England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN HULL
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF AB

		28 May 2015

Draft JUDGMENT

1. I am dealing with two applications in relation to AB who was born in 2013 and is 2 years old. He is the son of ZX (the father) and ZA (the mother). The mother, supported by the father, has made an application to discharge the care order that AB is subject to. The LA has applied for a placement order for AB.
2. The parents obviously oppose the LA application and the basis of their application is that AB should be placed in their care. The Children's Guardian, Ms Hardy appointed on behalf of AB supports the LA application and agrees that a placement order is the most appropriate order for him. I note that Ms Hardy was appointed as Children's Guardian in the original care proceedings for AB.
3. The parents between them have three other children, RW who is the son of the father by a former relationship, and KE who is the son of the mother. They also have an older daughter, LB who is the full sibling of AB.
4. Sadly, the parents have been through court proceedings in respect of all of their older children and have not been able to demonstrate an ability to care for any of them. I have had the opportunity of considering the judgement of HHJ Jack from December 2011 when he was considering the situation for LB. I see that he acknowledged that the parents had indeed made some progress by that time, but sadly he concluded that there was not sufficient progress to enable LB to be placed with them.
5. The concerns relating to the parents' care of the children can be summarized as risks relating to domestic violence, lack of supervision and failure to provide adequate food for the children. Expert assessments during these proceedings were not sufficiently positive to demonstrate relevant and sustainable change. LB was made the subject of Care and Placement Orders on 15^th December 2011.
6. Given this background, the LA understandably was involved from the beginning with AB and he was placed with foster carers on his discharge from hospital immediately following his birth. Care proceedings were commenced and updated assessments of the parents were undertaken.
7. Dr Parsons, who had assessed the mother in the previous proceedings, provided an update in the care proceedings relating to AB. This report was dated June 2013. in his summary, Dr Parsons says of mother

"at a fundamental level [the mother] continues to not fully accept the concerns as stated in the papers both in terms of the current concerns and the past concerns. Although she vocalises an understanding and over the three year period that I have had professional contact with [her] this verbalisation shows increasing sophistication and apparent understanding. It is not matched by any significant behaviour change. In my view the strongest evidence for the lack of behavioural change is a continued lack of openness and honesty. In my opinion therefore although there is no fundamental reason why [she] should not be able to care for a child in my view she is unlikely in fact to have effected any significant change and particularly if [the father] is found to pose any risk to a child in his care in my opinion [the mother] would not be able to protect a child in the couples joint care from [the father]."

8. Dr Parsons repeated his previous recommendation that he had made in an earlier report that the mother would benefit from attending the Freedom Programme to address issues of domestic violence. He also noted that the mother would continue to have significant difficulty in being open and honest with professionals and notes that there have been 3 separate occasions when the mother had failed to be honest with him whilst he was conducting his assessments. Due to this concern, he noted that it "would be extremely difficult if not indeed impossible for professionals working with [the mother] to ascertain whether she is in fact presenting in an open, honest and constructive manner…In my view this would make it extremely difficult to judge whether any apparent change in attitudes or behaviours demonstrated by the [the mother] were in fact real changes or simply presented in order to try to manipulate the professionals assessing her at the time".

It is clear from this report that he was not optimistic about the mother's prospects of providing good enough care for AB.

9. An updated assessment of the father was prepared in June 2013 by Dr Lilley, Consultant Clinical Psychologist (again, she had been involved in the previous assessment of father). This was a more positive assessment and notes that he has made progress in respect of the effect of past traumatic experiences. He presented as feeling less inadequate, anxious and insecure. He was less defensive and more able to manage difficulties and conflicts in a more emotionally mature way. This progress she felt would enable him to engage with the professionals around him in an open, honest and more constructive way. She felt that he was motivated be able to parent his son. She felt that he would (in accordance with her previous recommendations) still benefit from therapy but did not see this as a prerequisite to AB being placed with him.
10. She does however add a note of caution at the end of her report when she observes,

"his progress thus far is encouraging. However, as stated above, how he is able to transfer this development to his actual parenting would need to be confirmed by current guidance, assistance and monitoring and assessment of his parenting with AB".

