England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTHAMPTON SITTING AT MILTON KEYNES

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF P( A CHILD)

		20/05/2015

Judge Antony Hughes:

Introduction

1. The child with whom I am concerned is P who was born on 16^th October 2012 and is now aged 2 years and 7 months. He is represented in these proceedings by Miss Johnson of Counsel through his guardian, Miss Petrides.
2. This is an application by Northamptonshire County Council for care and placement orders in relation to P. The local authority are represented by Mrs Vissian of Counsel.
3. P's mother is LC and she is represented by Miss Savvides of Counsel. GA is Peter's father and he is represented by Mr Keyes of Counsel.

Background and history

4. I draw now on the local authority's helpful summary for the background and progress of this case. Where any this summary conflicts with my findings, my findings of course prevail.
5. The applicant authority issued an application for Care Orders on 14^th November 2014 in respect of P and his sister O (R, a male known as O). The local authority's concerns at the time of issuing the applications were drug misuse by P's parents, the violence in the relationship of P's parents and the neglect experienced by the children as a result of poor parenting.
6. There have been proceedings concerning mother's two older children S and J. Both children have been adopted.
7. Proceedings were issued with respect O at the same time this application was issued with respect to P. During the course of these proceedings the application concerning O was withdrawn.
8. There were previous private law proceedings, which resulted in Mr G obtaining residence orders for O and her older brother R. These applications were made and granted whilst mother was incarcerated in relation to offences concerns her misuse of drugs.
9. P and his sister O have been known to the local authority for some time due to concerns about mother's drug use and neglect of her children prior to P's birth. These concerns were extended to P (pre-birth) with respect to mother and GA, the domestic violence in their relationship and drug misuse.
10. There have been continuing concerns regarding the drug misuse of the parents (LC and GA) and the emotional impact that this has had on the children. O has been left to care for P on a number of occasions for periods of time while LC has misused drugs. Equally LC has taken P with her to inappropriate premises exposing P to potential emotional and physical harm.
11. The children have been exposed to a chaotic lifestyle with few boundaries and as a result have suffered emotional harm and have been put at risk of physical harm.
12. Domestic abuse was reportedly a feature in the relationship between LC and GA. There are concerns as to the impact of exposure from such abuse on the children.
13. LC is reported to have diagnoses of psychosis, schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder. There are concerns as to the impact of her mental health issues on her parenting capacity.
14. There were concerns as to Mr G's ability to put in place boundaries for O in order to secure her placement with him. O moved to live with mother in July 2013. O took on the responsibility for caring for P whilst residing with LC which has had a huge impact on O who herself has significant and complex health needs. O needed a parent who can take responsibility for her and help meet her needs. Both LC and Mr G had failed to do so.
15. O lived during the currency of the proceedings concerning her with Mr G under the auspices of an interim supervision order. She was in a hospital facility being treated for an eating disorder. It was anticipated that she would remain in this facility for some time. O discharged herself from the hospital facility and indicated her discontent at being subject to an order. As a result representations were made for the local authority's application with respect to O being withdrawn. This was granted. O moved to live once again with LC.
16. The applicant authority in March 2015 had indicated a commitment to undertaking a further community-based assessment of LC with a view to P being rehabilitated to her care. This plan was put in place based on the outcome of the Parenting Capacity Assessment and LC 's abstinence from drug use as evidenced by hair strand testing. However at the hearing on 12.03.15 LC disclosed that she had on one occasion misused heroin and crack cocaine since she was last tested. The applicant authority at a further hearing on 23.03.15 indicated that it could no longer support a plan of rehabilitation of P to LC's care. An application for a placement order with the supporting documentation has since been filed and served.
17. On 10.04.15 LC made a 'Part 25' application for a rehabilitation placement at Phoenix House for a 26-week period. The application was opposed by the applicant authority and the children's guardian and refused by the court.
18. A further hair strand test was undertaken with respect to LC for the period covering mid-February 2015 to mid-April 2015. The test results indicated that LC had used cocaine over the entire tested period, leaving open the suggestion that her disclosed use in March 2015 was not a 'one off blip' as she then suggested and has since maintained.

Assessments undertaken in the proceedings

19. An initial viability assessment was undertaken of P's paternal grandmother JA. It was negative. The assessor concluded despite JA's obvious love for P and her good intentions in putting her self forward to care for P, she was not in a viable position to care for P at this time. There has been no application to challenge this assessment.
20. An initial viability assessment was undertaken of P's maternal grandmother, BR. It was negative. The assessor concluded that BR very much loved P. However her own health issues would prevent her from caring for P on her own. There has been no application to challenge this assessment.
21. An initial viability assessment was undertaken of a family friend, GF. It was positive. The applicant authority had proposed to undertake a connected persons assessment of GF. Before the assessment could be undertaken and the report completed, GF indicated on reflection that she was not able at this time to care for P. The assessment was therefore not undertaken or a report filed.
22. HA (P's paternal uncle) had asked to be assessed as a potential carer in the event that P could not be placed with his father. Prior to the initial viability assessment being undertaken HA advised that he no longer wished to be assessed.

