England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

1) The threshold document presented at the beginning of the earlier proceedings, dated the 19 ^th June 2015, at page A5 in my trial bundle, and the threshold document presented and agreed at the end of those proceedings, dated the 31 ^st March 2016, which is labelled page A4(a) in my bundle in these proceedings.

2) I have some material from the Mother, a statement of the 28 ^th November 2016 and a second statement, of the 23 ^rd May 2017.

3) ( C ), the Mother’s husband, I have statements from him, dated the 16 ^th January 2017 and the 22 ^nd May 2017.

4) Peter McBride, who was the allocated social worker from September 2015 to January 2017, when he ceased being an employee of the Local Authority and moved to live in Thailand.  I have statements from him dated the 12 ^th December 2016, and a single assessment dated the 7 ^th November 2016.

5) Stacey Wooldridge, who is the current Local Authority social worker allocated to this case, she having been allocated from January 2017 to date. I have two statements from her, one dated 31 ^st March 2017 and a second dated 17 ^th May 2017. 

6) I have a report from the special assessment team, dated 6 ^th October 2016, whose authors are Peter McBride, whom I’ve just mentioned, Laura Hutchings, a newly qualified social worker with the Local Authority, and Helen Freebody, a family engagement worker with the Local Authority.

7) I have a report written by Laura Hutchings, the Local Authority newly qualified social worker, described as an intervention report, dated 12 ^th December 2016. 

8) I have a report from Loz Foskett, who is a qualified play therapist, and her report under the heading BRS, or Building Resilience and Strengths, dated 19 ^th January 2017. 

9) I have a report from Lucy Earle, who is a Local Authority social worker, and that is a capacity to care assessment on the Mother and (C, the mother’s partner), dated 1 ^st March 2017. 

10) I have the up to date care plan prepared by Stacey Wooldridge, dated 31 ^st March 2017.

11) I have the position statement dated 18 ^th December 2016, prepared by the earlier Guardian, Jane Young.

12) I have the final analysis, dated 6 ^th June 2017, presented by the newly appointed Guardian, Rebecca Wells. 

13) In part F of the bundle, I have some miscellaneous documents, including some medical reports, a counselling report and a character reference. 

14) Part G of the bundle consists of a large number of contact notes and foster care notes relating to the time in which ( R ) has been in care.  We have looked at quite a number of those in the course of the hearing, and I have read all of those.

15) Part I of the bundle are the placement application documentation.

16) There is a supplemental bundle which consists of the bundle, or at least part of it, from the previous proceedings, which led to the Care Order made on 31 ^st March 2016. 

1) I have heard evidence from Peter McBride via a telephone link.  This was rendered necessary because he lives in Thailand now.  A video link could not be arranged, because of a number of technical and logistical complications, but it was possible to arrange a telephone link.  Whilst we did lose the link on a couple of occasions in the course of his evidence, my view was that it was a generally very satisfactory method of receiving his evidence.  It was audible in both directions, and he had access to a computer, with an electronic bundle, in front of him so he was able to refer to individual documents.  So, in my view, nothing was lost by the absence of having a video link for his evidence or indeed of his physical presence.  I was able to hear and assess his evidence perfectly satisfactorily. 

2) I want to say something about the imposition of time limits on cross-examination.  In an ideal world, parties would have unlimited time for these hearings and for cross-examination within the hearings, but the need to avoid delay in litigation means that in the real world it is necessary to impose overall hearing time estimates and cross-examination time limits, as a matter of case management.  Pursuant to this, I set out a plan at the outset of this hearing, and in so doing I had firmly in mind that I needed to deal with the case within its three day time estimate.  In fact, I am giving judgment on the afternoon of the fourth day, so it has slipped slightly beyond that original estimate.  I also had clearly in mind the guidance in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 Rule 1, the so called overriding objective, including the need to deal with a case expeditiously, and utilising an appropriate share of the Court’s resources, but always taking into account fairness.  It is a very important factor, indeed an axiomatic factor, that Article 6 rights are respected for all parties and that every party has the right to a fair hearing.  In particular, it is important to ensure that all parties have sufficient time allocated, both to put their own case and to challenge that of the others.  It is important, I think, not to apply those time limits too rigidly, for example if the cross-examination takes longer than expected for reasons beyond the control of the questioning advocate.  But overall, I am entirely satisfied that these aims were achieved in this case.I want to say in particular that there was in my view a very good sufficiency of time for the Mother to challenge the case against her and to put her own case.  On a very broad estimate, perhaps 60% to 70% of the 13 or so hours of evidence over two and a half days in this case were devoted to that end.