11. Whilst the final care order approving a plan for AB to be placed with his parents was approved by the court in September 2013, AB was not placed with his parents until January 2014 after an extended period of increased contact. The Guardian sets out in her report for these proceedings that the delay was a result of ongoing concerns in relation to the home conditions of the parents and then allegations in relation to Cannabis use (unsubstantiated). The foster carer had also been concerned about what AB had been given to eat and his appearance being "grubby".
12. It is clear from the Guardian's final report in the care proceedings which is dated September 2013, that the rehabilitation of AB to his parents care was not in her view, without risks. She notes the emergency looked after children's meeting held on the 16^th August 2013 to consider concerns about poor home conditions and that the home conditions at that time were not good enough for AB to be placed with his parents. The parents were provided with a cleaning schedule. They indicated that the reason for the deterioration in home conditions was due to the father's work. This did raise a concern for the Guardian given that the parents had known the plan for rehabilitation since the end of June and given the concerns that had been identified in relation to their older children. She states in her report "I cannot emphasise enough the importance of prioritising this and working openly with the LA to be able to provide a safe home for AB".
13. Whilst cautious, the Guardian did support the plan for AB to be rehabilitated to his parents care under a care order and as I have already indicated in this judgement, this plan was approved by the court on the 6^th September 2013. Sadly, rehabilitation did not actually take place until January 2014.
14. Within 2 months of AB being rehabilitated to his parents care, the LA wrote to the parents to set out their concerns about the care being given to AB. I have had sight of the letter that was sent. It sets out concerns relating to poor and unsafe home conditions, concerns in relation to the parenting capacity of the parents, in particular their failure to take responsibility for matters, potential drug paraphernalia seen in the home, aggressive and defensive behaviour demonstrated by both parents, mothers disengagement with DVAP/the Freedom Programme (which had been a requirement on which AB's return was based), the fact that mother was the sole carer when the rehabilitation had been on the basis that mother could only care with support of father and a general deterioration in their level of cooperation and engagement with professionals. A list of expectations was set out in the letter for the future conduct of the parents.
15. Following this letter being sent a meeting was held with the parents (and their legal representatives) on the 12.3.14 to discuss these concerns. Unfortunately, these steps did not resolve matters and the minutes of the LAC reviews held in August and September 2014 record the ongoing concerns about home conditions, particularly the home being dirty, safety hazards and the smokiness in the home (which was an ongoing concern due to the obvious impact on AB who had been prescribed an inhaler); ongoing concerns in relation the parents lack of engagement with the Children's centre and specific workshops which had been missed; concerns raised by the Health visitor regarding AB's presentation; concerns were also raised in respect of the parents own presentation in July of that year. In addition father was noted to be rarely at home when the support worker attended to meet with the parents and lots of appointments had been missed. The September review reached the conclusion that the parents had been unable to demonstrate that they could meet AB's needs consistently and the plan was for AB to be removed from his parents care and placed with foster carers. AB was indeed removed from the parents care on 22^nd September 2014.
16. Following his removal from his parents care, AB was noted to have a blister on his finger which when seen by a doctor, was felt on balance to be a burn. The social workers who were involved in removing AB from his parents' care each gave statements setting out how the injury had been noted whilst in the car travelling to the foster carers' home. An immediate appointment was made with the GP for the blister to be examined and he concluded that it appeared to be a burn. No explanation was forthcoming from the parents who initially argued that it must have been caused whilst AB was in the care of the social workers. They have however reflected on this and today do not seek to challenge the finding that the LA seek that the AB sustained a burn whilst in the care of his parents and that this was likely to have been as a result of inadequate supervision.
17. It is important at this stage to set out a brief chronology of these proceedings. AB was removed from his parents care on the 22.9.14. The LA lodged its application for a placement order at the end of October 2014. The mother had actually already filed her application to discharge the care order and this is recorded as having been issued on the 19^th September 2014. I dealt with this matter at an initial hearing and raised concern that AB had been removed when the parents' solicitors had given clear notification of an intention to lodge an application to discharge the care order. I directed that the LA file a chronology as to their knowledge of the imminent application from the mother. The evidence was that whilst the LA knew that such an application was proposed, none had been received. It is unfortunate that enquiries were not made of the parents' solicitors or of the court as to whether an application was imminent before AB was actually removed. If the court had been able to consider matters before he was removed, the nature of the evidence in relation to the risks to AB could have been assessed to see whether an immediate removal was indeed warranted. As it was, I was presented with a fait accompli as AB had already been removed and placed in foster care. Fortunately for AB, his former foster carers were able to care for him. However, I do not underestimate how harmful removal will have been for AB given the disruption in his early months and the fact that on all accounts he appeared to be settled and well bonded in his parents care.
18. Following on from this initial consideration, I gave directions for the case to be timetabled through to a final determination to consider the options for AB. This hearing was listed on the 16^th and 17^th December 2014. Unfortunately, this hearing had to be adjourned, as the father had been unable to secure public funding to enable him to be represented. The case was therefore adjourned to a second final hearing date of the 18^th and 19^th February 2015. The order of the 18^th February records that the case could not proceed at that time as the father had made an application to adjourn the matter to enable the CPN to be called to give evidence as a report from her had been filed only the day before. The case was then adjourned until March for me to deal with. I set this out in order to show the reasons for the delay in determining these proceedings but also to show that the parties have now on 2 previous occasions had the opportunity to prepare this case for trial and to see what further evidence may be required. I note that the order of the 5 November required the parents to notify the LA of the witnesses that were required by no later than the 28^th November 2014. This direction was repeated in the order of the 15^th December 2014.
19. A final hearing commenced on the 17^th March and no issues were raised at the outset by any of the parties in relation to any potential problems with the evidence.
20. During the course of that hearing, I heard evidence from the current allocated social worker, Ms Tomblin. She only took over this case in September 2014 and therefore was not able to give direct evidence on matters that preceded that date. She was only able to comment on what had been recorded on the case files.
21. When the mother gave her evidence, it was apparent that she challenged almost all of the previous social work records. More importantly, during the course of her oral evidence she referred to work done with her by Janine Potts, who was a family support worker. The mother claimed that there was a statement from Ms Potts that had been given to her solicitors and that Ms Potts had been visiting the family on a daily basis until April 2013. She argued that if matters were as bad as the LA alleged, then surely, Ms Potts would have raised such issues. This was clearly an important and valid point. Mother was stating that an LA employee had actually been visiting the family on a very regular basis through a critical time when the LA was alleging that the home conditions had deteriorated, yet there had been no reference to her in the social worker evidence. I should add however that the difficulty does not rest solely with the LA, the parents had also failed to mention the work done by Ms Potts despite between them having filed 9 statements between them and despite the mother having given to her solicitors a report from Ms Potts summarising her involvement. This had not been filed or referred to in any of the statements. Ms Potts' evidence was clearly important and I asked the LA to make enquiries. I received information that she was currently off sick but her file records would be obtained and provided.
22. Those records were provided to me the following morning. They revealed extensive involvement of Ms Potts and also of Emma Green from the children's centre. Some 200 unpaginated pages were received on the morning of the 3^rd day of this final hearing. It was apparent that these notes were of great significance, as they appeared to record some real positives in the parents care as well as some serious concerns.
23. On the 19^th March I was perhaps unsurprisingly faced with an application on behalf of the child to adjourn the proceedings to enable proper evidence to be obtained from these 2 witnesses. The Guardian and the child's solicitor had reflected overnight on the evidence that was now before the court and on the Judgment of the President in the case of Re A (a child) Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWFC 11:-

"Of course the court can act on the basis of evidence that is hearsay. But direct evidence from those who can speak to what they have themselves seen and heard is more compelling and less open to cross-examination. Too often far too much time is taken up by cross-examination directed to little more than demonstrating that no-one giving evidence in court is able to speak of their own knowledge, and that all are dependent on the assumed accuracy of what is recorded, sometimes at third or fourth hand, in the LA's files."

