship which was still in its early days. It was clear they needed space from each other and the mother had expressed some doubt about the future. The guardian was concerned that in respect of their accommodation and where they were living different accounts had been given to different people. Until she heard the parents giving evidence yesterday, she had understood that the Bolton flat was only being used occasionally.
75. In response to Mr Crabtree, the guardian indicated that she was concerned that there was a gap between what the parents felt and wanted to do to prove their ability to care for HJW and their ability to take action and address the issues which they were aware of. The parents remained highly vulnerable and their lack of confidence in the agencies and services to support them meant they had not addressed issues. The guardian had no criticism of the local authority social work assessment undertaken by the key social worker or the conclusions it reached to the effect that the parents could not provide good enough care for HJW. The local authority had also done all appropriate assessments of relatives and family members which confirmed that none were available. In consequence, given HJW's age and his needs, she concluded that the only realistic option for HJW was adoption.
76. While in response to cross-examination by Ms Houghton the guardian conceded that the number of social workers who had been involved in the proceedings had been unhelpful for parents who lacked confidence, she had no criticism of the current social worker who she said had tried to be supportive to the parents. She did not think the parents had been without social workers available to advise them and considered that the number of services available to the parents should have been sufficient support for them.
77. The guardian said that the parents had always had a good understanding of what was required of them. Whilst abstinence from alcohol had never been explicitly set out as a goal by the local authority it was clear that the mother simply struggled to engage with services such as BIDAS. Her emotional health remained an issue since the last episode of self-harming occurred in August indicating that this was still a vulnerable area which had high risk factors in respect of vulnerability to relapse.
78. The guardian was very clear that there was no evidence available to show that the parents can engage with services. They had not actively sought any support. They had not taken any action to respond to the issues raised by the social worker in her updating statement and had, she said, not responded to their own lawyers. She was concerned that the mother was in an emotionally vulnerable state which was not just because of the stress of proceedings. The mother had a limited network of support but her mechanism to avoid associating with former friends which was simply by staying in and not going out was not normal.
79. While again conceding that the quality of the parents' contact with HJW was very good with loving interaction and an ability to meet his needs in contact, the guardian was clear that her recommendation remained the same. She considered that all the risks identified early on in the proceedings remained but was compounded by having no clear picture of where HJW would be living. In response to Ms Lau, the guardian while acknowledging the positive progress made with Probation expressed her concern that the father's engagement with BIDAS had lapsed and he had not accessed the service in Bury. Accepting that the parents were trying very hard to make their relationship work, the guardian nonetheless made it clear that her concern was that neither their individual or combined difficulties had been addressed and they had simply not taken the opportunity to do so between the IRH and this hearing.
80. Ms Moxham is a very experienced and competent guardian who is well known to this court. She was an impressive witness who had clearly thought through the issues. While not without sympathy for the parents, she had a very clear focus on and understanding of their vulnerabilities and the impact that would have on the welfare needs of HJW.

