England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COUNTY COURT AT EAST LONDON

		11, Westferry Circus, London, E14 4HD
		26/04/16

HER HONOUR JUDGE CAROL ATKINSON:

1. I am concerned with two children A, a girl, aged 11 years and B, a boy, aged 10 years. The children's mother and father are separated. The local authority (LA) is the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The children are represented through their Guardian (G), Tricia Isaac.
2. This is the final hearing in the LA's application for Care Orders in respect of the siblings with a plan that they should be placed in long term foster care. These children have been the focus of LA attention for most of their lives, but events came to a head in September 2015 as a result of what the LA perceived to be an increasing failure to engage by the father and paternal family. LA concerns at that time were largely based on the father's persistent absence through imprisonment and the unplanned and constant changes made in the arrangements for the children's care and schooling.
3. On 17^th September the LA issued proceedings seeking a Supervision Order in order to gain better access to the children and work more formally with the family. On 12^th October an Interim Supervision Order (ISO) was made but shortly thereafter events overtook.
4. On 27^th October the mother received messages from the children that their father was renewing their passports and planned to take them abroad, possibly Egypt. The children were seen at home by police and social workers. They confirmed those messages and also said that their father hit them. The police exercised their powers of protection and removed the children into foster care.
5. On 28^th October the children were ABE interviewed. They alleged, amongst other things, that B was hit on the head and arms by his father and also on the leg with a phone charger by a paternal uncle; they said that A was hit on the back. They said that the blows were hard and that they hurt a lot. An application was made for an Interim Care Order which was granted and the children have remained in foster care ever since.

Issues and position of the parties

6. The issues for me to determine during this hearing are:

a. Whether the threshold is crossed, and if so on what basis?

b. If crossed, what orders, if any, should be made?

7. The LA, as I have said, seeks Care Orders with a view to placement in long term foster care. As it happens it is proposed that the children will remain in the home of their current foster carers. The Guardian supports the LA plan. The children's mother likewise supports the LA plan and disputes only the level of contact proposed. The children's father opposes the LA plan and seeks the immediate return of the children to his care.

Decision

8. I am satisfied that the threshold is crossed in this case. These children have undoubtedly suffered physical and emotional harm. That harm is significant and has been as a direct result of the care given to them by their father, such care not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. Their mother has been powerless to intervene and by that means has failed in her duty to protect them.
9. Whilst I can see that this father loves his children and they love him, I consider that he is unable to meet their needs and if returned to him they would suffer yet more harm. Furthermore, he has demonstrated such lack of insight into his failings that he is in my assessment unlikely to change within a timeframe that would be conducive to their desperate need for permanence. Accordingly, I intend to make the care order sought by the LA approving the plan that the children should remain in long term foster care.
10. So far as contact is concerned I approve the plan of the LA for a steady reduction in contact to both parents to a level of once per month to be reviewed in the normal way by those on the ground with the essential input of the IRO.
11. In a moment I will explain how it is that I have come to my decision but first I need to set out the essential background to this case because it is not limited to those matters which precipitated the issue of proceedings. Indeed it is the history – which is not disputed – and the father's current reaction to it that largely founds the basis for the decisions that I have made.