24. She and the solicitor for AB now felt that in the interests of justice and given the seriousness of the issues that the court was being asked to determine, an adjournment was unavoidable. The parents representatives agreed and the LA did not feel in a position to argue with this. I also with a heavy heart agreed.
25. I queried whether the Guardian had considered the LA records and seen the significant involvement of these other workers. I was told that the guidance from Cafcass, in line with proportionate working, is that LA files will only be inspected if it is necessary. Sadly, in this case I think it was. I also made it clear to the LA that in my view the Presidents guidance, whilst helpfully sending out a clear message, is not new law. It is always for the LA to prove its case and it must do so on the best evidence available. It is unfortunate that no-one within the LA took a step back to assess what case it was trying to prove and what evidence there was to support such a case and then what witnesses could give that evidence. For example, a large plank of the LA case is that the home conditions were frequently dirty and cluttered and that the home was very smoky and smelly. Ms Tomblin had only visited on one occasion prior to AB's removal and what she observed on that date whilst raising some issues, was not the picture that had been recorded by others of a home situation that was unsafe and unsuitable. Thought should have been given to what evidence she would actually be able to assist the court with and whether there were others who were able to give more direct evidence of the matters that the LA was seeking to prove.
26. This became even more stark when I was told at the resumed hearing of this matter that the LA had actually obtained a statement from Emma Green who was heavily involved with the family at the relevant time and who's evidence was highly relevant, but for some inexplicable reason this had not formed part of the bundle, nor had it been served on the other parties.
27. I reminded all of the representatives, that I saw a collective responsibility between them to consider the evidence that it was proposed the court would be asked to consider and whether further evidence was needed, whether to support a party's case or to enable an effective challenge and to alert the Judge to the fact that there may be evidential difficulties. Applications can be made on short notice and consideration could have been given to whether further witness evidence was necessary. It is disappointing that the parties have held a number of advocates meeting and as I have already said, the case has been listed for final hearing previously, yet these matters have never been raised. Nevertheless, the parents' right to a fair trial undoubtedly required them to have the opportunity to see direct evidence and to have the ability to challenge such evidence. Inevitably therefore a further adjournment was necessary. I was also concerned that there should be no abuse of process and that the matter needed to be heard as soon as possible and therefore directed that the final hearing would be adjourned to commence afresh. I directed that the LA file evidence from those professionals who had been involved with the family during the rehabilitation period, specifically the Family Support workers and the Health Visitor. These documents have now been filed and all parties have had the chance to consider and respond to them. The parents have filed a further statement in which they perhaps go a little further in acknowledging some of the concerns.
28. The final hearing was relisted to commence on the 14^th April 2015. This hearing was unable to proceed on that date due to the mother having become seriously unwell and requiring emergency surgery. The proceedings were therefore further adjourned until the 6^th May with a time estimate of 3 days.
29. With this background set out then, the issues for me to determine are whether the LA is able to satisfy me that the concerns that they identify in the care that the parents gave to AB were sufficient to justify the decision to remove AB under the care order that the LA held, in September of 2014 and whether these issues create such a risk for AB's care in the future that they justify the LA change of plan to one of adoption. In the alternative, can the care order be discharged and AB returned to his parents care?

The evidence

30. In summary the concerns identified by the LA are:-

• potential drug paraphernalia observed at the parents property on 2 occasions

• Mother failing to engage with DVAP and the freedom programme

• the lack of involvement of the father in AB's care

• outstanding therapy for the father

• concerns re the father's mental health

• parents responding aggressively/defensively to challenge

• a decline in the parents engagement with agencies whose role was to support them in their care of AB

• the amount of smoke in the home of the parents and AB

• risks within the household including objects left in AB's reach and electric wires being within his reach

• dirty, smelly and unhygienic home conditions

• the parents and AB presenting as dirty and with an unpleasant odour

• father testing positive for cocaine in October 2014 and subsequently failing to fully engage with hair strand testing

