England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

In the Family Court at Reading

		15th May 2015 And 26th May 2015 To 29 May 2015

Introduction

I am dealing with applications for care orders in respect of KN (aged 9 years) and CN (aged 2 years), and a placement order in respect of CN.

I have read all of the evidence contained in the Court Bundles and handed in through the course of this hearing, and heard from various witnesses.

The mother of KN and CN is CW. KN's father is JGN who has parental responsibility for her. The extended paternal family have expressed doubts about KN's paternity but JGN did not co-operate with DNA testing to determine this issue. CN's father is believed to be SB. JGN is named on CN's birth certificate, however.

JGN is currently serving a 24 month custodial sentence imposed on 10^th October 2014 for Burglary. He also has pending prosecutions for drugs offences and possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. His earliest date of release is July 2015.

SN is KN's paternal aunt. She was joined as a party to the proceedings at the IRH and wishes to be considered as a carer for KN.

Background

KN was the subject of previous care proceedings which concluded on 30^th June 2010 with a 12 month supervision order. The issues in those proceedings related to domestic abuse, non-engagement with health professionals, substance misuse and poor presentation of KN, CW and the family home.

In January 2014 a referral to social services was made as a result of CW's failure to engage with health services in relation to CN. CN was made the subject of a child protection plan on 28^th April 2014 under the category of neglect as CN was not registered with (or seen by) a GP for over a year after her birth.

KN had missed periods of school and CW did not make contact with the school to indicate why KN was absent. In April 2014 the Local Authority was informed by X School that KN's attendance was 74%. At times KN was observed to be grubby and tired.

On occasion KN had been left in charge of caring for CN. Both children were also left in the care of others for lengthy periods of time. The parents left the children in the care of one individual whose own child (paternal half-sister to KN) was subject to a child protection plan.

CW made reference to being depressed and bipolar. She did not comply with the prescribed course of medication from her GP and did not engage with Adult Mental Health Services.

The Local Authority alleges that the parents were unwilling or unable to engage with them. Visits to the property were attempted but access was limited. The Local Authority also alleges that the family home was cluttered, untidy and dirty. Photographs were taken of the property by the Police shortly after the mother left the property, but she does not accept that this reflects the condition of the property as she left it or at the relevant date for the purposes of threshold.

On 29^th October 2014 CW was served with notice to attend court due to KN's poor school attendance. In August 2014 she was also served with a notice of eviction due to rent arrears and the poor condition of the property. KN has been evicted four times in eight years and experienced three school moves.

When CW left the property on 18^th September 2014 she did not inform any professionals or KN's school. She took the children to stay with her sister in [a location]. She subsequently left this property and went to stay with her uncle. He has 28 convictions; the most serious of these relates to an incident in 2011 when he resisted arrest. During the arrest he drove backwards and forwards using his 8 year old daughter as a human shield to prevent arrest. Heroin was found in his car and he also has other convictions for possession of class A and B drugs.

These applications were made on 31^st October 2014 and the first hearing was 18^th November 2014, with the case first allocated to Magistrates. Interim care orders were granted on 18^th November 2014 but the matter listed for a contested interim hearing in relation to those orders and an issue of jurisdiction on 26^th November 2014. The case was re-allocated to HHJ Everall QC who heard it on 26^th November 2014. He confirmed that there should be interim care orders for both children pending the conclusion of these proceedings. The case first came before me on 9^th December 2014 and was ultimately timetabled to this final hearing at a further case management hearing on 18^th March 2015.

Threshold

It is not disputed that the relevant date for the threshold purposes in this case is 31^st October 2014, being the date when care proceedings were commenced. The final threshold document was provided in the course of this hearing and is as follows:

Previous concerns –

(i) There have been previous public law proceedings concerning KN which concluded on 30 June 2010 with the making of a Supervision Order for a period of 12 months. Within those proceedings KN had spent a period of time in local authority care (from 17 September 2009 to 23 March 2010). The amended schedule of findings set out that KN had suffered and was at risk of suffering physical harm, emotional harm and neglect as a result of:

a. Her being left in the care of third parties and family members;

b. The mother not being emotionally available to KN as a result of her chaotic lifestyle and unstable housing situation;

c. The father of KN (Mr N) spending periods in prison (and being at risk of future imprisonment) as a result of his drug related lifestyle. At the time of the final hearing he had seven impending prosecutions for possession of a taser stun gun, possession of cannabis and an offensive weapon in a public place, possession of amphetamines with intent to supply, possession of MDMA and possession of a Class B drug with intent to supply.

d. the father's misuse of illegal drugs.

e. the father's diagnosis of an antisocial personality disorder.

f. the mother's misuse of drugs, her hair strand test results in April 2010 showed high amphetamine concentrations demonstrating a regular amphetamine use for the previous three months.

g. the mother's decision to leave her permanent accommodation upon Mr N's release from prison in May 2008 and take KN to Mr N's accommodation where they resided all together. Mr N resumed his use of illegal drugs. CW also admitted to using cannabis. In addition a drugs warrant was executed in May 2009 and ecstasy was found in the kitchen cabinet.

h. KN's attendance at nursery was poor.

The mother accepts that this is an accurate record of the previous proceedings.

Current Concerns

Physical Harm

(ii) The family home is cluttered and untidy with piles of rubbish and tools. There are insufficient child safety gates although there is a fire guard. The fire guard is not attached to the wall and the marble hearth is exposed. CN has fallen and hit her head on the hearth.

(iii) CN was not registered with a GP for over a year after she was born. KN has suffered ongoing dental pain. There is no record of her having attended at the dentist.

(iv) The mother has been observed to grasp CN by the arm with one hand.

Emotional Harm

(v) The mother has angry outbursts and loses her temper easily. She can be verbally aggressive and does not engage with adults appropriately. The children have been present when she has behaved in the manner. The mother feels that she has attempted in the past to be assertive but accepts that other people's perception of this might be aggression.

(iv) The father of KN received a conditional discharge for possession of cannabis and amphetamines in February 2014 and was remanded in prison for an alleged offence of burglary. He is therefore not available to KN and CN. This is a fact accepted by the mother.

