England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT CHELMSFORD

		Priory Place New London Road Chelmsford CM2 0PP
		6th March 2015

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF: H & ORS (CHILDREN)

JUDGMENT

HHJudge Lynn Roberts:

1. This is the hearing of the applications within care proceedings brought by Essex County Council in relation to three children:

C1, a little girl of 6;

C2, her brother, aged 3; and

D, their half-sister, aged 7 months.

Essex County Council have been represented before me by Mr Green; the children's mother, M, by Miss Sangha; the father of C1 and C2, A, by Mr Maudsley; the father of D, F, by Mr Diamond; and the children have been represented by Miss Young who takes her instructions from the guardian, Tracey Phillips. I have read statements from the three social workers who have worked on the case, from the parents, from M's mother and F's mother. I have read parenting assessments prepared by Woodlands Family Centre and a psychiatric report by Dr Castle about each of the parents, and I have read the guardian's report. I have heard oral evidence from Amidu Beretay, the children's new social worker; from Laura Baines of the family finding team; from Sarah Ashton, who was responsible for the Woodlands Family Centre assessment of the parents and who gave evidence at length; from each of D's parents; from MGM and from PGM.

2. The case can be considered in two parts. Everyone is in agreement that C1 and C2, who have been in foster care under section 20 since the autumn, should move to the care of their father and that A and his partner, B, should have a child arrangements order in respect of them. The Local Authority should have a supervision order for one year and M should have contact. I also agree with this plan. This was agreed on the first day of the hearing and, during the week, the parties have worked on a written agreement to deal with various matters, in particular, the development, if appropriate, of M's contact. I note with approval, in particular, that A has agreed that if he and B were to split up in the future, the children should remain in the primary care of B. I think that is a very sensible and child-focused acknowledgement by A of what the professionals have been saying in this case, that B is best equipped to take the lead as carer of these children. This agreement has allowed the court to focus on what is the big issue in this case, which is what should happen to D.
3. The Local Authority seek a care and placement order for her. The parents seek D's placement with them and they wish to parent her together, with the support of their mothers and wider family. Their motivation is their love for their daughter, which I totally accept, and their belief that they can be the parents she needs. However, the guardian supports the applications of the Local Authority.
4. By way of background, there have been private law proceedings about C1 and C2 since 2012 and these eventually became care proceedings after a very serious incident in August 2014 when M left C1 and C2 unattended and they were found in the street covered in excrement. The home was in a filthy state with dog excrement all over and there were drugs in the house. M has recently pleaded guilty to the offence of child abandonment. At that time, D had just been born and was in hospital, as she was very premature and had various health difficulties.
5. The Local Authority had been involved with the family in 2011 because M had been drinking and using cocaine when pregnant with C2. The Local Authority found that A was also a drug user. Work was done with the family and, after a year of progress, social care withdrew. Soon after, however, referrals followed because of M's drug use and domestic violence in her home. A commenced proceedings for residence and in March 2013 was granted a residence order for both children. Within four months, however, he had struck C1, leaving marks on her face for which he was cautioned, and then in December 2013 he struck her again, leaving bruising. In March 2014, M received an interim residence order and then a full residence order in June 2014. D was born soon after and the unfortunate events of 16^th August then followed. It is important to stress that C1 and C2 had experienced years of instability and the effects of being parented by parents with substance abuse problems. This case is not about the events of August 2014 in isolation.
6. C1 and C2 were placed with their father again. He was living with his long-term partner, B, but the couple separated under the pressure of caring for the children who were no doubt upset at all that had happened. A could not cope on his own and the children were accommodated on 9^th September. D was also accommodated when she was discharged from hospital at the age of 11 weeks. The assessment by Woodlands of M and F for all three children took place and it was negative. However, the assessment of A and B for C1 and C2 was positive.
7. Dr Castle also assessed the parents. He is an eminent local psychiatrist. He concluded that A suffers from a generalised anxiety disorder, which was likely to be involved in his ill-treatment of C1. Dr Castle gave advice for A, which he has accepted and which he has followed. Dr Castle considered that M suffers from a cocaine dependency syndrome and he recommends that she is completely abstinent from cocaine and from alcohol. M does not accept this diagnosis or, it would seem, the recommendation. M says she now drinks but socially but she has had a recent positive drugs test, although she denies knowingly taking any cocaine since October 2014. Dr Castle assesses F as suffering from cannabis dependence syndrome or severe cannabis harmful use. F does not accept this either.
8. During the proceedings, there was a negative viability assessment of F's mother, PGM, and this was because of the history of domestic violence in that family and involvement with the police in the relationships. F had attacked his mother on five known occasions. There was also a history of drug and alcohol abuse. M's mother, MGM, put herself forward to care for C2 and C1 but withdrew because of her quite serious health difficulties. The parents say that MGM has now moved into the family home in order to assist and supervise the parents' care of D. They also say they had the support of F's mother, who would provide help and support, and of other members of the family, including F's sister. These plans were only developed in the last few days and the Local Authority have not been able to assess them as fully as they would have wished.
9. The threshold for the making of a care order has mostly been agreed. A accepts what it says about him and his parenting. M accepts most of the document. F does not appear to accept any of what is said about him. Having heard the evidence, I am satisfied that the threshold document is made out fully as drafted and I shall return to the aspects which remain in issue.
10. The issues I have to decide are, therefore, should I make the order sought by the Local Authority, thereby approving the plan for adoption, or should I enable D to return home to the care of her parents, possibly under a supervision order, or should I make some other order? I have to apply section 31 of the Children Act and section 1 of the Children Act and sections 21, 52 and 1 of the Adoption and Children Ac, so that if I find the threshold criteria to be met, as I have done, I must go on to determine what will be the best outcome for D as it is D's welfare throughout her lifetime which is my paramount concern.
11. I must take into account what recent case law has said, in particular, those cases starting with Re: B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) 2013 UKSC 33. I take from those that the aim is to reunite families where possible. Severing family relationships is exceptional and placement orders are to be made only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by the overriding requirements pertaining to the child's best interests. Mr Diamond has also referred me to the recent decision of Re: A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11 and, in particular, what it says about it being no function of the court to enter into social engineering, that children should remain with their parents if the care is good enough, that they should not be removed for issues which society may disapprove of provided that the children are not suffering significant harm or be at risk of suffering such harm.