31. There was quite rightly an acknowledgement by the LA at the outset of this hearing that the parents have shown a real commitmnent to attending contact and that the quality of that contact is good. All of the professionals tell me that AB seems happy in his parents company and that they show a real delight in their son. I have considered the three bundles of evidence filed for these current proceedings and have also had the opportunity to consider the two bundles of papers filed for the care proceedings. I have also considered the helpful written submissions filed by all parties.
32. The first witness I heard from was the health visitor for the family following AB's rehabilitation to his parents care, Julie Allen. She worked with the family for a period of 9 months. She had filed a lengthy statement dated 25^th March 2015, which set out her involvement with the family and details of her visits. I found her written evidence and her oral evidence to be very impressive. She was balanced in her approach and was quick to highlight and acknowledge the positives that theses parents undoubtedly have in terms of their ability to care for AB. She confirmed without hesitation in her oral evidence that AB was indeed thriving in developmental terms and that the mother in particular had been able to demonstrate appropriate play and stimulation for AB age appropriate toys had been provided. Good interaction and emotional warmth was noted with AB. The mother had engaged well with the health visiting team and was responsive to ideas and suggestions.
33. However, she also detailed a number of concerns in her evidence. Some of these concerns in themselves were relatively minor and on their own would certainly not have lead to a placement application, for example the parents' ability to maintain routines for AB and whether or not he was receiving a balanced diet. The issue of whether the parents had a smoke alarm in the property did not appear to be an issue for her, nor is it for me. There were ongoing concerns raised by Ms Allen and her colleague in terms of clutter around the house, which could pose a hazard to AB who was becoming mobile and concerns about AB being left to sleep on the sofa. However, a number of concerns were identified by Ms Allen as more serious. She described ingrained dirt in the carpets and skirting boards and described that whilst the parents were able to carry out a superficial clean, the home was in need of a much deeper clean. This was a particular concern to her as AB had a long bout of diarrhoea and sickness – lasting some 4 weeks intermittently. Ms Allen told me about the need to keep AB's belongings and home clean and hygienic to prevent recurrence. Ms Allen was concerned that following AB's rehabilitation to his parents care in January 2013, his weight dropped from the 75% to the 50% centile and he did not gain any weight in the first two months following his return. She felt that the unhygienic home conditions could have contributed to this; her conclusion reports overall the home conditions remained poor.
34. The issue of smoke in the home was a concern graphically highlighted by Ms Allen who described a visit on the 1^st May 2014. On entering the living room Ms Allen described being able to see a visible cloud of smoke surrounding the father and AB. AB was asleep on the sofa and had been unwell for some time by this point. Ms Allen described the room as "so smoke entrenched that I had difficulty breathing". She immediately expressed concern to the parents as to the impact of such smoke on AB who had already been prescribed an inhaler within the previous month to help his breathing. The parents seemed unable both at that stage and when the issue of smoking around AB was raised by any other professional, to acknowledge or appreciate the concern and adapt their behaviour. Ms Allen in her oral evidence told me that there were two occasions when the smoke was at such a level. She had not come across such a smoky house in many years (she has been a health visitor for 10 years) and never with such a poorly boy sleeping amidst the smoke.
35. A further risk that Ms Allen documents is the issue of trailing wires which she described as being a strangulations risk, running across the room directly over AB's toybox. It was put to her in cross-examination that she was perhaps exaggerating in describing this as a strangulation risk but she was very clear on this point. She showed clear frustration and exasperation as to why the parents did not address and rectify this issue, describing that it took them some 8 weeks to remove this risk. She described how they were clearly capable of addressing risks when they were identified as they had dealt with a similar concern in their previous home. She described that all it would have taken to make the wires safe was to buy some inexpensive tacks to secure the wires to the wall.
36. Overall Ms Allen described parents who have the capabilities to meet AB's needs but are simply unable to maintain a consistent good enough level of care. I found her evidence to be extremely compelling and accept her observations and conclusions without any hesitation.
37. The next witness I heard from was Emma Green. She is a community Nursery nurse whose role was to work with the parents on planning routines in the home (including cleaning and housework routines), home safety issues, managing AB's development and planning for future stages, healthy eating, budgeting and personal care of an infant. She took over the work that Janine Potts had already undertaken with the family with a view to continuing and reinforcing the work already completed. She worked with the family from 19^th December 2013, dovetailing with Janine Potts who was still involved with the family until February 2014.
38. Ms Green explained that she was also responsible for the running of the family links programme which she explained was to assist parents in developing strategies for dealing with their children through different stages of development. In addition she facilitated work with the Kingsway centre where she was based to offer play sessions for the mother and AB and to arrange for the parents to attend a safety workshop to look at making their home safe. She told me that whilst the mother herself had requested that she be able to attend the family links programme, she actually only attended 4 out of the 10 sessions. Ms Green explained that it was stressed to parents at the outset how important it was to attend each session as they built on the parents understanding on a progressive basis.
39. A play session was arranged for the mother and AB to attend every Wednesday. Ms Green explained that this was seen as important for AB and his mother to enable them both to socialise and also to encourage AB's development. Of a possible 28 sessions they attended only 6.
40. The safety workshop arranged for the 8^th April was cancelled, as AB was unwell. A further 3 sessions were arranged for the parents to attend. These were bespoke workshops arranged exclusively for these parents. They failed to attend these in June, July and September 2014.
41. In addition to the work at the centre, Ms Green also supported the parents in their home, visiting on 22 occasions during her period of involvement. She repeated observations of other professionals that on occasions the home conditions were dirty and untidy. One example was that on the 30^th July 2014 she visited the property and noted "a decline in cleanliness and general tidiness". She describes that the floor was dirty and cluttered with general rubbish such as nappies, empty cigarette packets, bits of paper and food as well as AB's toys and clumps of dog hair". She described the mother' feet as appearing sticky and black with fur and other bits of dust sticking to the base of the foot. She also records that the home often smelt very strongly of smoke.
42. Ms Green records times when the mother engaged well and when the home conditions were good, but again records the inconsistencies observed by other professionals. I found Ms Green to give balanced and fair evidence in terms of her work and her own observations.
43. Steven Runnacles also gave evidence to me. He has been the team manager through the care proceedings, the rehabilitation period and these current proceedings. He has had an overview of AB's case and the progress made by the parents. Whilst he accepted readily that following AB's birth, the LA did not believe that the parents would be able to care following on from the pre birth assessment, they accepted the views of the experts and the LA itself proposed the rehabilitation plan. Mr. Runnacles was clear in rejecting any suggestion that the parents had been "set up to fail". He gave evidence about how positive the initial feedback from Janine Potts was at to the progress the parents were making. He was impressed with the way that they acknowledged things and appeared to be open and honest.
44. He explained why it had been such a concern when the parents stopped attending groups such as the family links course. AB was on a final care order and the LA shared parental responsibility for him. Part of the purpose of the regular group or training course activities was to enable AB to be seen by professionals to ensure his well-being and identify any problems as soon as possible in order to address them. He told me how concerned he had been when Janine Potts reported that the mother' attitude appeared to be changing.
45. He accepted that he had agreed with the mother that she could prioritise attending groups with AB at the Children Centre instead of the Freedom project. He explained that he agreed that whilst she was getting used to AB being at home with her he was content that the Family centre attendances should be given priority.
46. He explained that he was concerned about AB's weight loss and about the inconsistencies in the home conditions, which he described as quite a typical pattern in neglect cases. There was a suggestion made by Counsel for the mother that the LA have overreacted in this case in order to facilitate an adoption of AB by a relative of his current foster carers. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case and I reject such a suggestion. I found Mr. Runnacles to be sincere in his initial optimism that the parents would succeed.