Discussion

81. In her submissions for the mother, Ms Houghton invited me to not approve the local authority care plan for HJW and to adjourn the proceedings to allow for rehabilitation of HJW to the care of the parents under any relevant order on the basis of using whatever support can be utilised under a Contract of Expectations which will set out in identified terms what steps have to be achieved. The submission is premised on her assertion that the risk factors in the case are not as high as both the local authority and the children's guardian say they are. She suggests that the guardian's analysis of the risk factors is not borne out by the evidence since the mother has made a significant change in that there is no evidence that she is currently abusing alcohol and has not done so prior to the IRH. She also relies on the fact that there has been no episode of self-harming since August or any report of police involvement in respect of their relationship since August. What Ms Houghton said was that there were no current risk factors.
82. The difficulty which Ms Houghton and the parents have so far as I am concerned with those assertions is that even at this remove some months later any recovery by the mother, however creditable, is, firstly, not evidenced by anything other than her own self-report and, secondly, ignores the long standing, underlying issues which gave rise to the problems in the first place. The mother's difficulties are significant and of an enduring nature which no one could realistically say are capable of being resolved in a matter of months. In the absence of any effective professional help and support, the risk of relapse in relation to her alcohol use or self-harming episodes in light of her emotional vulnerability and volatility remain unacceptably high.
83. As I said after hearing the parties' submissions when I adjourned the matter for the purpose of preparing this judgment, if the case had been tried shortly after the IRH on the basis of all the evidence then before the court, I am satisfied that if I had been the judge that care and placement orders would have been made then.
84. Since that hearing in December while the local authority has not produced any evidence of inappropriate alcohol use by the mother or drug use by the father and have no reports of any incidents of domestic violence or abuse within the relationship, the updated enquiries made by the key social worker indicate that the parents have failed to take any of the steps they asserted they intended to take to engage with services to help support them to address their issues in relation to alcohol and drugs and other difficulties. Although the father produced a report from his Probation Officer (which to his credit shows he has made sufficient progress to justify his Community Order being discharged early), he has failed to file a further statement and both he and the mother have failed to file anything from BIDAS or the mother's GP.
85. That failure is a continuation of their previous response throughout the proceedings since the mother, in particular, has failed to take any effective steps to engage with services to help deal with her alcohol issues which have remained as live and recent issues at time of the social work assessment completed in October. Both have failed to seek help from services such as Relate to seek any couple counselling to help with relationship issues or counselling to help them deal with issues arising from their disrupted and difficult childhoods and early lives despite the efforts of the local authority to signpost such services and the parents assertions that they intended to seek help and prove their ability to care for HJW. That was confirmed by the local authority update from the key social worker. The reality is that the parents have not produced any evidence to substantiate what they now assert their circumstances to be.
86. The reality is that the oral evidence they have now given has confused and clouded the situation to the extent that there is no clarity around their living circumstances. In the light of my assessment of their evidence and their lack of reliability, I cannot say that I am satisfied that they are living together in a committed relationship to provide a family home for HJW were he to be placed in their care. In addition both have raised additional concerns in view of their evidence of giving up on medication without the benefit of medical or professional advice and assistance.
87. Reflecting on the oral evidence has caused me to revisit the social work assessment undertaken by the key social worker – as I have commented above, it is a sound piece of work which is well informed with a good analysis of the issues weighing the positives and the negatives and concluding – soundly in my judgement – that taking all issues into account that as a couple their individual issues are compounded and additional concerns surface in respect of their behaviour to each other and their joint perspectives on parenting – the assessment concludes that the outcome is clear that cannot parent HJW as concerns for each individually and as a couple overshadow any strengths they have. None of the evidence I have heard undermines those conclusions of the local authority which are supported by the children's guardian.
88. The parents' failure to engage with services to demonstrate their asserted intentions undermines any confidence anyone might have in their ability to recover. If what the mother says is true about not drinking, it indicates that she is in the very early stages of recovery with no indication or sense of how she is to continue that given the long term nature of the past difficulties she has experienced. The mother's past history of mental health issues and difficulties and her emotional vulnerability gives rise to considerable concern given her evidence about stopping her medication without access to medical advice and her failure to engage with her CPN. No one could have any confidence that the mother will not suffer a relapse in relation to her drinking or a recurrence of her volatility and vulnerability in self-harming.
89. Similarly, in light of the father's known history, no one could have any confidence in him achieving any real degree of stability sufficient to consider placing a child with him unless he has had some professional help and support to address his past. His failure, and that of the mother, to access services to help them despite them knowing what has been signposted as being necessary highlights their lack of understanding and insight into the nature of their difficulties. Consideration of the above in the context of addressing the question of how capable are each of his parents is of meeting HJW's needs leads me to agree with the conclusion of both the local authority and the children's guardian that the parents cannot parent HJW on account of their own shortcomings and the risk of significant harm which they pose to him.
90. Given the positive report of how both the mother and the father have been able to manage and handle HJW in contact and the obvious love and affection which they have for him, it is unfortunate that they have not been able to demonstrate a capacity to properly engage with agencies and services which could have helped them. Had they been able to do so after the FCMH in September, things might have been very different to how they now stand. Sadly, I cannot turn the clock back nor can I delay making a decision for HJW.
91. Consideration of the other 'welfare checklist' issues so far as HJW is concerned lead to the obvious conclusion that at age of 10 months he is a young child who is not capable of expressing his wishes and feelings. He has the needs of any young child for a stable and settled family life and to be provided with appropriate physical care with love and affection and encouraged to develop to his full potential in a safe and secure environment. He is a healthy child who is developing well. He is settled with his foster carers.
92. The change in his circumstances of making the orders sought by the local authority will mean that his contact with his parents will be reduced in accordance with the local authority plan with a view to that ceasing when an adoptive placement for him is identified. While that will involve a loss it is not one which is likely to be meaningful for him at this tender young age. He will remain in his current placement until an adoptive placement is found. The local authority does not anticipate there being any delay in finding an adoptive placement and he is at an optimum age for this to be achieved.
93. It is within the context of those conclusions that I have to consider what order to make in respect of HJW. Since the care plan is one of permanence through adoption and the local authority is seeking a placement order in the event of a care order being granted on that premise, I am bound to have regard to the welfare checklist as set out in section 1 (4) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 as referred to above at paragraph [33] when considering whether to grant the care order which the local authority seeks.
94. The likely effect on HJW of having ceased to be a member of his original family and becoming an adopted person is, in my judgement, unlikely to be an issue of great significance given his age. The only significant family relationship which HJW has is with his mother and father. He has no relationship with his half sibling with whom he has never had any contact. This leads the local authority and the guardian to conclude that if a placement order is made there should only be indirect contact with the mother and the father as set out in the care plan. That, in my judgement, appears to me to be the right approach to adopt if a placement order is made.