(v) KN has reported incidents of "slapping, shouting and crying" as between her parents. KN has told the social worker about taking CN upstairs out of the way when her parents argue. The mother accepts that KN may well have heard arguments between her and Mr N from her bedroom, and that KN has talked to the social worker about these events.

Basic Care Needs of the Children

(vi) The children are left in the care of others for lengthy periods of time. The parents are at times untruthful about the whereabouts of KN and CN. The parents have left the children in the care of CB (mother of KN's – paternal half-sister) whose own child is subject to a child protection plan. The parents did not collect the children at the agreed time and they could not be reached by telephone, they were not home when the children were brought back.

(vii) The children were taken out of Reading by the mother to live in [a location], causing disruption to their schooling.

(viii) The family home in Reading was cluttered, untidy and dirty including piles of rubbish and tools both in the home and in the garden. There was no safe clean space for the children to play.

(ix) KN has attended school pale and tired and has appeared grubby.

(x) KN has missed periods of school and the mother has not made contact with the school to indicate why KN was absent. In April 2014 the local authority was informed by X School that KN's attendance was 74%.

(xi) Neglect of the children's basic care needs has included:

a. KN urgently requires a dental appointment

b. KN urgently requires treatment for head lice

c. CN urgently requires treatment for head lice.

.

(xii) The parents' have been unable or unwilling to consistently engage with the local authority who were refused access to all other rooms save for the living room on 2 April 2014 and refused access to the home on numerous occasions.

(xiii) JM of the edge of care team reported (to the Review Child Protection Conference) that she had attempted to visit the mother to assist her over thirty times, access was gained to the home on only eight occasions and sometimes access is limited to the living room only.

(xiv) Dr De Taranto identified Mr N's "main problem, over many years" as drug addiction to a variety of substances. He is in denial about the true extent of his substance misuse problem and there is no prospect for successful treatment whilst this remains the case.

(xv) Dr McClintock identifies the mother as suffering from depression and a personality disorder in terms of a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behaviour, and features of an emotionally dependent personality disorder. The prognosis for change is extremely guarded and successful treatment would take in excess of a year. The mother agrees Dr McClintock has said this. She acknowledges what she has said and states that she has taken steps to address theses issues by, for example, signing up for CBT and other courses.

(xvi) Dr Schnack is of the view that the mother's personality disorder poses a significant risk to the children in terms of her ability to prioritise their needs and take responsibility. The mother agrees Dr Schnack has said this.

Parties' Positions

The Local Authority case is that neither child can be returned to the care of their parents and that there is no suitable alternative kinship carer for them. A kinship assessment of SN was conducted and which concluded that a placement with her would not meet KN's needs as identified by Dr Schnack. An assessment of AW as a potential carer for CN also concluded that she was not able to care for CN. The final care plan for KN is therefore one of long term foster care. The plan for CN is one of adoption.

CW wishes the children to be returned to her care. She accepts that threshold is crossed for the purposes of section 31(2) albeit there is one area of the final threshold document which she disputes. She indicates that she has made changes since moving away from Reading, including signing up to a course of CBT. If the children cannot be returned to her care, she asks that they be placed with kinship carers, specifically KN with SN and CN with AW.

JGN's position is that in the first instance he would like the children to be placed with him. He does not accept threshold at all as far as it relates to him. He says that he only has 6 weeks to go to his release and that he could then make the arrangements for the girls to live with him. If they cannot be placed with him or with CW, then his next preferred option is for the girls to be placed with family, namely SN and AW.

SN has filed a statement in which she asks that the children should not be separated. She attended court for the remainder of this hearing from 27^th May 2015 and told me that she still believes that the children should not be separated but that if I conclude this is in the best interests of the children, she would like to care for KN and believes that she is capable of meeting KN's needs.

The Guardian supports the Local Authority's plans for both children and has made recommendations regarding contact in her final report.

Expert evidence

Dr Nikki de Taranto, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, was instructed to carry out an assessment of JGN in respect of his drug misuse and prognosis for change. Her report is at E56-70 and she concluded that he was in denial about the true extent of his substance misuse problem and that upon his release from prison is was highly likely that he would return to drug misuse. She was not required to give evidence in person in the course of this hearing.

Dr Tom McCLintock, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, carried out an assessment of CW. His report is at E80-120. His conclusions were that CW suffers from clinical depression; has a personality disorder in terms of a "deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behaviour"; she shows features of an emotionally dependent personality disorder; and has highly developed avoidant traits to her personality. In respect of treatment and prognosis, she would require at least 12 sessions of CBT as a forerunner to at least a year and probably longer of more exploratory work as to her functioning as an adult. However, the prognosis for change was extremely guarded and it would not be possible for her to undergo this therapy at the same time as caring for the children.

Dr Kirren Schnack, Clinical Psychologist, undertook an assessment of the children and CW and her report is at E104-143. Her conclusions in respect of CW were similar to Dr McCLintock and she was also unable to recommend that the children return to CW's care on the basis that her personality disorder poses a significant risk to them. She attended court and gave me evidence to confirm the conclusions in her report. She also reiterated that KN would need foster carers who were specially trained or therapeutically trained because the damage to her from her early life is so profound. On balance, she recommended that KN should be placed alone and not with other children, including her sister CN. This was because of KN's very complex needs, the meeting of which by carers may mean that the needs of other children are not met. She also identified a traumatic relationship between KN and CN which may also cause difficulties with the siblings sharing care.

Other professional evidence

The allocated social worker in this matter, CC, has prepared three statements dated 30^th October 2014 (C59-98), 18^th November 2014 (C117-126) and 16^th March 2015 (C228-261). She also completed a parenting assessment of CW, which can be found at C262-287. She was also the co-author of the assessment of AW which is to be found at C144. Her conclusion was that KN and CN would be at risk of significant harm if they were placed in the care of CW and that therefore they should not be returned to her care. Her evidence to me was that she has had several discussions with SN recently and since the last hearing in which SN told her that she was not able to care for KN. She apparently told the social worker that she was putting herself forward for her own selfish reasons, because she wanted KN to know that she had tried and that she honestly felt she was not able to care for KN. CC accepted that it might be the case that SN was saying something different to JGN.