Background facts

12. The parents were married in May 2003. By that time the father had already been convicted of a number of offences – robbery of a bicycle from a young boy which involved intimidation (1999), possessing a knife (1999), and the use of threatening words and behaviour when he was handing out leaflets protesting against the promotion of homosexuality in schools (2000). Just after his marriage to the mother he was convicted of threatening public transport staff (2003). He was, I accept, a young man at this time. A was born in Aug 2004 and B almost exactly a year later in Aug 2005.
13. In March 2006 the father was convicted after a trial of his second robbery. The incident itself took place in February 2005 – 6 months after the birth of A and 6 months before the birth of B. This was his first case in the Crown Court. The allegations were that he had approached a young female walking alone late at night calling her "sexy". When she rebuffed him and tried to use her phone to call for help he slapped her twice in the face and stole her phone. On conviction the father was sent to prison for 3 years. A was 19 months old and B was just 7 months old. This marks the beginning of frequent and increasing periods of absence through imprisonment on the part of the father which continue throughout the whole of the children's lives.
14. It was during this first period of imprisonment that the mother decided that the marriage was over. The father was released in April 2007, after serving 13 months of his sentence. The parents separated and the children were left in his care. So it is that as a matter of fact these children lost their father for over a year and then on his return, their mother left.
15. In April 2008 the father married his second wife, Ms Begum though she did not come to the UK until January 2010. In March 2010 the father received his next conviction. Whilst that gives the impression that he had managed to stay out of trouble for almost three years since his release that is not the case because the offence to which this sentence related – dangerous driving and using a vehicle without insurance - was committed in October 2008, 18 months after his release. He was made subject to a suspended sentence.
16. His next prison sentence was imposed following a conviction in June 2010. This was in respect of a sexual assault committed in July 2009, less than a year after the dangerous driving. The victim had been lured to premises believing that she was attending a job interview. The father removed his clothing and rubbed his semi-erect penis against her. He was sent to prison for 10 months after pleading guilty. The children were left in the care of their step mother, Ms Begum, who they had only known for 6 months. They were almost 6 and 5 years of age. Their father was absent from the home for 5 months until November 2010. During this period of imprisonment the children's mother was experiencing difficulties in seeing them.
17. By March 2011 the children's step mother Ms Begum left the father making allegations that she had suffered domestic abuse and control at his hands. That is denied by him. The mother alleged that the children were being inappropriately chastised by their father. The father admitted that he had pulled A's hair and that he had placed them in the bath or shower fully clothed and thrown water over them as a means of punishment. He was advised that this was not acceptable.
18. In April 2011 the father was sent to prison for a further three months (his third prison sentence) for seeking to pervert the course of justice by offering the victim of the sexual assault money in exchange for not pursuing her complaint against him. He had only been home a matter of months. He also had a part of the suspended sentence previously imposed, activated as he had committed this offence during the operational period. In any event, he was released in July 2011.
19. During this absence this time the children were cared for by the paternal grandmother. The LA made the children subject to child protection plans as a result of concerns that the paternal grandmother had an extensive history within social services arising out of the care of her own children. In addition the children were not enrolled in school as the father had opted to home school them. The LA found them school places where they remained for less than 3 months because on his release in July 2011 the children were removed from school by their father.
20. In November 2011, after just 4 months at home, the father was sentenced to another period of imprisonment – his fourth. The father pleaded guilty to 29 separate offences of fraud. The offending covered a period of three years from August 2008 until August 2011. He received a total sentence of 42 months serving 21 months in prison. He was released in September 2013. During this time the children were returned to school and the care of the paternal grandmother. They continued to be subject to a child protection plan. During this period their mother came in and out of their lives inconsistently.
21. About 4 months prior to his release the father was moved prisons for his own safety. He had expressed certain views regarding the murder of the British soldier, Lee Rigby, in Woolwich. He was attacked in prison as a result and had to be moved interrupting the home release that he had begun some months earlier in anticipation of his release.
22. Just prior to his release the LA tried to work with the father and the family regarding the arrangements for the children's care. The children had become settled in the home of their grandmother. Their father had been absent for close on 2 years. By the time of his release they were aged 9 and 8. They had been in school during his absence. They indicated to the LA that they did not want to move and they certainly did not want to leave their school. Two months after his release, in November 2013, the father removed them from their school so that he could send them to East London Islamic School, an independent school.
23. In the same month, November 2013, the father committed three further offences of fraud with the result that in May 2014 he was sent to prison for the fifth time. The period of imprisonment was 4 months but more significantly because he had offended during the period that he was on licence following his fourth period of imprisonment he was recalled to prison to serve the remainder of that sentence. The children were returned to the care of their grandmother. In October 2014 they returned to their previous schools as the East London Islamic School terminated their places as a result of a failure on the part of the father to pay the school fees.
24. The father was released in February 2015. The LA was extremely concerned about the chaotic lifestyle suffered by the children and sought to persuade the family that it would be in the interests of the children to remain with their grandmother whilst she and other members of the family underwent a Special Guardianship assessment. Father agreed that the children could remain in the care of his mother only to then, on 29^th April, take them back into his care.
25. As part of this assessment of the family situation, the LA instructed a psychologist, Dr Shaun Parsons, on 7^th April to carry out an assessment of the father's personality and functioning. Dr Parsons reported on 18^th May 2015 making it clear that the minimal information he had, left him having to carry out his assessment largely on the clinical interview with the father and warning that his views had to be subject to that. Further information was provided, a further interview was carried out and an addendum produced dated 10^th June 2015. Both reports considered that the father was unable to provide a stable and secure home for the children. I will return to the detail of this evidence which is vehemently challenged by the father.
26. In spite of Dr Parsons' reports the LA took no action in relation to the children. In July 2015 the father's willingness to engage with the LA deteriorated further and a series of scheduled home visits were cancelled. In August 2015 the situation was the same. In September 2015 the LA was notified by the Jigsaw team (the police team who manage sex offenders subject to registration requirements) that the father intended to leave the country to go on a Haj. A meeting was convened and on 14^th September the LA indicated that it intended to issue proceedings. Meanwhile, the police raided father's home on 16^th September as a result of an unrelated criminal investigation which was not pursued and in which father was found to have had no involvement. During that search the police found what has been described in the papers as "items relating to propaganda and extremism in Islam in the form of books and DVDs" – no further action has ever been taken in that regard.
27. Proceedings were nevertheless issued for an ISO on 17^th September 2015 in respect of the children. As I have already set out, the main aim of the LA at that point was to gain better access to the children in order to assess their circumstances.
28. On 12^th October 2015 DJ Cooper made an ISO. I understand that the father was neither present nor represented at this hearing. It is accepted by him that he knew about the hearing but did not attend as he had not been properly served and therefore considered himself under no obligation to attend. On 13^th October, the day after the making of the ISO, the father texted the SW to tell her that "the children no longer reside in Tower Hamlets and will be home schooled". The LA discovered that the children had been moved to the home of the father's second wife in Barking and Dagenham. They have since been returned to their school in Tower Hamlets.
29. On 27^th October the mother received messages from the children that their father was renewing their passports and planned to take them abroad, possibly Egypt. The children were seen at home by police and social workers when they made allegations that they had been physically abused by their father precipitating their removal under police protection continued subsequently by court order.