Conclusion & Orders

95. This is not a case which is in any sense finely balanced. The evidence from the local authority assessments and the analysis and assessment of the guardian determines that there is no prospect of HJW being placed in their care. That conclusion is reinforced by the parents' failure to engage with any agencies or services to help with their known and identified difficulties between the IRH and this hearing. The exclusion of any extended family members from consideration as prospective carers left the local authority, the children's guardian and the court with only two options to consider. In real terms, given HJW's age, his health and development the only truly realistic option for consideration was a care plan to achieve permanency by adoption.
96. I am satisfied that the local authority and the children's guardian have addressed the issues in a proper manner giving due weight to the relative pros and cons of the realistically available options in accordance with the requirements of Re B-S.
97. In the circumstances, bearing in mind that I have to treat HJW's welfare as paramount I have no hesitation in saying that I approve the local authority's plan for him to achieve permanency through adoption. I have considered the local authority's proposals for contact which in the circumstances are entirely appropriate. Accordingly, I will grant the care order to the local authority. The making of the care order is, in my judgement, given the circumstances of HJW as set out above necessary to protect and safeguard his interests and is a proportionate response to his circumstances. That then requires me to pass on to deal with the placement application.

Placement application

98. I repeat that I have read and considered the relevant documents in respect of the application for a placement order. The children's guardian supports the application for a placement order. I have of course given specific consideration to the welfare checklist as it applies to the Children Act 1989 in approving the local authority's care plan for adoption for HJW. I have in addition, as is clear from what is said above, also already had regard to the checklist in respect of section 1 (4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the issues which are relevant. I do not intend to repeat myself.
99. I am satisfied that, on all the evidence before me, adoption is in best interests of HJW. There is no other realistic available option and the reality is that nothing else will do so far as HJW is concerned. His mother and father understandably, in the circumstances, do not agree to him being placed for adoption. The father does not have parental responsibility for HJW and I do not accordingly have to consider dispensing with his agreement to adoption. I must therefore consider whether the mother's agreement can be dispensed with on the basis that HJW's welfare requires it. Having reached the conclusion that adoption is in his best interests then, in my judgement, it follows that I must dispense with the agreement of the mother to adoption in accordance with section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 because HJW's welfare requires it. I, accordingly, dispense with her agreement to adoption. I make the placement order in respect of HJW.
100. Although the issue has not been canvassed on behalf of any party, I am conscious that it might be said that the making of a care or placement order may be a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of both the child and his parents. I have borne this in mind in my consideration of the issues before me since the making of a care order and a placement for adoption order is unquestionably a substantial interference with a parent's right to respect for family life. In my judgement, such a step could only be regarded as interference in the child's right to respect for family life if there was a real prospect of him being successfully rehabilitated to the care of a parent or parents within an acceptably short timescale. That is not the position for HJW and consideration of his Article 8 rights leads to the conclusion which will override the rights of his parents which I regard as a necessary and proportionate response to the circumstances in which HJW now is.

Orders

Care Order

101. The orders which I make and will confirm on the 1^st April 2015 in relation to the local authority application under section 31 in respect of HJW are –

(a) A care order to the local authority, Bolton Borough Council.

(b) The local authority may disclose copies of relevant documents in the proceedings to any prospective adopters with whom it is proposed to match the child, HJW, for adoption.

(c) The local authority solicitor shall provide a copy of this judgment to the Independent Reviewing Officer for HJW.

(d) There be no order for costs save for detailed assessment of the Public Funding Certificate costs of each of the assisted parties.

Placement order

102. In respect of the placement application in respect of HJW, I will make the following orders -

(a) I dispense with the consent of the mother to adoption on the ground that HJW's welfare requires it.

(b) The local authority may place the child, HJW, for adoption.

(c) The local authority solicitor shall provide a copy of this judgment to HJW's adopters.

(d) There be no order for costs save for detailed assessment of the Public Funding Certificate costs of each of the assisted parties.

103. This concludes the judgment.