England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

MEDWAY FAMILY COURT

		Anchorage House, 47-67 High Street, Chatham.
		12th January 2017

HER HONOUR JUDGE CAMERON:

INTRODUCTION

1. The Court has been concerned about the welfare of three young children in these Public Law Care Proceedings which were issued as long ago as the 11^th January 2016. The children are B, aged 10, born on the 1^st October 2006; H, just 5, his date of birth being the 8^th November 2011; and D who is one-and-three-quarters plus, or 22 months old, born on the 31^st March 2015. The children have actually been accommodated together in an obviously excellent Foster Care Placement since the 22^nd December 2015. They are the children of their mother Z now aged 34 or 35. The boys' father is Mr. W who is 9 or 10 years older than the mother. D's father is Mr. S being some 10 years or so younger than the mother.
2. Accordingly already a whole year has passed in the children's young lives. On Day 10 of the Hearing, so as not to prolong the agony and uncertainty for the parents and the children over the Christmas period I gave the Court's brief Decision and Judgment and said I would give detailed reasons in this Reserved Judgment today.
3. The timescale and the delay here for these children is very concerning. I inherited this case only on the 28^th October 2016 in preparation for the 10 day Trial combining both Fact Finding and Final Welfare Decisions. That commenced on the 21^st November. Previously the case had been handled by three other Judges here at Medway County Court and by the Lay Bench as well, so lacking the important element of judicial continuity.
4. Without wishing to be over critical and bearing in mind that I am probably the first Judge to have had the opportunity to read all the papers in four lever arch files and additional documents, I am bound to say that I was very concerned about that delay and also about the Local Authority's approach to the case and its Final Care Plans intending to split this very closely attached sibling group.
5. The Plan, fully supported by the very experienced Guardian, is to leave the boys in long term foster care and to move D to live near the Royal Marines Base down in Plymouth in accommodation to be provided to her father. D has been seeing her father on a fortnightly basis since February last year. Because I had an open mind and no concluded view at all until I had heard all the evidence I directed the Local Authority to prepare an alternative Care Plan, wanting to understand if there was any possibility of avoiding such a split and what structure might be placed around the mother if the Court decided to return the children to her, even though such a Plan's contents did not reflect the Local Authority's formal position. I did so applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Re W (A Child) RW v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1227, the President and Ryder LJ sitting.

THRESHOLD

6. Helpfully and realistically the mother had conceded that Threshold was met and Mr. W too has made a number of concessions. However, the Local Authority very much wanted to go further and sought a determination from the Court as to an alleged shaking of D by the mother in an intoxicated agitated state at the index incident which brought the Local Authority's and Police's acute involvement into the family's life once again on the 20^th December 2015. The mother vigorously contests that issue. Because shaking of a young baby obviously can be a very serious matter, and cause considerable lifelong damage in some circumstances, the Court approved of and applied that course and heard full contested evidence about that matter before moving to the welfare decision.
7. It was made clear to the parties that no further findings of fact would be made beyond that one significant issue as Threshold already was more than amply established. The Court was not required to make findings about other multifarious matters, and there are a lot of them here, that could have been subject to further fact finding.
8. There had also been unhelpful parallel criminal proceedings here. I found that to be quite a surprising decision by the CPS, given that happily D had come to no harm at all beyond emotional distress and Mr. B, the mother's brother, whom she allegedly had hit around the chest and head during the same incident, had made it plain to the Police that he had not sustained any injury and did not wish to pursue a prosecution against his sister. He was worried only for the baby.
9. Just returning to the Threshold for one moment. The mother's concessions were helpfully set out in a four paged document which was received on the second day of the Hearing on the 22^nd November. I will not record all of those in this Judgment. It is a document which will be attached to the Order. In particular she accepted that historically the children had suffered or had been at a risk of suffering significant emotional harm in the care of the mother and/or Mr. W because of domestic violence/abuse. She accepted also in relation to the historical incidents that she and Mr. W had failed to protect the children from emotional harm or the risk of physical and emotional harm being suffered by them as a result of witnessing incidents of domestic abuse or being in the house at the time that these incidents had occurred.
10. She also accepts that she failed to access support or engage with services that support people experiencing domestic abuse at the time that these proceedings were commenced but has done so since.
11. An eventual four day Criminal Trial at Maidstone Crown Court between the 10^th and 14^th October 2016 at which B had the obvious ordeal of giving evidence via television link against his mother resulted in acquittals of the mother on both Counts.

SEPARATE REPRESENTATION ISSUE

12. For completeness, I recall that matters were somewhat delayed by the revelation that the woman Solicitor representing Mr. S, the father of the youngest child, was having some sort of relationship with the mother's brother, Mr. B, a witness and Intervener in the case which might have produced some sort of confusion and conflict. That Solicitor, perhaps unwisely, has attended both this Court Hearing and been seen in the public foyer, and also attended at the Crown Court, presumably to support Mr. B. It was necessary therefore for Mr Kenny, Mr. S's Counsel, having properly notified the Court of this, to receive his professional instructions from a newly appointed Solicitor in order to ensure a scrupulously fair Article 6 complaint Hearing.
13. This matter was reported to the Designated Family Judge for Kent and also to this Court's High Court Family Liaison Judge. I gather that some sort of complaint has now been made by the Local Authority about that Solicitor's conduct.
14. Regrettably this is the third occasion to my own direct knowledge when an issue of conflict has arisen through this particular Solicitor's potentially conflictual behaviour in becoming personally close to parties or witnesses. I do not need to spend any more time on that issue beyond reflecting that it causes delay by having to have a new Solicitor representing a client and also, no doubt, causes extra costs to the Legal Aid Fund.

THE LOCAL AUTHORITY INVOLVEMENT

15. Kent Specialist Children's Services have actually been involved in the family's life on several previous occasions since 2007 prior to the precipitating event on the 20^th December 2015. The first referral was back in December 2007 when the first child, B, then aged only six months of age, was propelled on to a sofa during a domestic abuse incident between the mother and his father, Mr. W. There was also a suggestion that hot tea had been poured on his feet at some stage by his father.
16. Extraordinarily, subsequent referrals as I have seen from the voluminous paper work, followed almost annually. There were in September 2008, September 2009, October 2010, and then in March 2012, when a front window had been smashed in and the mother was seen by the Police holding a child in her arms in the doorway, another child in the background was heard to be crying and asking: "Is he coming back?" when the Police attended. Mr. W was seen to be extremely agitated when he returned to the scene and said to the Police:

"I am telling you now to remand me otherwise I am going to come back and kill her."

17. There were further incidences in July 2013 and February 2014. All these referrals allude to very serious domestic abuse incidents to which the children, B in particular as the older child, have been exposed. He had written a poignant letter to the Court which I read on Day 1 in which he said this:

"Dear Judge, I am writing to say how I feel about being taken home. I feel that we should not go back to my mum's house because she promised that she would stop drinking, arguing and fighting, but she didn't. My mum is also incapable of keeping us because she drinks all day, every day. Since being in care we are happy and safe and we don't have to worry about each other. Please don't send us home. Sincerely from B."