Further assessments

30. During the course of the proceedings there has been a full parenting assessment of the father by the Eva Armsby Family Service (EAFS) and a domestic violence risk assessment by the Positive Change Service within the EAFS. Both assessments have proved negative, concluding that the father is not able to parent his children. The father disputes this and I will return to the detail in due course.
31. There has also been assessment of the mother and of other members of the paternal extended family. These assessments have also proven negative. As neither the mother nor the paternal grandmother, who withdrew from the process herself, nor the step mother, Ms B, seek to challenge these assessments or put themselves forward as alternative carers for the children, I need not rehearse any further details here though I have read all of these assessments.
32. Finally I should add that on 4 December 2015 father was arrested by the police on suspicion of a possible offence of grooming of a 14 year old girl with a mild learning disability. The alleged behaviour dates back to January 2014. The allegation is that the alleged victim had received messages and pictures of a sexual nature from a number of men, one of whom is said to be the father. It is alleges that he had made contact over 500 times in the period of a month with the child. The father has been arrested and interviewed. He has admitted the contact with her but maintains that he met her on a website for over 18s and that she had assured him she was 18. The investigation is expected to take some months to conclude. Meantime the father remains on police bail with conditions precluding him having unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 18 years.


The Law

33. It is the LA that brings this case and it is for the LA to prove it. The standard of proof is the simple balance of probabilities. What that means is that I must be satisfied that something is more likely than not to have happened before I can find it so. That applies in relation to all issues in this case. Neither the father nor the mother is under any obligation to prove anything.

Threshold

34. Once the facts have been established, I must consider whether those facts, when taken together, satisfy me that on 17^th September 2015 these children had suffered significant harm or were likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given to them or likely to be given to them by the father, his care being not what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. That is what I refer to as the statutory threshold.
35. The threshold must be crossed before I am able to consider making a care order as the LA invites me to do. If it is not crossed then I am unable to consider the LA application for care orders any further. If on the other hand the threshold is crossed then I must then go on to consider what orders, if any, to make.

Welfare

36. When deciding what, if any, order I should make, the welfare of each of the children is paramount. I must only make an order if it is better than making no order and in doing so I must make the order that is in the best interests of the child. I am guided in my analysis of each child's best interests by the welfare checklist.
37. I am mindful of the fact that children are best brought up within their natural family. The Article 8 rights of these children and their father are engaged here and any order which has the effect of interfering with those rights must be necessary to promote the interests of the child and proportionate to any identified risks.

Evidence

38. I make my determination on the whole of the evidence. That is the unchallenged statements of evidence, the expert reports and the oral testimony of those witness required to give evidence.
39. I have heard evidence from Ms Changlee, the manager of the team assessing the father at the Eva Armsby Family Service (EAFS), Kate Iwi, a social work professional with an expertise in assisting parents to make positive changes in situations involving violence to partners or children, Dr Shaun Parsons a forensic psychologist, the mother, the father and the Guardian. I do not intend to recite all of the evidence that I have heard and read in this case. Only sufficient to enable me to explain how and why I have come to the conclusions that I have.
40. A clear assessment of the reliability of witnesses of fact is necessary but that assessment is not based simply on my observations of that witness in the witness box. I must set their evidence against the context of all of the other evidence.
41. Reliance is placed upon expert evidence. I do not have to accept the opinion of experts, and once again I do not look at each piece of opinion evidence in isolation but stand back and look at it all, considering the reliability of one piece in the light of the other pieces of evidence.
42. Let me comment briefly then on the evidence in the case and in particular the live witnesses.

Assessment of the key witnesses

43. The expert evidence in this case has been impressive and compelling. First Dr Parsons. I consider that he has approached his assessment of the father with utmost care. His conclusions are evidence based and his predictions as to the father's behaviour going forward have been validated by events since he reported. Indeed the father's own behaviour in the court room lent considerable support to Dr Parsons' assessment of him.
44. The father challenged Dr Parsons on a number of bases. For example, he suggested that he had been informed that he, the father, was a terrorist and his view was coloured by the prejudice that this would necessarily bring. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whilst it is right that he was invited to consider whether the father held extreme views, Dr Parsons was at pains to make it clear that it was not his role to comment on whether such views were extreme, limiting himself to considering whether the father's views, whatever they be, were impacting upon his parenting of the children.
45. The father also highlighted a passage in the report which reads nonsensically. The fact that this makes no sense demonstrates, said the father, that the report cannot be relied upon. Not so, in my view. The phrase is said to be a direct quote from the father. Further it is clear from the following sentence that its meaning was not clear to Dr Parsons and clarification was sought. There are other criticisms of Dr Parsons but nothing undermines the integrity of the report and his findings.
46. Likewise the assessments of EAFS and Kate Iwi of the Positive Change Service. These reports are similarly balanced, well argued, evidenced, and compelling. The father's main criticism was that they were based upon the conclusions of Dr Parsons and they too were prejudiced by the fact that they were told that he was an extremist. The assessors both maintained that religious views, extreme or not, were a very small part of the assessment from their perspective and had little influence on their final positions. I accept that from them after noting that reference to this issue takes up a vanishingly small amount of space in each of their reports. As to the influence of Dr Parsons, whilst it is clear that both EAFS assessors draw similar conclusions to Dr Parsons it is evident that they do so independently and on the basis of the information gathered from the father in interview. What is very significant for me is that these almost identical findings from Dr Parsons on the one hand and EAFS on the other, tend to suggest that there has been no change whatsoever in the father's position in spite of the imperative of these proceedings and the removal of his children from his care.
47. The father's evidence was equally compelling but not, unfortunately, in a way that supported his case. The evidence from the father and his behaviour during the proceedings has served only to demonstrate that the assessments of the experts regarding his lack of insight, lack of victim empathy, minimisation and denial of responsibility and impulsivity were accurate. At the end of it all the father came over as a rather immature young man who placed himself at the centre of these proceedings. He gave the clear impression that he considered that these proceedings were about him, the infringement of his rights and the persecution of him by the labelling of him as an extremist. He betrayed little, if any, understanding of the impact of his frequent absence, and admitted abusive behaviour, for example, on the children. Indeed, just as Dr Parsons describes he had no sense of the damage he did to himself by some of his comments, let alone any empathy for how he affects others.
48. I accept the evidence of the experts in this case without reservation and reject the criticisms made of that evidence by the father as being wholly without foundation.