The Witnesses and the Evidence

12. There have, unfortunately, been three social workers in this short case and it is probably fair to say that the Local Authority rely, in particular, on the expert assessments which have taken place. That having been said, I am satisfied that Mr Beretay, the current social worker, has applied his own expertise to his assessment of the evidence and his recommendations to me are based on his reading of all the evidence and of his meetings with the children and the parents. He acknowledged that, in contact, the parents are loving and attentive to D and can manage her basic needs, although he also expresses concern at some of the reports from the parenting assessment and the contacts, which show that the parents did not understand or certainly did not follow all of the advice, for example, about D's oxygen tube, which F disconnected briefly.
13. He also agreed with Miss Young that on the same page as that incident was set out was a description of F misreading D's cues and causing her distress and discomfort and that M did not intervene. Mr Beretay emphasised to me that the issues which emerge from the various assessments and the history were serious, in particular in relation to safeguarding and he said that, as D was a baby with complex needs, mistakes in hygiene, for example, could have much more serious consequences than for an average baby. I noted with some dismay that in the parenting assessments the parents both insisted that D's needs were the same as for any other child, which is patently not the case. Mr Beretay thought that, as we know from the actions of both M and F, how they act when under the influence of drugs, drink or, in the case of F, maybe just when under stress, it would be too risky to expose D to the possibility of being parented by people who, however much they love her, have not dealt with their substance misuse and behavioural difficulties.
14. Mr Beretay did not think that either or both grandmothers could be relied on to make them safe. MGM had two serious health concerns. She was suffering from episodes of temporary paralysis during which she could not talk or move, and he did not think she could be relied on in such circumstances. He also understood that she was or had recently been in a relationship with a child sex offender. MGM had pulled out of being the carer for C1 and C2 and had not put herself forward to care for or be assessed for D. She only moved in to M's home on 28^th February. Mr Beretay was concerned that MGM had been in almost daily contact with the children, C1 and C2, when they lived with their mother but had never reported the deteriorating and serious neglect or the drug or alcohol abuse which was going on.
15. In Mr Beretay's professional opinion, PGM would not be able to stand up to F, who was considered to have controlling and domineering traits to his behaviour by the assessors. This was evidenced by the fact that PGM had been the victim of his violence on several occasions but she had never supported a prosecution. Mr Beretay doubted that PGM would be able to challenge either parent if, for example, she witnessed drug taking or alcohol abuse. I accept the evidence of the social worker and, indeed, the previous social workers.
16. The evidence of Miss Baines was mainly unchallenged. There are families on Essex County Council's books who would be suitable to have D and would want her. One family has already expressed an interest. I would not doubt that there are adoptive families out there for a little girl who has only ever experienced loving care. The fact that adoptive families have been approved and are available is relevant but the proceedings are not about finding the best possible family for D. It is, first, about seeing if D can be raised in her own family and it is only if she cannot that the availability of adoption will be part of my thinking.
17. Woodlands have prepared the three reports. I heard from Miss Ashton, who attended to give evidence about the assessments of M and F in relation to D. I do not need to analyse the reports about A and B, which are accepted. I found Miss Ashton a very impressive witness and the work she has carried out was thorough and thoughtful, and her evidence was fair and considered. She was, for example, able to give praise where it was due to the parents. I found her evidence to be balanced. In her report, she said:

"M has clearly demonstrated that she has the ability to meet the children's needs at times but has shown some inconsistencies in the level of care she can provide. It appears that F's controlling nature has impacted on her ability to meet the children's needs. He has taken a lead and been dismissive of ideas that she has had that have proved accurate. The power imbalance within this relationship, therefore, needs to be addressed. M needs to engage with a self-esteem programme, specifically for victims of domestic violence, that will help to improve her self-confidence while at the same as improving her awareness of the signs of a controlling relationship. It is also important that F engages with a perpetrator programme to address his controlling behaviours and his past violent behaviour to enable M to have a voice."

Miss Ashton was very concerned that M had not yet managed to have a clear drugs test and that her recent test showed that she had used cocaine.

18. Miss Ashton was asked whether the parents could do the courses which she had identified they needed whilst D was in their care. She said:

"When M is feeling good, she may meet D's needs but the problem is her relationship with F as she can't always challenge him. It has left D with certain needs unmet. He overpowers her. He has to do that course before any consideration of them caring for D. He comes across as very controlling. He says he will do the course. Meanwhile, M lacks self-esteem and she, therefore, does not challenge for D. D has special needs and she needs really intuitive parenting. She cannot afford for her needs not to be met. Whilst that relationship is left unaddressed, it will mean that D's needs will go unmet."

She was later asked, "Can F manage his anger?" She said:

"He wants to be able to but he has not had help to do so. If you put D in there, he would struggle not to behave as before."

I accept Miss Ashton's evidence.

19. I heard from M. M is suffering great pain from an awareness of what her actions have caused. That was very apparent to me. She is very remorseful. Her love for her children is also obvious and I accept that she wants the best for them and, as far as D is concerned, she wants, as she told me, to be the best mother in the world, a mum to D. It is the case that M has been abusing cocaine and alcohol together since she was 18. That is eight years. Dr Castle has reported and he has said M suffers from cocaine dependence syndrome. He says that there is evidence of inconsistent self-reporting so he cannot determine a clear picture of her cocaine misuse but, even on M's disclosure, he says it is a significant disorder. He goes on to say:

"In the first instance, M must become entirely abstinent from cocaine and alcohol. To do this, she must engage fully with a local drug and alcohol service. She should also access other non-NHS-based resources such as Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous."

It was shocking to hear from M in her evidence that she was not fully aware of Dr Castle's report and it appeared that she was unaware of this advice. She told me she had not read it because it was upsetting to read about what a bad person she was which, of course, is not what the report is saying at all.