AW, KN's maternal aunt, was the subject of a regulation 24 assessment, which can be found at 144-163. The conclusion of that assessment was that there should be no further assessment of AW as a carer in respect of either child.

There have been two Guardian's reports in this case. The first allocated Guardian prepared an initial analysis and recommendations which is dated 20^th November 2014 (E1-18) but she left Cafcass and was replaced by a second Guardian in February this year. His final report, dated 9^th April 2015, can be found at E170-192. Both Guardians supported the temporary removal of the children into foster care. The current Guardian concludes that neither child can be returned to the care of their parents or placed within the extended family and supports the Local Authority plans for a care order with a plan of long term foster care for KN and a placement order for CN with a plan for adoption.

Mother's, Father's, and other evidence

CW has filed two statements, dated 24^th November 2014 (C132-140) and 23^rd April 2015 (C288-292). She does not dispute threshold, in general terms accepting that she did not meet her children's needs, however she argues that she has made progress since leaving Reading and wants the children returned to her care.

JGN filed his handwritten statement on the morning of 26^th May 2015. In that statement he disputes much of the background to the case and the psychological assessment of him by Dr Taranto. He has been produced from custody for the final hearing and told me in evidence that KN's problems were entirely due to her being removed by social services, that he had not used drugs for three or four years and that if KN was not placed with family it would destroy her.

AW, maternal aunt, has filed two statements dated 26^th November 2014 (C141-143) and 8^th May 2015 (C293-294). She gave me evidence and asked me, in the event that I decide KN and CN cannot be returned to their mother's care, for CN be placed with her.

SN, paternal aunt to KN, has filed one statement dated 15^th May 2015 which can be found at C295-297. She also gave me evidence and asked me not to separate the girls but, if that is what I decide, she asked that KN is placed with her.

Relevant legal considerations

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 with regard to threshold, and the welfare checklists contained in section1 of the Children Act 1989 and section 1 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002, I have also had regard to the cases of Re S-B and Re R, Re C and B, YC v UK and Re B. I have also been mindful of the recent case of Re K as to the burden and standard of proof being upon the Local Authority on balance of probabilities to prove any facts which they assert.

Threshold Findings

CW accepts threshold apart from one specific allegation about the state of the house in Reading when the children lived there with her. She does accept that the section 31(2) threshold is crossed in light of the concessions she has made. JGN does not accept any part of threshold in so far as it relates to him.

Findings were made in terms of threshold in the previous proceedings, which CW accepts. Based on the evidence before me in connection with the current case, and the acceptance of those findings by the parties, I can find no reason to seek to go behind those findings and will adopt those in relation to the earlier threshold concerns.

In terms of the threshold issues before me in connection with this current case, the first issue is physical harm relating to the issue of the conditions in the home in Reading. CW disputes that the house was not in an appropriate condition when the children lived with her and says that the conditions seen in the Police photographs when they visited the property (F5-52) are as a result of the house being ransacked after she left it. JGN also suggests that this is the case.

The Local Authority evidence does demonstrate that the conditions in the home were poor prior to 23^rd September 2014 when the Police photographs were taken. At C2 onwards is a Child and Family Assessment undertaken in April 2014 and concluded on 25^th April 2014. Home visits undertaken on 2^nd April 2014, 9^th April 2014 and 10^th April 2014 detail poor home conditions seen by social workers when they were allowed access to the property (C8-9). Conditions are recorded as slightly improved on 11^th April 2014 (C9). KN is also recorded as telling her social worker during school visits in the course of this assessment that "home is not good, its messy, kind of dirty, kitchen is messy and dirty, the carpet is dirty and has stains and stuff on it" (C32). JGN told me that his mates had been going round to the house after his incarceration in June 2014 to get the house cleaned up. From this I understood that he seemed to accept that there was something to be cleaned up in the house conditions prior to this point. He had no direct knowledge of the home conditions after his custodial sentence though.

In July 2014 a social worker from the Edge of Care Team observed that she had seen food scraps on the floor in the living room and kitchen, piles of washing up in the sink and all the work surfaces to be dirty; there was no evidence of the bathroom being used regularly with piles of rubbish on the floor and in the bath and that it was difficult to get round due to the clutter (C38). She also commented that she had seen no improvement in the home environment since the beginning of July (C38). There is also evidence that CW did not allow full access to the property in 2014. At C37 the EOC social worker details 20 visits but only gaining access on 9 occasions. The landlord of the property was also denied access for an annual inspection of the premises in May 2014 (C140b). There is a dispute of fact about when exactly CW vacated the property. She says that she was moving out from August, the children having gone to live with their aunt in Reading and that people broke into the property and ransacked it during this period. She also told me that she had been moving backwards and forwards between Reading and [a location] in this time as she did not have a car had to make several trips to move her belongings. The Local Authority contend that she left some time around 18^th September 2014.

As was noted by Mr Kirkwood in closing, KN was recorded as being absent from school on 11^th and 12^th September and attended a GP's appointment on 15^th September 2014 (C78). I accept that this alone does not disprove what CW said about having left the house by this point and gradually moving her possessions over to [a location]. However, as is recorded at C128 she told North Somerset Council that she had moved to the area a week before 3^rd October 2014. She also told South Gloucestershire Council on 25^th October 2014 that she had moved to their area about a month ago (F2). She does therefore seem to have been consistent in what she told both councils about her date of relocation to [a location], indicating to them that it was towards the end of September 2014. Unlike AW's telling me that she and CW had lied to Housing in an attempt to get CW rehoused in the area, I cannot see a motivation to have given the councils an incorrect date for the move. If her house had been broken into and ransacked in the way that she alleged it was, it is also notable that she did not take any steps to report this and nor does it seem to have stopped her moving her possessions from the house. She has also said that she just felt so bad some days she wanted to die and that things got on top of her in Reading (as she told the social worker who conducted the parenting assessment of her (C268 and C269).

Given the evidence of the poor home conditions from April through to July, CW's struggles with her depression at the time and the absence of any reports to the Police of anyone breaking into the home, it does not seem at all likely that the photographs and descriptions of the property on 23^rd September 2014 simply show the results of ransacking after she left. I can also only conclude that her unwillingness to allow access to the property was because conditions in the home remained poor. I am therefore satisfied on balance of probabilities that while the children lived there, the family home in Reading was cluttered, untidy and dirty including piles of rubbish and tools both in the home and in the garden and that there was no safe space for the children to play.