The threshold facts – A71-72

49. The facts relied upon by the LA as founding the threshold in this case are set out at A71-72 of the Bundle. There are 5 paragraphs. The first four relate to the father and can be summarised as follows:

a. Inappropriate physical chastisement;

b. Neglect;

c. The assessment of Dr Parsons;

d. The father's offending history and its impact upon the children.

50. Whilst the father concedes most of the facts pleaded he does not accept that they have caused the children significant harm as alleged.
51. The fifth paragraph concerns the mother and her failure to protect the children and is conceded by her.

Impact on the children of the father's offending

52. I want to begin with the father's history of offending and the impact that has had upon his care of the children. The history set out above is difficult to follow but it speaks for itself. I can perhaps best summarise the effect this had on the children as follows. In almost 9 years between his first prison sentence in March 2006 and the end of his last prison sentence in Feb 2015 the father has spent roughly 51 months incarcerated which is almost half of the total 107 month period. The years 2008 and 2009 are the only 2 years in that 9 year period when he has not spent some or all of the year behind bars. In the last 5 years he has been in prison more than he has been at large. That 9 year period represents virtually the whole of these children's lives. The children both have a birthday in August. On my reckoning he has been absent for 5 of those birthdays.
53. Whenever he has gone to prison they have been left in the care of someone else. That has not always been the same person. Each period of incarceration for him has meant that they have had to move in with another carer. In addition, because of his dogged insistence that he would home school them for large periods of time they have also been in and out of schools with virtually the same frequency that he has been in and out of prison.
54. The father dismisses his periods of incarceration as him being human and making "a mistake" but that gives the impression that he has committed the odd offence. It minimises the extent of his offending and ignores its impact on the children. It is no exaggeration to say that he has spent the whole of the children's lives engaged in criminal activities and I am satisfied that he has been so without the slightest consideration or concern for the impact on the children of this pattern of offending. For example, in September 2014 he was released having served his longest sentence. He had been away from his family for almost 2 years. Within 2 months he had committed another fraud – he told lies on his car insurance document in order to get cheaper cover. He had offended during his licence period and visited upon himself not only another custodial sentence but also his recall to prison to serve the remainder of the original sentence demonstrating an astonishing inability to consider the consequences of his actions for not only him but also for his family.

Dr Parsons

55. It will be convenient to deal with Dr Parsons' evidence at this point. Paragraph 3 of the threshold relies upon the findings of Dr Parsons who carried out an assessment of the father's personality and functioning before the relevant date. He makes an assessment of the father's functioning and personality at that moment in time and also predicts his future behaviour based on his assessment of his personality traits. On threshold I have focused on what Dr Parsons says about the father's behaviour at the relevant date leaving his assessment of likely future harm to the welfare analysis.
56. Dr Parsons concluded that the father was -

"Unlikely to have a personality disorder but does have a number of histrionic, anti-social and impulsive sensation seeking personality traits…His personality structure is dictated by impulsivity and he will often act impulsively without considering the effect of actions either upon himself or others…."

"[His ] …inability to reflect upon the effect of his actions either upon himself or others is evidenced by an almost complete absence of victim empathy both in terms of his general offending and his sexual offence…[he has] almost no understanding of the effect of his offending upon the children… and the inconsistency that this would bring to their lives…."

57. Individuals with such a style have a very egocentric view of themselves and very much like being the centre of attention and the focus of attention, Dr Parsons says. They may engage in behaviours to draw attention to themselves and find it difficult to put the needs of others before their own. Impulsivity manifests itself in "sensation seeking", "testing social boundaries" and a strong tendency to prioritise that person's own wishes and desires.
58. Dr Parsons felt that the father's personality profile was demonstrated in his offending history and in behaviours which draw attention to himself. The best example of this must be the comments made about Lee Rigby in the immediate aftermath of his murder in a prison environment which were bound to enflame tension. They led to him being physically assaulted. Dr Parsons observed that the father really could not see that this was likely to cause him problems and he demonstrated the same lack of insight during the hearing, focusing when explaining the incident, upon the fact that he was making a valid intellectual point for debate. His point was that there was a parallel between the virtual decapitation of a British soldier in current times and the be-heading of Charles I by the Parliamentarians. Anyone else would see without difficulty that such a debate would likely be lost on the audience. The outcome was entirely foreseeable to all but the father.

