England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> J and E (Care, Placement) [2015] EWFC B50 (11 May 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B50.html
Cite as: [2015] EWFC B50

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child[ren] and members of their [or his/her] family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.


		Case No:.

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT SHEFFIELD
IN THE MATTER OF [THE CHILDREN ACT 1989]
AND IN THE MATTER OF J (d.o.b. 4.10.02) and E (d.o.b 30.11.09)

11.5.15

B e f o r e :

Her Honour Judge Sarah Wright
____________________

Between:

	Sheffield City Council	Applicant
	- and -
	C (1)
	N (2)
	O (3)
	The Children (4)
	By their Children's Guardian	Respondents

____________________

Andrew Wynne for the Local Authority
Jonathan Thompson for the mother
Jane Wheatley for the father JN
Rebecca Crofts for the father SO
Julian Lloyd for the children
Hearing dates: 6th, 7th and 8th May 2015
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

INTRODUCTION

I am concerned with J born on the 4^th of October 2002 and now aged 12 and E born on the 30^th of November 2009 now aged 5.

Their mother is MC. The father of J is JN. The father of E is SO. JN has not been present throughout this hearing as he has had health and travel issues. However it is clear he has engaged appropriately and shown commitment to J within these proceedings, attended for assessments and acted upon advice from the social worker. Maternal Grandmother is RC. There is currently a Special Guardianship Order in her favour in relation to J although J has not lived with her since 2012 when he returned to the care of his mother. The Maternal Grandmother has not attended court and has played no part in these proceedings.

The LA key social worker is Ahmeana Ashmore and the Cafcass Guardian is Michael Ellis.

This is the Local Authority's application for care orders in respect of both children. The Local Authority's plan is that E be placed for adoption and accordingly there is also a linked application for a placement order in her case. The plan for J is that he remain in long term foster care.

Mother consents to the making of a care order in respect of J and agrees with the care plan of long term foster care but seeks an increase in the level of contact proposed by the Local Authority. Mother opposes the Local Authority application in respect of E and asks that she be returned to mother's care.

JN agrees with the care plan in respect of J. He seeks Parental Responsibility for J.

SO is currently serving a prison sentence for robbery. His earliest release date is May 2016. He opposes the Local Authority application in respect of E and asks that she be returned to her mother's care. If that is not possible he asks that E remain in foster care until his release and she then be placed with him.

There are no other family members who are put forward as realistic potential carers for either child at this stage.

The Guardian supports the making of a care order for J and care and placement orders for E.

I have read the lever arch file of evidence filed. Where witnesses have not been the subject of challenge and have not given oral evidence, I have taken their written evidence as read. Over a period of three days I have heard evidence from the social worker Ms Ashmore, mother, SO and the Guardian.

BACKGROUND

There was previous involvement with another Council in respect of safeguarding concerns regarding J who had been on the Child Protection Register under the category of neglect on more than one occasion. In addition, J was placed in police protection on two separate occasions. Issues involving the mother and JN included alcohol and substance misuse, domestic violence and abandonment. Records suggest the relationship was fraught with marital discord, domestic violence and alcohol and substance misuse. After J having spent time in two separate foster placements which broke down, Social Care concluded their assessment of mother and JN concluding that neither of them was capable of providing safe enough parenting to J. On the 8^th of February 2007 a decision was made to seek placement for adoption. The final hearing was due to take place on the 8^th of March 2007. On the 5^th of March 2007 maternal grandmother and her husband put themselves forward as alternative carers for J. An assessment was positive, J was placed in their care and a Special Guardianship Order was granted.

The mother then left JN and commenced a relationship with SO. Issues of substance misuse and domestic violence are recorded as continuing although I note that SO disputes ever using violence against mother. E was born during the period of this relationship. Children's Services are recorded as considering Child Protection Procedures with regards to E however mother eventually left the relationship and moved to Sheffield where she was accommodated in a woman's refuge for those escaping domestic violence. The placement of J with his grandmother broke down in October 2012 and he returned to his mother's care. Whilst at the women's refuge in Sheffield, the mother assaulted another woman following a dispute after J had become involved in a fight with another child. She was asked to leave the refuge. Concerns were also raised due to allegations made by J that mother tried to strangle him and the level of aggression demonstrated by both J and mother witnessed by E.

Concerns continued with regard to the mother's ability to parent her children. Child protection procedures were initiated and a child protection conference took place in August 2013. The children were placed on the child protection register under the category of emotional harm due to the mother's chaotic parenting. There were concerns about mother's substance misuse and in respect of the children's whereabouts.

In 2013 the mother entered a relationship with another man – MG. He was a Person Posing Risk due to domestic violence with his former partner and he had served a prison sentence in respect of this violence towards his former partner in the presence of his child. Despite agreeing to later separate from him, following advice about the risk that he posed, the mother later reconciled and concealed the relationship. This was disclosed by the children in November, 2014 to the social worker.

In November 2014 J was found walking on the M1 motorway reporting that he wanted to get away from Sheffield and presenting as very unhappy about living at home. He described a chaotic home with people attending his house whom he described as rough and were drinking alcohol, shouting and swearing. He spoke in particular of one individual called R who he described as nasty. R it appears was and still is a friend of mothers. E described being left in the house with J when her mother left the house at night time.