Sibling Assessment: Gill Shipman 03.02.15

23. Due to the nature of the relationship between P and his sibling, O, it was necessary for a sibling assessment to be undertaken. Hence O's role in P's life before he was removed from the care of his parents was a very nurturing one. O reported that she regularly cared for P in her mother's absence and in the period where she did not live with P and their mother, she would regularly visit P and has built a good attachment to P. Hence the time spent with P since his birth by O had been significant. Observations of P and O together were recorded as showing that P is happy to go to O to have his needs met. Due to her caring for P in period of their mother's absence O's role in P's life was observed to have crossed over from sibling to carer. Ms Shipman was of the view that despite the closeness of the siblings and the needs they share as common factors, they each had their own individual needs which were very different due to the difference in their ages, the very different stages they were at in their respective lives and O's own unique needs. As such their needs in terms of parenting were very different. Ms Shipman concluded whilst the relationship between O and P was important, their own differing needs were such that when considering what is best for P in the long term, his best interest would be the sole focus.

Parenting Capacity Assessment of GA: Gill Shipman 23.02.15

24. Ms Shipman recognised that GA had made some positive changes in a short period of time but questioned his ability to sustain those changes and commented that the period of change demonstrated was not over a period that was long enough for her to be satisfied that GA could consistently meet P's needs. She was particularly concerned at GA minimising the impact his past behaviours would have had on P (included him denying that there was any violence in his relationship with LC), his ability to abstain from misusing drugs and in turn criminal behaviour. Hence her recommendation was that P should not return to the care of his father, GA.

Parenting Capacity Assessment of LC: Gill Shipman 23.02.15

25. Ms Shipman noted that LC throughout the assessment was able to acknowledge and take responsibility for the concerns raised about her parenting in relation to her drug use. The report acknowledged the positive changes made by LC and emphasised the need for LC to continue to access support to sustain those changes. During the time of the assessment LC had been abstinent from misuse drugs since November 2014. Ms Shipman expressed the view, that whilst LC was 'drug free' she was able to meet P's needs (the needs of her children). In light of the changes made and the reported motivation to sustain that change at the time the assessment was undertaken, Ms Shipman was of the view that LC would be able to meet P's needs. Ms Shipman therefore recommended that LC engage with further drug testing and in the event that further abstinence from drug misuse was demonstrated by LC, a further community based assessment be undertaken with a view to P being rehabilitated to LC's care.
26. LC did not remain drug free and so a further assessment was not undertaken.

Drug Testing: LC

27. A number of drugs tests were carried out during the course of the proceedings. The results indicated the following:

Mid-August 2014 to Mid-November 2014 in three hair sections :

Positive for the use of cocaine for the whole of the period tested. The use of crack cocaine was declared.

Positive for the use of morphine and heroin for the whole of the period tested. The use of heroin was declared.

Mid-November 2014 to Mid-February 2015 in three hair sections

There was no evidence of any drug use in the whole period tested.

Mid-February 2015 to Mid-April 2015 in two hair sections

Positive for cocaine and the cocaine metabolite benzoylecgonine for the whole period tested. The levels of cocaine detected were in the medium range.

There is no evidence that there had been use any of the drugs within the opiate drug group for the whole period e.g. heroin.

Drugs Testing: GA

28. A number of drugs tests were carried out during the course of the proceedings. The results indicated the following:

End of August 2014 to end of November 2014 in three hair sections

Positive for the use of cocaine for the whole of the period tested. The use of crack cocaine was detected to have been used from the end of September 2014 to the end of November 2014. It was not possible to differentiate from the relevant hair sections when cocaine was used and when 'crack' cocaine was used.

Positive for the use of heroin for the whole of the period tested. Morphine and codeine were detected as having been used from the end of September 2014 to the end December 2014.

End of November 2014 to end of February 2015 in three hair sections

Positive for the use of 'crack' cocaine for the whole period tested.

Positive for the use of opiates, including heroin, for the whole period tested.

29. I have heard from the social worker in the case, a social worker from the family finding adoption team, the parents and the Guardian. I have read the filed evidence in the case.