CW does not dispute that CN was not registered with a GP for over a year after her birth. She also accepts that she did not take KN for regular check-ups with the dentist. JGN told me that he had taken KN to the dentist in 2014 (presumably before his remand in custody in June). Even if this was the case, the issue is about regular dental check-ups for KN. Given the acceptance of CW that KN was not taken for these and the fact that JGN only refers to one possible dental appointment in early 2014 (and can produce no evidence of this), I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that KN was not taken for regular dental check-ups.

JGN also disputes the threshold criteria relating to his unavailability for KN and CN by virtue of his being in prison. His evidence about this when cross-examined by Mr Kirkwood for the Local Authority was quite striking. He agreed that he had been in custody for nearly a year and that KN would have missed him and been upset as a result but went on to argue that her being upset was not due to his being in custody. It does seem painfully obvious to me that a parent who commits offences and is sentenced to custody as a result, will not be as physically and emotionally available for their child as they should be. That JGN seeks to argue otherwise is perhaps indicative of how little insight he really has into the issues in this case. CW can see that this is the case and that is positive sign of her beginning to develop that insight. I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that this threshold criteria is made out in relation to JGN.

The next threshold criterion that relates to JGN and which he disputes is in relation to domestic abuse. The precise wording of the criterion is as follows: "KN has reported incidents of "slapping, shouting and crying" as between her parents. KN has told the social worker about taking CN upstairs out of the way when her parents argue. The mother accepts that KN may well have heard arguments between her and JGN from her bedroom, and that KN has talked to the social worker about these events." The wording is important because in his own statement, JGN accepts that KN would have seen one argument and heard a couple of shouting matches (C299). On his own evidence therefore KN was exposed to some level of awareness of arguments between the parents. CW accepts this criterion entirely and there is the evidence of KN herself who has reported what she has seen (for example at C32 when she tells the social worker about hearing slapping and her parents shouting). JGN's position in relation to this issue therefore seems to reflect a minimisation of the situation in the household. I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that this threshold criterion is made out as the Local Authority allege.

JGN is also involved in the threshold allegation at (xiv) under basic care needs in that it is said that he has been unwilling or unable to consistently engage with the local authority who were refused access to the home. On 9^th April 2014 JGN is recorded as being angry and agitated during a home visit, stating that the home conditions had improved (this was after he had said in a meeting on 4^th April that he would bring about change in the family home himself) (C32). It is also recorded as part of that same assessment that he needs to accept and engage with support offered by professionals to bring about the changes required (C33). JM of the EOCS also details a lack of engagement with her service by not just CW but JGN as well prior to his imprisonment in June 2014 (C37). Although CW stated to JM that JGN did not live in the family home, JM notes that CW appeared to have little control over the amount of time he spent there and JGN told JM that he was there to look after the children (C39). It does therefore seem to me that the evidence does show a lack of consistent engagement with the local authority by JGN and that this threshold criterion is made out in relation to him.

The remaining threshold criterion that relates to JGN is at (xvi) under basic care needs. It refers to the assessment of JGN by Dr De Taranto and alleges that JGN is in denial about the true extent of his substance misuse problem and there is no prospect for successful treatment whilst this remains the case. The medical and prison records with regard to his drug use which Dr De Taranto summarised at E64-65 of her report were put to JGN by Mr Kirkwood in cross examination. Whilst JGN appears to accept that he told the prison in May 2013 and again in June 2014 about significant drug use, he said that he had done this to ensure that he was able to access drug rehabilitation courses in prison so as to persuade the Judge to give him a more lenient sentence. He did not accept at all that he had apparently told his GP in January 2013 that he was still using amphetamines, albeit orally rather than intravenously. I am afraid that JGN's outright denial of these records is deeply troubling. He entirely ignores the evidence of his own GP and the evidence of other medical professionals that he not only tells them about his drug misuse but is seen to have injection track marks on examination in May 2013. He flatly denied intravenous drug use when he spoke to Dr De Taranto (E65) and was unable at that point to explain to her why he had told the prison that he had used heroin, morphine or opiates in any form. Dr De Taranto concluded that he "minimises and is untruthful about his substance misuse history" and notes that he has used a variety of drugs over a period of more than twenty years (E69). Ultimately she is of the opinion that "it is true that while incarcerated he appears to be doing well, and there is no evidence that he is using drugs at the moment but it is highly likely, in fact almost inevitable, that he will return to drug use once he is released" (E70). I did not find JGN to be a credible witness in relation to his drugs use, given the facts of the medical and prison records about this. I therefore accept the conclusions of Dr De Taranto in relation to this and find that this threshold criterion is also proved on balance of probabilities.

As CW accepts the rest of the threshold allegations, coupled with my findings on the disputed issues above, I will therefore adopt the final threshold as my threshold findings in this case.

Options in this case

It has been very clear to me throughout this case that the family members love the children and there is a considerable bond between KN and her family. That does not actually appear to be in dispute and is not really the issue in the case. The issue is rather what does the welfare of the children require by way of an outcome and can placement (in any form) with their family be ruled out? In accordance with the caselaw, a balancing exercise in relation to the options has to be carried out before I can reach a conclusion.

The identified options in this case after hearing the final evidence and submissions of the parties seem to be as follows:

1. KN and CN to return to CW's care or that of JGN;

2. KN to be placed with her aunt, SN and CN to be placed with her aunt AW;

3. Both children to be placed outside of the family in some form, KN in long term foster care, and CN to be made subject to a Placement Order with a plan for adoption on the local authority case or for both children to be in long term foster care.