18. There had been also an anonymous referral received by the NSPCC in January 2014. Concerns were raised about the children being exposed to domestic violence between their parents and the parents' use of alcohol on a daily basis, both those being worrying common denominators here.
19. There was further exposure to violence due to disputes with neighbours. As a result of that B and H were supported in a Child in Need Plan between June and September 2014.
20. On the 14^th March 2014 the Police had been called out by Mr. W who reported the mother drinking heavily and going out a lot leaving him with the children. He had finally left the relationship, he said, the previous week. The mother had texted him telling him one of the children was in hospital. He had run all around but had found no such admission. After an escalating argument about whether or not she had seen his phone she threw a full glass of Vodka and Red Bull at him hitting him above his right eye and leaving a small lump. She then smashed the glass on the kitchen floor. B ran into the kitchen crying. Mr. W at that stage was telling the Police that the mother's drinking was out of control and he was worried that the children were being mistreated, not being fed or cared for properly. He said that B had asked him if he could leave his mother and come and live with him, but he had nowhere permanent to stay himself.
21. In essence there has been on and off Local Authority involvement more or less throughout B's ten years of life and for his younger siblings too. Accordingly, the culminating event in December 2015 is by no means an out of character one off offence.
22. It appears also from what has been said that Mr. W stayed at the property the night before the incident on the 19^th December and that staying over will have given very mixed and confused messages to the children. The mother has stated that she felt sorry for him and let him sleep in B's bed at times.

THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE

23. The burden of proving the outstanding matter and the Threshold is of course throughout on the Local Authority that brings this case. It must do so to the well-recognised neither more nor less criterion of the simple civil balance of probabilities. The inquiry must be child focussed. There needs to be absolute candour and frankness on the part of all witnesses. That is the best way to try and keep a child within his or her family. Sadly, I have concluded that there has not been that required candour and frankness on the part of the mother.
24. The Court operates a binary system in which the only values are zero and one. As was established in Re B [2009] 17 AC 11, a Judge must decide whether an alleged fact has happened or not.
25. I have reminded myself also of the Lucas Direction given to Juries in Criminal Cases. People may lie for all sorts of reasons. It can be out of guilt, fear, shame, panic, out of a desire not to go back on a previous story, or indeed out of a wish to protect one another, or deliberately to implicate another, or to exculpate themselves. I record that it is well recognised that just because a witness lies about one matter, it certainly does not necessarily mean that they are lying about other matters.
26. Macur LJ in Re S [2014] EWCJ Civ 135 made the point that non-disclosure or lying does not necessarily mean that parenting capacity or ability to co-operate with the authorities is impaired. Lying is not determinative of a welfare decision.
27. I refer also to the President's recent decision in Re A [2015] EWFC 11 that there is a need to establish the link between the facts relied upon in a Threshold document and the conclusion that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm.
28. Moreover the Threshold test is there to provide protection for children and also of course protection for the parents from unjustified interference in their lives by the State contrary to their Article 8 rights.
29. As was said in Re S [2014] EWCA Civ 25 the Threshold is not concerned with intent or blame. It is concerned with whether the objective standard of care has not been provided.
30. Re G (Care Proceedings) [2001] 2 FLR established that the Local Authority is also entitled to rely on events occurring since the relevant date, therefore, since the 11^th January here, being the date of issue, and those events being capable of proving the state of affairs at the date of that intervention.

I remind myself also, as was stated by Munby J (as he then was), in Re A (Fact Finding) (Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12 that:

"It is an elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation."

31. The Court's task therefore is to evaluate the facts and it has regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to the other evidence. The Court exercises that overview on the totality of the written and oral evidence that it has received and all the circumstances.
32. I also remind myself that I and I alone have had the huge and unique advantage of seeing all the parties and all the witnesses in Court during the lengthy days of the Hearing. I have been able to gauge their demeanour, their affect, their credibility, veracity, reliability and honesty, during not only the time when they have been in the witness box, but generally in the Court room too. The importance of that global picture was recognised by Coleridge J in B v Torbay Council [2007] 1 FLR 203 and also in the well-known Piglowska case.
33. The characters and personalities of the parties and the other parties here and the impression they have made on me are important components to the evaluation of the primary facts. These young children deserve, and need to understand in the future, why they have each had to be removed from the care of their family. I remind myself also to take into account inherent probabilities. I deal firstly therefore with the aspect of fact finding and the evidence.

THE EVIDENCE

34. It is a matter of great disappointment that the mother, in the next day or two after the 20^th December, or even some weeks or months later when sensible and sober and having calmed down, was not able to admit that she had shaken D. It would have been understood that she had worked herself into a rage, was overwhelmed, very upset and drunk and that this was an uncharacteristic action caused directly to her baby in regrettable circumstances which she would never do again and for which she could express remorse.
35. It is very well recognised that drunk people often cannot remember at all what they have said and done and are mortified when sober to be told what people have heard and witnessed them saying and doing. She could have reassured the Local Authority that she was willing to work opening and honestly with them. The children possibly might never have been removed, or bar for a few days, and strenuous efforts could have been put into place with a robust plan to assist her with her demons and difficulties, her drinking and her anger and with that volatile relationship with Mr. W. That was foolish, fuelled by alcohol, some of which had been brought by him that day to the mother's home. This could all have been kept, it seems to me, to much more proportionate responses.
36. Moreover, an acceptance would have obviated the real damage that has been done to B which inevitably has affected H and D too. The now prolonged separation has led inevitably to them becoming accustomed to a completely different and calmer lifestyle. Instead the mother has kept on causing the children, particularly B, emotional harm since then, since the relevant date. That is harm which the Court is fully entitled to take cognizance of applying Re G, as mentioned, by her continuing denials of the facts and her denials of her son's experience, even seeking in fact to deny the content of her miscellany of texts until they were obtained by the Police and put to her. There were many, many texts with foul language often employed. The mother it seems to the Court should have been prepared to back down and tell the truth but has now lost a lot of ground.
37. B at then just 9, now 10 of course, does not understand -- and why should he, he is a little boy – the higher criminal standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning satisfied so that you are sure, that operated in the eventual October four day Criminal Trial. Nor does he begin to know all about the multiple factors that could have been operating in the Jury's individual and collective minds when they acquitted his mother. The Jury could have felt real sympathy for this mother, understanding that she felt overwhelmed with the responsibility of three children coming up to Christmas. They could also have felt cross with the Prosecution for bringing and pursuing this case in the first place given that the baby and indeed Mr. B too happily were completely unharmed. All of those issues operate, it is well known to us who sit or practice in crime, in Juries' minds. Of course, a Jury does not give a reasoned decision at all. It is a simple binary, guilty or not guilty verdict.
38. Nor could B be expected to understand that his mother would be highly unlikely to be sent to prison in all the circumstances, even if convicted, as the Guardian, I accept, properly has tried to convey to him. Fortunately, more by luck than by design D sustained no injury at all, nor did Mr. B, and the custody threshold, even if guilt was found would not have been crossed in any event in my judgment. I am satisfied that B just knew instinctively that what his mother did to his baby sister that afternoon for just a few crucial seconds was wrong and not good for her. It has though doubled the blow for him that not only would his mother not concede the truth of what he saw, but that he feels now unbelieved by the adults at the Criminal Court. As an obviously intelligent, articulate and delightful young boy this has been devastating for him and has caused an understandable refusal, now very entrenched, to see his mother or his father since that frightening event that evening.
39. The mother acts compulsively on occasions. She did not stop to think for a moment how her children would be affected by her suddenly turning up at her brother's home with her face covered in blood after they had witnessed already her becoming more furious and preoccupied and affected by the drink that afternoon of their Christmas school holidays drinking with their father.
40. The overarching problem here is that B cannot overcome what he has probably experienced for most of his life in the mother's care with arguments and alcohol swirling around him culminating in the truly hideous spectacle of this mother's behaviour on the 20^th December. She made Christmas that year a most memorable, indeed unforgettable experience, sadly for all the wrong reasons.
41. The second associated problem is that the mother still does not get it. She is still in denial. She has not begun to move forward and to develop real insight and remorse and a changed mindset. Whilst she does not want to brand B a liar she will understand that is the effect of her continuing adamantly to deny that she shook D that early evening while inebriated. They cannot both be right. The questions rhetorically the Court asks are: How can we row back from that? How can any bridge be built now to reassure B and to try and repair that relationship so as not further to entrench him in complete negativity about his mother and his father too?
42. I consider the evidence of AJ who is the ex-partner of the mother's brother. She was joined as an Intervener to these proceedings. I found her to be a very pleasant, honest, well intentioned young woman. Her veracity and credibility were put in issue as a result of what she had said during the Special Guardianship assessments of her and her partner, Mr. B. She has two children of her own by a previous partner. The mother alleges frank lies by AJ about the shaking incident, both in AJ's contemporaneous witness statements to the Police on the 20^th December 2015, in her evidence at the Criminal Trial, and alleges that she perpetuated the same lies when standing in the witness box at this Hearing.
43. That allegation of lying arises out of what AJ had said to the Social Workers when being assessed. She had been resolute that domestic abuse did not feature in her relationship with Mr. B at all. There was just a one-off incident of her lashing out at him in January 2014 when they were experiencing a lot of stress due to the very sad death of their own nine month old daughter, R who had been born with a congenital heart defect and who died in December 2013 when only a few months of age. Accordingly Christmas is a stressful time for the whole extended family.
44. There was also an incident in November 2013, as the Police records show, when the Police had been called when neighbours had heard shouting and screaming coming from the AJ/B household. This was said to be an argument about Mr. B spending £40 each of Christmas presents for his nephews, boys whom he very much loves.
45. Both the mother and Mr. W had been entirely opposed to the Special Guardianship idea stating that Mr. B was a bully to AJ's children and regimented in his discipline. They had requested the Local Authority to move the children straight to foster care on the 22^nd December rather than to leave them with their uncle and his partner. That is a decision which B has held against his mother ever since.
46. The mother had called her brother "controlling" and liking to "wind people up". She shares that trait as I find. She said that AJ was a compulsive liar only wanting D to replace R and the couple not caring about the boys. She did not believe that the AJ/B relationship was stable or solid.
47. Mr. B and AJ had told Miss Louis Tuckwell, the Social Worker, in May 2016 that their relationship was happy and stable and that Mr. B is very good with her children, all of whom have a good relationship with him. They said in fact if they did not feel that they were in a solid relationship that they would not put their children or B and his siblings through this intensive process of them being assessed.
48. The Assessment recorded thus and I quote from F 50 of the bundle:

"AJ said that Christmas was a very difficult and hard time for both of them and her children. She said, 'I was trying to be strong for my children and I think Mr. B felt that he had to be strong for all of us which placed a strain on our relationship.' She further explained that she and Mr. had managed to get through this loss together and are now stronger than ever. When Mr. B was asked about his views on their relationship he said, 'I feel it is strong and I don't foresee us splitting up'.

Mother has stated many times that she does not think that that relationship is stable and secure. She explained that since being in a relationship both Mr. B and AJ have sought her support and advice separately regarding being unhappy within their relationship. Furthermore, mother said Mr. B does not like AJ's children. He is often "horrible" to them and calls them "cunts". The mother went on to say that AJ had often been upset due to Mr. B's behaviour towards her and her children. AJ and Mr. B deny this and believe that mother is saying this to try and hinder this Assessment.

On asking Mr. B how he views his relationship with B he immediately said, 'I think it is brilliant. B has always turned to me and can talk to me about how he feels which is important.' He identified that he thinks he has been imperative to B's emotional support throughout his life. B looks to him as a positive role model due to the lack of a father figure and that B would turn to him."

49. AJ accepted in her oral evidence to this Court that she had lied about the aggressive and spiteful way that Mr. B was with her and that sometimes he had been cruel to her son, J. She said she certainly was not lying about the shaking incident. She commented that no relationship was perfect and theirs had been a bit rocky over the years but things were good in the March and April 2015. In the May there was the odd falling out, but they were quite good and things were then fine again from June 2015.
50. Mr B at times would twist her ear to make her cry and push her chest to the table making her cry out in pain. He would also deliberately hurt her private parts. On certain days, not every day, he would hurt her more if she did not retaliate and was very regimented about things in the home.
51. She had noticed that the way he was with his sister's children and with hers was completely different, being more loving to his nephews and nieces. He loved them with all his heart she said.
52. When asked about security having to be called at the hospital when Mr. B had tried to encourage Mr S to walk out of the hospital with D she said that she did not know about that and it had surprised her.
53. For some reason Mr. B was not keen on her son, J. She just did not know why. He would sometimes give J a shove as he walked by and call him unpleasant things such as a "little prick" and a "dickhead". She was often upset because of his behaviour to her children.
54. She had been trying to do the best for the three other children, the B children, as she knew what they have been going through with their mother. She saw them nearly every single day if she could. The parties lived only some few minutes' walk away. She wanted if she could to take all of them and did not want them to be in foster care.
55. The mother sometimes would drink Red Bull and Coke in the café in the morning right after they had dropped the children at school. Whilst she had said that she and Mr. B were happy the majority of the time her self-esteem had been affected and he had made her feel worthless for the last four years. That was not every day but there were days when he would be horrible and controlling. Because she loved him and was worried about Mr. B and become so used to it all nothing shocked her. She never reported any of the incidents to the Police.
56. When he tried to get back with her in the July of 2016 saying that he would change, which she thought was more than likely because he wanted to give the professionals the impression they were in a relationship, and therefore again could be considered as Special Guardians, and because she loved him, and still wanted to care for the three children, she had tried for a few days. But when he tried to beat her head in with a hammer, that was when she had called the Police. She said "that was it". He was taken away from her home and they separated entirely thereafter. She said he had never threatened her before.
57. She believed that either Mr. B or the mother had then started making the ridiculous and malicious allegations about her to Social Services that she was dealing drugs, ill-treating her children and selling her body at her home. Now she is not under Mr. B's influence, she is not being manipulated by him at all and had given truthful evidence to the Criminal Trial and to this Trial.
58. She said the mother had yanked D out of her arms as she was sitting there feeding her on the 20^th December. That was to the extent that her arm was put into an awkward position. As the mother scooped the child up suddenly from her arms the child's and mother's heads had clashed causing the two red marks that were seen that night by the Triage Nurse and the Registrar but which had disappeared by the next day.
59. In her oral evidence to this Court in November 2016 about the shaking incident she said that the mother definitely did shake her little girl. She said that she had not made all of this up and had certainly not lied about the shaking incident at all. The mother was shaking the baby backwards and forwards "like a rag doll" right in front of her, next to AJ's sofa. It was between six to ten times. "It was a lot". She was "scared witless" and was watching it. In the Criminal Trial she said it was about ten times, the shaking backwards and forwards, she did not know exactly. I do not find that to be a material discrepancy or inconsistency about quite how many times it was. She was not counting it precisely at the time. It is to be remembered that these were fast moving events that early evening.
60. The child, D, was screaming and crying, was bright red in the face and then made a long groaning noise. AJ from the witness box said this:

"I thought she had snapped her neck."