“Agreed threshold to satisfy Section 31 of the Children Act 1989

It is accepted by all parties and agreed by the Court that at the relevant date, 17 ^th June 2015, the child, ( R ), has suffered and/or was at risk of suffering significant harm attributable to the care given to her by her parents, not being what it would be reasonable for a parent to give her because:

1) The Mother was an overprotective parent, and as a result misinterpreted some of ( R )’s symptoms, not least because of the Mother’s unawareness of the severity of ( R )’s sleep apnoea.

2) The Mother accepts that her overprotectiveness led her to administer ( R )’s EpiPen to her on two occasions when this was objectively not necessary.  The Mother says she did this in the honest but mistaken belief that ( R ) was suffering a serious allergic reaction.

3) The Mother accepts, with hindsight, that her own medical training should have put her in a better position to respond appropriately.  However, her concern as a mother took over and prevented her from seeing the situation objectively. 

4) The Mother can see how the way she responded and acted led a range of professionals to be concerned about the risk of escalation of medical interventions which ( R ) might receive, and to question the Mother’s motives for seeking medical and/or financial assistance.  The Mother accepts that this could have impacted on ( R )’s development, which has accelerated in foster care.

5) The Mother now realises that the way in which she presented ( R )’s difficulties made them look more serious than they actually were. 

6) Both parents failed to give consistent and reliable information as to their roles in ( R )’s life and their ability to provide care for her before and after she came into care.”

As I say, that was approved by Her Honour Judge Miller QC.  And so the matter went off.

“Review

The Local Authority have now been granted a Care Order in respect of ( R ).  The final care plan of the Local Authority had been the rehabilitation of ( R )’s Father’s care.  Father has recently demonstrated less commitment to this, and indeed has now withdrawn from this.  The Local Authority would propose to consider mum in the longer term, however recognise that we need to undertake further work with mum and need to consider her future husband, ( C ).  The Local Authority wish to reconsider the Mother in her ability to care for ( R ).  However, this will need to be completed within a limited timeframe so that the permanency of ( R ) remains a priority.  The Local Authority would wish now to commence a reviewed plan. 

Laura Hutchings, assisted by Maxine [who I think is the contact supervisor] will between them observe the contact and will liaise.  The Mother has requested feedback from her contacts, and it was agreed that Laura Hutchings will do as such.  There was some discussion as to how this feedback would be received, with initial discussion that it could be over the phone.  However, identified group work has been proposed for the Mother, protective parenting.  Yet it was considered that Laura Hutchings could also do some bespoke one to one work with Mother instead, and, within this, reflection and feedback on contact could occur.  Laura Hutchings is therefore to make contact with the Mother next week, to meet, observe contact and arrange one to one sessions for protective parenting and reflective review of contact.”

“Mother’s primary objective is to invite a consideration of rehabilitation of ( R ) back into her care and that of her husband, ( C ).  In these circumstances, she would not object to the imposition of any public law order/mechanism of support in order to achieve the result, if the Court considered this was necessary.”

In reality, they seek a dismissal of the Placement Order application, and a rehabilitation either now or in due course, to the Mother and ( C ). 