Analysis of these options – advantages and disadvantages of each

In assessing the first option, I am very mindful that this is the second set of public law proceedings concerning KN. Rehabilitation to the care of her parents has therefore been attempted at the conclusion of those proceedings in 2010. It is accepted by all concerned that CW is showing some signs of progress – the concessions made in relation to threshold are indicative of some insight on her part as to her responsibility for the problems in relation to her parenting in the past and she is beginning the process of engagement with therapy. However, as was submitted by Ms Myerscough on behalf of the Guardian, there is a striking parallel with the situation as it appeared in 2010 in this regard. The opinion of the two experts in this case who have assessed CW, namely Dr Schnack and Dr McClintock is that the children cannot safely be returned to her care. Dr McClintock also notes the similarity between the position now and as it was in 2010 with regard to CW, noting her longstanding difficulties and her denial when he saw her (E99-E102). He concluded that she would need "at least 12 sessions of (cognitive behavioural) therapy in order to help provide her with alternative coping mechanisms to deal with her emotional reaction to life events. This should be seen as a forerunner to more exploratory work looking at her childhood experiences and how these have affected her functioning as an adult. This would take at least a year and probably longer of group sessions, but it would only be appropriate to offer this treatment after the cognitive behavioural therapy had been shown to be effective" (E101). He concluded that the timescales for CW to address her issues as required was outside those of the children (E102). Dr Schnack came to strikingly similar conclusions to Dr McClintock, a fact which she herself noted when she gave me evidence as she had not seen his report when she prepared her own report. She was also very clear as to the lengthy and demanding work which CW would need to undertake to address her problems, accessing the complex needs service for a period which is usually around 18 months, after a suggested 10 weeks of pre-therapy. Her attendance at complex needs would be likely to require her to attend 5 days a week between 9.30am and 2.30pm, Dr Schnack told me. I know that CW pointed out in her evidence that these hours would fit with school and nursery times for the children. However, what CW does not appear to understand, I find, is that undergoing therapy can be intensely painful and difficult for the individual concerned, on top of all of the practical time commitments it will require from her. As Dr Schnack noted in her report at E134, CW "does not appear able to fully identify the children's short and long term needs, nor does she seem able to recognise how to meet these needs in practical terms, particularly as the children grow, and their needs change and evolve". There is, in addition, a negative parenting assessment of CW (C262-287), in which CW told CC that she accepted she needs to make changes but that the hard work would start for her when she got the girls back (C282). CC concluded as a result of this assessment that the insight demonstrated by CW is on a superficial level and that she has been unable to evidence that she can be motivated to or sustain the changes needed to safely care for KN and CN (C282). Sadly, whilst I acknowledge her love for her children, the weight of the evidence before me satisfies me that she still has significant progress to undertake before it would be safe to return the children to her care. Despite the clear bond between CW and her children (albeit one that may be complex and not necessarily secure as was noted by Dr Schnack), I agree with the opinions of the social worker and Guardian that these children need permanency on a shorter timescale than that of CW's likely timescale even if she continues the progress already undertaken by her towards addressing her issues.

In relation to the children being placed in some form with JGN on his release from custody, there are a number of factors which would rule this out as a realistic option despite some positive factors in relation to him. Whilst it would be a placement with their father and hence for KN in particular with someone that she regards as important in her life, I have found that JGN remains in denial about his issues with drugs in the past and his likely risk of misusing drugs in the future. He may be currently drug free whilst in prison but unless he fully addresses the underlying issues which have led him to misuse drugs in the past, he remains at risk of relapse on his release as Dr Taranto observed. I know that he has completed some rehabilitation courses whilst in prison but given his level of denial I am forced to query how much benefit he has actually derived from these. There does also appear to be some evidence of his minimising his criminality and the effect that being sentenced to custody as a result has upon KN. As I found in relation to threshold, he accepted in evidence that KN would be upset by his imprisonment but blames social services for the difficulties which KN has. Whilst these difficulties are not solely due to his criminality and its consequences, it seems clear to me that these difficulties are bound to be made worse by it. JGN asks me, through his advocate, Ms Whelan, to consider allowing him to be assessed as a parent for both girls after his release in six weeks time. I am afraid that there is a considerable amount of evidence already before me in this case which indicates that such an assessment would not be positive, including his involvement with KN after the end of the last proceedings in 2010. He is shown on numerous occasions in the social work evidence to be unable or unwilling to engage positively with social services and, despite what he says about trying to ensure that KN went to the dentist and was adequately cared for, she suffered significant harm as I have found in relation to threshold and the issues in relation to JGN in this regard do not seem to have changed to the point that such harm is less likely in the future. I am forced to conclude that this would not therefore be a delay which would be in the best interests of either child as it would not be likely to provide me with any more meaningful information about JGN's likely ability to parent than the information which I currently have before me. Placement with JGN is therefore not a realistic option in this case.

The next option is for the children to be placed with kinship carers, specifically KN with SN and CN with AW. This is the second option which both parents and the aunts themselves ask me to consider.

There are some distinct potential advantages to such placements. As was noted by CC in the assessment of SN, SN "has a very important role in KN's life" (C204). When SN gave me her evidence, it was immediately apparent to me how much she does care for KN and wishes to care for her. She is also very clear that she is only able to offer to care for KN, much as she does not want the two girls to be separated. However, as she pointed out, separation of the girls could be borne by her (and this is the position of the parents) if they were placed with family members. Dr Schnack, in evidence to me, did also accept that this may ameliorate the impact of separation for the girls. The main issue is the question of whether the girls should be separated and whether their needs, applying the welfare checklist as I must, require this separation and in particular whether KN has any needs above those usual for a child of her age which would not be met in a placement with her aunt.

In saying this, I am not saying that I am applying a test of trying to identify more than good enough parenting for KN. Mr Crawley, on behalf of CW, submitted to me that this was the test applied by Dr Schnack, the Local Authority and the Guardian and that this was not the legal test. I am very mindful of what the caselaw say in relation to the test. In particular Re B and the comments by Hedley J about society being able to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting and even allowing that children may suffer some harm from their carers as long as that harm does not amount to significant harm. In essence though, this case boils down to a consideration the welfare checklist, especially the wishes and feelings of KN, the emotional and physical needs of KN and CN, any harm which they have suffered and are at risk of suffering and the capabilities of their potential carers to meet their needs.