Local authority evidence:

30. Gill Shipman is the social worker and was allocated to this case on 11^th December 2014 and I heard live evidence from her. The previous social worker was Thoko Mazura.
31. The current social worker is the author of four statements, the placement application report and the care plans. She has also prepared parenting assessments of each parent and lodged her last statement on 21^st April in support of the local authority's change of position from that of rehabilitation to orders for care and placement with a view to adoption. This fairly radical change of position came about as a consequence of mother disclosing continued drug use and the result of hair strand tests as a consequence of which the local authority and the guardian felt that they could not support a plan of reunification. Some of the reasons for that are perhaps illuminated in a short minute of a management meeting (which I have seen) which indicates mother's disclosure that she purchased crack cocaine and/or heroin and used £30 worth out of an £80 worth deal. It is of course significant that mother made that disclosure on 19^th March at court after the court, at the guardian's behest, was about to order hair strand testing in time for the final hearing and before lodging her final report on the issue of rehabilitation.
32. I have read the social worker's statements with care and in particular I was drawn to the importance that the local authority placed on the mother's new drugs use and the reasons why did so.
33. This witness says in her final statement, "LC's drug use is a longstanding issue which is linked to the significant trauma that she has suffered. Further to this in times of stress LC has used drugs as coping strategy. These proceedings have been a stressful time for LC and she has shown motivation to change and engage with services to help her address the issues in relation to her drug use and being four months drug free. However, sadly, LC has had a very difficult and distressing phone call from Manna House Counselling Service and as a result of this she used what she described as a small amount of drugs. It is positive and that LC was open and honest about this drug use and that she did not go missing for days as she has done previously. However LC has mentioned previously has suffered a significant amount of trauma which understandably will be very difficult for her to address and deal with. LC following this phone call has made the decision to focus on her drug use and coping with that instead of trying to cope with the drug issue and the trauma of her past. I will agree that LC focusing on one issue at a time is a sensible way for her to move forward however there are concerns that when she chooses to address it in the future how she will cope with this and would it trigger a further relapse. Further concerns are historically LC , despite some long periods of abstinence, has returned to drug use."
34. I make one or two observations in relation to this evidence. Firstly, as I have already observed, her disclosure came after the court ordered a drugs test. Secondly, the drugs test indicate a higher level of use then the one she indicated and significantly heroin was not disclosed. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly of all, the mother has a substantial history of drug use. Although it is true that she has been drug free for relatively long periods in her life but there has been a very distinct pattern of behaviours from LC involving drug use and abusive relationships.
35. In fact the chronology filed in these proceedings is deeply significant. It was slightly more than a year ago on 15^th March 2014 when a referral was received from the family support worker at Sure Start that mother may be abusing drugs once again.
36. Incidentally by April 2014 the father had relapsed and by the time the mother saw the doctor on 22^nd April 2014, she was tested positive for cocaine and Benzone. She had also used Subutex, crack and heroin.
37. She was rehoused in June 2014 following what she said was domestic abuse by GA and P was made the subject of a child protection plan under the category of emotional and physical abuse on 14^th July 2014.
38. Between June and September 2014 she had two reported relapses. On both occasions it was reported that she abandoned O and took P with her and during a period of relapse she used crack cocaine and heroin. The incident in June was apparently overnight at an undisclosed location in Kettering and the September incident was in Northampton from 2^nd September to 5^th September with her being with a known class A drug user. I am bound to observe that the initiation of a child protection plan should have been a stark warning to the mother in relation as to probable outcomes so far as P was concerned.
39. In the meantime GA was involving himself in criminal activity notably attempted burglary and disclosing in October that he was using heroin.
40. So far as detriment was concerned in relation to P, the mother by October 2014 was not actively engaging with the children's centre for P's stimulation and peer interaction and unsurprisingly in November an interim care order was granted and P was removed, the interim threshold for removal clearly being satisfied.
41. I mention this chronological history because continued drug use has to be placed in that context.
42. The social worker reported in her evidence that her discussions with "Substance to Solutions" (S2S) indicated that mother was perhaps taking on too much but it has been established to my satisfaction that no therapy had been undertaken by the mother which could have caused her distress although there may have been a telephone conversation that unsettled her regarding the nature of her past experiences which I am entirely persuaded would have been traumatic.
43. Apparently it was the nature of questions asked over the telephone with a view to counselling that, according to the mother, resulted in her having flashbacks and nightmares leading to her single further relapse (on her case).
44. This social worker was always clear. In her parenting capacity assessment she has always been clear that continued drug use could potentially change the local authority plans for rehabilitation.
45. I should say that there are many positives in relation to the mother's care of P all of which have been sensitively and carefully rehearsed by this social worker in her evidence. Clearly whilst the mother has been under the influence of drugs and had P in her care this would have, in my judgment, had an impact on that care but there is lots of evidence of loving and appropriate interaction between P and his mother and contact is positive. I should add that contact is positive so far as the father is concerned but both these parents, in my judgment, have substantial issues which they need to address before they can safely parent their child.
46. She was challenged, and challenged quite understandably, by both parents' representatives in relation to the local authority plan for permanent removal and adoption as against what both parents clearly saw as a positive for P namely long term foster care where the family tie was not severed.
47. She was bound to accept that prior to the mother's disclosure in March (and I have to say the subsequent evidence revealed by testing) the local authority were suitably satisfied that risks could be managed to enable rehabilitation. There appeared to be some criticism of the social worker that as a consequence of the mother's suggested honesty the plan had so drastically changed however, in my judgment, the drugs issue has to be taken in the context of the mother's drug use over a period of time and the fact that this was a relapse when, on the mother's own case, she was under some pressure. Parenting, in my judgment, is a stressful business and parents are, in the normal course of events, subject to pressure and it remains a matter of grave concern that the mother relapsed even if her own account is to be believed.
48. It was also suggested that there will be a significant loss to P but not only the loss of his mother who he clearly loves and I note his distress on parting from her at contact, but also his sister, O, who has played a great part in his day to day care although perhaps in circumstance where she should not have been given her own not insignificant difficulties.
49. The local authority's care plan is stark involving as it does only letterbox contact with family members including O and there will be an undoubted impact so far as she is concerned.
50. This social worker was able to acknowledge difficulties in relation to both not only O but also in P in terms of a permanent separation.
51. So far as the father was concerned, it was a matter of grave concern to her that the father had used drugs apparently throughout the proceedings and there is a link to his criminal history.
52. She was able to agree that contact had been positive with the father able to stimulate P and effect boundaries and display emotional warmth.
53. However her concerns centred on the fact that he has not been able to prove himself and he too was aware of local authority involvement over the course of the last year and has not made any significant progress in becoming drug free acknowledging as she did that he has made some positive changes securing himself employment and engaging with professionals. The issue that she sets out in her last statement is whether or not these can be sustained. He has, in my judgment, still a long way to go.