She could not believe that the baby, who then spent two nights in the hospital, was a well-baby and happily had not sustained any injury. She said:

"I thought she did need to go to the hospital. The child had stopped crying and then started again. So the best thing to do was to get her checked over."

The mother was not just cradling the baby. She said that the mother was shouting, shaking the child and was swearing saying words to the effect:

Look at this baby girl, a reincarnation of Mr. B's dead baby daughter and saying that Mr. B was not there for D.

61. AJ said she had not known that Mr. B had been in touch with Mr. S from whom the mother had separated at the beginning of that December. She also did not know that her partner had promised to the mother that he would not be in touch with Mr. S.
62. She described the mother that early evening as being "paralytic" and "major drunk" with a glaze over her eyes, smelling of alcohol as well. She said:

"She definitely was drunk. I have been around her enough to know when she is drunk. It is a regular occurrence."

She also said that the mother had drunk throughout her pregnancy with D, although not every day.

63. The mother had got blood on the walls of her, AJ's, home as the mother had flung her arms around and was shaking the baby. The Police photographs which the Court has seen show those blood splatters on the wall. AJ said that she had scrubbed and scrubbed the walls, but could not get the blood stains off. She denied telling B about the incident. He may have overheard conversations later between her and Mr. B but she was repeatedly telling the children to go back upstairs and also did not want B talking to J about what he had seen and also to her daughter, DZ, who returned the next day.
64. She did not know what B could see from his vantage point on the stairs. From the stairs she said you can see everything in their open plan living and dining room. He could have had a restricted view looking through a triangular area of the bannisters where there were no slats. She had not made her own children or B do a "pinkie promise" not to say anything. That is not a phrase that she would use. I do not think the mother was asked as to whether or not that was a phrase from her family life with the children.
65. In her statement given to the Police on the same day, 20^th December 2015, when events obviously were entirely fresh in her mind, AJ recorded that the whole event had started at about 5 p.m. when she had got a message from the mother saying:

"I've stabbed myself, smashed the house up, and gave the kids to Mr. W."

Scared about the safety of the children AJ had gone straight round to the mother's home with her son to find the mother shouting and swearing, with blood all over her face and then being told to "get out". B had suddenly rushed out of the front door in just pyjamas with no shoes on. Mr. W was there holding a large bottle of Vodka and when told by AJ that he should run after B he said:

"I've got my Vodka, fuck the kids. I don't care. You deal with it."

AJ then checked with her partner over the phone to ensure that B had arrived safely at her home which was just down the road. As she started to walk home the mother then phoned her and said:

"You want these fucking cunts, come and get them."

AJ then returned and saw the mother grab the large Christmas tree and throw it across the room. The mother gave her the baby and ushered H out saying:

"Take him as well."

She gave her a carrier bag with a few bits and pieces for the baby who was dressed only in a babygrow. The mother then slammed the front door shut on them all.

66. AJ told Mr. W to stay away when he started to shout at them and she was helped to walk home with the crying children by a lady across the road who Mr. B confirmed he saw at his door when they arrived.
67. Twenty minutes or so after AJ had settled the children the mother suddenly came to their door knocking and went crazy shouting at Mr. B and then started to hit him around his chest and head and at the back of the neck and ripped his clothing. He was just turning away and trying to block his face with his hand, simply defending himself in that way. The children kept on coming down the stairs and she was trying to reassure them.
68. AJ stated this in her Police Statement at G 195 of the Bundle:

"I was holding the baby and trying to feed her and as she was crying. I was trying to calm her down. Mr. B was not hitting her at all, he was just turning away and trying to block his face with his hands. The mother was screaming. It was unbelievable how she was just continuing to shout. Mr. B kept telling her to stop. The mother then turned to me and grabbed hold of D with both of her hands around her chest under her armpits and ripped her out of my arms leaving me standing with the baby bottle in my hand. She was then shouting at Mr. B, 'Look at this girl. You should be there for her'. Whilst she was doing this her arms were extended right out holding D at arm's length towards Mr. B and shaking her very hard and forcefully. The baby was screaming and really going bright red. I could see her head shaking backwards and forwards. I couldn't believe what was happening. I started screaming and shouting and crying. I've never seen anything like it in my life. I really couldn't believe how she had turned on her own baby. Mr. B was screaming at her to stop. I really thought that she was hurting the baby. I was thinking that she was going to break D's neck. I was shocked and just couldn't believe it. I shouted, 'Z, give her to me.' Mr. B took the baby from Z and Z was screaming and spitting. This was going over Mr. B and D. B was downstairs and was shouting at Z. He must have seen it all and shouted, 'Mum, go away.' I realised then that he must have seen it all as he was sat on the step. B must have said something to Z, she at B, and he ran around the table to me. She then shouted, 'I am going home to kill myself'. I couldn't believe she had said this to B. Z then walked out of the house and Mr. B called the Police."

69. AJ at the Criminal Trial in the October last year gave a very similar and consistent account and denied that there were only cross words, that the mother had simply picked up D in a gentle fashion and held her on her hip and that the shaking of the baby had been made up. She denied telling B that D had been shaken. He did come downstairs for some of it.
70. I am going to quote from the Criminal Trial to show what the Court finds is the entire consistency and credibility of AJ. It is page K 52. It begins a little above G:

"Q. How did she take her from you? A. Snatched, yanked her out of my arms and I couldn't keep hold of the baby because I had a bottle and my arm buckled backwards and this arm was around her and I couldn't grab her properly with this arm so she took her off me and started shouting at Mr. B and just shook, shouting like that at the baby, going bright red and screaming." Q. Making a shaking movement? A. Yes. Q. Was that a forceful movement or what? A. It was enough to hurt my arm and to buckle my arm back when she yanked her out of me and her and D banged heads. I think that's what started her off crying. Q. How long did the shaking go on for? A. She must have shook her about – Jesus, about 10 times. I don't know. I couldn't tell you how long it was. It was just shaking while she was screaming and shouting at Mr. B. Q. The baby, what effect did that have on the baby? A. The baby was bright red and I was watching her head go back like in a fall and I started panicking, like I was screaming, 'Stop it, please stop it, please stop it', but she didn't care. She just looked at Mr. B and its like she wanted to hurt Mr. B by shaking the baby at him and the baby started making this funny like going 'errrr', that noise, and I thought like she has snapped her neck.