CN is too young to make her wishes and feelings known. KN's wishes and feelings are felt by her family to be clear cut – they believe that she wants to be with her family and not to be separated from her sister. It does seem that her wishes and feelings are more complex than this. Dr Schnack was of the opinion that KN and CN had an "insecure attachment relationship, with ambivalent anxious relating, and a strong survival attachment" (E130). KN also, in Dr Schnack's opinion, has a parentified role in relation to CN (E141). Dr Schnack observed KN to have "what appears to be a bizarre and clinically concerning presentation around relationships and emotions" (E140). The Guardian also noted how "on the surface (KN) can be friendly and engaging. But at times this quickly crumbles and her fragility and emotional immaturity become apparent." (E174). As assessed by Dr Schnack, KN has developed significant emotional, behavioural and social needs. Dr Schnack in evidence to me described KN as exhibiting a cycle of behaviour which was "love me – hate me – reject me". Obviously, this would be extremely challenging behaviour for any carer to manage. The parents and SN do not recognise the descriptions of KN in Dr Schnack's report. CW, SN and JGN in particular described her as a happy, bubbly and loving little girl. I do not doubt that this is their perception of her and in particular SN has had less opportunity to spend protracted periods of time with KN which may have limited her exposure to the full range of KN's behaviour.

SN is offering to give up work to enable her to be physically more available to meet KN's needs. That is a potential positive, although obviously giving up work and any reduction in income which may follow could in itself create additional pressures potentially for her and any children living in her household. As was highlighted by the Guardian in his final report, the assessment of SN by the local authority was the most difficult. She does seem to understand why the girls could not return to their parents' care and seemed genuinely horrified at what the girls had experienced when in the care of their parents when she gave me her evidence. Placement with her would enable KN to remain part of her own family with the sense of belonging which that would create. As Dr Schnack observed, sometimes kinship placements are the most enduring and can therefore be more likely to survive the sorts of emotional and behavioural challenges that KN is likely to display, particularly as she enters adolescence. There is also evidence that SN has experience of coping with a challenging situation in that she parented her older daughter when she suffered from OCD.

Balanced against this, KN's own wishes and feelings about a potential placement with SN are less than straightforward. All parties agree that KN has told her father that she didn't want to live with SN. The family point out that this was because she did not want to be separated from CN and, as the Guardian acknowledged at E184 that may be the case in part. However, again as the Guardian points out, this may be a reflection of the fact that KN's relationship with SN is not that strong. Certainly I do not appear to have evidence of KN being clear and consistent that she wishes to be placed with SN. I find that her wishes and feelings in this regard are likely to be conflicted and she may well be vacillating about what she truly wants.

SN is also the sole parent of a five year old daughter and also has her adult daughter with ongoing mental health problems living with her, in the assessment of the Local Authority. SN disputes that her younger daughter has some emotional and behavioural difficulties as the Local Authority believes, and says that her older daughter's issues are in the past. It is recorded in the assessment (C210) that her older daughter was reluctant to move bedrooms to accommodate KN in the household and that she told the social worker she still had "wobbly days" and therefore her room was an important space for her where she feels safe. It seems from this that her issues are not quite resolved. It is also concerning that her children had not really been party to discussions about the possibility of KN coming to live with them when the assessment was conducted (C223). The potential impact upon her children if KN were to live with her, albeit that her eldest is an adult, is a concern also relates to her capabilities under the welfare checklist as she will be juggling the demands of her children with the demands of KN. If her own children are not supportive of the placement, and she will not have any support from her own family as she told me in evidence, this becomes a significant concern about whether KN's particular needs will be met in this placement.

In addition, there is a concern raised by the Local Authority about the extent to which SN would be able to ensure that JGN did not disrupt a placement with her. JGN told me that he would abide by any order or undertaking to stay away from his sister's house. I have to say that he did not impress me as a particularly co-operative individual when he gave his evidence. He may well say that he will abide by an order but clearly feels no compunction about lying to a Court to try to obtain a lighter sentence (based on his evidence of why he wanted to undertake drug rehabilitation courses in prison) and has a track record of losing his temper with CW so would be likely to become very angry if SN refused him access to the house or contact with KN. KN would potentially be at risk of being aware of this if it happened when she was present. There is also the worry that he may seek to remove KN from a placement with SN. At C219-220 an incident in the previous proceedings on 15^th January 2010 is recorded when he removed KN from the care of her paternal grandmother because the grandmother was ill but did not inform social services, took KN to another paternal aunt's house and then removed her from that house against the aunt's wishes. When this was put to him in cross examination by Mr Kirkwood, he simply said that he did not remember being emotional and aggressive to his sister or removing KN from her. I am therefore concerned that he would not necessarily abide by any court order or undertaking and that SN having to cope with him as a result would be another stressor upon any placement with her. Added to this is the risk of CW adding to the pressure to have more contact than is appropriate with KN, despite any agreement or order. The Guardian is also understandably concerned about this as he noted in his final report (E187).

It is a finely balanced and difficult decision in relation to her but on balance I do find that the disadvantages of a placement with her do outweigh the advantages. KN has needs which are above those which are usual in a child of her age as assessed by Dr Schnack and is therefore likely to exhibit more challenging behaviour as a result. SN has the best of intentions in offering to care for her niece and no doubt does love her but her capacity to meet the very particular needs of KN is compromised by the disadvantages I have found will attach to a placement with her. This in turn would leave KN at risk of harm in the future if the placement were to break down or if she were to be exposed (directly or indirectly) to any inappropriate pressure from her parents for more contact with her. I cannot therefore conclude a placement of KN with SN is in KN's best interests as a result and must rule this option out.

I am also asked by Mr Crawley in essence to consider whether the deficits in any care that SN offers could be addressed by her undertaking a fostering course. It seems to me that the evidence of Dr Schnack is that what KN in particular needs is a therapeutic foster care placement, given the very particular needs which KN now has. What SN would need to do therefore goes beyond simply attending local authority basic foster care courses, I find. This would require a time commitment from her and she would need to understand the demands of being such a foster carer if she were to successfully complete the training. This would also inevitably add time before it could be known whether or not she was in a position to care for KN. Unfortunately, given what has already happened in KN's life to date, this is time which KN does not have at this stage. Although I do note that a potential therapeutic foster care placement for KN has not yet been found so there will be some time required for that if I conclude that is in her best interests, this is still bound to be less time that training SN to the appropriate level would take. And then there are the other disadvantages of placement with SN which I have already covered and which would not be addressed by such training, for example the potential for JGN to disrupt the placement and the impact upon her own children.