47. The next witness I heard from was Janine Potts. She is a community nursery nurse. She offered the family intense parenting support on a 1:1 basis from August 2013-February 2014. She had filed a very detailed statement detailing her involvement, which was indeed intense (the mother describes that Ms Potts was there almost all day every day, sometimes only going home to sleep). When she first visited the family home, she describes conditions that I would term as "squalid" with a strong odour of cat urine, damp and cigarettes. The parents were themselves unclean with dirty clothes and body odour. The bathroom was filthy, and in her words "extremely unhygienic". The smell in one of the rooms caused Ms Potts to gag and cough. It is clear that the parents at this stage were barely managing to look after themselves. The work that Ms Potts did began at the most basic level of teaching the parents about appropriate cleaning products and cleaning rotas. The parents responded well to this support, advice and improvements were quickly noted, and contact was able to progress. Ms Potts records very positive observations of the mother and AB and the strong bond that developed between them. Ms Potts worked on routines with the mother to set up a good morning routine.
48. Ms Potts whilst noting the progress also records a number of occasions when she visits the family home and there has been deterioration in the home conditions. In summary Ms Potts records that she has worked with the parents for 27 weeks, modeling positive parenting for them. She records good progress generally throughout this time. However, shortly prior to AB's return home Ms Potts became concerned that the mother was perhaps "disengaging" from the support services. She records on the 23^rd January 2014 that there has been a change in the mother's behaviour and in her oral evidence, she described how she had noted a change in the way that the mother responded to her on the very day that AB was retuning home. She described that the mother had always been welcoming and receptive to advice and whilst she was not refused access, she found it very surprising that the mother had not invited her into the home. She had been unavailable for support in making sure the home was ready due to working commitments she had taken on. She described deterioration in the home conditions and records that there were dirty cups, full ashtrays and that the home had an unpleasant odour. Ms Potts reports that she found a hard piece of plastic in AB's cot, which she pointed out to the parents, was a choking hazard. Both parents deny that such an object was found although the mother on reflection amended this answer to say that she could not recall the plastic being found.
49. Ms Potts was quick to concede in cross-examination that in all families that she works with there will be highs and lows and that progress my not be entirely consistent. She could not really suggest any further work that could be done by her or a similar service to model and teach the parents new skills as such work has already been extensively undertaken.
50. Again, I found Ms Potts to be very balanced in her approach and was left with the very clear impression that she was desperately keen for these parents to succeed and to maintain the progress that they had achieved. I note however, her perhaps poignant note of caution in her closing summary that she remained concerned "that both parents will be unable to continue with the upkeep of the home and attend the children's centre sessions without the intense support".
51. Sarah Tomblin was the next witness. She is the current allocated social worker. She only took over responsibility for this case in September 2014 and is therefore largely reliant in terms of the period when AB was living with his parents, on the records maintained by her colleague Laura Gill. Ms Tomblin had filed a number of statements. She records the concerns that are detailed in the case files of her colleague Laura Gill that I will address later in this judgment. She herself does record her own observations that when she attended at the family home to collect AB on the 22 September 2014, he was dressed in dirty clothes with food stains on them. The hallway of the home smelt heavily of smoke, as did AB's toys and clothing. His hands, nails and feet are described by her as being very dirty and his shoes were too small.
52. She was also able to describe the injury to his finger. Given that the parents no longer seek to assert that this injury occurred whilst AB was in the care of 2 social workers, I do not need to resolve this issue.
53. Ms Tomblin had also filed a detailed statement in respect of her discussions and meeting with DZ. DZ is the sister of the mother. She herself has had a difficult background and has been a child in care. She has an allocated leaving care worker. In August of 2014, there are file recordings by her worker of concerns raised by DZ about the care given to her nephew AB. Some of the concerns she raised are similar to the concerns noted by the professionals and recorded in the letters of expectations to the parents. The matter was not taken further at that stage. However, DZ then attended at the offices of Ms Tomblin accompanied by her own mother. She gave a detailed account of her concerns about the care that was being given to AB by his parents. She agreed to return to the offices of Ms Tomblin to prepare a statement. She did return, this time accompanied by her leaving care worker. However, at a subsequent visit, she declined to sign the statement as she felt that these could not be put in a position of giving evidence court against her sister. I have sympathy for her in this respect. It has no doubt caused a significant family rift that she has been prepared to given information to the social worker that is clearly contrary to her sisters inters. I have read a statement from Mrs. ZA who is the grandmother of the mother and DZ. She told me that DZ was a renowned liar and that I could not rely on anything she says.
54. DZ could be reporting behaviour and concerns that she has witnessed. However, it could be that she is aware of or has seen the letters rather than actually witnessed the events. Whilst I am able to take into account hearsay evidence, in this case I have placed no reliance on anything recorded in Ms Tomblin's statement in relation to DZ's allegations. The parents cannot challenge what is said in that evidence and the mother describes a poor relationship with her sister. It is clear that the family dynamics are difficult and I think that it would be simply too unfair for weight to be given to DZ's allegations.
55. However, as I have already referred to in this judgment, Laura Gill was the allocated social worker for the relevant period shortly prior to and following AB's rehabilitation to his parents care. As she is now on maternity leave, there is no statement from her. She was responsible for number of file recordings, had been present at, and is referred to in minutes of some relevant meetings. Whilst, as I did with DZ's allegations, considered the unfairness to the parents of taking into account evidence that they are unable to challenge as the author of those recordings is unable to attend court, I have given greater weigh to the recordings of Laura Gill. The reason for her non-attendance is a valid and reasonable reason, she is on maternity leave. I do not accept any suggestion that Laura Gill may have had a personal axe to grind or been motivated to make false allegations against these parents. I do not treat her evidence as proving any particular fact but have found it to be corroborative of a number of evidential issues in terms of the state of the home and the levels of smoke in the home. Therefore, I have treated this evidence as being capable of providing corroboration.
56. At the first effective final hearing of this matter, I heard evidence from Adele Hurson who was the CPN who met with the father as part of an initial assessment. In order to avoid her attending court again, it was agreed that a transcript of her evidence would form part of the evidence for this further final hearing. She had seen the father as part of her role in assessing people at a single point of access. She had considered that the father would benefit from psychological intervention at a secondary care level, i.e. he needed more long-term intervention than the time limited session that the improving access to psychological therapies could provided. This is not an issue between the parties as the father has accepted the recommendation from Dr Lilley that he needed longer-term therapeutic work and has indeed begun this work.
57. The mother was the next witness. She has filed six statements, which I have considered with great care. In addition, attached to one of her statements are a number of photographs of herself, the father, AB, and their home and of AB playing in the park. These photos are lovely and show a clean home and a clearly contented child.
58. They also show the efforts that went into AB's 1^st birthday party which I have no doubt was a fun filled day with lots of nice food and clean and appropriate conditions. It is apparent to me from all that I have read and seen that these parents love AB very much and are capable of caring for AB and for their home to at least a good enough standard.
59. The mother in her written and her oral evidence, disputes many of the recordings of the professionals in relation to the home conditions and to the levels of smoke in the home. She tells me in her statement "my home at X Avenue was always clean and there were no concerns about the care given to AB".
60. In the same statement, she tells me "we did not smoke n the house…only occasionally we would smoke in the kitchen with the window wide open if AB was in the room". She goes on to say, "I have been paranoid about the cleanliness of the floors and make sure that these are steam cleaned at least twice a day".
61. In her later statement, she perhaps acknowledges a little more in relation to the concerns identified by the LA. In this statement she does not recall there being full ashtrays it the house but concedes that they could have been brought in from outside.
62. In relation to the concerns raised about wiring in the property presenting a risk to AB (as raised by the health visitor), she acknowledges that there were electrical wires around the edge of the room but that the parents had no control over these as they could not move the electrical supply, without the landlords consent which she told me in oral evidence took a long time to come through. In fact, she later confirmed that the wire in question was the internet connection and could simply be unplugged/disconnected. She attempted to address the problem by making sure that AB understood the danger of the wires and never touched them. I am afraid that such an expectation of a child, who was at this time just over 1 year old, is entirely unrealistic.