Intervening, Judge Statman: I have put in my note that the baby was making a gurgling noise. Would that be accurate? A. Yes. Her crying stopped and that's when that noise just started coming out. Q. When you saw that how did you feel? A. I was scared. Q. Did you say anything? A. Yes, I said 'She's going to kill her if you keep shaking her'. Q. What happened to the baby after that? A. She shoved her at Mr. B. Q. How was she, Z, when she shoved the baby at S? A. She just didn't care. She just kept swearing at him and saying that he's useless and he didn't deserve to have our child. Just spiteful. Q. Apart from the baby, were any of the children present when this happened? A. They said that they came down. I could see their little faces on my bannister. I have bars that go down so that I could see and I kept saying to them, 'Back upstairs, please go back upstairs' because I didn't know what was going to happen. Q. Did you see B? A. B came down. Q. At what point did he come down? A. When Z was – I think he see his mum hit Mr. B and then he came back down and when Mr. B had the baby and Z obviously was spitting at him and putting phlegm all over them and saying all sorts and was standing basically between Z and Mr. B. Q. What did Mr. B do once he had the baby? A. He kept telling her to leave and he was going to call the Police but she didn't believe him. She just kept swearing and saying all sorts. B swore at her and she didn't like that and she put her fist up and I shouted to B to run because I thought she was going to punch him. So he run over to me. Then she looked at him and she went, 'Its all right, B, I am going to go home and I am going to finish myself off. I'm going to kill myself. You will never see me again.' He begged and he went, 'I'm sorry, mum. I'm sorry.' It didn't faze her. Q. What did she do after that, Z? A. She just said something to Mr. B and then she stormed out and I said to Mr. B like to call an ambulance for the baby. Q. An ambulance came? A. Yes, and the Police."

She denied that Mr. B had told her to say all of that and that she was still scared of him and so had lied. She had obtained a Non Molestation Injunction against him in September 2016 and had made a statement about his treatment of her and her children in the July.

71. H had told her that his "mummy had cut herself with a knife" and Z was smothered in blood when she had arrived at the house.
72. Mr. B had said to AJ in response to the message asking them to go over that Z had a habit of saying she is going to kill herself and all sorts and to simply ignore her attention-seeking.
73. AJ said that she thought that Mr. B would go round and sort things out with Z, but he did not. She said that he can be stubborn. She did not know that he and Mr. S were talking. She saw Mr. W with a half full bottle of Vodka in his hands and saw him put a large bottle of Vodka, Smirnoff, down the side of the dining room door.
74. She confirmed also that the mother appeared later when the Police and Ambulance had arrived and Mr. B and the baby had been taken off to hospital. She said the mother now looked smartly dressed. She was dressed in black. There was no blood on her at all. She was reeking of alcohol but acted like she was in shock and as if she had heard bad news about her child.
75. I am entirely satisfied that AJ has not lied to the Court about this shaking incident. She has given careful and accurate and credible compelling evidence as I find. Any small discrepancy or inconsistency about the number of shakes and movements and so on I find wholly understandable as stated already. I accept that the mother's evidence was that Mr. B was obsessed by D. I do not find that to be the case. I do not accept that he was so desperate to get her into his care that he and AJ concocted this story in a matter of seconds or minutes before the Police were on the scene. Being prepared to put a positive gloss on your four year relationship when trying to advance the best interests of the three B children, and seeking to raise them within the family, and lying to Social Workers in an Assessment, is very, very different indeed in my judgment to being prepared to lie on your Oath and potentially to perjure yourself in both the Criminal and Family Court and to leave yourself open to Criminal proceedings. I find that AJ has not done so and has given honest and truthful answers always with the welfare of the children in the forefront of her her mind.
76. I am not asked to make a finding of fact about whether or not she had made a so-called "pinkie promise" with B. As stated that may be his phrase from home. The mother and father were not actually asked about that. She did not want her own son, J, and her daughter, DZ, when she returned from contact with her father the next day talking about all of this and was left alone for the rest of that night with four children to calm and settle. Mr. B did not return that night from the hospital at all.
77. The gravamen here is the actual shaking of the baby which was "a lot" AJ said and happened right in front of her. I entirely accept her evidence as honest, cogent and compelling.
78. Police Constable Brocklehurst, one of the attending Police Officers responding to the 999 call made by Mr. B also gave evidence at the Criminal Trial. He was not required for cross-examination at this Hearing. He had confirmed in his oral evidence that he had asked AJ to demonstrate to the attending Ambulance Crew what she had seen as he had been concerned with what Mr. B had said to the Control and to him when he arrived, although he did not see any injuries to the baby. She was simply sitting on the sofa and smiling. He was quite shocked, as were the Ambulance staff, as AJ demonstrated by shaking a cushion in a manner that to him was "vigorous" and "violent" and described by the Paramedics as "violent and excessive". The Ambulance staff stated that they would have to take D to the Hospital to be assessed. It was obviously important to be able to convey to the medical staff when she arrived what had happened to her and what level of force had been used.
79. When Z suddenly returned to the AJ home after the Ambulance had left PC Brocklehurst had noticed the mother's appearance as "very emotional", "dishevelled", "dressed all in black", "unsteady on her feet", "smelling strongly of intoxicating liquor". He added that it was obvious that she had been drinking and may have been drinking for a long time. She was saying something quite confusing, that her daughter was covered in blood and had been taken away in an Ambulance, but the child had not been covered in blood. He arrested and cautioned her for assaulting her child to which the mother responded:

"I did not assault my child. I love them and live for them. They are my world. I am a good parent. I was cradling her. I did not shake her."

That was a very different attitude to calling them "fucking cunts" and pushing them to AJ earlier in the evening.

80. When the mother was in custody the crime report records that Police Constable Rees seized an Apple iPhone from her as she was denying sending a text that day stating that she had stabbed herself and so on.
81. Mr. B the mother's brother was also joined as an Intervener. He gave evidence very much echoing what his ex-partner had said. When making the 999 call within seconds of having asked for the Police and given his address, Mr. B told the Operator that his sister, Z, had been shaking the baby "so something needs to be sorted out".
82. He stated that the mother had had a problem with drinking before. She had had "a few" and "quite a lot today", "way too many drinks" and had "chucked all her kids" aged 9 and 4 and 9 months old and they had had to come to his house. She attacked him saying there was blood everywhere "and she's throwing stuff". At that time when he was making the call Z was back banging on the front door.
83. He replied in response to questioning that she had been cutting herself. She has been shaking the baby. He said "there is stuff everywhere". She was spitting at him and punching him in the back of the head but he said that he was fine.
84. There was blood on his niece's face, there was blood on the walls and down his top but that was all from the mother. She had smashed up her house and his nephew had told him the mother had been drinking all day after he had run to his uncle's house when it was all said to be kicking off.
85. He mentioned the boys' father, Mr. W, knocking on the door too and had told him to "fuck off". He was asked about the likelihood of any weapons on the mother and replied that she had been stabbing herself so he guessed so. He knew also of course about the conviction and the suspended prison sentence to which his sister the mother had been made subject only a few days earlier when hammers and so on allegedly had been held by his sister, their mother and a brother also in an argument with neighbours. He thought that his sister had a wound on her face but had sort of spread the blood over, as there were like finger marks, to make it look worse and it was on her hands as well as a bit on her cheek and all over her face. He had had to grab the shaken baby off her. He said that when his sister is sober she is all right but she needs help. He said that something must have happened today.
86. He mentioned telling his sister's ex, meaning Mr. S here, that he had a Christmas present there for him and she has then come round like this. He said that she needs help, needs sorting out, and the kids do not even want to go back. Apparently all this was caused just over that text to Mr. S.
87. He explained further that his girlfriend had the baby and "his sister took D off her …. and then started shaking her and brang her up and started shaking her again to my face. I had to grab her off her because where she'll end up."

He said she had grabbed the baby and that is when he had had to call the Police. He was not bothered about her punching him in the back of the head.