Physical chastisement

59. It is perhaps unsurprising that given his absence from their lives the father has limited capabilities in providing for their care and the imposition of boundaries is one area in which he has clearly struggled – as demonstrated by his frequent recourse to violence to impose control.
60. The threshold document pleads two specific instances and a general allegation that the father has "hit the children hard on the head, arms and back", and pulled their hair. The father accepts virtually all of it.
61. The two specific incidents – hitting A on the head with such force that it caused her to fall forward and hit her forehead on a drawer and dowsing the children in water when full clothed in the bath or shower were both admitted by him during the ICO hearing before me in November last year and I refer to the Judgment on ICO dated 26^th Nov – setting out the father's very frank admissions made then. It is significant that in accepting the blow to A he was at pains to emphasise that the only reason she fell forward was that she was trying to duck the blow – the implication being that had she not sought to avoid the assault she would not have suffered the injury.
62. The general allegation that the father has hit the children on the head, arms and back and pulled hair is also admitted. The only factual dispute here is that the father denies that he hit the children "hard". In spite of that he conceded in his evidence that whilst his physical beating of them wasn't hard for an adult it might have seemed hard to them as children. He is absolutely right about that and I could not express it better than A did in her ABE when she remarked to the police officer "he's a grown man and he has hard hands". Accordingly I find the fact that he hit them hard proved.
63. I cannot leave the issue of physical chastisement without making mention of the father's constant insistence that he is within the law in dishing out violence provided that he leaves no marks. In doggedly maintaining that line he missed the point that it doesn't much matter to these children whether he has hit them legally or not, the fact is he has hit them and shouted at them and swore at them. It is unkind. It is cruel. It is unnecessary.

Neglect

64. Paragraph 2 alleges that the father has neglected the children's needs in other ways and gives three examples. These matters are of less overall significance save that they add to the general picture of the father's general lack of care of these children on the occasions that he was available to care for them. Let me turn to the specific examples.

a. The first example of neglect cited is the extensive period that the father spends in bed. Father maintains that he has only remained late in bed once and that was when he returned tired from Haj. I do not accept that. The children were clear in their ABE interviews and in subsequent interview with SW professionals. They describe their father as lazy and sleeping too much. The clear impression is that he did not tend to their needs and I accept that to be the case;

b. It is alleged that in relation to an injury suffered by B, he failed to seek medical attention. This related to an injury that B had on his right temple, described by the medical examiner as being "very close" to the right eye. B told the examiner that dad did not take him to the doctor and that he was told at school that the injury needed to be reviewed. It was the opinion of the examining doctor that it was an injury that would have warranted medical attention because of its proximity to the eye and had it been seen it may have been possible to reduce scarring. Father denies that it was necessary to seek help for the minor injury that he was presented with. I accept the opinion of the examining doctor and find that this was an injury that required attention.

c. At paragraph 2(c) the fact that B had a scar on his left upper forearm sustained whilst ironing is relied upon to demonstrate neglect. As a matter of fact it is accepted that he has such a scar and that the father knew nothing about it. I do not see that fact can necessarily indicate neglect however given that we have no idea of when it was caused. B has spent a considerable amount of his life living in the care of others. That fact cannot be an example of neglect in my view.

Significant harm

65. The father observes, and he is right, that these children have continued to do well at school (academically) and they have moved on from the answer that they have shown towards him initially and expressed a wish to be returned to his care. That is true. He goes on to argue that this demonstrates that they have not suffered any significant harm as a result of his behaviour. With that I disagree.
66. I accept that for the most part there have been no physical marks on these children. The most obvious and most significant has been the injury to A's head. However, it is the emotional impact of this behaviour which is significant. In my view there is evidence of actual emotional harm here in the presentation of these children in their ABE interviews and to Dr Duprey.
67. Their emotional distress has been verbalised very clearly by the children in their ABE interviews. It is clear from what they tell the police that they have been enormously distressed by the way in which their father has treated them – especially B who recounts being sworn at by his father and called a "motherfucker".
68. Their fear at his reaction is evidenced by their refusal to see him for a period after their removal. The fact that they have subsequently expressed a wish to be rehabilitated to his care may evidence that their fear has subsided but it does not evidence that they are not being truthful about how distressing these events were for them. Indeed I am quite satisfied that it was his intention that they should be afraid of him. As he explained to Dr Parsons, a threat of violence was a useful thing to have in a home - "a child is a different child if they are aware of the potential of violence".
69. The best evidence concerning the true impact of these events upon the children and harm suffered comes from the report of Dr Jennie Duprey – a clinical psychologist who reported in Dec 2015. She agrees that they are functioning well academically, socially and behaviourally though B can sometimes be disruptive– but also noted that both children are somewhat closed and they each had a tendency to hide negative emotions.
70. Dr Duprey considers that this presentation is consistent with the LA case that these children have suffered harm as a result of this chaotic and disrupted lifestyle. A tendency to deny or to inhibit difficult and negative experiences can often be the result of inconsistent or unavailable care-giving – which has left a child with the sense that their caregiver cannot be relied upon to respond to their needs – over time the child learns to inhibit their difficult feelings and express only positive ones.
71. In her opinion they have "clearly experienced parenting that has not fully met their needs; it has been inconsistent, from the hugely significant loss of their mother as one of their primary carers at a very young age to the continual temporary losses of their father during his custodial sentences ….when present [father's] parenting has been lacking in meeting the children's emotional needs"

"Although the emotional impact of their experiences seems subtle, it is my opinion that the children's tendency to inhibit their distress is a manifestation of the affects of unavailable caregiving…"

Mother's failures

72. The mother has been an inconsistent presence in the children's lives. This means she has been unable to protect them from the abuse and instability they have suffered in their father's care and she has contributed to their sense of having no consistent or available care-giver.
73. For all of those reasons the threshold has undoubtedly been crossed. I have reduced my findings in this regard to a document entitled "Threshold" which should be appended to the final order. I turn now to the question of what order, if any, I should make. I can conveniently gather the remaining key evidence under the headings of the welfare checklist and that is what I will do now.