“Before any Court can exercise jurisdiction to grant a Care Order, the Judge or Justices must first be satisfied as to the threshold requirements in Section 31 of the Children Act 1989.  The enquiry as to whether the threshold requirements are satisfied has to be treated as a clinical issue of fact determined in the light of the circumstances prevailing when the process was initiated, and divorce from the discretionary considerations of the child’s paramount welfare enjoined by Section 1 of the Act.  Once, however, they are found to be satisfied, it becomes a matter of discretion for the Court to consider whether a Care Order should be made or not.  Section 39 of the Act allows the Court to discharge a Care Order, on the application of, inter alios, a parent, hence the jurisdiction is discretionary from the outset, there being no obligation on the parent to satisfy the Court that the threshold requirements no longer apply.  The issue has to be determined in accordance with Section 1 of the Act.

The Local Authority and the Official Solicitor submit that the underlying purpose of the Children Act, namely that the regime which it created for resolving private and public disputes concerning children, should operate flexibly, so as to preserve for the Court at all times a range of options, from which the one most favourable for the current best interests of the child can be selected.  The Act must be construed in a sense which will reserve to the Court at every stage power to review, and in the extreme cases to disregard findings reached at earlier stages of the family history, in the light of the evidence available and the circumstances occurring at the time of the current hearing. 

I am satisfied that the argument for the Local Authority and the Guardian is correct.  An awareness of dangers of reopening past findings will prompt the Court to allow use of jurisdiction to review antecedent findings of fact only in very limited circumstances.  The principle can be expressed in this way.  A Court hearing an application under Section 39 of the Act, to discharge a Care Order made under Section 31, is bound by Section 1(3)(e) to have regard to any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering.  The risk to be considered is the risk current at the date of the discharge hearing, there being no counterpart on the discharge application of the need to date the inquiry back in time to the initiation of the process which was to apply when the threshold requirements were being tested under Section 31.  In the great majority of discharge applications, the Court is likely to be concerned with appraisal of current risk.”

“(1) When a court determines any question with respect to—

(a) the upbringing of a child; or

(b) the administration of a child’s property or the application of any income arising from it,

the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.

(2) In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.

(3) In the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4), a court shall have regard in particular to—

(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);

(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;

(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;

(d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;

(e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

(f)  how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

(g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.”

“(2) The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child’s welfare, throughout [her] life.

(3) The court or adoption agency must at all times bear in mind that, in general, any delay in coming to the decision is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare.

(4) The court or adoption agency must have regard to the following matters (among others)—

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

(b) the child’s particular needs,

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

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

(e) any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)) which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering,

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

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

(ii) the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the child’s needs,

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

“Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

“The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or   illiterate, provided the child ’ s moral and physical health are not endangered. Public authorities cannot improve on nature.  Public authorities exercise a supervisory role and interfere to rescue a child when the parental tie is broken by abuse or separation.  In terms of the English rule the court decides whether and to what extent the welfare of the child requires that the child should be protected against harm caused by the parent, including harm which would be caused by the resumption of parental care after separation has broken the parental tie.”

“As seen in the Local Authority assessments, reports and contact notes, my wife, who is of black African origin, is constantly over criticised, and her actions are never good enough.  Yet, due to automatic white privilege, special concessions are made for the foster carers and to me.  In my opinion, anti oppressive practice has not been implemented, resulting in breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.  My step daughter, like me, is a registered British national, acquired by heritage, and is entitled to statutory resources and assistance.  The major difference is that I am white British and ( R ) is black British, which has created grounds for racial discrimination.”

“The Mother and ( C ) both share the view that ( R ) is in Local Authority care due to institutional racism within Southampton City Council, who do not want to provide assistance to black families.  The Mother found it difficult to identify what concerns the Local Authority had about her, apart from commenting, ‘It’s got personal now,’ and stating, ‘I can’t change my ethnicity.’”

“White people get more privileges than black people.  That’s my opinion.  I think the Mother is a victim of racism.”

“I think this is racism.  Hannah Longford [who was the original social worker, in 2015] told me, ‘We will get you deported.’”