The Local Authority then instigated proceedings and on the 4^th of December 2014 the children were made subject of Interim Care Orders. They have remained in foster care pending this hearing and have had contact with mother. As a result of problems between J and E they have been having separate contacts with their mother.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The burden lies on the Local authority to prove the allegations which it makes. The appropriate standard of proof is the civil standard of the simple balance of probabilities. I have reminded myself of Re B (Children)[2008] UKHL 35 and particularly the speech of Baroness Hale.

If I find that the Threshold Criteria are met then the central issue I have to decide in relation to J's future is whether I should approve the Local Authority's care plan for him to be placed in long term foster care or whether there is any realistic route by which he might safely be placed in the care of a member of her family. In determining that issue, I bear firmly in mind that J's welfare is my paramount concern. I have reminded myself of the provisions of the welfare checklist at section 1(3) of the Children Act and also what is known as the "no delay principle" set out at section 1(2). I also take into account that neither parent nor the Guardian opposes the care plan for J, but that J wishes to return to the care of his mother. I must scrutinise the plan myself therefore and decide whether it is in J's best interests to approve the plan for his care. If I do approve the plan J can then be told that it is my decision.

In relation to JN's application for a Parental Responsibility Order in respect of J I take into account that J's welfare is my paramount consideration and I apply the Welfare Checklist. In addition I take into account the well known test derived from Re H [1991] 1 FLR214 namely:

'In considering whether to make an order… the court will have to take into account a number of factors, of which the following will undoubtedly be material (although there may well be others, as the list is not mean to be exhaustive)

(i) the degree of commitment which the father has shown to the child

(ii) the degree of attachment which exists between the father and the child

(iii) the reasons of the father for applying for the order'

If I find that the Threshold Criteria are met then the central issue I have to decide in relation to E's future is whether I should approve the Local Authority's care plan for her to be placed for adoption or whether there is any realistic route by which she might safely be placed in the care of a member of her family. In determining that issue, I bear firmly in mind that E's welfare is my paramount concern. I have reminded myself of the provisions of the welfare checklist at section 1(3) of the Children Act and also what is known as the "no delay principle" set out at section 1(2).

I approach the Local Authority's applications on the basis that the best place for any child is within his or her family of origin unless there are clear welfare grounds to prefer an alternative. In other words nature, law and common sense require that it be recognised that the best place for a child to live is with her natural family unless, exceptionally, proven and proportionate necessity otherwise demands.

My task is to consider whether E could be cared for by a member of her family to a satisfactory standard within an appropriate timescale, not whether she might be "better off" being adopted.

I must balance the pros and cons of each of the options being presented to me together with any other options which seem worthy of consideration. McFarlane LJ in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 said "What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options." In addressing this task I have considered all the points in the welfare checklist of both the Children Act and, as the plan for this child is placement, the Adoption and Children Act.

If I were to approve the Local Authority's care plan for E, I would then be obliged to consider whether it would accord with her welfare, throughout her life, to be made the subject of a placement order. In that exercise I am guided by the welfare checklist at section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Section 1(4)(c) the likely effect upon her of having ceased to be a member of her family, Section 1(4)(e), the harm she has suffered and is at risk of suffering, and section (1)(4)(f), the relationship which the child has with relatives and the capacity of a relative to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop and otherwise to meet the child's needs, appear particularly significant.

If I conclude that a placement order accords with E's welfare, I will then have to decide whether her welfare requires me to dispense with the consent of her parents to the making of such an order. In addressing that issue I have reminded myself of the guidance set out in Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent)[2008] EWCA Civ 535.

It is trite law that I must be satisfied that any orders I make are a lawful, necessary, proportionate and reasonable response to the children's sad predicament. The granting of a care order, let alone endorsing a plan for adoption in E's case, would represent a drastic curtailment of the rights of these parents, and of J and E themselves under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms which can only be justified by pressing concerns for their welfare.

However in construing both the Convention and also domestic law I now have the assistance of the Supreme Court in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 followed by the decisions of the Court of Appeal particularly in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 but also Re P (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 963 and Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965. All of those cases firmly re-emphasise that a placement for adoption is a "very extreme thing" and a "last resort" to be approved only when "nothing else will do." Both domestic and Convention law do require a high degree of justification before adoption can be endorsed as "necessary", the term in the Convention, or "required" by the Adoption and Children Act. I have also taken into account the helpful clarification of the test to be applied in Judgment of the Court of Appeal and the President in Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625. As the President of the Family Division said 'I wish to emphasise, with as much force as possible, that Re B-S was not intended to change and has not changed the law. Where adoption is in the child's best interests, local authorities must not shy away from seeking, nor courts from making, care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders. The fact is that there are occasions when nothing but adoption will do, and it is essential in such cases that a child's welfare should not be compromised by keeping them within their family at all costs.' He reiterated: "The fundamental principle, as explained in Re B, is, and remains, that, where there is opposition from the parent(s), the making of a care order with a plan for adoption, or of a placement order, is permissible only where, in the context of the child's welfare, "nothing else will do". As Baroness Hale of Richmond said in Re B, para 198:

"the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do."