Mother's evidence

54. LC is P's mother and the author of two statements. She of course has been involved in the care system as a child and has had a poor experience of it and no confidence that it can meet the needs of her son who she clearly loves. It is her belief that she has been honest about her drug taking but I am afraid that that does not sit tidily with the result of the drugs test which speak to a medium use of drugs over a period of time.
55. She did speak very passionately indeed about what she could offer her son and how it was that her drug use was triggered.
56. She has had an appalling childhood and has been subject to multiple abuses and it is perhaps noteworthy that she has managed to cope as well as she has having regard to the difficulties in her early life. It is however deeply troubling and goes directly to the assessment of future risk that when she was in crisis after having a telephone conversation that she did not access the support networks that had been set up to deal with her. Despite all those coping mechanisms she resorted to use of drugs on her own case and in any event has demonstrated perhaps to a greater degree by the drugs test result.
57. Her reason why she delayed making a disclosure until at court and until after it was indicated that the guardian would be seeking further drugs tests, was the drugs tests would not have revealed her admitted use. If her account is to be accepted the amount of drugs that she used was very small indeed and heroin was not even shown to have been used although that is her case. What is more worrying is that there was drugs use indicated by the test results over and above what she has admitted.
58. One of the issues that is at large is the issue of domestic violence from GA.
59. On 24^th April 2012 she reported to police that she had been grabbed by the throat. It is a matter of record that she sought a non-molestation order against GA but it is also clear that she must have reconciled with him as there are three breaches of the order and on two occasions he was found at her property and on one occasion in her bedroom which clearly speaks to an ambivalent relationship that she had with him at the time.
60. She sought to distance herself from any notion of extreme violence in that relationship but it is quite clear that there has been a degree of physical violence, at the lower end of the scale although I accept her evidence that this was not as serious as some of the domestic violence she has suffered in the past.
61. Her case is that she will never make the same mistake again and by that she means her "blip" in using drugs in relation to her admitted use.
62. She said that she has never been in "such a state through drugs" that she has been unable to look after her children and described herself as "an occasional user." It is a clear window of complete lack of insight in relation to the effect on O of her drug taking and consequent chaotic parenting.
63. However the threshold criteria which she has accepted makes it plain that her illegal drug use has impacted on the care of her children and that together with her significant mental health problems has led to her two elder children being adopted.
64. It was suggested to her that she had a pattern of resorting and returning to drugs. In P's pre-birth assessment both she and the father showed motivation but this was short lived.
65. Candidly given her overriding need to start therapy she said that she did not know when she would be able to start it as she would need to be very strong. Her priority, understandably, was to seek the return of her son. To her great credit she has indicated a willingness to work with the local authority and all the agencies. At some point, as she acknowledges, she needs to deal with "the demons" in her life. She told me that she could cope with the demons once her son and daughter are stable. So far as O is concerned I am afraid to say that there are difficult and chequered times ahead as she is deeply troubled, and the mother has shown, in my judgment, by her continued drugs use that her own issues are far from resolved and there is no coherent timescale within which they can be resolved it would seem.
66. She was candid enough however to accept that so far as "trigger" events were concerned there were lots of trigger events in day to day life.
67. She denied any suggestion that she had "disappeared" for a week or so and disengaged with her support systems citing that she was busy having to attend appointments in London with O and did spend a night away with a friend.
68. I was taken in cross examination by the guardian's Counsel to a snapshot of O's view of the parenting that she has received from her mother. Of course O was at one time subject to these proceedings. The initial social work statement is a stark one. I quote from that report of 13^th October 2014:

"At the time of the precipitating events O has witnessed significant chaos in her mother's life and quite eloquently explains her mother's relapse pattern and how she abandons either both O and P leaving her to care for P and being completely out of reach by telephone to anything from an overnight to three or four days. LC's chaotic lifestyle has a huge impact on O's ability to trust her mother to be able to safeguard her. It affects O's ability to respond to boundaries and to respect her mother."