“ The Mother stated that the Local Authority had raised concern in respect of her being anxious and overprotective of ( R ).  The Mother’s view is that the Local Authority made things up and were prejudiced towards her, especially since they are taking out legal action against them.  The Mother stated that someone from the Local Authority had told her that they wanted ( R ) adopted and her deported, due to not wanting to give her any long term financial support.  When I asked who had stated this, she said she could not tell me.  The Mother continues to be of the view that ( R ) was removed from her care unfairly.”

“The Mother stated that there had been an injustice of the whole case and it is ridiculous.”

“The Mother did not accept that she had any role in the significant harm that was caused to ( R ) while she was in her full time care.  The Mother continues to be of the view that the Local Authority treats her unfairly due to her taking legal action against them.  The Mother continues to say that the Local Authority remains racist towards her because of her race and culture, and that we continue to have an attitude towards her that the Local Authority should need to change.”

“The Mother continues to seek R returning to her care.  She has married (C) and she believes they can provide care to a good standard.  The Mother states that she no longer agrees with the agreed threshold within the previous proceedings.  The Mother has raised concerns that the Local Authority have a plan to have her daughter adopted, herself deported, and their initial intervention raises concerns about institutional racism.”

“I asked to see the injuries, and she was only able to get a quick glimpse.  I could only see a minute mark on ( R )’s chest that did not appear to be inflamed or a scratch.  It looked like a small patch of dry skin.  This mark did not appear to be giving ( R ) any concern or problem.  ( R ) put her head down and would not let anyone see it again.  She was getting more upset.  I informed the Mother that I was not going to photograph the mark nor record it on a skin map.  The Mother asked, in a way which I felt was threatening, if I was prepared to justify my actions.  I was not able to answer.  And she then asked if I was qualified to make this judgement.  I did not respond, as ( R ) was clearly upset at being looked at. 

When the contact supervisor said to ( R ) that they were going to go and look for X and Y, she immediately calmed down and went with the contact supervisor to find them.  I accompanied the contact supervisor and ( R ) with X and Y outside the centre and informed them of the Mother’s concerns that I had not agreed to photograph or document the injuries, as I felt that there were none.  I did not want to further upset ( R ) and thought the best person to deal with any marks would be the foster carer, who could check this without causing ( R ) any distress.”

“I’m concerned.  I do not accept that R’s recent injury is from hot wax.  My daughter’s of black ethnicity, hence her skin type injuries have distinctive characteristics.  In my own opinion and experience, the injury appears to be from a hard object such as an iron.”

73.         So , the nature of the allegation was that ( R ) had been injured by contact with a hard object such as an iron.   It was not surprising, perhaps, in the view of all of that, that the foster carers X and Y felt obliged to withdraw from the case in March 2017, and it was certainly not in ( R’s ) interest that they should do that. 

“A variety of practitioners have assessed Mother’s contact, with the issue of Mother’s capacity to meet ( R )’s needs in mind.  This is an evolving position, and it is submitted that a full understanding of context and development is necessary in order to measure progress and change over time.  The assessments of Miss Freebody, Miss Hutchings and Miss Earle collectively flag the following:

1) ( R )’s reaction at the start of contact.

2) ( R )’s reaction at the wedding.

3) Mother being uncertain and tentative.

4) Physical distance,

5) ( R ) not trusting Mother.

6) Mother misattuned to ( R )’s emotions.

7) Mother’s lack of initiative or child led parenting.

8) ( R ) physically stiff.

9) Lack of foundations present, for secure attachment.

10) Lack of emotional warmth and closeness.

11) Lack of mutual enjoyment.

Of note, the practitioners did not have any updated knowledge of how contact had developed since their reports.  It is submitted that a careful reading of the contact sheets over the past 12 months reveal a clear pattern of positive development in relation to the issues flagged.  It is submitted that the positive aspects of contact plainly outweigh the negatives, and in the main the negatives relate to ( R ) holding back, usually only for a short while, with the contact supervisor at the outset, and the Mother raising the issue of injuries.”

“Whilst I accept of course that there were some good parts about contact, two years on from June 2015, when ( R ) first came into care, we are not where we should be.”