She reiterated the point, para 215:

"We all agree that an order compulsorily severing the ties between a child and her parents can only be made if "justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child's best interests". In other words, the test is one of necessity. Nothing else will do."

THE EVIDENCE AND MY FINDINGS

It is abundantly clear to me that these 2 children have had an unhappy history and have experienced disruption in their lives.

I note the 2 reports of Dr Ben Harper the instructed psychologist in these proceedings. He has not been required to give evidence. It is of note that Dr Harper was not instructed to carry out a risk assessment of mother or any assessment of the attachment between the children and mother or issues of neglect, violent relationships or substance misuse. He was asked to carry out an assessment of her capacity to instruct her solicitors, an assessment of her cognitive functioning, identify if possible any techniques to be used during the assessment process to make it more effective and any other matter he felt relevant and within his area of expertise. He concluded that the mother did have the capacity to engage in care proceedings. He recommended that she has 16-20 sessions of CBT to address her PTSD symptoms.

He was asked further questions in writing on behalf of the Respondent mother. As a result he said that should the mother maintain her motivation she is likely to successfully engage in psychotherapy. However, insight and motivation are not static factors and the mother may have changed from a 'contemplative' stage of change to 'pre-contemplative'. Dr Harper reinforced the fact that he has not carried out a risk assessment of the mother – simply a capacity assessment. Therefore, on the limited information Dr Harper has, he recommends 7-8 sessions of CBT prior to any rehabilitation taking place and does not agree that such work can be carried out after E has returned to mother's care. Dr Harper was unable to comment on whether the mother would, effectively, be fast-tracked into CBT on the basis of having enrolled on a stress and anxiety course (not yet started) but stated it may not necessarily decrease her waiting time and the mother's own reported engagement with the Fitzwilliam Centre, Power to Change and DISC (housing and debt advice) would be positive factors if those organisations report her to have actively engaged with treatments.

Ms Ashmore the social worker gave evidence before me. I find that she has approached her task in a thoughtful, considered and indeed very child focused way.

She said the children have had so much instability, they need to be safe, secure and with carers who have insight into and are attuned to their particular needs for their whole childhood.

She said in her statement that the Local Authority's view is that it is not in J and E's best interests to be rehabilitated to their mother. Significant concerns remain evident about mother's ability to meet her children's physical and emotional needs and safeguard them from harm. Records show that mother only attended 3 out of 8 sessions at the Children and Adolescents Mental Health Services for Family Therapy. Mother is of the view, she contends, that she is able to provide a safe and appropriate level of parenting and sees herself as a positive role model. Although mother contends that she has separated from MG she admits to recently contacting him despite being told not to do so. She is still not able to recognise the risks that he poses, says Ms Ashmore and has failed to demonstrate any thorough understanding of the significant impact that instability would have upon her children.

She said in evidence that she had been involved since September 2014 and summarised her concerns including repeated domestic violence in relationships, alcohol and drug abuse, prioritising her own needs above the children, the concealed relationship with MG, the children's needs not being met eg CAHMS appointments, eye appointments for E, not registering the children with a dentist. She said she was not confident mother was not in relationship with MG and not confident she understands the risks men like him pose. She has limited insight into domestic violence issues and doesn't acknowledge concerns despite the incident in August when MG smashed her window after an argument and J's report that MG grabbed him by the dressing gown.

Ms Ashmore said there had been 2 recent incidents of concern. Mother had raised an issue questioning whether foster father should bathe E. She reported mother had said 'how can he do personal care but MG can't do anything for her? Mother said 'he's not a risk to children.' She presented as defensive and minimised the risk. The second issue was that she recently had 2 marks on the side of her neck which appeared to be love bites. When questioned by the social worker who was concerned about her vulnerability mother initially said it was not the Local Authority's business. She had said she had met a male friend, A, through a friend but said everything was fine because she didn't have sex with him.

Ms Ashmore said that mother had concealed her relationship with MG from her and continued to have contact with him despite her advice on many occasions to her not to do so. E had made a disclosure whilst in care about MG tickling her bottom in bed. Ms Ashmore specifically told mother not to contact him about this. She ignored that and did contact him. She believes mother has an emotional connection with him and does what she wants to do in relation to him.

Although mother is now seeking help from other agencies she has been referred historically and then not engaged. In her previous location she was referred to a domestic abuse project but went on to a relationship with SO. She had previously been referred to IAPT but they closed their file in May 2014 after mother repeatedly failed to attend. Ms Ashmore had spoken to one of the facilitators of the domestic abuse outreach service. One of her colleagues spoke to mother on 27^th of April. Mother declined the support of the 1 to 1 service and said her last contact with the perpetrator of domestic violence was 4 years ago and he was in prison. This is recorded in an email from the worker who spoke to her.

Although Dr Harper has suggested CBT therapy, that would result in E having to wait for her mother said Ms Ashmore which is out of timescale for E – she's been in foster care since December. The work with DISC is beneficial but it is to do with housing and debts. Mother has only been with them 2 months although it's a start it is limited in terms of the support she needs.