The children

Age, sex, background and any other relevant circumstances

74. A is an articulate and quietly confident 11 year old girl. The G considered that she had a clear understanding of her role and the process and was able to express her wishes and feelings. She is a bright child and her teachers comment that in spite of the proceedings she has remained focused upon her school work.
75. B is a healthy 10 year old boy. He too has been achieving well at school. There have been incidents at school where he has displayed aggressive behaviour towards other children but these appear to have calmed down. He suffers from a facial tic and can wring his hands and twist his hair when anxious.
76. Whilst the children have reported their concerns regarding their father beating them and they have been able to tell the Guardian and the SW that what they want to change in order for them to feel able to go home, neither of them speak readily about their situation. Dr Duprey noted that both A and B have been reported as internalising their worries and not verbalising any concerns. They are reported to be "closed" and displaying a tendency to hide negative emotions. This was demonstrated to Dr Duprey herself when the children spoke about their mother in nothing but glowing terms. They could not and would not identify any negatives about her. Dr Duprey expresses it as a lack of emotional literacy.

Needs

77. The children have the same needs as any normal 10 and 11 year old. However, to those basic needs I should add this: they have a pressing need for a decision regarding their permanency. Further, they need to be cared for by someone who is consistently available to them, who listens to them and respects them as an individual with their own wishes and feelings that may well be different. They need to be protected from physical abuse. Finally, as a result of the deficits in their emotional literacy and the difficulties that they experience in expressing their emotions and emotional experiences, particularly the negative, they need care givers who are consistently available and emotionally attuned.

Wishes and feelings

78. For most of these proceedings both children have expressed a wish to be cared for by their mother. Recognising the difficulties that she would face in providing for their care the mother withdrew from her assessment and so placing the children with her is no longer a possibility. The children have been told and thus far have responded to the news calmly. However, given the assessment that they are limited in their ability to acknowledge negative views it is likely that we do not yet know their true feelings in that regard.
79. Upon the withdrawal of her mother A expressed a wish to be re-united with her father. A told the G that "He might stop hitting us and if he doesn't then we'll come back". A also observed that her father was different in contact and said that she thought that meant that he had changed. Failing that A expressed a wish to remain with her current carers.
80. B has been slower to express an interest in living with his father. After it was clear that he could not live with his mother he expressed an interest in returning to the home of his grandmother failing which he wanted to stay with his foster carers. As recently as 20^th March he was still saying to the Guardian that he did not want to return to live with his father. The SW, however, reports that there has been a recent shift in that position. B has recently said to her that he wishes to return to his father.
81. The father put to the Guardian that surely this wish to return to his care indicated that the children were not as upset or distressed by what he had done that was originally supposed. The Guardian in her evidence said that the contact between the children and their father has been quite excellent. They have had fun with him and during contact he has devoted his entire attention to them. It is, she told me, a joy to watch. In her view this has given the children a glimpse of the father as they have never experienced him. The Guardian thinks that the children hope that this is the father that he would be if they returned to his care – always attentive, happy and relaxed, focused only on their needs. However, she considers that this cannot be sustained by the father outside of the context of contact for reasons that I will come to.