82.         Of course, I understand why Miss Earle would wish to point to the positive aspects of the contact notes, but in my view an overall assessment of them, in particular the assessments of those two recent witnesses, does I think undermine the proposition advanced by Miss Earle that the contact notes support that case that all is well between the Mother and ( R ).

“I am unable to support an application to discharge the Care Order at this time.  I don’t feel there’s enough evidence that the Mother has changed in her previous view that ( R ) was safe in her care.  She doesn’t provide evidence of what would be different now, compared to March 2016, when the Court hearing resulted in a Care Order.  I am concerned that she puts her own needs for validation above those of her daughter, who she would claim was her reason to return to Court.  It’s my opinion that the Mother is not motivated to change.  She continues to believe that she must fight the Local Authority on every occasion in a legal battle, when what is required is that she shows a willingness to reflect on her actions, her beliefs and her behaviour, and to consider how that impacts on ( R ).”

Albeit that that opinion was given in December 2016, it seems to me that that rings every bit as true now as it did then.

“The Mother has presented as defensive and preoccupied, and the majority of the sessions tend to focus on historic events.  Whilst at one stage it appeared that contact sessions were improving, and Mother was engaging positively in feedback/reflective sessions, it has become more evident these changes have been short lived and not maintained.  The Mother still refers to her parenting as child led and continues with her view that she must always wait for ( R ) to come to her.  The Mother has continued to label ( R ) with attachment issues, possible brain damage, with complex health needs and communication difficulties.  The Mother is insistent that despite ( R )’s speech developing, communication should be through the use of Makaton.  The Mother has been inconsistent in her responses and understanding of ( R )’s needs. 

The Mother will frequently digress within sessions, focusing more upon herself and her own personal development and progress.  This has caused the session to be less effective, and limited the ability to discuss any contact in depth.  The Mother has stated consistently that she takes no responsibility for the current situation or the past, including ( R ) being placed in Local Authority care. 

It is evident within contact that Mother demonstrates a considerable lack of emotional availability towards ( R ).  The Mother continues to demonstrate a limited ability to recognise ( R )’s needs without professional assistance.  I remain concerned that the Mother consistently demonstrates an inability to prioritise ( R )’s needs above her own.”

Again, that was written in December 2016, but I heard Laura Hutchings giving evidence, and there is no reason that I could identify why that position had changed.  Certainly, she maintained that position clearly and compellingly.

“The complex and inconsistent nature of ( R )’s early childhood resulted in her not yet developing a secure attachment to a main carer.  The relationship she has with her mother has been inconsistent, and there would appear to be evidence that she does not have a secure attachment to her, as seen in the contact with her mother.  The development of secure attachment in infancy is vital, for a child to develop both a healthy sense of self, a security in their relationship with others and a framework in which a child can develop both physically and emotionally, to thrive in later life.  ( R )’s emotional reactions to both separations and also to strange or scary situations are either to display distress or become clingy. 

The fact she has become to look for reassurance from her carers, such as wanting them to hold her hand as she falls asleep, suggests she is capable of forming secure attachments when she is provided with warmth, acceptance of nature and physical reassurance.  To help her develop a healthy sense of self and therefore a secure attachment style, she will need a consistent care and nurture with carers who have an understanding of the importance of attachment or support to help them in understanding how much she needs to develop this base.”

“I observed an insecure attachment between ( R ) and the Mother.”

“I would disagree that contact has got better.  There are still signs of lack of attunement, still inconsistent boundaries and a question mark over warmth.”

“There appears to be no change in Mother’s view since the previous proceedings.  Mother does not appear to accept responsibility for any of her actions in the past and places blame on a variety of sources.  I do not doubt that Mother will have experienced both overt and more subtle instances of racism within society.  However, in holding on to the mindset that any challenges, criticism or difficulty she may face are due primarily to issues of discrimination.  The Mother demonstrates a lack of capacity to reflect on her own behaviours and actions, and therefore to make any meaningful changes.  I experienced the Mother to adopt some of the same evasiveness and avoidance described within the previous documents. 