88. When he threatened his sister that he was going to ring the Police his sister, who had been there for some 30 or 40 minutes he thought, was obviously scared. He was aware that she had been to Court about her ex-neighbours and had had a stressful week, but he "could not let this go". He said it was ridiculous. He then had no choice but actually to call the Police about the shaking and added that he thought that when the mother picked up the baby he was sure that their heads collided and he needed someone to come out to see the baby.
89. He had then given his own statement to the Police on the 8^th January 2016 and later provided a statement to this Court in June. In his Police statement he described the mother's relationship with Mr. W as a car crash with regular domestic violence, Police calls-out, Mr. W having a habit of kicking off while the children were present and smashing up a variety of televisions and throwing items through the window, including a concrete ornament through the front window while the children were there.
90. This was all the tip of the iceberg and he knew that Social Services had suggested that Mr. W should not be going round there. The Police too had told Mr. W to stay away from the family's home. His view was that Mr. W's access to the children was a recipe for disaster. He knew that the mother had been warned both by the Police and Social Services that if Mr. W was in the property she risked having the children removed from her care.
91. In the Special Guardianship Assessment that Mr B underwent in February 2016 with AJ had reported a very close and supportive relationship with his sister and her three children prior to the 20^th December events. In fact when B had been caught shoplifting at Tesco's in the November 2015 it was he that his sister had called for support in the matter. He had attended the store with the mother to collect B. He is nine years younger than his sister and described them as "more like best friends".
92. Their own mother, DK, describes herself as being a "recovering alcoholic" so there may be a familial addictive gene there in relation to alcohol for the mother, I know not.
93. Mr. B said that he would take the children out. He attended their Karate classes and so on to see them. He advised though that when he and his sister had a disagreement that she would use the children as "bait" and at times has prevented contact between the children and their family. That has its mirroring too in relation to Mr. S. It was somewhat what Mr. S had experienced, stating that he had to attend with a bottle of Vodka almost as a bribe, as it were, to try and see his baby daughter. Mr. W too would invariably bring alcohol to please the mother. Mr. W went as far as saying in the witness box at this Court that if he brought a bottle and offered the mother a foot massage that that could lead to sexual intercourse happening between them. There is still therefore that unhelpful enmeshed continuing relationship there at times. The mother has been accepting of his help with the children at times while being resentful that he was using up her food and her luxuries and enjoying the warmth and comfort of her home.
94. Miss Melanie Gates, the original Social Worker, had noted that when B initially was placed in care he had particularly requested telephone contact with both AJ and Mr. B and that this had been arranged. However, the mother was not in agreement with this, just as she was not in agreement with the Special Guardianship. She had asked for the telephone contact to be stopped immediately, indicating that she was thinking of her own feelings and not the boys' needs, and applying sanctions as it were which were felt to be punitive to the boys.
95. Mr. B had advised that at times it appears his sister had two personalities. There are times when she can of course be a caring, loving, good mother and sister. She is an intelligent woman. She takes proper pride in her appearance and the children's presentation too. She has an opposite side though, being argumentative when there are disagreements or opinions differ and then using the children as the aforementioned "bait" and screaming and shouting in an escalating way when somebody disagrees with her. That made life unpredictable for the children.
96. He described the relationship between the mother and Mr. W as being that aforementioned a car crash. They were toxic together. Any difficulties in the family relationships were usually as the result of Mr. W's behaviour towards the mother and the children. He considered that Mr. W was disrespectful and controlling of his sister and the boys and the extended family.
97. He confirmed that B is "wise beyond his years" being very aware of the situation regarding his mother's drinking.
98. In his statement in these proceedings dated 24^th June 2016 he recorded how it all started at about 3:30 or 4 p.m. on the 20^th December with this exchange of texts with his sister starting about him buying Mr. S a Christmas present. His sister sent him a picture of her face covered in blood saying that she was going to kill herself.
99. After AJ later on had left to get the children at his sister's request B came running in "in bits" saying he was "not going back, not any more" and that his mother had "smashed up the home". When his sister arrived, "f'ing and blinding", she was in a "absolute state" with blood on her face. He said that she was in a very drunken state smelling horrifically of drink. She was hurling abuse at him, spitting and hitting him, saying that he had "gone behind her back" and betrayed her by texting Mr. S.
100. He confirmed AJ's sequence of events that she was feeding D on the sofa and suddenly the mother picked up and yanked D with such force from AJ's arms that he could hear the mother and baby's heads clashing and colliding. He then described the mother shaking D back and forth at him with the child's head rocking backwards and this lasting for about ten seconds. B had come downstairs and his mother said to him:

"I am going to kill myself. You won't have a mum no more."

After the shaking the mother pushed D into him and he held her in one arm and called the Police showing the mother his phone screen to prove he had done so and the mother then left.

101. In his statement to the Police he had described the mother aggressively snatching the child from AJ who had just finished feeding her, the clash of heads, and then the violent shaking done with so much force that he described it as being eight out of ten with ten being the greatest force.
102. B had told him that on the day of the incident his mother had been drinking since 1 p.m. Mr. B believes that the drink had taken over and his sister has a problem with drink.
103. At the Criminal Trial he said that B was hysterical when he arrived and said that mum and dad (Mr W) had had an argument. The Christmas tree had gone flying and things had got smashed with alcohol being involved. B had then kept on coming downstairs every single time, worried about the goings-on, although he had been asked to go up to the second floor. He had looked through the slats at the top of the stairs initially.
104. The mother had picked up D aggressively from where AJ was holding her on the sofa and then started shaking her back to front for four or five seconds, holding her under the armpits with a force between six and seven out of ten he would say while shouting at him and AJ and the baby was crying in hysterics. Challenged about the force changing from eight in his Police statement to then six or seven he said this:

"There was no obvious accurate account of how much force was used. It was just very forceful so seven or eight out of ten, six or seven regardless."

His sister then pushed the baby into him while he was on the phone to the Police and she left. He denied becoming more angry and annoyed after R's death or calling J a "fucking little prick" or twisting someone's ear to make them cry. He did not think he was particularly domineering when asked about his behaviour to the mother and to AJ and her children.

105. He did not think himself that it would be a massive issue at all to say to Mr. S:

"You have a present here by the way. If you want to come and collect it feel free."

106. The picture with the mother looked staged he felt. It had not looked real and he had no idea where the blood came from. He denied swearing on his dead daughter's life to the mother promising that he would never be in touch with Mr. S. He had basically reassured his sister that he had not betrayed her. It was as innocent as texting Mr. S to say that there was a present for him. There was no exaggeration here, there was no incentive to further wind-up his sister and allegedly get what he wanted. The main goal had been to keep the children in the family and give his sister a chance to get back on her feet to get whatever help she required and then to go from there. That is why he and AJ had applied to be assessed as Special Guardians.
107. It is noteworthy that even though AJ obtained that ex-parte Non Molestation Injunction against him in the July or the September – I am not quite clear when – on the basis of what were lies about his behaviour, although acknowledging that they had had arguments and things had escalated and he was sleeping on the sofa, that the two of them, AJ and Mr. B, were still entirely adamant and consistent and clear about what they both saw that evening in relation to the shaking. Although he knew that the Special Guardianship Assessment had been negative, as a loving uncle he did not want to give up and would rather have tried and failed to look after the children rather than not try at all.
108. It was also clear that on the 1^st October 2016, ill-advisedly as it turned out to be, he had gone with Mr. S to a park near Canterbury advised by Mr S that he could see D during Mr. S's unsupervised contact and Mr S could delivery his birthday present for Mr. B. Coincidentally B came on the scene riding his birthday bike in the park and so he did go over and talk to him briefly. I am not required to make any findings of fact about that.
109. While Mr. B may well have lied about his relationship with AJ and its stability, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that he has not lied to the Court about the incident that I am trying and accept the evidence as compelling and truthful.