Capacity of the father to care for the children

82. The father has had the benefit now of three separate assessments of him. Before the proceedings began he was assessed by Dr Parsons. I have already set out his conclusions about the father. I rely upon those conclusions here and add his opinion regarding the future.
83. Dr Parsons considered that the father was high risk of engaging in further general offending, that he was likely to be an impulsive and highly inconsistent parent and that from a child's perspective his parenting will be largely incomprehensible and this in itself poses a risk of emotional harm. As to sexual risk, he considered that the father was a low risk but points out that a low risk does not mean no risk and he repeated his concerns regarding the father's lack of victim empathy.
84. On treatment options Dr Parsons considered that given the father's level of denial and minimisation it would be almost impossible to build a worthwhile therapeutic alliance and effect an therapeutic intervention. To that I want to just add the following references from Dr Parson's oral evidence.
85. During his evidence Dr Parsons sought to emphasise the two stand out features of the father's personality and functioning – his striking lack of victim empathy and secondly how his impulsivity and lack of insight combines so that not only does he act in ways which have profound effects on others (which he fails to see) but he is just as likely to act in ways which put himself at risk because he does not see what would be obvious to anyone else. The best example of this was the comments that he made which led to the assault on him in prison.
86. Dr Parsons said that people with this father's personality profile struggle with understanding other peoples' needs – so, for example, this father is unable to understand that it does not matter that the assault of his children is not technically against the law, it is still distressing and emotionally abusive for a child to have to endure violence at the hands of someone who is supposed to love and protect them.
87. Dr Parsons said that the father's egocentric behaviour meant that he wanted to dominate and control. I consider that there have been many examples of this during the court proceedings – the father's failure to file evidence without excuse, his failure to produce documents setting out his position even when he has agreed to, choosing not to be represented, the "game" that he played with the court regarding his willingness to produce the children's expired passports insisting that the reason he had failed to bring them to court was that he had actually said he "could" bring them, NOT that he "would" bring them.
88. Dr Parsons stood by his assessment that the father was a high risk of re-offending. It was put to him vigorously by the father that the probation assessment of him had been low risk upon his final release. Dr Parsons remarked that he had not seen that assessment. He told me that it would have been conducted using OASYS but in any event, if that were the case it was an assessment with which he disagreed. At the conclusion of the hearing when making an order against the father to produce the children's expired passports the father made a comment which demonstrated that Dr Parsons had that assessment correct in my view. When explaining to the father the effect of a Penal notice he said to me "do you think I am bothered about going to prison over some passports?"
89. Finally on the issue of intervention, Dr Parsons confirmed his original view that in the face of continuing denial and minimisations there was little room left for intervention.
90. The father was further assessed at EAFS. This was more than 5 months after the Dr Parsons assessment. The full report needs to be read to get the sense of how extensive the work undertaken was. Father attended all sessions bar one. He presented as friendly and willing to engage but the authors of the report considered his engagement to be superficial. They identified in him a fundamental lack of insight into the problems. I highlight the following themes which mirror those raised by Dr Parsons:

a. He was unable to contemplate what it was like for his children to be hit by him;

b. He seemed unable to separate his identity from the identities of his children – something that he highlighted himself in his cross examination of Dr Parsons when he put to the witness "All parents want their children to be models of themselves". The assessor formed an opinion that the children could be accepted as individuals only if they behaved in the manner that he wanted them to. Any difference of opinion likely to cause conflict.

c. His capacity to change was limited by virtue of his lack of insight and certainly not in the children's timescales. He mentioned CBT himself to the assessors but noticeably failed to complete the "Cognitive Triangle" [see E203] as a first step. His Probation officer confirmed that although he had completed the Thinking Skills training in prison it seemingly had no impact as he has gone on to offend further.

91. The written report was confirmed in oral evidence. The assessor denied that they were in any way influenced by being presented with a profile of the father as an extremist. His religious beliefs were of minimal importance in the assessment, they told me. The assessors conclude that if returned home the children will continue to be exposed to emotionally harmful and possibly physically abusive parenting.
92. Finally I have read and heard evidence from Kate Iwi, the Domestic Violence Co-ordinator at the Positive Change Service within the EAFS, who completed an assessment of risk and gave separate consideration to ways in which there could be positive change in the father. Ms Iwi opined that the risk of child maltreatment remains high in this case, including risk of:

a. Physical chastisement of a moderate level, likely to cause mild physical harm and emotional harm.

b. Verbal abuse, such as swearing.

c. Neglect, in the form of sleeping a lot, coming and going from the children's lives without due concern for their needs and low empathy for them, is a high risk in this case.

d. Overly controlling parenting, including being forceful with his views about IS and religious issues.

93. In her oral evidence, Ms Iwi too highlighted the surprising lack of victim empathy that the father has for his partners and children. She told me that without some sort of victim empathy in a perpetrator it is impossible to start to change behaviour. She considered that there was little hope of this father being able to work on his lack of empathy for his partners and the place to start might be to see if he could develop empathy for his children. She said that the father knew that this work could be started through the positive change service. Wherever he started, however, the work would take some considerable time.
94. I am afraid that my assessment of the father is that he is unlikely to even contemplate embarking upon that sort of work because although he does not deny the fact of the abuse directed towards his children he does deny the impact upon them of that abuse even now. Even in this hearing he has sought to use the children's wishes to return to his care as evidence that they were never really affected by the assaults. His answer to whether this means of discipline is likely to continue was to say that it would not because they are teenagers now and less in need of discipline. The fact is that teenagers, particularly with this history, are just as likely to push boundaries and indeed A has been observed as starting to do so with her father in contact sessions.
95. The Guardian, whose report repays reading for its sensitive handling of the issues and balanced view, agrees with the experts on these welfare issues.

Likelihood of significant harm/ impact of any change in circumstances

96. A and B have gone through sudden and unplanned changes in their young lives including the loss of their mother, the loss of their father to frequent imprisonment, living with a new step-mother and new half siblings, moving to and from their paternal grandmother's home, moving in and out of school. As I have already found they have been severely affected by their experiences. I agree with the experts that if they are returned to their father they are likely to suffer more of the same.
97. If placed back in that situation there is a likelihood that the children will not complain. They are likely to inhibit their difficult feelings and express only positive ones. The process that has started will continue and as Dr Duprey says "Children who develop a pattern of inhibiting their emotional experiences can be at risk of emotional difficulties through adolescence and adulthood including anxiety and depression"
98. The children will probably be disappointed to learn that they cannot return to their father. No doubt their disappointment will extend to the fact that he has been unable to commit to become the man that they see in contact for a blissful hour or two but the sad reality is that he has not been prepared to make that commitment. Indeed he is not able to make that commitment because he sees nothing wrong with the way that things were in their family before the children were moved to foster care.