She said in relation to J that he is ambivalent about his placement and he pushes against routines and boundaries. There is no current contact between him and E because of the aggression he has shown to E. She was hoping to rebuild the relationship between them. Ms Ashmore told me that in her opinion if E was returned to her mother and he wasn't he would be devastated. He believes he will return home after this hearing. J had been found on the motorway trying to walk to Dronfield. She saw J in school the following day when he said he had taken that action because he was unhappy at home, people were there drinking, mother's friend R was nasty and shouting at him and E and other children, and mother was in relationship with MG. He was sad, unhappy and withdrawn. Although mother claimed this was after an argument about a cat, J had not mentioned this to Ms Ashmore. I find that whatever the reason for J being in this state what is worrying is his very extreme reaction. He put himself in danger. He was a desperately sad little boy who was unhappy at home.

J has not seen his father JN for 10 years. JN has at times tried to have indirect contact but that has not been successful. J doesn't know his father. Ms Ashmore confirmed that the Local Authority are working with JN and he has, quite rightly, agreed to work at J's pace. He has written a letter with a photo and J was pleased to receive it. J is in the process of writing a letter back. JN is being patient and working towards this. It is going to be a slow pace. I find that JN has acted entirely appropriately. He has shown some commitment during these proceedings by travelling some distance in order to attend an assessment. He has done everything asked of him and followed the advice of Ms Ashmore. I am optimistic that this relationship will develop in the future and it will be of vital importance to J given his sad situation.

Ms Ashmore agreed when cross examined that it is positive that mother appears to be engaging with support networks however mother has a history of not engaging with support and so it is to an extent untested as to whether she can maintain that commitment. It is clear that she is trying her best, said Ms Ashmore but one can't ignore the concerns in these proceedings – for example contact with MG – she was still contacting him late in these proceedings when asked not to do so. She is engaging with some services but others she is not. She agreed mother loves both children and wishes to care for them and there is evidence of some engagement with some services. It is a positive start but it is essentially too little too late.

She said mother sometime struggles to manage J's behaviour but contact since the children were seeing her separately has been good. Apart from one incident when mother was reported to be trying to cook a frozen meal in the microwave she does bring some good quality food to contact including pasta and baked potatoes.

Although she accepted mother's drug use has reduced there are still some issues around alcohol use although there has been improvement. Her attempts are recent and there is doubt as to how sustainable they are. She drank a bottle of vodka at Christmas, took crack cocaine in January and used someone else's medication in March to help her sleep. I find that mother has a history of abstinence followed by lapses and there is no evidence that that pattern will not continue.

Ms Ashmore said that although there might be adverse effects of non rehabilitation E moved well to foster care and adapted to the change.

In respect of mother Ms Ashmore concluded that although she had made some progress essentially it is too little too late. Progress is not consistent, it has come late in these proceedings, the Local Authority had been raising concerns pre proceedings and mother was not taking on board advice and not accessing support despite a multi agency team surrounding her.

It is pertinent therefore to look at what was happening with mother prior to these proceedings. Initial assessments of mother are contained in the bundle in section F. An assessment dated the 11^th of February 2013 notes 'M has reported that she has been drug free for (and I cannot read the figure here) years and continues to access support through turning point if required.' Also 'M is currently accessing support from Homestart and Thursday Project, both visit on a weekly basis. M was supportive of my suggestion of requesting support from school to support J.' An assessment in May 2013 highlighted that mother was being supported by CYPS and MAST and Shelter were now involved offering support. Support was put in place for J including a referral to the Community Youth Team, a worker to assist J with anger management and anti social behaviour and a referral to CAMHS. Mother was attending the Fitzwilliam Centre. A report by the centre to a case conference dated the 24^th of November 2014 states the following: 'Transfer from (another authority) in September 2012 following fleeing from domestic violence…..M has been in drug services for several years with occasional lapses – which was related to stressful life event…historically there has been a pattern of M not attending her appointments on the day….On the 6^th of November 2014 M was seen by Tina Horsfield (Nurse Prescriber) urine test showed a positive result for crack cocaine – M admitted to crack use 3 days ago due to stressors in the community (drinkers/drug users). Last positive test for illicit use in 2014 was on the 27^th of August for cannabis. IAPT have now closed her file in May 2014 from our records we can see that M attended 1 appointment thereafter following 5 DNA's.' Again this emphasises the point that mother has accessed substantial support in the past but still has not been able to parent her children safely. It is a repeating pattern.

In relation to SO Ms Ashmore indicated that given his history of violent offending, domestic violence issues and his current incarceration even if he had been a model prisoner she would still rule him out as a potential carer for E.