20. M has had some contact with Open Road but it is the view of the guardian that it has not been a meaningful engagement and I have to agree. M's statement reads as if she would attend but to please the Local Authority or the court and, within a very short time, M has gone from attending regularly to having telephone support only. There is no evidence that she has been attending any other group or group work at Open Road. There is evidence that she continues to use cocaine, albeit at a lower level, and she still drinks. This is a central part of the case. M says she did not take cocaine but suspects that she was given a cigarette at Christmas time by someone in the pub, having had some drinks, which may, she now suspects, have contained the drug. I do not believe the story. The accounts of F and M are inconsistent about the timings of that evening but the main point is it sounds so very unlikely, both as an event but also as a source of M's positive drugs test.
21. It is more likely, in my judgment, on the balance of probabilities that M had a relapse and took some cocaine. However, even if I am wrong about that, the situation which M describes is also worrying. At a time when she was under the magnifying glass for drug and alcohol abuse, her three children being in care, it shows great lack of judgment to have several drinks in the pub and then accept a roll-up from a comparative or complete stranger. Part of cocaine abuse is the lifestyle and behaviour which goes with it, and M has not got rid of that from her life.
22. It has been submitted on behalf of the parents, in particular by Mr Diamond, that drink or drug abuse alone is not a reason to remove children. He relies on Re: A and the cases quoted by the President within it. That, of course, is the case but this case is not about drink or drug abuse alone. Dr Castle says:

"Cocaine dependence syndrome can result in significant risk to oneself or others and parenting through a number of different mechanisms. Firstly, when intoxicated or withdrawing, one would be markedly distracted from the needs of one's child. Secondly, the imperative to procure the substance can distract one from the needs of one's child. It can also result in self-neglect and financial difficulties. Thirdly, cocaine misuse increases the risk of entering into dissocial milieu which places the user and their dependants at risk. Fourthly, it can lead to significant emotional dysregulation with associated high-risk symptoms, such as suicidality. Finally, substance misuse provides poor role modelling for any child in one's care."

All these apply to M.

23. The trigger incident in August of last year was, as M readily accepts, appalling. She has, however, given a version that seeks to minimise her wrongdoing. What I find happened is as the social worker wrote, however. The Local Authority social worker says:

"On 16^th August, C1 and C2 were found wandering the street at 8.30am by a neighbour. Both C1 and C2 were very distressed, saying that they did not know where their mother was. C2 was wearing only a shirt and he was covered in his own excrement. The neighbour called the police and, when police attended the home, they found drugs in the house, cannabis and wraps with cocaine. The mother was not in the home. The children's rooms were covered in excrement. C2 had soiled himself. There were a number of dogs in the premises, which were later identified as being F's dogs. Three of the dogs were in cages but a puppy was left out of the cage and the house was covered in excrement from the puppy. The mother returned to the home two hours later, around 10.30am. She was drunk and under influence. She was taken to the police station to give a statement but could not be interviewed until 4pm that afternoon when she had sobered up. She admitted to using cocaine."

24. M suggests that she had only gone out at 6am in search of a cigarette from a neighbour. The neighbour denies this and says M left her house sometime after 1am and I prefer the evidence of the neighbour. Although this lady has not given evidence and we rely on the police evidence only, in my judgment, it was incumbent on M, who had recently pleaded guilty to the offence of child abandonment for this event, to produce the basis of plea to counter the police evidence if she wished me to accept a different version. It perhaps matters not too much exactly what happened that night as everyone agrees it was terrible. The point, however, is that this mother is not able to parent when she also uses cocaine and alcohol. All of the evidence points to this and, sadly, M has not followed the advice she has been given by an expert psychiatrist and from others. She still drinks, she still uses cocaine and does not, as yet, see the need to cease.
25. On a similar point, Miss Sangha suggested it was premature to decide D's future when the parents had not had the opportunity to attend courses. I disagree. First, there is sufficient evidence now to determine this case and I take the view that the parents have had the opportunity to take some action of their own to address their problems and they have been slow to do so to the extent that they have done at all. Secondly, in relation to M attending a programme like the Freedom programme, I have to agree with the guardian, there is no point in M doing so if she does not see the need to do so and from her evidence she does not. These parents cannot properly address the difficulties they have by attending courses unless they really accept that they have the difficulties identified and that they want treatment and are committed to change and to doing the work necessary and this is not the case.
26. I turn to F's evidence. His love for D and commitment to her was also clear to me in his evidence. It may be, as Miss Ashton said, that he is at the point in his life when he is ready to change. He has a criminal and violent history of some 30 years. Dr Castle considers that there are too many gaps and what is known about him to be able to consider a psychiatric diagnosis relating to this part of him but Dr Castle believes that the risk of future such behaviour remains. Dr Castle also says that F suffers from cannabis dependence syndrome or severe cannabis harmful use. Dr Castle commends F for giving up cannabis, as F told him he had done. However, Dr Castle says:

"With regard to the cannabis dependence syndrome/harmful use, the first year of abstinence has the highest risk of relapse. He should engage with as many support services as he can. Generally speaking, the more support one receives, the better the prognosis."