Turning then to the oldest child himself.

110. B took part in an Achieving Best Evidence Interview on the 21^st January 2016. That was one month after the incident. He stated that his dad stayed over "even though he wasn't allowed to go near my house". He said:

"My dad stays like, you know, but he's not supposed to be there but he's probably living there for now."

111. He commented that every time he is around there there are loads of arguments. The Police had said that, no, his father was not allowed to come to the home for a time limit, but they did not mention what the time limit was. That was referring to when his father keeps coming forward and back, forward and back to the property.
112. He said that his mum and dad started having a row. His mum then started to chuck things around, she smashed the Christmas tree and knocked it over. Some of his presents were ripped when she chucked the tree over. He ran to his auntie's house in just his socks and onesie. He was really scared he said that he was going to get really hurt "because when mum drinks she raises her hand and threatens us to hit".
113. He referred to his mum as having stabbed herself in the head at home and slit here and like sliced here. He demonstrated that to the Interviewing Officer. He had not seen that happen. He just saw the blood either side of her face. He had heard his father say:

"Oh, I don't need them anyway. I've got my Vodka," about the children.

That was similar to what AJ had said.

114. A while later there was a row and his uncle called the Police to say what was going on. He was really upset because his mother was like shaking Dolly. She grabbed D as the family call her off AJ and was going like that, demonstrating a shaking movement, shaking D after hitting Mr. B (Uncle S) in the face. He said that he was sitting on the stairs and peeping through them and could see what was happening. He had then come down and shouted "stop it" to his mother and his mother stared at him. He saw his mother hit Mr. B in the face, stomach and chest about 15 to 20 times. His mother was saying "R is dead". He demonstrated holding both his hands out in front of him and demonstrated a shaking movement, a very vigorous shaking motion, with both his hands. His aunt was looking at her arms where his mother had hit his aunt's arms and taken the baby. His mother grabbed D around the waist and was shaking her for quite a long time. He thought it was for about 10 to 20 seconds. She was not using all of her force but shaking D really hard. She used level four force, with one being gentle, to five being really, really forceful.
115. He said that "blood was flicking everywhere" on to the canvas pointing at R's picture on the wall as the mother made a swiping motion with her right hand. The mother had then handed D back to AJ and said:

"There, you can keep her."

D was crying, screaming and holding her arms out to AJ. She was struggling and kicking back.

He said when the Police had arrived there his mother had knocked at the door again and said:

"Where's my kids? I heard that they were here. Give me my kids back."

He said that she was making out it was all fine and was denying everything. She had cleaned her wounds up, got dressed into different clothes, and wiped the blood off her face.

116. He said there were loads of knocks on the door that night. It was his father. His dad had then turned up the next day too, knocking on the window really loud and kicking the wheelie bins and going round to the back gate and trying to climb over the fence. He said that they had "pinkie promised" each other, his auntie having said to him and his cousin, J and H not to tell anyone.
117. He said that his mother started drinking Vodka and Red Bull from about 12 o'clock and his dad drinks the same as his mum "like quite a lot". He said "dad has a drinking problem and mum is pretty much an alcoholic" and his mum was "wound-up and really angry" and just started drinking and drinking. He continued dad was the same as mum, just drinking all day until about 5 o'clock. They didn't have their dinner that day, but had it later at their auntie's home.

He commented too that H and J had been crying upstairs during the incident.

118. His mother had looked at him with a really aggressive staring face and there was blood everywhere. He described:

"It was really scary. She was moving around and trying to follow me and said, 'You can live with them now. They are your mum and dad'. She said if the Police don't find her she will be dead or caught by the Police and put in a prison cell."