Welfare analysis

99. There are only two possible outcomes here. A return for these children to their father or them remaining in foster care pursuant to a care order.
100. It is fortunate for the children that their current foster carers with whom they are now familiar have indicated a wish to care for them long term. The local authority will take the matter to panel for approval; the expectation is that they will be approved as long term foster carers on the recommendation of the social worker. It is proposed that this is the home in which they will remain. The children have asked to stay with the foster carers in the event that they cannot return to their father and it is a positive that they may not have to move.
101. I bear in mind that remaining in foster care for the remainder of their minority brings certain risks. There is the risk of a placement breakdown. The foster carers have been sensitive and insightful carers for these children but their relationship with them will remain as foster carers. Parental responsibility for the children will remain with the local authority. The children will be subject to LAC reviews and the processes which go along with a care order. Those processes may prove irritating to the children as they grow older. Their contact with their parents will be reduced in foster care. Their links to their birth family will not be severed in the way of adoption but the birth family will for the time being become secondary to the foster carers and LA who will be the decision makers regarding their day to day care.
102. If returned to their father they would be living within their birth family with unlimited contact to the paternal family and contact to their mother (by order if necessary). However, for the reasons set out above I am more than satisfied that they would be exposed once again to the risk of physical harm and emotional harm. The evidence is overwhelmingly that their father is likely to return to prison but even if he does not his inability to put their needs before his own will mean that he will live his life as he chooses and they will have to fit in. So, if he decides to live abroad they will be uprooted and taken. If he decides that the journey to school is too difficult they will be removed from that school. If they model themselves on him, accept his views, then they may live a quiet life but if they express differences he will impose his will in whatever manner is necessary in my judgment.
103. It is a tragedy that somewhere within, this man is capable of having fun with his children and enjoying them as he has demonstrated in contact. However, he is simply not capable of sustaining that outside of those few hours. Perhaps it is not surprising that he does not know how to sustain that for any reasonable length of time because he has had very little experience of caring for them alone over an extended period.
104. I have considered whether it is possible to make provision through services to this father to support him in his care of the children and enable them to return home by that means. I consider that is not possible. The fact is that this father's failures as a parent are deep-rooted in his functioning and personality and will require considerable work to resolve but before that can start he needs to be able to see that his behaviour is unacceptable and currently he does not.
105. These two children deserve a stable home in which they can settle, be loved and nurtured, be free to access education and enjoy social interaction with other children, be free to make their own choices about what they like and how they want to live their lives, be unafraid to express their views and not live in fear of violence. They cannot achieve that in the home of their father. They can achieve that in the care of the local authority. For all of those reasons I intend to make a care order.
106. Bearing in mind the Article 8 rights of these children and their father to respect for family life, I confirm that I consider a care order necessary to meet the needs of these children for permanence and a proportionate response to the risks posed to them in their father's care.

Contact

107. Contact to the children was in issue between the LA and the Guardian. The LA had advocated a significant reduction in the father's contact to three times a year and to six times a year for the mother. In recognition of the high quality of the father's contact, the obvious emotional bond between the children and their father and the fact that the children are really enjoying contact, the Guardian suggested that it should continue monthly. The same recommendation was made for the mother. This frequency depends upon the parents' ability to co-operate with the LA and support the current placement. The LA has accepted that recommendation and changed its position accordingly. The contact will be subject to review at the LAC review in July when the possibility of the mother's contact increasing in length and to add possible overnights may be on the agenda.
108. I assume that the father would seek more contact though he has been non-specific about this in his presentation of his case. The mother is clear that she seeks no less than fortnightly and observes that by July they will only just have reached the reduction to monthly so it is just as easy to remain at fortnightly and assess how that has gone in July.
109. It seems to me that contact must be reduced. We are not planning for the next 12 months, we are planning for the minority of these two children. We need to settle the contact at a level which allows them to get on with their lives; that is, their lives with the foster carers, however hard that is for the parents to hear.
110. The first priority for these children is for them to settle into this placement as a long-term placement. In other words, A, B and their parents need to understand and support the fact that during their minority they will be living in the home of their foster carers. I accept that the evidence is that they have settled with their foster carers already and that contact has proceeded well to date, but that has been in different circumstances, temporary circumstances. They have settled into that placement as a temporary arrangement. They need to make the shift to understanding it is permanent.
111. The current contact arrangements were created to enable the possibility of placement with the mother or eventual rehabilitation to father, but that is no longer the plan. Going forward, the contact arrangement is intended to allow the children to maintain their relationship with their parents whilst at the same time not undermining their placement with the foster carers. This is a delicate balance and it is generally only achieved with a far greater reduction than currently proposed. As I have said, the difference here is the high quality of the contact and so it seems right that all efforts should be made to maintain that high level provided that is not at the expense of the stability of this placement which is a priority for these children.
112. As I explained to the mother, the children are still coming to terms with the fact that she cannot care for them. No doubt they are wondering why that is. To see her as frequently as once a fortnight may cause them to hold on to the possibility that she may yet change her position in that regard. If it does then it will prevent them from settling in this placement longer term and would be contrary to their interests. The same applies to the father. Whether the level of contact is right going forward is something that has to be considered and adjusted on the ground by the supervising SW with input from the IRO.
113. Accordingly I endorse the plan put forward by the LA and endorsed by the Guardian as in the best interests of the children at this time.