63. In terms of the concerns about missed sessions at the children's centre, the mother explained that it was a long way from her home and that it could take 30 minutes to walk there and that it was not reasonable for her to be expected to attend on a cold and wet day.
64. The mother filed a final statement once she had had the opportunity to consider the written evidence of the health visitor, Julie Allen, Emma Green and Janine Potts. In her final statement the mother perhaps acknowledges a little more agreeing that at times her home "may have wanted a clean" but that this is not out of the ordinary for most people. She also details that she had so many people visiting her at home that she felt that she could not keep track of them all. She describes herself as "punch drunk with the amount of people and advice given out to us as a family" In this same statement she accepts that she missed courses that she should have attended and admits that "sometimes she just had the attitude that I did not want to attend and was tired of all that was being asked of me".
65. In her oral evidence, she accepted that she knew that this was the final chance with AB and that the alternative plan was adoption. She also acknowledged that there were occasions when the home was smoky, that the house was sometimes cluttered but never dangerous and was sometimes in need of tidying. She told me that she had been young and immature during the final care proceedings for AB and had needed to grow up. She acknowledged that Janine Potts had given the family lots of help and had been there very day, "the only time that she was not there was on a night time". She told me that she was unable to get the home conditions to a good enough standard any sooner due to the long hours she was working, basically she was working all day then coming home and sleeping. She accepted that she knew that Dr Parsons had recommended that she would benefit from the Freedom programme and that Judge Jack had reiterated this in his judgment in relation to LB. She accepted that she had not been committed to attending and concluding this programme.
66. She did not accept that the home conditions had ever been very poor and her explanation for not attending the courses and activities set up by the LA was that she attended alternative provision with her friend such as baby swimming or a soft play centre. She did not accept when cross-examined by the LA that the home had over been thick with smoke, arguing that if it had been so bad it would have set the smoke alarm off. She did not accept that AB's weight loss was a cause of concern, explaining that the GP had not been worried and had said that it may be because AB was becoming more mobile and active.
67. In terms of the wires, that Julie Allen had described, in her oral evidence the mother told me that there was only one wire behind the TV but in her view there was not way that AB could strangle himself on it. In any event she said, he was always supervised so could not have been at risk. She remained adamant that AB was not neglected or at risk of neglect in her and the father's care and felt that some of the reported concerns were simply an over exaggeration.
68. In respect of the reported drug paraphernalia found at the home, the mother in her statement says that this was crushed paracetamol, which had been crushed by a visitor to the home who was unable to take paracetamol whole. Given the lack of direct first hand evidence from any other witness, I am prepared to accept this account from The mother but am concerned that even on her own account, the presence of crushed paracetamol within reach of AB is in itself a hazard and also demonstrates a lack of appropriate cleaning and tidying within the home where a young toddler is exploring his environment.
69. I am afraid that I found much of the mother's evidence hard to accept. I felt that she either could simply could not accept the concerns of the LA as she did not see their reported concerns as of significance. This is not unusual in cases such as these and is only of importance if that failure to accept concerns actually places the child at risk. I shall consider the impact of the concerns later in this judgment.
70. The father has also filed a number of statements and given oral evidence to me. He has quite rightly conceded a number of problems that he has had, in particular, that he used cocaine in October 2014, a fact that only became known when he was drug tested following his arrest for a suspected burglary. He says that the mother was unaware of his drug use. There was due to be an updated drug test by way of hair strand testing which was ordered by the court. The father had some problems with his public funding and this caused a delay to the hair strand testing. In the meantime, the father had his hair cut and therefore it was not possible to get hair strand testing to cover the period prior to October 2014, as had been intended.
71. The father also acknowledges that he has struggled with his mental health at times. He is now signed off work for a period of 12 months to address his levels of stress and anxiety. I was pleased to read that he is now accessing therapeutic support and I have seen a letter from his therapist Paul O'Connor who is a specialist social worker. The father reported a very positive relationship with Mr. O'Connor and reported that he can call on him whenever he is experiencing anxiety or other difficulties. Mr. O'Connor describes the work as a planned intervention to monitor his current symptoms of depression and anxiety on a fortnightly basis. The father is prescribed citalopram and diazepam. Mr. O'Connor describes that he is building up a therapeutic relationship but is still displaying symptoms relating to anxiety. Mr. O'Conner concludes that in order for the father to engage with any form of psychological therapy he would need to be completely focused with no other distractions.
72. The father has attended all of the contacts on offer, which is a marked improvement on his attendance at contact with LB. I have not doubt, as I have already said, of the love, that the father has for his son.
73. In his oral evidence, the father was extremely candid in acknowledging some of the problems this couple were experiencing. He told me that he was working all the time and literarily did nothing to assist in the home. He told me that he and the mother did not communicate and that he did not know that she was not attending the groups that she was due to attend. In fact, he believed that her inability to keep on top of the housework ion the amount of groups that the mother was attending. He told me that before he undertook the work with Mr. O'Conner his anxiety could be "at one end of the Richter scale to another in an hour" but that now it was much more balanced.
74. He described the involvement of Janine Potts as being like a safety net and as soon as her work was over it was like that net had been taken away. He acknowledged however, that her involvement could not continue indefinitely.
75. He accepted that the rehabilitation plan had to be suspended because his and the mother home conditions were not appropriate for a child to be placed with them.
76. I was struck at his description that in January 2014 (at the time that Janine Potts was concerned about a change in attitude from mother) The father accepted that there had been a change in The mother at this time which he told me was due to her stress levels having increased. He agreed that his happened as soon as AB came home and that there was a coincidental drop in home conditions.
77. He accepted that he and the mother had missed the specific bespoke safety workshops that that been arranged for them. In terms of the home conditions, he told me that he was going around making other peoples homes safe (as a part of his job) and neglecting his own. He accepted that there was thick smoke at the property but did not accept that his could have been the worst that Julie Allen had ever seen.
78. In terms of the reason for his haircut, he explained that he was feeling self conscious that his hair was getting longer and so went out and had it cut to a length of 3 ½ mm. (I note the direction for hair strand testing was made on the 5^th November and the sample was actually taken on the 10^th February 2014).
79. I was struck during the father's evidence of his tendency to be open to suggestion from whoever was asking the question of him. He was very keen to accept responsibility for the deterioration that had occurred prior to and after AB's return, explaining that this was entirely due to his excessive working hours (7 days a week) and the fact that Ms. ZA simply had too much to do in caring for AB, attending the groups she was due to attend and maintaining the home conditions. He felt that the situation would be wholly different now as he is not longer working. I was slightly confused a the latter part of his evidence as he told Ms Buchannan that he had actually stopped working in August and had reduced his working hours at some point before then but this is not reflected in any of his evidence or in the observations of professionals, i.e. there is no marked improvement noticed or greater presence of The father in the professionals recordings.
80. The final witness I heard from was Dawn Hardy who is the Children's Guardian. She was also the Guardian for AB in the original care proceedings. She has filed 2 reports in these proceedings. In her oral evidence she confirmed what is her reports, and her view that the care that AB was receiving from his parents was neglectful. She described neglect as a persistent failure to meet a child's basic physical and/or psychological needs. It is likely to result in serious impairment of the child's health or development. It is not necessarily a single incident but an accumulation of issues, each one individually would not necessarily be considered so serious on its own but the cumulative effect being serious. She was of the clear view that AB would be at risk of suffering neglect if he was returned to the care of his parents.