She felt on balance long term foster care for J and adoption for E would be the right solutions to safeguard their welfare throughout her childhood. She concludes and I agree that although within these proceedings Mother engaged with a full parenting assessment and to her credit the mother has recently tested negatively for drug misuse, she has admitted to using drugs and alcohol during these proceedings and the concerns that remain include:

i. She has significant unmet needs and unresolved experiences of trauma and abuse, and is assessed as meeting the criteria for PTSD – this would be treated appropriately by Cognitive Behaviour Therapy which would be over 16-20 weekly sessions;

ii. Historically, she has not provided her children with a stable home, and exposed them to parental drug and alcohol abuse as well as violent relationships.

iii. She has historically maintained relationships with violent men and acted dishonestly in concealing such relationships from professionals. She has demonstrated little reflection on those relationships. She has demonstrated little reflection or learning from the past abuse she has experienced in relationships and now seeks to deny much of that abuse and does not recognise the effect that has had upon her children. She has difficulty engaging honestly with professionals.

J has experienced a great deal of disruption in his life, his childhood has been abusive and traumatic.

J has witnessed serious incidents of domestic violence between his parents and also his mother and MG. J has been the subject of ill treatment by MG. These experiences for J have impacted upon his emotional well being. Alongside such difficulties J has experienced much inconstant parenting by his mother, he has lived with different family members and been placed in foster care on three separate occasions during his life.

Is there any reason to believe this pattern would continue with E?

E too has experienced significant changes in her life, she has witnessed domestic violence and the care she has received from her mother has, I find, been unpredictable and insecure and this may impact on her attachment and behaviours as she grows older. The fact that E has settled well in her foster placement very quickly and without undue distress may reflect this.

Social Care Services hold a record highlighting a domestic violence incident between mother and SO before E's birth and subsequently E has been exposed to parental drug misuse, alcohol misuse and violence since her birth. She was present when MG smashed a window at her home. These experiences for E must have impacted upon her emotional well being. Alongside such difficulties E has experienced much inconsistent parenting by her mother and her health needs have been unmet. Whilst in foster care E has been observed by her carers to seek adult attention from unfamiliar adults who have visited their home. In her mother's care her vulnerability would increase significantly. She has recently displayed some sexualised behaviour whilst in foster care which may be as a result of the limited personal boundaries she has experienced.

The Local Authority case can be summarised thus: J and E have experienced significant harm whilst in their mother's care. Some of their basic care needs have not been met and they have been exposed to emotional and psychological harm by witnessing episodes of domestic violence and by inconsistent parenting and a chaotic lifestyle. Despite mother's ability to leave JN she engaged in a relationship with SO which involved domestic violence. She then formed a relationship with MG who had a history of domestic violence. She is unable or unwilling to see the risk that he poses by saying he has never been violent to her. She remained in contact with MG despite advice not to do so.

Although she has now sought some help it is they say, a case of too little too late and starts from a premise that she does not really recognise that she has done anything wrong in the past and therefore will have very little capacity to change.

The conclusion of the parenting assessment is negative. I agree with the conclusions. It concludes that mother has been unable to recognise the extent of the risks posed by her abusive relationships and the effects they have had on her children. To return the children to her care at this time would only expose them to further risk of being caught up in instances of domestic violence and instability. She is unable to appropriately recognise risk and respond to risk both historically and currently. This provides a poor prognosis the Local Authority say for future safeguarding.

Ms Ashmore was, I find, a considered and thoughtful witness who has approached her task professionally. Her assessment was thorough and balanced. She worked very hard with mother throughout a comprehensive and thorough parenting assessment. She gives mother credit where it is due but also highlights the inability of mother to grasp the concerns and to recognise the risks despite intensive support, guidance and advice.

She said, and everyone in this case accepts mother does love her children very much and they love her. She desperately wants to care for them. I agree.

The Local Authority Family finder Laura Matters, provided a statement setting out the efforts that would be made if a placement order for E was granted to find an adoptive family for her. She sets out the current statistics in respect of finding an adoptive placement for E. She indicates that it is likely a national search will be conducted for placement for E although there is a set of in-house adopters currently available who wish to adopt a 5 year old. Current statistics are set out in her statement. A recent search for a family for another 5 year old girl with a similar need to E generated over 50 enquiries in 48 hours finding many potential adopters who the social worker is currently considering. A search on Adoption Link on the 28^th of April showed 328 families currently nationwide who would consider a child of E's age and gender who may have emotional difficulties, 160 of which do not have any other children and who are able to promote indirect contact with birth parents and possible direct contact with siblings. I am therefore entirely satisfied that the prospects of finding a suitable adoptive placement for E should I approve the care plan for adoption are high.

Mother gave evidence before me. She was understandably distressed and nervous. I fully understand that and take it into account when I assess her evidence. I note in her statement of the 5^th of December 2014 that she says that it is true that in the past she has had relationships with issues of domestic violence but does not accept that the children will have experienced this first hand. In relation to JN she says that she split from him and stopped seeing him as she was aware of the potential risk to J. As far as SO is concerned in her statement she says this 'Domestic violence was not an everyday occurrence in our relationship, however, I did take steps to protect myself if it became an issue and I did ring the police to request such assistance.' Of MG in her statement she said 'His behaviour has never given me any reason to fear him.' She goes on to acknowledge that in August 2014 he had attended at her property and broken a window following an argument. Despite this she admits that they were then in a relationship in November 2014. She admits to using drugs on two occasions in August and November 2014. She says this was due to 'relentless peer pressure' from neighbours who continue to harass her. In a statement dated the 9^th of February she admits to using crack cocaine in January 2015 when she was feeling low. She accepts now that J should remain in foster care. She says she finds it very difficult to manage his behaviour and she cannot cope with him at home. She says, understandably, this has been a very difficult decision for her to make. She has listed a number of support systems that she is engaging with including attending the Fitzwilliam Centre, a stress and anxiety course with IAPT due to start in June, support from a worker in relation to housing and attending the Altogether Women's project.