69. It is evident that at the time the proceedings were taken that P had historically been exposed to a life of inconsistency and instability in the form of domestic strife, drug taking and a chaotic lifestyle. It was O when asked who said "I would like mum to set her priorities straight. I think she thinks of the consequences. I think she thinks she can do anything and everyone is going to forgive her because she has got mental illness." She also said that she was worried that "C" (who is P) is often on guard and screams when his mother goes through a door because he thinks that she is going to leave.
70. In my judgment it is not the mother's resumption of drugs on its own that is the issue. It is the resumption of drugs coupled with a serious risk of returning to a lifestyle that actively harms her children because she is overridden by her own complex issues.
71. It is plain from the mother's case and the questions that are put on her behalf if she was not able to care for P then she would favour foster care. I wonder whether she has thought through the consequences in relation to that latter option given her undoubted wish to have P returned to live with her. There would no doubt be further applications to the court for P's return and it would be difficult to envisage P flourishing in a permanent environment in foster care given the uncertain prognosis of his future return to family. It is a dismal prospect for him however much his family love him and I am sure they do.
72. GA is P's father. He has an unenviable list of previous convictions dating back many years. In fact since 1996 to 26^th September 2014 he has acquired 25 convictions comprising 75 offences.
73. He has continued to abuse drugs throughout these proceedings.
74. So far as his relationship with the mother was concerned he was prepared to accept that it was volatile. He did not recall grabbing her by the throat but could have grabbed her by her clothing around her neck in the course of a pushing and shoving argument in 2012. Although he agreed that that was a physical assault he thought any suggestion that he was a high risk in relation to domestic violence was unfounded.
75. His first position is that he supports the mother in her aspirations to have P returned to her care. That is completely understandable.
76. If that was not possible because of the mother's difficulties, then he advances the prospect of himself and his mother caring. This is notwithstanding the negative viability assessment of his worthy mother who cares for his own grandmother who is bedbound. Any notion he may have of a return to his care in circumstances where he is abusing drugs and hopes to share care with his already overburdened mother is at best unrealistic and at worst, fanciful. I should say in relation to him that there are many positives of course. He has held down a job since January 2015 and made numerous positive changes in his life. There are examples of tender and loving interaction at contact between him and his son. I am entirely persuaded that both he and the mother are devoted to P but the issue for court will be their capacity to care for him throughout childhood.