F has not yet produced a completely clear drugs test. The results we have relate to a sample of leg hair and it was spelled out in the report that it was not possible to segment leg hair to show over which period of time drugs were used or not used. I was most surprised when F said he had not grown any head hair in order to enable a more accurate and useful test to be carried out because he did not want to look like a clown. The lack of priorities was striking. F, too, had not fully and properly engaged with Open Road; attending for a few weeks is not what is needed.

27. Dr Castle was not able to say with any accuracy what had caused F's criminal and violent behaviour in the past. He did, however, say that the polysubstance misuse would impair his ability to parent through a number of mechanisms and refers to the paragraphs I have read about dependency in relation to M. It is, therefore, not the case, as Mr Diamond submitted, that it would be disproportionate to make the order sought by the Local Authority in this case on the basis of the cannabis misuse. We have, in the case of F, a man who has offended for 30 years and has committed violent offences on many occasions and has taken cannabis for that same period. As I think Mr Green submitted, much of the violence has been directed at family members.
28. It is therefore reasonable, in my judgment, to require F to be drug-free in order to be given the opportunity to parent. He has said that he has stopped using cannabis before and, therefore, could again but the point is he has always restarted. Dr Castle says that the first year is the most likely time for relapses to take place and if F stopped using, we do not know when that was because he has given different accounts. The point is, however, that it is early days and his engagement with services to assist him in remaining drug-free is considerably less than is necessary.
29. I understand that F does not accept some aspects of the threshold document but it is a fact that F has tested positive for cannabis use and he has been assessed as having a cannabis-dependent syndrome. He admits that he lied to the police in August that he was a current user of the drug. F may not accept the diagnosis but he is not in a position to challenge it and I find that his condition is as Dr Castle says. Failure to acknowledge that he has a continuing problem with cannabis, which cannot merely be addressed by stopping using the drugs for some months, is one of the major issues in the case. F similarly cannot challenge his criminal record or his history of having committed domestic violence. That much is clear from the papers. As the guardian said in relation to both parents, she questioned their commitment and engagement on the issue of substance misuse and I agree with her. She also raises doubts about each parent's knowledge that the other abused drugs or drink and I agree. It is most unlikely that each parent was unaware of the other's substance misuse.
30. The other worrying issue in relation to both parents is their relationship. They have been observed to be warm and loving together. I accept that. However, M has a recent history of being the victim of domestic violence from Mr X at a time when she had care of C for at least part of the time. F has not produced much evidence in relation to his older children, whom he has not parented for some years, but we know that there was at least one incidence of domestic violence in that relationship. The relationship between the parents has been observed as one in which F is controlling and M does not challenge him.
31. The relevance and implications for D are several. First, there is the risk of domestic violence in this relationship even if the parents are truthful in saying it has not occurred so far. Miss Ashton has identified M's need to deal with various aspects of her past and to receive help with self-esteem and, generally, to be assisted not to become the victim of domestic violence in the future. F needs help with anger management and relationships and none of this work has taken place, and I find that there is a real risk of D being exposed to or caught up in domestic violence if she was returned to her parents at this time. Then I have to say that the dynamics between the couple are such that, as Miss Ashton found, there is a real risk that her needs will be unmet.
32. M was found to be the more competent parent. She understood D's cues and her experience with C1 and C2 meant she was able to carry out the basic tasks. F was less able in all areas. However, it was F who was the one who took the lead through most of the contacts in the assessment. There were several examples referred to in the oral and written evidence of this behaviour which led to D being unnecessarily upset or her needs not being met. I have already referred to the occasion when F took it upon himself to take off her oxygen tube in order to carry out a task. M did not want him to but she let him rather than challenge him effectively, but it was not the right thing to do. As Miss Ashton and the guardian both said, if F, with unfounded overconfidence, had such an approach and M, with underconfidence, did not interfere, D will be at risk in all sorts of ways.
33. In the days before the hearing, the two sides of D's family came together in a family group conference and came up with a support plan. It was also the case that last weekend M's mother moved into the home to be a support to the parents if D came home. Both grandmothers gave evidence. Both were well-intentioned and very much want to help and to enable D to come home. Sadly, I was not able to rely on either of them to make that possible. MGM, as I have referred to, had started a viability assessment but had to pull out because of ill health and she acknowledges that she could not care for D but considers she could supervise, but I do not agree. Her health issues are such, including seizures, that when she is affected, she is not able to move or speak. So, however well-intentioned she is, she is not physically in a position to support these parents.