Although in her statement dated the 28^th of April she says she acknowledges the concerns in relation to her previous partners and claims to be no longer in a relationship with MG, she does say that she only stopped contact with him in her words 'a couple of weeks ago.' He is a man who was undergoing drug treatment at the time of their relationship. By her own admission mother took drugs at a time when they were in a relationship.

In evidence she told me that E is happy bubbly caring lovely little girl and she has a good relationship with her. She said she puts herself forward as carer for E only. She said she finds J very hard to manage but said she could manage E but not J.

She said in relation to drug use she had a lapse in November but had been clean for nearly 3 years. She couldn't say why she lapsed in November. She had forgotten about her lapse in August 2014. She took crack cocaine in January because of the stress of losing her children. She could not explain a recent positive test result for THC (possible cannabis use) which was a hare I started running by referring to it. However I approach that result with caution as it is not explained in the report and does not say she tested positive for cannabis. I am prepared to give mother the benefit of the doubt and disregard that reference.

She said she would be prepared to undergo CBT and was aware it may involve discussions of painful matters in past.

She was quite clear in saying she would be able to cope with E in her words 'easy now' and in the future if she was undergoing CBT, her reasoning being 'I can separate the CBT from being a parent to E – she doesn't know anything about it – I can still be a good parent.' She was completely unable to grasp the concept that therapy could potentially be very stressful which could well then impact upon her own state and her parenting. It was a feature of her evidence that she separates out her issues and does not grasp how those issues affect her parenting of her children.

She said she was starting a stress and therapy course on 15^th June but thought that was mainly about how to handle the stress of attending appointments.

She sees one of her major problems as the area that she lives in as she thinks the problem with the area is alcohol and drugs. As the Guardian pointed out very many people live in that area and live their lives without resorting to alcohol and drugs. Once again mother blames external factors for her situation. She seems to think that by moving the issue around her drug and alcohol issues would be resolved. That is of course an exceptionally naïve view. It has echoes of her move from another area to Sheffield for what she described as a fresh start.

Although mother acknowledged that drug use and domestic violence had featured in her relationships with her children's fathers she sought to minimise that as far as SO was concerned. She denied fleeing domestic violence and said the move to Sheffield was to be near her sister. It is well documented that she fled domestic violence and came to a women's refuge in Sheffield. She maintains that her relationship with MG did not feature drugs or alcohol abuse despite her acceptance that there was an incident when he came to the house and he broke a window and E saw what had happened. She knew there had been incidents with his ex partners. She knew he had served a prison sentence for violence on an ex wife. She said it's hard for her to say if children had witnessed violence as they were very young, they would have been in bed and she was not aware of any witnessed incidents. She is, in my judgment, a long way from recognising the destructive nature of relationships featuring domestic violence and drug use and the devastating effects they can have on children. She continues to dispute Ms Ashmore's account of the conversation they had recently had about the foster father bathing E and her reportedly saying MG was not a risk to children. I have no hesitation in preferring Ms Ashmore's account of this. It fits entirely with mother's often repeated assertion that MG did nothing wrong to her or to her children. In fact she went on to say specifically in evidence 'I don't think MG is a risk to children. He has a past and that is a concern to me and my kids. It is a concern because he doesn't say he won't do it to me – he hasn't and I haven't seen him hurt a child.'

Again in relation to the recent love bite on her neck she quite clearly does not see this as a problem and specifically said 'I don't see why it's an issue.' Indulging in intimacy at a late stage in these proceedings in relation to her children with a man she knows very little about does not bode well for her avowed intention to avoid abusive relationships in the future.

I have seen a Case note now in the bundle at E153 referring to the Power to Change course. Despite mother's assertion that she didn't decline one to one support that note clearly indicates that she did. Again a worrying sign as recently as the 27^th of April that she will not engage with support and help that she is offered despite her protestations that she will. She did not disclose that there had been violence in her relationship with MG to that worker maintaining the perpetrator of domestic violence (who she refused to name) was in prison. That illustrates her belief that what occurred with MG was not violence. Even more worryingly she wanted confirmation that anything she disclosed would not be passed to social services. She said 'I know it is important that I would have to work with the Local Authority but I didn't want anything disclosed to the social worker – its to do with domestic violence - its my personal life nobody else's business – if I've got to talk about those things its mine, its nothing to do with anyone else, its my life'

When it is urged on her behalf that she is engaging with support and would work openly and honestly to protect her children that, I find, is the most telling evidence that she simply will not or cannot do that.

She has shown in other ways that she will not work openly and honestly with the Local Authority. She concealed her relationship with MG from them. She failed to act on Ms Ashmore's oft repeated advice not to have contact with him.