Guardian's evidence

77. Samantha Petrides is P's guardian in these proceedings and her report is dated 29^th April and in it she addresses both welfare checklists under the Children Act and under the Adoption Act. Her concern centres on the mother's history of unstable and chaotic parenting and her continued drug use.
78. In relation to father, she clearly supports the local authority's view that although there have been positive changes he has continued to use drugs at least until February 2015.
79. She recites that notwithstanding her evident historical difficulties the mother was able to engage positively and produce clean drug tests from November to February 2014 and was clearly supportive at some stage of the prospect of rehabilitation.
80. However it was mother's admitted drug use on 12^th March combined with the damming recent hair strand tests which show on her evidence that mother simply cannot sustain the changes that are needed in order to parent her son safely. She says in her report … "… P has been subjected to severe neglect. As highlighted previously it is clear that his needs for safety, security and consistent care were not met by either LC or GA within the family home. Therefore, for P, his depiction of the world around him is that it is a scary, unpredictable and unsafe place to be in and his parents could not always be counted on him to keep him safe." She completed her own checks with the Manna House on 29^th April and notwithstanding mother's assertion that it was the phone call with Manna House that so unsettled her as to propel her once again into drug taking that does not accord with their record. It seems that she has spoken to Mr Pritchard who has confirmed that the mother is on their records but never engaged with the service but it is not their practice to complete telephone interviews.
81. It is a matter for concern to the guardian that mother may not have been honest about her drug taking nor indeed about what may have precipitated it.
82. Significantly also the guardian has spoken to Clare Skernan who is the S2S worker. That worker highlighted concerns about the mother's recent disengagement with the service, her avoidance of drugs tests, failure to collect her Subutex prescription as well as non-attendance at contact. The strong suspicion of Ms Skernan is that mother may have used drugs again and that view of course has been confirmed by the findings of the recent hair strand test. Ms Skernan reported "LC has really tried hard to remain motivated however I do not believe that she can sustain the changes needed at this point in time for P because there are too many stresses and triggers in her community and her drug use has been a long entrenched pattern of coping behaviour for her." The recommendation is that mother would benefit from a twelve month detoxification programme but the reality is that the completion of such therapy will go way beyond P's timescale. I accept that evidence and it is crucial to the determination of the case.
83. In relation to the father's case and the fact that the father "wants a chance to prove himself," is that he has had that chance during the 26 weeks of these proceedings and did not remain abstinent and even with the care of his mother (who failed her initial viability assessment with the local authority) he would not be able to care for his son safely. I recall that it was concluded in the maternal grandmother's assessment that "… she would not be able to protect P from his parents' behaviours, exposure to drugs and crime and manage his needs while being the fulltime carer of her elderly mother."
84. When the guardian came to give live evidence her position was unchanged and she cited research in relation to children placed in foster care of greater instability and moves within their placement with which comprised briefly, and by way of summary, 61% of children having two moves in their first year and 41% up to four moves in the first year. This covers the entire age range up to the age of 16 years.
85. She worried about P's future stability. He has had two moves already and it is clear that she thought that his need for a permanent settled placement was imperative and I agree with her.
86. She was challenged that adoption as an end result was not proportionate in this case given mother's account of a single "blip." It emerged from her evidence and after looking at the drugs tests she thought that the mother had taken drugs on more than one occasion given the range of those tests and the mother's drug taking should be taken in the context of her history. I accept that view after hearing from the mother in evidence and reading her accounts.
87. She agreed that she had supported a rehabilitation plan and that had always envisaged the possibility of relapse but what was deeply troubling about the present situation as when the mother was in crisis she did not access her own maintenance and support systems preferring to make the disclosure direct to the social worker at court. Also at the time there was evidence of disengagement with those people who she herself had identified to help her. This goes, in my judgment, directly to prognosis and I can repose no confidence that the mother would be able to effectively access her own support systems in the future having demonstrably failed to do so in these circumstances.
88. She was criticised that her report contained a lack of analysis in relation to the merits of foster care and certainly what is lacking from her written evidence and the local authority's written evidence is an exercise which compares the benefits and detriments of foster care against adoption by reference to the s.1(3) welfare checklist. However I question to what extent, foster care was ever realistic option for the reasons I have stated. However her report does contain in all other respects excellent analysis by reference to the significant harm threshold and also by reference to the s.1(3)(e) of the Welfare Checklist. It is evident from that analysis which I accept that a rehabilitation to either parent is clearly not in P's best interests.
89. She was able to acknowledge in the witness box the potential for loss to P in relation to his birth family and the potential for some emotional difficulty in adolescence but the thrust of her evidence was clear that adoption was the only and necessary outcome that could meet P's needs and every other realistic option had been explored.
90. As to foster care given the benefits of adoption in terms of a permanent family, her firm evidence was that P's need for permanence could not be delayed in the hope that his parents, and in particular his mother, may change and the parents' continued use of drugs had overtaken the rehabilitation plan. I heard other evidence from a member of the Adoption team as to the chances of early placement and very small percentage chance of breakdown (2 per cent) in relation to Northampton placements.
91. It was not merely the mother's use of drugs that had disrupted the plan it was her use of drugs coupled with her difficult history and the cycle of abusing drugs.
92. In my judgment what has been particularly troubling about the mother's account of the trigger was that it was triggered by a discussion probably with her mental health Wellbeing Navigator rather than Manna House Counselling Service but felt she "needed escapism" and why she obtained and used the drugs. The scenario that she describes is one which given her history is highly likely to reoccur whenever she receives a reminder from one source or another of her deeply troubling past.

The law

93. I remind myself that Hale LJ (as she then was) said in Re C and B (Children)(Care Order : Future Harm) [2000] 2FCR 614 at paragraph 33

"… under Article 8 of the Convention both the children and the parents have the right to respect for their family and private life. If the state is to interfere with that then there are three requirements : first, that it be in accordance with the law; secondly, that it be for a legitimate aim (in this case the protection of the welfare and interests of the children); and thirdly, that it be "necessary in a democratic society" ".

94. I have firmly in mind that under normal circumstances the best person to bring up a child is a natural parent and the powerful remarks by Mr Justice Hedley in Re L (Care : Threshold criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 and the toleration that society must have to the very diverse standards of parenting "including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent."
95. I also adopt and agree with the propositions advanced in Re MA (Care Threshold) [2010] 1 FLR CA 433 that the significant harm that I should have regard to must be sufficiently high to justify the momentous step of taking children away from their parents and the risk must be an unacceptable one.
96. All the relevant law in relation to cases involving a care order with a plan for permanent removal of a child from its family by way of adoption has been significantly summarised in the case of Re R (A Child) 2014 EWCA Civ 1625. It is in fact a rehearsal of existing case law of which the primary examples are Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings : Threshold Criteria) 2013 2FLR 1075 and the well known and often misinterpreted decision in Re BS (children) Adoption Order : Leave to oppose 2014 1FLR 1035.
97. I distill from those cases and the other rehearsed in the judgment of Re R the following.
98. Baroness Hale of Richmond's remarks in Re B :

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

99. What is required in these cases has also been healthily illuminated by Ryder LJ in CM v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council 2014 EWCA Civ 1479.