In relation to AW, she puts herself forward with the support of the parents as a potential kinship carer for CN. She has also been assessed by the local authority as a potential kinship carer and that assessment is negative. Again, there are real positives in relation to a placement with her. She has not only said that she is committed to her nieces, she has also demonstrated that commitment by caring for them when CW first moved to [a location]. She is also a family member and placement with her would again provide CN with a sense of belonging as she grows up. However, there are also negatives in relation to her. Whilst she is currently caring for 4 children of her own, there is evidence of Local Authority involvement in [a location] with her family (though she says this is as a result of her former partner) and she accepts that there have been numerous assessments of her as a result. Although she does not accept some of the facts alleged about her previous partner in terms of whether there was domestic abuse or not, she does seem to accept that this partner was a cause for significant concern in terms of her parenting given her indication that this was the reason for the assessments of her. I am concerned as to how she may manage four children plus CN when CN is again assessed by Dr Schnack as likely to have extra needs beyond those which would be usual for a child of her age and as she grows older. This in turn leads me to find that she may well not be able to meet CN's particular needs as a result. Coupled with this, it seems that AW does have difficulties working with professionals. Whilst she told me that she had a good relationship with the headmaster at her children's school, she also accepted that she had been banned from school premises for a period because she would not calm down when she felt justifiably upset about something that had happened at the school. She has also been described as confrontational and therefore the potential for her to work co-operatively with the local authority is not clear to me.

I also find that AW's ability to maintain an appropriate distance from CW in the interests of CN may also be questionable. As the Guardian commented at E183 all of the extended family relationships seem complex. Whilst JGN does not know where she lives, CW clearly does and she has a close relationship with her sister on her own evidence. I am therefore concerned that she may not fully understand the need to keep a distance between CW and CN and to limit contact in the best interests of CN. Again, her ability to work openly and honestly with professionals is also debatable if what she says about lying with CW to the Housing department to try to obtain housing for CW is correct. It was also quite concerning that whilst she denied refusing the social worker access to the flat in [a location] when CW was staying with her, saying that it was CW who went to the door and refused access, she does not seem to have done anything to intervene. She could have gone to the front door and helped resolve the situation; instead she seemed to stay out of it.

I am also asked by Mr Crawley to consider whether any deficits in the care which AW offers could be addressed by foster care courses, in the same way that he asked me to consider this for SN. Again, this raises the question of whether the time this would be likely to take would be in CN's best interests and I find that it would not be, particularly as it is also a question of not just addressing some of her parenting capability through such training but also the question of whether she would be able to maintain an appropriate distance from CW. Added to that is the concern that caring for CN and dealing with potential pressure from CW to see CN may have a negative impact on all of the children in AW's care to the extent that they all may be at risk of their needs not being met adequately. On balance I cannot conclude that a placement of CN with AW is in CN's best interests, despite the strong motivation to care for her which AW undoubtedly has. This option is also therefore one which I must rule out.

The next issue I have considered is the question of separation of the two girls. As I have noted, the family view is that separation could be borne if they were in family placements and Dr Schnack also said that family placements would to some extent ameliorate the impact. However, I have now analysed the option for family placements and ruled them out. In so doing, I am very conscious of the case law in this regard. I have been very helpfully provided with a summary of key authorities by Mr Kirkwood for the Local Authority. In particular:

Re C and B [2001] 1 FLR 611, para 34: " Cutting off all contact and the relationship between the child or children and their family is only justified by the overriding necessity of the interests of the child."

YC v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 967, para 134: "family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and … 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."

B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33: [para77]: "It seems to me to be inherent in section 1(1) that a care order should be a last resort, because the interests of a child would self-evidently require her relationship with her natural parents to be maintained unless no other course was possible in her interests. That is reinforced by the requirement in section 1 (3)(g) that the court must consider all options, which carries with it the clear implication that the most extreme option should only be adopted if others would not be in her interests.

[para 198]: "Nevertheless, it is quite clear that 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. In many cases, and particularly where the feared harm has not yet materialised and may never do so, it will be necessary to explore and attempt alternative solutions"

Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625, per The President:

Para 44: 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."

As was noted by Dr Schnack in her evidence to me, the two girls in this case are at very different developmental stages. CN is still in the crucial first three years of life when fundamental attachments are formed so she has a much better chance of recovery than the much more damaged KN. Despite the importance of a sibling bond, as she conceded in evidence to me, she has carefully considered the needs of each child as I must. Whilst KN will undoubtedly miss CN if they are placed separately, she is deeply damaged as a result of her early life. Dr Schnack was of the clear opinion that the relationship between the siblings is also a trauma relationship and which therefore will be bound to create difficulties with a risk of a profoundly negative impact upon them both in future. Additionally, she was of the view that KN's particular needs would be very likely to get in the way of CN's needs being met if they were placed together, and vice versa. Coupled with this, both girls need permanence but that permanence can best be met in differing ways, I find. KN is of an age where adoption would be difficult in all likelihood and has such particular needs that, as noted by the Guardian at E187, a search for potential adopters is likely to be fruitless for her. She also has significant relationships with her family which I find it would not be in her best interests to lose. Adoption is therefore not an option for KN. Given that I have ruled out placement with her family this does just leave the option of long-term foster care for her, and I find that her needs would best be met by some form of long-term therapeutic foster care placement. Given the number of changes of placement which she experienced in the previous proceedings, and the very particular needs which she has, I would also urge the Local Authority to seek to identify a suitable permanent placement for her as soon as possible so that she may make what is hopefully only one more move to that place In coming to the conclusion that long-term therapeutic foster care is the only placement which will meet KN's needs, I have not overlooked the fact that foster care placements can and do break down and that this was another reason put forward by the family in support of placement with them. On balance, given the evidence of Dr Schnack and the Guardian about how challenging KN's behaviour is likely to be, despite the best of intentions from both SN and AW, I find that there is a real risk of placement breakdown with them and that this is a higher likelihood than in a specialist therapeutic placement where KN can be placed without other children (again as it is Dr Schnack's opinion that this best meets her needs and I concur with that), with carers who are properly equipped to respond to that behaviour, and who are likely ensure that her needs are adequately met despite its demands. Whilst there are some negatives associated with this option in terms of continued Local Authority involvement with her and she may not feel that she entirely belongs to a family, on balance these are outweighed by the fact that this is the placement best suited to her needs.