The Mother presented as more open to questions, however would often respond to these by asking a question of her own, giving a response that did not seem connected to the question, or restating her assertion that there is no evidence that ( R ) had been harmed or that Mother had been prejudiced against.  When looked at in terms of protective capacity, it is my view that ( C ) lacks the ability to identify and acknowledge risk, question situations or challenge Mother in any way.

Conclusion

It has been a year since the making of the Care Order in respect of ( R ).  Whilst there have been changes in the circumstances of Mother in that she is now married, there is no acknowledgement or acceptance of concerns or evidence of an internal shift that would indicate that the experience of ( R ) in the care of her mother would now be different.  There is evidence that some concerns presented in the initial proceedings are continuing, such as Mother and ( C ) highlighting marks on ( R ) that do not correspond with the contact practitioner’s observations.  Whilst ( C ) my not pose the same risk in his individual care of ( R ), in terms of being a co parent he is not able to balance the risk, because he adopts the same mindset as Mother.  He is unequivocal in his support of her and does not accept the Local Authority concerns. 

It is my conclusion that ( R ) continues to be at the same level of risk as in March 2016, when the Care Order was made.  Subsequently, it is my assessment that the mother and (C) do not have the capacity to care for (R) and meet her emotional needs, due to their lack of acceptance of concerns and of the need for change.  And there is no intervention I can recommend that would be beneficial, particularly when considered within the timescales of ( R ).”

That opinion was written on 1 ^st March 2017.  Miss Earle stuck to this view tenaciously, clearly and convincingly, in my judgment, in her evidence before me, despite a strong cross-examination.

“I found it compelling during my visit that there was no emotion shown by Mother whilst talking about ( R ).  Mother was able to state on a basic level ( R )’s needs.  However, there was no sense of ( R ) when she was talking about her.  I would be significantly concerned about the Mother’s ability to meet ( R )’s emotional needs if she were to be placed back in the full time care of Mother and ( C ).  In my professional opinion, this would leave ( R ) at risk of harm if she were to be placed in the full time care of the mother and ( C ), due to her mindset about the Local Authority.”

Likewise, to my mind, Miss Wooldridge under cross-examination held to these views convincingly and persuasively. 

“( R ) would be at risk of physical harm if the Mother continues to present as overanxious in her parenting, causing further occasions where she is wrongly medicated.  She is also likely to become aware of her mother’s exaggerated views of her health, potentially leading (R) to believe that she has more health needs than she does. 

I have considered whether the parents could provide adequate care for ( R ) with support.  This is a case, however, where the care being afforded to ( R ) by her mother was unsafe, and ongoing support would not ameliorate the risk of harm to ( R ).  Furthermore, the support which would be required would be so high that I would deem this as intrusive to ( R ).  No amount of support and unannounced visits by professionals could protect ( R ) from the risk of further unnecessary medical intervention, inappropriate use of medication or emotionally neglectful care.  If ( R ) was to return to the care of her mother, this would have been managed under Care Orders, but ( R ) is likely to require intensive support and intervention in all likelihood throughout the duration of her minority.  This is clearly not in her best interests. 

I am of the professional view that ( R ) would be placed at significant risk of harm if she was to be placed in the care of the Mother and ( C ).”

“( R )’s primary therapeutic need is for a permanent, stable and secure family which will continue to offer her stability and security.  She requires a family who can meet all her needs, with particular emphasis on building secure attachments.  Ideally, this will be on talking, listening, problem solving and play, attention, involvement and empathy, as well as predictable, consistent and clear routines and boundaries.  The positive attunement she receives from primary carers has promoted a more positive sense of self and identity, allowing her to develop her emotional and social skills.”

It seems to me that those aims can best be met in an adoptive placement.  The evidence which suggests that ( R ) can adapt and build a new relationship with a new family and create a new loving relationship with secure attachment is, in my view, clear.