"The process of deductive reasoning involves the identification of whether there are realistic options to be compared. If they are a welfare evaluation is required. That is an exercise which requires the benefits and detriments of each realistic option one against the other by reference to s.1(3) of the welfare factors. The court identifies the option that is in the best interests of the children and then undertakes a proportionality evaluation to ask itself the question whether the interference in family life involved by that best interest option is justified."

100. As Pauffley J said in LRP (A Child) Care Proceedings : Placement Order 2013 EWHC 3974 (FAM) : "the focus should be on the sensible and practical possibilities rather than every potential outcome however far fetched."
101. The observations of Baker J in Re HA (a child) 2013 EWHC 3634 (fam) paragraph 28 are helpful : "rigorous analysis and comparison of the realistic options for the child's future … does not require a court in every case to set out in tabular format the arguments for and against every conceivable option. Such a course would tend to obscure rather than enlighten the reasoning process."
102. In many cases, and indeed probably in most, there would only be a relatively small number of realistic options.
103. None of this should obscure the most important abiding principle that the court's paramount consideration in accordance with s.1(2) of the 2002 Adoption & Children Act is the child's welfare "throughout his life" in other words interpretation of the words "nothing else will do" must not exclude the overriding welfare considerations in relation to a particular child's case as Macur LJ said in M-H (a child) 2014 EWCA civ 1396.

Threshold

104. During the course of the hearing the composite threshold document under s.31 of the Children Act was agreed by the parties leaving the court to make findings in relation to the welfare aspects of this case.