Turning to CN next, as the Guardian notes at E187, she needs legal permanence. Long term fostering for her does not confer as many positives as it does for her sister since she has less of a family relationship given her age and the length of time she has already spent apart from her mother in particular, and she is of an age where adoption is still a realistic option for her. Adoption does have to be a last resort, as I have noted from the case law quoted earlier. She would cease to be a member of her birth family and that would be a permanent separation from them. She would also, in particular, sever her link with her sister in that they would no longer be living together though some form of contact with her may be possible post adoption (I will return to this later). Adoption would provide CN with security, stability and remove the need for ongoing intrusion from the Local Authority. I agree with the Guardian's analysis in this regard, at E188. I conclude that all other options have been considered and in short nothing else short of a plan for adoption will meet CN's needs throughout her life and is a necessary and proportionate step to ensure that those needs are met. I therefore also conclude that making a Placement Order is in her best interests and that her welfare therefore demands that I dispense with the consent of her parents to the making of that order.

The final issue for me in light of my conclusions is that of contact. The Guardian is of the opinion that "consistent, reliable and reassuring contact with her mother will be beneficial for KN. They have attachments to each other and the continuation of their relationship is important" (E189). In reality, the Local Authority accepts this. The question is really the amount of that contact and contact between KN and the other adult members of her family, plus contact between the siblings in the event of an adoption application. I endorse the Guardian's concern that direct contact between KN and her mother and other adult family members must be at such a level that it does not undermine her placement. Whilst Dr Schnack did speculate in her evidence to me about six or nine occasions of contact per annum, I echo the Guardian's reservations about the impact that this may have on KN's ability to settle in her placement. This is something which is compounded by KN's need to recover and only have limited exposure to dysfunctional attachments, again as noted by Dr Schnack and supported by the Guardian. The frequency of contact with her parents must also be considered in light of the fact that some limited contact with her other adult family members is also likely to be in her best interests so there are potentially a significant number of people to fit into her year. I do find that the Local Authority proposals for contact in respect of KN are appropriate and in her best interests and would endorse their plan which is that whilst in the existing placement KN will see her mother monthly; once in her permanent placement she will then see her mother and father separately three times a year each (a total of six times per year); she will see other extended family members at least once per year but more frequently may be appropriate as they are the more supportive family members as the Guardian notes at E190. In respect of sibling contact for KN, this is complicated by the complex relationship dynamic between them observed by Dr Schnack. Given the level of concern about the trauma relationship between them which Dr Schnack believes to exist, it does also seem appropriate to me to endorse a plan whereby KN would see CN once per year and have indirect contact even after CN is placed for adoption.

In respect of CN, the plan for contact post placement order and prior to placement for adoption does also seem appropriate in light of her needs. Post placement in a prospective adoptive placement the plan is for indirect contact between CN and her adult family members. The Guardian has considered this at E190 in case I am asked by Mr Crawley for CW to consider asking the Local Authority to amend their plan to one of open adoption. I think this does depend on much that is uncertain at this point. CW will clearly need time to absorb the implications of my decision and therefore her ability to support an adoptive placement is not clear. It is normally only with such support that open adoptions can work, as the Guardian notes at E190. Much will also depend on the prospective adopters and their ability to acknowledge the value of a limited relationship with and continued role of a birth parent, and the risk of direct contact with a potentially hostile parent destabilising the placement. I am also fully aware that direct contact between the siblings may also cause CN to question why KN has direct contact and she does not if that is the outcome for CN. There is also the very real issue, I feel, that CN does also have some additional needs beyond those which would be usual for a child of her age as a result of her early life (as noted by Dr Schnack), albeit that these are not as significant as her sister. This may mean that a pool of potential adopters may be slightly limited in consequence. If I were to impose a restriction upon the Local Authority of only asking them to search for adopters willing to have an open adoption, this may jeopardise the plan for CN in a way which is unacceptable for her welfare because it may mean it is less likely that suitable adopters could be found for her. I would not therefore be minded to consider such a restriction if I were to be asked to impose it.

Conclusions

This seems to me to be a particularly sad case. KN in particular has had to endure years of difficulties and the attempted rehabilitation to her parent's care in 2010 seems, with the benefit of hindsight, to have been doomed to failure. Even without that hindsight, as noted by Dr McClintock, there do seem to have been some very real deficiencies in the analysis conducted in the course of those earlier proceedings which led to KN being returned to her parent's care when the issues which exposed her to significant harm remained unresolved. As a result, she suffered further significant harm and then her younger sister was also subjected to the same. They both need permanency and the only way that this can be achieved, I have found, is by endorsing the Local Authority plans and granting the orders sought. I will therefore grant a care order in respect of KN and in respect of CN, followed by a placement order in her case and will dispense with the consent of her parents to the making of that placement order.

Finally, I would just like to say a few things to CW and the aunts in this case. CW, it appears that you are starting to undertake work to address your issues and do seem to have some insight into the problems with your parenting. It is clear to me that you have had some appalling experiences in your life and that the profound damage you have suffered is therefore something which was not necessarily in your control. I would urge you to continue that work and to in particular seek the input of the complex needs service as recommended by Dr Schnack. You are going to continue to have some contact with KN directly, and may have some direct contact with CN after adoption, and that contact is bound to be improved for your children if you continue to work on your issues. It is also very clear to me that you do love your children so I would hope that your love for them will enable you to continue the positive work you have started.

In relation to SN and AW, again it is clear to me as I have said before that you are both motivated by good intentions and love for your nieces. Nothing that I have said about the reasons why I have concluded that it is not in their best interests to be placed with you should be taken as a criticism of your intentions. I have had to make very difficult decisions in respect of these children and their welfare has been my paramount consideration. On my analysis of their needs and your ability to meet those needs, I could not conclude that you were able to meet their needs, no matter how much you believe you are able to do so and clearly want to do so. I just want to thank you for putting yourselves through the difficult process of offering to care for these children and for participating in these proceedings as a support to CW in AW's case and as a party in SN's case.