THE JUDGE: I am not going to put up any longer with the commentary at the back. You either stay and are quiet or you go.

34. M has reported a very negative experience of her own upbringing by MGM, which caused her to leave home at 16 when she was not ready for independence. MGM was around a great deal during the period before the August incident and she therefore must have known what was going on in that household but there is no record of her making contact with Social Services about this. Indeed, MGM was present with her daughter when she was interviewed for the purposes of the section 37 report which was prepared earlier in 2014. She was only supportive to her daughter. The only record I am aware of MGM having phoned Social Services prior to the care proceedings was to report a concern about A's care of the children.
35. So MGM's judgment is in issue, as it also is because of her own recent relationship with a convicted child sex offender. She had, it appears, accepted that man's watered-down account of the offences, which was an untrue account. However, even on the account she had accepted, it means she was knowingly involved with a man who had committed sexual offences against children. I do not feel I can rely on MGM making the right decisions for D in a crisis.
36. Similarly, PGM is not someone I have confidence in, however well-intentioned she is. The idea is that she would be able to pop in regularly to see that all was well and to see that drugs and drink were not being used but, in my judgment, she would not be able to stand up to her son. Since 2006, there have been five occasions when she has called the police because of his aggression. On two occasions, she has reported him putting his hands around her throat. On no occasion did she allow the police to prosecute.
37. On more than one occasion, she was described as intoxicated, as was he. On another occasion, when there was an incident involving her other son, her grandchildren were present and she was described as intoxicated. PGM sought to play down these incidents but I am satisfied that she does not really understand the impact of alcohol abuse and does not have the ability to challenge F and cannot be relied on to report to Social Services if she found either parent under the influence of drugs or drink.
38. Miss Sangha submitted that the Local Authority had not properly assessed the family support. The guardian disagreed and said that a telephone assessment had been carried out. In any event, she was of the view that enough was known to be able to assess what the family could offer. I agree and I agree with Miss Young that there is no duty on the Local Authority to assess any more thoroughly a plan put together by the family on the weekend before the final hearing when the family have had every opportunity to reach a plan at an earlier stage.
39. The guardian has produced two very helpful reports and gave her oral evidence in a most considered and careful way. In her view, the issues which she identified in her first report have not been addressed by the parents and therefore the risk to D remains. She points out the differences between A's response to these proceedings and to the assessments and that of M and F. A has fully engaged in services and has made important changes but she does not consider that D's parents have properly engaged and she concludes:

"M's drug use remains unclear and she continues to drink alcohol. Given her dependence on drug and alcohol, it is uncertain how M and F will manage future stressful situations as they arise when these proceedings are concluded with. With the evidence available, it is clear that M has experienced negative parenting in her own right and has not therefore had the benefit of positive role modelling upon which to build her own parenting skills. M has a history of relationships which are characterised with substance and alcohol misuse. Serious incidents of domestic violence have occurred within the parents' relationship, to which C1 and C2 have been exposed. M and F minimised the concerns held by the Local Authority. It must be considered that M and F have prioritised their own needs over and above the needs of the children to be protected from harm."

40. The remaining issue in relation to threshold is at paragraph 3.4:

"D is at risk of suffering from significant harm if she were placed in the care of M and F as a result of what is already known about these parents, namely, M in respect of a conviction for child abandonment and possession of illegal substances and her history of drug use and, in respect of F, what is known of his criminal history, his domestic abuse with his previous partner and his own family and his use of cannabis."

M, I think, accepts this; F does not. However, I find it proven as my analysis of all the evidence in this judgment so far has shown. The risk that D would be significantly harmed exists as a result of the combination of factors in this case which are set out in that paragraph.

41. It is D's welfare throughout her life which is my paramount concern. I have no doubt she would wish to be brought up in her birth family if she was able to say so, provided that she would be safe there. She is a child, though, with particular needs. Because she was so premature, she has health problems, the extent of which is not yet known. The most recent report says:

"As D is still very young and because of her prematurity and lung disease and anaemia, she will be extremely susceptible to infection, especially respiratory ones. If she were to develop a respiratory infection, her lung function would be severely compromised and she would need urgent attention in hospital."