Conclusion & findings

105. I return to the fundamental principle in this case namely the duty imposed on the court to make such order that accords with the paramountcy of P's welfare. There is nothing in the case law that undermines this fundamental principle and the words "nothing else will do" should not exclude the overriding welfare considerations in relation to this particular child's case.
106. What has emerged from the evidence is that the issue in this case is the capacity of either P's parents to satisfy his overwhelming welfare needs for the duration of his childhood.
107. My judicial task is clear. Firstly, I must establish that there is proper evidence from the local authority and the children's guardian which addresses all the realistically possible options for this child together with the necessary analysis. In my judgment that evidence is before the court and has arrived before the court by both a combination of written and oral evidence including of course evidence from the parents themselves.
108. Secondly , having reviewed all that evidence it is my task to ensure that the judgment grapples with the competing factors and contains adequate reasons. As is evidenced from the more recent case law which I have rehearsed earlier in this judgment that involves rigorous analysis and comparison of the realistic options for this child's future.
109. So far as the mother is concerned she is passionate and sincere in wanting the return of her son who she loves very much. It is clear from the history of this case that she has been able in the past, notwithstanding her addiction and mental health problems, been able to give this child good enough parenting from time to time, but she has a significant history which has directly affected her mental health and I have no doubt, propelled her into drug taking at a very early age after experiencing extreme childhood traumas such as rape. It is unsurprising therefore that she has taken refuge from the demons that those traumas have generated in the use of illegal drugs and, as a consequence episodes of chaotic, neglectful, and harmful parenting as the threshold findings make clear.
110. At the start of the process the local authority carried out a pre-birth assessment and made it plain to her, leaving her in no doubt that continued use of drugs, or a return to drugs, would involve her son's removal and make rehabilitation impossible.
111. I observe so far as her history of parenting is concerned one only needs to look through the prism of O's experiences as a child when being parented by a mother who was, from time to time, taking drugs and how it is recorded that she still struggles with emotions of not understanding why her mother would abandon her and prioritise her drugs and there is no doubt that the mother's drug use, mental health and relapses caused her not to be physically and emotionally available for O due to abandoning O as she prioritised her own needs over O's varied and complex emotional and health needs. The risks in this case are that P would be exposed to the same regime from time to time to his substantial detriment and, in my judgment, the risks of returning P to his mother are just not manageable.
112. This is evidenced by her recent relapse which she describes as a "blip." I do not on the evidence, accept that was just a " blip."
113. Firstly, I observe that she disclosed her own drugs use at court in circumstances where a draft order was in the process of being submitted to the court requiring further drugs tests. Secondly, her account of what she took does not accord with the level of drugs detected in the test which I have already rehearsed which are described by the testers as "a medium level of use." I make this finding on the balance of probabilities. Thirdly, it is probable that if her account is true in relation to the drugs that she took at a time I am sure, out of great despair, that they did not register at all because on her account only a very small amount was ingested and that included heroin which has not been disclosed by the test.
114. I turn to her explanation in relation to succumbing to the use of drugs. I have to say I have every sympathy with her in circumstances where she quite clearly becomes overwhelmed by the demons of her past. Her personal life story would melt the stoutest of hearts. It may well be that the trigger for this use was some sort of discussion of her past but I am satisfied that that was not with Manna House counselling and more probably with her personal support worker or "navigator."
115. Her difficulty is this: she accepts that she is not ready that to deal with therapy and there seems to be no particular timescale in which she feels that she is able to deal with that. In my judgment the temptation to use drugs again may well overwhelm her if the triggers are references to childhood abuse. She will encounter those references frequently both in the daily media and in her own flashbacks. This goes to support my finding that the risks are not manageable to so far as she is concerned until she has received therapy and demonstrated that she can remain drug free for an appreciable period of time.
116. This directly links into P's position. There is no reason in my judgment why he should be expected to wait for either of his parents to stabilise their chaotic lives. He is two and a half years old and that is a significant and relevant feature of this case. His case cannot be adjourned as there is an overriding need for permanency so that he can attach to new carers.
117. It has been posited that a realistic option in this case which has not been properly considered is foster care. Firstly I would say this: the relative disadvantages of foster care as compared with adoption have been addressed by the social worker and indeed the guardian in oral evidence. Long term foster care simply does not, in my judgment, have the same level of security and P would be subject to local authority scrutiny for the whole of his minority with the substantial risk of placement change, that cannot be in his welfare interests. In short form, he cannot wait until either of his parents can deal with their issues and demonstrate stability.
118. So far as the father is concerned, I find that he cannot parent alone and I believe he understands this. His plan to co-parent with his mother is, frankly, unworkable given her negative initial viability assessment and the onerous responsibilities she already has in relation to her own mother. Of course he does not want his son adopted and he clearly very much enjoys the positive interaction that he has with him. He has made many positive changes in his life which have included reduction of drug taking and keeping a regular job since January. These are all remarkable achievements in the context of his life in the same way that the mother has achieved periods of stability from time to time to the extent, and this was the high point, that a rehabilitation plan was in active progress before the drugs issue arose.
119. I should say, so that it is clear, that the drugs issue is not an isolated issue and has to be taken in the context of the mother's very serious history of problems and the fact that they have not been resolved and nor are likely to be in the timescale of this child.
120. Having made those preliminary observations and findings and I hope thrown all the positives into the balance namely the evident love that both parents and indeed O have for P and the numerous examples of tender and loving interaction between P and his parents at contact together with the significant loss of birth family. I apply myself to the provisions of the Welfare Checklist under the Children Act 1989. It is not necessary for the purposes of this judgment for me to rehearse each and every part of that Checklist under s.1(3) but of particular relevance are this child's physical, emotional and educational needs (s.1(3b)); the harm he has suffered or is at risk of suffering (s.1(3e)); and crucially, in this case, the capability of his parents or any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant in meeting his needs (s.1(3f)).
121. It will be evident from the findings that I have made that I find that neither parent is capable of meeting P's welfare needs within his timescale and I make a care order, approving as I do the care plan for adoption with indirect contact.
122. I must now go onto consider the placement order application. In particular I have considered the placement application report together with the guardian's analysis. Central to the consideration of the checklist under the Adoption & Children Act 2002 is the loss of natural family and the affect that that will have on P throughout his life. By adoption P will lose not only a relationship with his mother and father and, importantly, Olivia but also other relatives. These of course are material losses of relationship for any child and any human being. I have been told that there will be a severe impact on O if P is adopted and that she is not without significant vulnerability. However his welfare interests cannot be allowed to be subsumed by her interests.
123. Keeping that checklist firmly in mind I identify that P also has the need for stability and permanence throughout his childhood. I have already identified the risk of harm and assessments by the local authority have indicated that there are no relatives that are able to care for him. Of course I am alive to the risk of emotional difficulties later in his life when he may struggle for a sense of identity or struggle to understand why the court took the step it did. However I am fully persuaded that the present and future risks outweigh that consideration after having balanced it appropriately and the risks are just too great in returning P to his mother or father. It must be open to considerable doubt, given the factual background of this case, as to whether I should consider long term foster care as a realistic option. In my judgment there is an overriding welfare need for a permanent substitute family for P and that is why a decision needs to be made now. The realistic options were either a return to parents in one form or another. His welfare needs clearly dictate that it is not the best option for him and I am firmly of the view that so far as adoption is concerned nothing else will do. In those circumstances I dispense with parental consent, as his welfare clearly requires I should do so.
124. However he should know in the event one day that he will read this judgment, and I hope that he will, that his family loved him and wanted him but it has been concluded by the court that his welfare interests can only be met by the making of the orders that I have identified. I therefore make a placement order.