Judgment

81. In considering the totality of the evidence before me and in particular the parents' response to the concerns and the oral evidence that they have given, I have come to some clear views in respect of the evidence.
82. I find that I prefer the evidence of the health visitor, Julie Allen and the support workers, Emma green and Janine Potts in terms of their observations of the home conditions and I find that the recordings of Laura Gill provide further corroboration of these matters. I find that the home conditions were sometimes extremely dirty, unhygienic, and placed AB at risk of exposure to germs and contracting illness. I further find that he was at risk of sustaining serious injury or possible strangulation through clutter in the home and the failure to deal with unsecured wires. AB himself was exposed to these conditions and his personal care was sometimes inadequate with him being dirty and on occasions smelling of smoke. I find that there were numerous occasion when AB was exposed to excessive levels of smoke in the home that will have had an impact on his health and wellbeing.
83. I find that his weight plateaued when he returned to the care of his parents and that he dropped by one centile on the growth charts. I find that his diarrhoea and general unwellness is likely to have been impacted on by the lack of cleanliness and unhygienic home conditions. When a child is suffering as AB was and there are simultaneous concerns about his lack of weight gain, the advice of the health visitor to maintain hygienic and clean home conditions should have been prioritised.
84. As a general observation, I find that the parents do not accept or follow advice if they do not agree with the advice (both parents disputing the strangulation risk identified by Julie Allen and the risk from cigarette smoke identified by several professionals).
85. I also find that the parents failed to engage fully with the support services that were available and provided for them, in particular the family links programme, the safety workshops, the children's play sessions and freedom programme for the mother. I am afraid that whilst I accept that these parents had a lot going on, these courses and programmes were important and needed to be prioritised, if the mother was to attend, the father had a responsibility to ensure that she was supported and encouraged by him in attending. Even if he was working long hours, he needed to be staying on top of the housework when he returned if the mother had been unable to attend to it during the day. This plan for AB to be cared for by his parents needed these parents to work together and support each other to ensure that AB's needs were fully met.
86. I find that the father struggles in managing his levels of anxiety and that sometimes this can manifest itself in him presenting as aggressive or confrontational, as recorded by the health visitor and the social worker. Whilst I am pleased that the father is now receiving some appropriative assistance with this, it is clear that this is at an early stage of what will be a long therapeutic process. I also find that as a way of managing stress the father has reverted to illicit drug use on at least one occasion and I find that this is an ongoing risk for the future. I find that the communication between the parents was extremely poor with the mother not knowing about the father's heightened stress levels and the fact that he reports he was reducing his anti anxiety medication (I cannot understand why he would be doing that just after AB had been removed from his care) and the father not knowing that the mother was failing to attend the courses and groups that were expected of her.
87. When considering the evidence in relation to the care that AB has received and is likely to receive, I have found it helpful to consider in some detail the documents from the care proceedings and in particular the assessments. I also find that is of real significance that the parents, having achieved their aim of a plan for AB to be placed in their care, were then unable to motivate themselves sufficiently to ensure that the home conditions were suitable for him to be placed. The standard that was needed was simply good enough, I would have thought it would not have been too much of a sacrifice for the parents to stop smoking (or at least to stop smoking in the home) and to ensure that the home was clean and tidy. In addition, I accept that the parents delay in seeking the courses that had been recommended and were to some extent part of the plan for AB to be placed in their care, demonstrates a lack of organisational skills and lack of commitment. Following the court approving a plan for AB to be cared for by his parents, I would have expected the parents' commitment and motivation to be at its very highest.
88. The fact that within weeks of AB being placed with his parents the LA were raising concerns deemed serious enough to address them by way of a formal letter and a meeting with the parents and their lawyers again is very worrying. The parents had finally achieved their goal of being able to care for their son, yet they appeared to have dismissed or disregarded the concerns being raised by the processionals in relation to the home and the care offered to AB and the potential for him to be removed. I would have thought the parents would have done all within their power to ensure that AB was not removed. Again, I repeat that in my view this was not a striving for perfection but a requirement for AB's basic needs to be met. Those basic needs include a need for a home that he could access that was free from hazards and risks.

My approach to the application for a placement order

89. I have considered the case of Re R (A child) Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Civ 1625 in which the President considered how recent case law had developed and been interpreted in relation to consideration of adoption plans for children. He confirmed:-

"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".

90. He also reminded us of Hedley J's observations in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1FLR 2050, para 50: as to the range of parenting that may be acceptable which I think are particularly relevant to this case:-

'Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done'.