D, therefore, needs a high level of hygiene, particularly during feeding when it is easy to pick up infections. In addition, because D has gastro reflux, this can be very uncomfortable and leads to babies crying a lot, often at night.

42. D is currently developing well. However, as she is at high risk of neurodevelopmental problems that may not emerge until she is older, she needs a high level of nurture and stimulation in order for her to maximise her potential. She has recently come off oxygen, which is most encouraging, but the foster carers retain it in her home as it is not clear whether she may need to use it at some point, for example, if she becomes ill. As the guardian explained, it is essential that those parenting D, and the foster carers are sure that D needs two attentive parents, must be able to pick up any cues and any slight changes. They must be able to pick those up. Any changes in her wellbeing must be picked up in order to access the necessary treatment immediately. Anything else could be very serious.
43. I must decide whether D can be cared for by her parents or whether it is necessary for alternative carers to be found for her. Care by her parents will, of course, mean she is loved and she will have the opportunity of having relationships with her parents and other members of her family. An adoptive placement will mean, in time, she is also loved but the relationships with her family will be very different. She will be unable to have a sense of her own identity from indirect contact but there will not be the possibility of a more meaningful relationship. It is fair to assume that all D's needs will be met in an adoptive placement, as the Local Authority will take care to find very competent adopters who are committed to meeting her complex needs.
44. D's parents, I have found, cannot meet her needs without first addressing their various serious problems. The guardian told me, for example, that the foster carers have decided that it is impossible to care for her and to be as alert as she needs and, at the same time, to drink any alcohol. As a couple, they have not drunk any alcohol since she was placed with them in October, save that one of them had one drink on Christmas Day. Both these parents drink, quite a lot, in my judgment, even on their account now and neither has dealt with their drugs issues.
45. It cannot, in my judgment, be the case that D's complex needs can be met by her parents. The harm she is at risk of suffering is to her health and her development, as well as emotionally, if these needs are not met. If she was placed at home, her parents would have the support of family members which the parents submit makes their plan more robust, but I have found that the two key family members are not in a position to give the sort of support which is necessary, in particular by way of challenging the parents' use of drink and drugs and to report it reliably and consistently.
46. D, as I have described, is a very fragile baby and she needs to be placed as soon as possible in wherever her permanent home will be. Once she gets to about 8 months, it becomes more difficult for her. The parents' proposal is that she could be placed now but I have found that not to be possible or, they submit, she could remain in foster care whilst they complete further work but I am confident, from the Local Authority evidence, that D could be placed easily and soon in an alternative family. From the evidence of Dr Castle, it would not be right to place D with her parents until each parent has gone through at least a year of total abstinence from drugs and, in M's case, from alcohol as well. That year has not yet started. D cannot wait, however much her parents are devoted to her.
47. I have to ask myself whether, in this case, it is a proportionate response to the risks to D to sever the legal relationship between D and her parents and to approve a plan for adoption. I have to consider the rights of each of D and M and F to respect for their private and family life but I am clear that it is D's rights which must take priority if they are in conflict with those of her parents. I must consider the points Mr Diamond made earlier which go to proportionality but I have formed the conclusion that the risks to every aspect of D's welfare are too great if she was in the care of her parents.
48. Despite the love they feel for her, their unaddressed problems mean that the risks are too great and, in my judgment, D's welfare requires me to dispense with the consent of each of M and F to the making of a placement order in order to provide D with the stability, consistency and safe care which she needs now and going forward and I so do. In the light of the grave risk to D, I consider such an outcome to be proportionate and necessary. As I have already alluded to, the court is not making a moral judgment or carrying out social engineering. It is the known effects on the children in the past and the likely impact in the future of the criminal and violent behaviour and their substance misuse which makes any option other than adoption unrealistic.
49. So I make a care order and I make a placement order. For C1 and C2, I make a child arrangements order to A and B with a one-year supervision order. I approve the contact plans as drafted. I know that M wants to understand what, exactly, indirect contact will mean but I think that is probably something which the social worker can discuss with her outside court.
[Judgment ends]