Despite Mr Thompson's valiant efforts to suggest that E could be returned to mother after she had completed some sessions of CBT and engaged upon some courses to assist her mother herself said she was asking for E back immediately. She said unequivocally 'I can manage. There is no risk in E coming back to me now.'

She said in evidence 'I'm not going to engage in another relationship.' That rather echoes the case note from May 2013 at F13 which says 'M is not currently in a relationship and is keen to focus on spending quality time with the children and investing all her time and effort to re-establish a bond with her children.' Despite saying that she must in fact have been in a relationship with MG by this time as she says in her statement at C61 in the bundle that the relationship began at the beginning of 2013.

Again in answer to questions from Mr Lloyd on behalf of the Guardian she minimised the concerns about her relationships saying of SO there were small amounts of drugs and occasional violence. J would stay over when she was with SO and there was no trouble then that she can recall. She said she moved to Sheffield for new start and to stop the troubles. She agreed that in the women's refuge J got involved in a fight and she was involved in an altercation with another resident. She was asked to leave. Despite the evidence to the contrary she continues to deny her relationship with MG featured violence and drug use.

In answer to me she said she wasn't asking for J's return as his behaviour is physical she can't help him. She thinks the problem is jealousy of E. I asked her if she felt she was to blame. She said yes but only to the extent that J felt abandoned. She told me she has done everything for E and she has had everything she can give her. She said there has been just one incident which might have caused her harm (ignoring the whole history of E's life including violent relationships, drug use by SO and herself, a chaotic lifestyle, missing appointments, the introduction of J) and said 'I haven't seen anything affect her other than that one incident and I know how to take care of E.' She acknowledged she had to change in relation to relationships and not take drugs. I find that she hasn't yet shown she can do that. It would take a long time to do so and would be way outside the time scales for E.

Very sadly, I find, mother minimises the damage that has been caused to both her children. Although she pays lip service to accepting the Threshold Criteria is crossed it was abundantly clear to me in evidence that she does not consider that either child has suffered significant harm attributable to her care and she feels neither is at risk of suffering such harm. Again although she pays lip service to accepting that MG poses a risk she really does not, in my judgment, grasp what that risk is and tempers it by adding – 'I've never seen him be violent to a child.'

Mother has within these proceedings in my judgment made little or no progress in gaining any understanding of the issues and areas of concern and what would be needed from her in terms of co-operation and openness and honesty. Without that first fundamental acceptance any work or support offered to mother will have little prospect of success. Whilst there is an optimism from Dr Harper that CBT may be successful in helping mother address her PTSD there is no evidence that that would help her understand the very fundamental concerns in relation to her parenting. I approach Dr Harper's conclusion on this with some wariness, as he himself is at pains to point out, he was only asked to assess mother's capacity and nothing further. Given mother's issues and the need for any work to be carried out over a period of time and address issues which mother herself is as yet unable to recognise the timescale for any intervention to produce any meaningful result will, I find, be outside the time frame for decisions to be made for E. E needs security and certainty now. Mother's outbursts during submissions again demonstrated to me her complete inability to grasp the issues of concern in relation to her children.

SO was produced from custody for this hearing. He wishes for E to be returned to mother's care. If that is not possible he would like her to remain in foster care and then be placed with him when he is released on licence from his prison sentence. He denies there was any domestic violence in his relationship with mother. That is completely contrary to the recorded episodes and mother fleeing domestic violence from him when she arrived in Sheffield. He has a conviction for domestic violence against a former partner. He has a number of convictions for violence including robbery with an imitation firearm (an offence he denied in evidence in this court). If E could not be placed with mother his proposal that she remain in foster care pending his release and then be placed with him is entirely speculative. No assessment can be carried out with him given his present incarceration. He has shown little if no commitment to E since the separation although said in evidence that E had visited him in prison. He does not acknowledge that she suffered any harm whilst in his care.

In evidence he said he was a changed man. He said he had changed in his mind and he was going to leave his life of crime behind him. His demeanour when giving evidence did not give me any optimism that this was the case. He was hostile and almost threatening across the courtroom towards Ms Ashmore when describing her visit to him in prison. He accused her of duping him into signing the consent for medical examinations for adoption and implied she had dishonestly covered up the heading on the appropriate forms. I am completely satisfied that Ms Ashmore acted entirely appropriately in her interaction with SO – I reject completely his accusation that she duped him. The Local Authority have acted entirely appropriately towards SO. No assessment could have been carried out given his incarceration. He said I would have to take his word for it that he was a changed man and would no longer commit crime. I find it difficult to take his word for that given his substantial history of committing offences and his behaviour towards the social worker in my court room. He tried to say he had brought his sons up but it then became clear from his record that during that time he had been subject to a substantial custodial sentence.

The Guardian, Michael Ellis, an experienced Guardian supports the Local Authority's application for care orders and in the case of E a placement order. He notes in his report that J and E have suffered significant harm caused by mother's chaotic lifestyle involving the use of alcohol and illicit drugs and she has entered into a number of abusive relationships that have been harmful to the children who have both witnessed domestic violence.