91. 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".

92. This echoes what the Strasbourg court said in Y v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 33, [2012] 2 FLR 332, para 134:

"family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to 'rebuild' the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing. However, where the maintenance of family ties would harm the child's health and development, a parent is not entitled under article 8 to insist that such ties be maintained."

93. There are 2 realistic options for AB, that fact is not disputed by any of the parties. He can be rehabilitated to the care of his parents under a supervision order or lesser order, or he can be paced for adoption. Fostering for such a young child is not in my view a realistic option. I have considered the helpful comparisons of adoption and fostering set out by Black LJ in Re V (Children), Re [2013] EWCA Civ 913 . I am clear that AB needs permanent carers that will care for him through into adulthood. There are no alternative family members proposed. Therefore this permanence can only be achieved though rehabilitation to his parents care or through adoption.
94. There are obvious and enormous advantages for AB in being brought up by his birth parents. He would grow up with his family around him, with those that share his genetic stock. As Lord Templeman memorably put it in Re KD (A Minor: Ward) (Termination of Access) [1988] 1 AC 806, at 812,

"The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child's moral and physical health are not in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature."

95. I must balance this against the risks to AB, as I have found and set out above. I recognise that each option has inherent risks. Adoption is not a panacea – adoptive placements are subject to disruption and breakdown. oweverHHowever, research evidence suggests that the risk of placement disruption for a child of AB's age is low.
96. There are obvious psychological risks to the child in not being brought up with his birth family and having the opportunity to have a real sense of "where he came from". I accept that professionally completed life story work is of extreme importance but it can never offer a real alternative to such day to knowledge and understanding.
97. Whilst I am conscious of repetition, adoption really is an option of last resort and should only be ordered if it is the only way in which the child's needs can be satisfactorily met. A placement order can only be made if either the child's parents consent to the order being made or if the court dispenses with the parents' consent. Section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA) provides that the court cannot dispense with a parent's consent unless it is satisfied either that the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or that the welfare of the child requires that the parent's consent be dispensed with.
98. My paramount consideration must be the child's welfare throughout his life. In determining the child's welfare interests I have had regard to each of the factors in the welfare checklist set out in s.1 (4) (ACA).
99. In relation to the application to discharge the care order, I have considered AB's welfare as my paramount consideration and have considered all of the factors set out in S1 (3) Children Act 1989. In particular AB's age and characteristics, the capability of his parents to meet his needs and any harm he has suffered and is at risk of suffering.
100. As I hope I have made clear, my starting point is that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family. The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare.
101. Given the findings that I have made in this judgment when I consider the relevant checklists I find that AB is a child who has experienced significant disruption in his life. He was placed away from his parents for the first 9 months of his life. He then spent 9 months in their care before further change and disruption when he was removed again. It is self evident on these facts that AB needs his next move to be a permanent one and one that should sustain him through his childhood. In my view it would be catastrophic for him to be introduced to a further home with either with his parents or alternative address, and for that placement to break down and AB to have to move again.
102. Has he suffered harm? I am afraid that I find that he has. Those changes in placement will themselves have been harmful and I think it will have been harmful to him that his return to his parents care was delayed by 4 months, a significant contributory factor to that delay was the parents' lack of action and motivation. In addition he has been placed at real risk of injury to his health and wellbeing by his exposure to hazards in the home, lack of appropriate supervision and unsuitable and dirty living conditions. The impact on a child's self esteem as they get older of being dirty and smelly should not be underestimated. They can be isolated from their peers and struggle to form friendships.
103. The father still has some issues with managing his moods and with a risk of reverting to illicit drug use when he is under stress. The mother on her own, without significant support from the father cannot consistently meet AB's needs. Dr Parsons found that and there is no evidence that this has changed since his assessment. Therefore the father's difficulties are all the more significant. He has not been able to compensate for the mother's own limitations and indeed some of the recent issues in relation to his mental health and anger issues and drug use actually heighten the risks. I do not accept that the issue is as simple as him now being available as he in no longer working.
104. Are the parents capable of meeting his needs? Yes they are. At times it is clear that they are able to recognise and prioritise his needs. They have shown that they can maintain a clean and suitable home; they can show commitment to AB by attendance at contact and consistent care within contact. However, I must consider the evidence in relation to their actual care of AB when he was living with them and was due to be living with them. Sadly, I find that this fell well below the level that I would say is good enough. I really don't know why this was.
105. The parents are entitled to support in their parenting. Having considered the evidence of all parties I consider that the level of support offered to the parents was extremely high (indeed the mother reported the support worker visiting "every day"). Not all of the support that was available was taken up. Given the significant concerns that then arose, it is apparent that support from the LA or other services unable to redress the parents' difficulties in meeting AB's needs. It is hard to see what other or further services could have been offered. The level of support offered through Janine Potts visiting all day and every day is simply unsustainable in the longer term and ceases to be "support" and instead becomes substituted parenting.
106. I think that the mother is right when she recognises that some of the problems that the couple experienced were due to immaturity. This couple needs to be able to care for themselves and maintain an appropriate home, manage their finances and address the issues in their relationship in respect of communication and The father needs to be much further on with this therapeutic work before they would be in a position to take on the care of a dependant child. In my view they still have some way to go with this.
107. I am afraid that all of these matters lead me to an unavoidable and difficult conclusion that the risks to AB in being placed once again with his parents are far too high. The parents have given me no confidence in their written or oral evidence that they have sufficient understanding and awareness in relation to the processionals concerns to ensure that such concerns would not arise again in the future. Adoption really is the only option now available to AB, in my view, nothing else will do. I therefore refuse the parents application for discharge of the care order and make a placement order authorities n the LA to place AB for adoption.
108. I want AB to know that in my judgement his parents loved him very much and tried very hard but due to their own difficulties and difficult backgrounds, they were simply not able to meet his needs.
109. I give leave for this judgement to be released to adopters, following formal linking as a potential placement so that they may help AB to understand as he gets older, the reasons why he could not be brought up by his birth parents.
110. Finally I also make an order for public funding assessment for all the Respondents in this matter. I hope that my reasons as given are sufficient but if the advocates require any further detail to be given I would ask them to let me know.