The Guardian notes that there is a body of evidence that mother has failed to even meet the children's basic needs. During contact it is reported that mother attempted to cook frozen fish and chips in a microwave, she failed to register the children with a dentist, E only attended 2 out of 8 Opthalmic appointments and mother struggled during contact to keep both children engaged and could not manage the demands of both children. She may well struggle to provide emotional warmth to J, he says.

He is concerned by mother's inability to recognise the risk that MG poses and does not appreciate the emotional damage domestic violence can have on the children. She has not been able to provide the children with stability. They have had multiple house moves and as far as J is concerned, multiple carers.

The Guardian has sought the wishes and feelings of the children. J wants to return to his mother's care. E is really too young to express her wish but clearly loves her mother and enjoys contact with her.

The Guardian concludes that any timescale for mother to access therapy and change coupled with an uncertain prognosis would not be in the children's best interests and long term plans need to be put in place without delay. The Guardian expressed his concern with mother's stance in seeking only the return of E as she had said that she accepts she would not be able to care for both children. The Guardian thinks, quite rightly, in my view, that scenario would have a devastating effect upon J who is under the impression that his mother's wish for reunification is as strong as his. The Guardian sums up his view of mother thus: Mother has not evidenced that she is able to care for the children safely. Neither of the children's fathers can offer safe care.

Through their advocates mother and both fathers accept in general terms that the Threshold Criteria are met but do not accept all the matters contained in the Local Authority's draft Threshold Criteria. I therefore have to make findings. Having considered all the evidence in this case I have no hesitation in finding that the Threshold Criteria are met in the terms set out in the Local Authority's draft threshold and without the qualifications sought on behalf of mother namely,

Threshold Criteria

_______________________________________

At the time the applicant local authority instigated protective measures in respect of the children, J a boy born 04 October, 2002 and E, a girl born 30 November 2009, the court finds that the children were suffering and at risk of suffering significant harm in the form of neglect, physical and emotional harm, and such harm or risk of harm was attributable to the care given and likely to be given to the children, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them.

In particular:

J has been the subject of child protection measures for the majority of his life. Whilst living in (another area) he was placed in foster care on two occasions and was the subject of police protection plans on two further occasions. As such, his mother failed to provide a stable home environment for J.

Both J and E have been exposed to the effects of domestic violence throughout their lives. The Respondent mother has formed three significant relationships during the children's lives which have all featured domestic violence and drug use. The mother acknowledges that the children have all witnessed violent behaviour. The children have therefore been exposed to the risk of being physically harmed.

J and E have experienced instability and chaos throughout their lives. The mother has struggled to manage some of the J's challenging behaviours. The mother failed to ensure that J was taken to all his CAMHS appointments (he attended only 3 of 8) although one of these sessions was cancelled by CAMHS and this is the reason why it did not go ahead.

The Respondent mother concealed information of her lifestyle and relationships from professionals. She failed to make herself regularly available for appointments with the social worker and threatened the social worker when confronted with the possibility of legal advice being sought.

The Respondent mother has a history of drug misuse which compromised her ability to properly care for the children and place their needs above hers. The Respondent mother tested positively for the use of crack cocaine twice in a period of two years.

The Respondent mother formed a relationship with MG, who has a history of drug misuse and is a person posing risk. He is known to have been violent to his former female partners and has served a custodial sentence for assaulting a previous partner in the presence of their child. She chose to remain in that relationship despite being made aware of the high risks he posed to her and the children.

J was reported to be withdrawn and sad by his school teacher. He played truant from school on 19 November, 2014 and was discovered by the police on the M1 trying to leave Sheffield in order to walk to his Aunt's home in Dronfield.

Having found the Threshold Criteria are met I turn to the welfare checklist and this being an application for placement in respect of E in her case I use the checklist at section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002

(a) the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision (considered in the light of the child's age and understanding),

I accept that J loves and has expressed a wish to live with his mother. E loves her mother and enjoys contact. Of course she is still only very young but I accept she would wish to live with her mother if it was safe to do so.

(b) the child's particular needs,

Both children's overwhelming need is for stability, security, love and consistency with a permanent carer.

(c) the likely effect on the child (throughout her life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person,

E has a loving relationship with her mother. She would, of course, cease to be a member of her birth family if she were adopted and she is of an age and understanding to know what her family background is. Life story work and an ongoing relationship with her brother, J, be that through direct or indirect contact would be vital to assist her understanding of her situation.

(d) the child's age, sex, background and any of the child's characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant,

J is a confused child who has experienced great instability in his life.

E is described as an engaging little girl.

(e) any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering,

J and E have suffered serious emotional and psychological harm as I have found. They are at substantial risk of suffering harm in the future as a result of their mother's inability to prioritise their needs.

(f) the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including—

(i) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so,

(ii) 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 to meet the child's needs,

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

Mother loves E and E clearly loves her mother. E's father has not had recent contact with her but he has taken an active part in these proceedings. E and J have a sibling bond although there have been some difficulties in that relationship resulting in them having separate contact with their mother. Unfortunately neither of E's parents have been able to provide her with a secure environment in which she can develop and her needs can fully be met. There are no other family members who can offer her the care that she needs.

The Balancing exercise in respect of the alternative options open to the court