119. He said that his mum and dad clearly cannot look after them as she has a drinking problem. He knew that he would be safe with his aunt and uncle, but his mother had said that they cannot live at his aunt's house, they have to go into care. On a scale of one to ten about how his mother cares for him he said that was at level five. For D he said that it was level seven. He also stated that there was "blaring music" at home and he could not get to sleep and so he watched T.V. until he falls asleep. Sometimes he gets his own breakfast.
120. He is happy and glad that he is not with his mum and would escape in the middle of the night if he had to go back with his mum. He does not want to see his father ever again either. There are boot marks where his father has booted in panels on the door at home and smashed a brick through the window.
121. In the Parenting Assessment prepared by Melanie Gates dated 18^th May 2016 B reported that his mother and father were drinking and shouting at one another. His mother had picked up a knife and was shouting to his father "go on, stab me, go on, stab me". He said that he was so scared and that was why he had run out of the door.
122. In his evidence at the Criminal Trial given months later of course in the October 2016 by video link, B said that he does not like his mother because she is horrible, she should not stab herself, and she should not have done this. He said they were not safe with their parents because they argued.
123. He said that he had seen a cut "here and here and here" on his mother when he went downstairs and said "stop". He said it looked really deep on her head and there was blood coming down her face, and all over her face, and blood coming off where she was pointing to the canvas picture of R. That was when he had come downstairs at the AJ's home.
124. His auntie told him the next day that his mother had stabbed herself. His mother had said to him when he said "stop" that she will kill herself or the Police would come and find her and she would be locked in a Prison cell.
125. The others were told by AJ and Mr. B that he was not to tell what had happened because it will get spread around the whole bit where they live. He said that AJ had told him that his father has said "he does not need us" and he just wants his Vodka. So there may well have been some comment by AJ to B, but all that was said by him months later at the Criminal Trial.
126. AJ was on the sofa with D being fed a bottle which he could see clearly peeking through the triangle on the stairs. He saw his mother hit his uncle in the face, chest and stomach and then tried peeling AJ's hands off D, getting hold of her and starting to shake D. He said he did not see the peeling of the fingers but his aunt had told him that.
127. He said that D was screaming and crying and "like falling backwards". He actually saw the motion of D being shaken and going back and forth with his mother's hands wrapped around her tummy, going red, blotchy, "like when you are tensing". He could see that the mother was putting loads of force on D. He said it was really hard. He said in relation to force "it is still a 4".
128. His mother got to the point after she was shaking D, probably just a couple of steps back from the picture, and after his mother had gone he saw that there was blood really close to the canvas picture.
129. He said that the shaking went on for about 10 to 20 seconds and he could see his mother's long sleeved butterfly black top with her hands out and could see up to her wrists and his uncle was saying "stop".
130. I found B's evidence on the essential shaking issue to be entirely consistent, convincing and compelling. He is adamantly clear that this has happened. He saw it, he experienced it and I have listened to his voice and accept what he says about this as being an entirely truthful and vivid account.
131. Dealing further with the mother, I found her to thrive on creating drama around her, often fuelled by alcohol and wanting to gain attention and a reaction. She seems to enjoy a battlefield and playing one person off against the other, paying scant attention to how this preoccupies her to the detriment of her children's welfare at times. It is very much all about her and her children have been the observers and witnesses of that for far too long.
132. From the evidence I have received a very strong impression of her being both a troubled and troublesome woman who likes to get her own way and who wishes to control other people and who can be very jealous and resentful of other people's relationships. She is a challenging and demanding partner who enjoys scoring points and playing games. It was a ghastly and unnecessarily dramatic game that she indulged in that evening.
133. She admitted that she thought it was funny on one occasion to get her best friend, DN, to phone Mr. S in the middle of the night pretending to be AJ for some perverted reason. I have referred already to the fact that she told Mr. W that one of the children was at hospital, obliging him to phone around to see if that was true, when most clearly it was a lie told to cause him worry.
134. She had also sent a pregnancy scan to Mr. S pretending to be pregnant or inferring that she was pregnant by him when he was away on duty with the Marines. She had found somebody else's scan on the Internet and was claiming it as her own or insinuating that she was pregnant by Mr. S.
135. She can be highly manipulative, all of which came to the fore on the late afternoon of the 20^th December. She deliberately covered her face in blood pretending to be badly facially injured without stopping to think about the effect that that would have on her children taking it right there to them, to the home of the people to whom she had a little while earlier entrusted their care. B had seen his mother's appearance at home and certainly the children saw it again in the AJ household. They had not yet even had their supper prepared for them, so ridiculously incensed had she allowed herself to become, as was revealed in the minute-by-minute battery of texts she delivered. I do not intend to work through them. They are all there and show her increasingly highly intensified emotions and fury and her emphasis on how she was feeling.
136. Being "narked" about the present or resenting the men's friendship, does not begin to explain why she indulged in this truly awful staged scene creating as she did a perfect storm.
137. She appears to have a warped and distorted view of things and finds it quite hard to empathise at times it would seem. She could not accept on one occasion that Mr. S, having had an 11 hour flight, followed by a two hour train journey when he had come off duty abroad and was travelling to visit her and D was genuinely exhausted and genuinely had fallen asleep. He was not pretending. She was furious to come out of the shower and to find D crying. She assumed that Mr S was simply ignoring the baby and pretending to be asleep. She had then put on social media information about that, stating that the child was uncomfortable with a full nappy and being ignored by her father. Neither would she accept B's genuinely held views about his experience of life at home with her.
138. In the Criminal Trial she had said that her relationship with Mr. W was always on and off but ended probably when H was 9 or 10 months old. She had then met Mr. S in the February of 2014 and then fell pregnant with D at the end of June or early July. Mr. S was then away as a Marine for four months and she felt he was not very interested and never put D first. He was first allowed to see his daughter when she was some three-and-a-half months old. He had not even been informed about her birth until she was three or four days' old. So the mother very much imposes those sanctions if she feels that people are not treating her in the right way.
139. It was said that Mr. W had come over at half past ten or 11 a.m. on the 20^th December with a litre bottle of Vodka for her. She accepted that she had totally overreacted about the Christmas present bought for Mr. S by Mr. B as Mr. S was never there, loving or caring for D. He had not bought her any of the stuff that she has needed over the past year. Her brother had betrayed D as she saw it, by buying Mr. S a Christmas present. That word "betrayal" dogs all the transcripts of the Statements and the Criminal Trial and in this case also.
140. She said that she had drunk three glasses of Vodka and Red Bull by 5 p.m. or so. She was really upset. Things were getting more and more heated in the texts between her and her brother and the glass she had just put on the side fell, cutting her finger. Then for a stupid moment she thought it was a good idea to smear the blood on her face and send pictures to AJ, to Mr B, to Mr.S and to her mother also to make them realise how much it had hurt her, her brother getting in touch with D's father.
141. There was the swapping of insults between her and her brother once she went round there, but she said the most she did that evening was to simply say "hi" to AJ, to pick D up from the sofa, not in any harsh way, but she conveyed it as simply a gentle picking up. Then she put D on her left hip and stroked her face in a loving way. D was happy and smiling according to her even though the argument between the adults was still going on.
142. She accepted pointing to a picture of R on the wall and saying deliberately to hurt Mr. B:

"You didn't deserve her and that's why she was taken from you."

That was obviously a cruel thing to say.

143. She alleges that her brother was the one who was spitting and waving his finger in her face until with his face now close to hers, D was screaming. She gave D to AJ she said and asked if it was all right for the three children to stay the night. So it was all was a perfectly amicable discussion in her version of events. She denies grabbing the child, pulling her away from AJ with some force and then shaking her over a period of time, some seconds, so that her head went backwards and forwards, she made gurgling noises and went red in the face, so distressed was the baby by the shaking. She then pushed the child towards her brother. None of that happened she said. She totally denied the shaking, the heads knocking or punching her brother in the back of the head or being drunk and unsteady on her feet. B came downstairs at the end of the incident when Mr. B had shown her that he was on the phone to the Police and had told her to go away.
144. She had gone back later having wiped the blood off her face because she said she had received a text message from her mother saying that Mr. B was on his way to Hospital with the baby. Her mother had texted:

"What have you done to her? You do know you've lost them children."

145. She alleges that her mother – who has not provided a statement at all in either of the proceedings – said in a phone conversation that D was covered in blood. Of course, her mother had not seen the child at all and could not have known or said as such.
146. Mr. W also gave evidence. In the Scott Schedule he had denied seeing the mother shouting and swearing. He admitted having an un-opened bottle of Vodka in his hand but he denies saying the words attributed to him by AJ.
147. He also denied being aware of arguments exacerbated by drinking and being a regular occurrence in the home. He does not feel that he and the mother need to dissociate for the children's benefit. He has shown little insight into how life was for his sons in particular.

CONCLUSION ON FACT FINDING

148. Having considered the totality of the evidence very thoroughly indeed over many, many days I have no doubt at all on a balance of probabilities that the mother is liable, did indeed shake her baby daughter as seen and described by two adults and also by her own child. She has been the person who has repeatedly lied about this including in the witness box of this Family Court still continuing to try and exculpate herself for her very poor judgment. She is the perpetrator. The evidence is overwhelming, compelling and goes only one way in my judgment and the mother has simply not been able to gainsay it, or challenge is successfully, at all.
149. I prefer the evidence of three other observers who had the distinct advantage of not being inebriated and very angry as was the mother, applying the required binary approach in a black and white decision. The mother would have caused her daughter distress and fright in so doing, but happily no lasting injury. It was not by design but by sheer luck that no injury was caused to D. These things of course can never be measured or anticipated in advance. They are not an exact science as medical knowledge recognises. People may be injured in a variety of ways from being struck or in falls or in road traffic accidents. and some may recover immediately unscathed while others will receive devastating and potentially lifelong impacts. The mother was not thinking at all of D's comfort and wellbeing during those few fevered seconds but only overreacting and thinking about her own feelings out of a misplaced sense and disproportionate sense of fury and frustration when things had not gone as she wanted them.
150. Dr. Jani, a Consultant Paediatrician, had confirmed at the Criminal Trial that he could not see himself the two minor injuries or scratches above the eyebrows the next day. He said they were perhaps reddening or abrasions but the Registrar had seen them the night before.
151. CT scans and X-rays and so on and a full ophthalmological examination of the child's eyes had properly been undertaken and showed happily no bleed on the brain or fracture although trauma to the brain is a well-recognised syndrome of shaking infants and clashing of heads can cause injury too.
152. I am supported in my conclusion not only by the evidence referred to already that I have accepted but also by several significant and very telling details. The mother was acting in such a furious out of control way that blood travelled from her on to the actual walls of AJ's home in several places. If she had simply taken the child quietly and been cradling her or placing her on her hip as she alleged none of that transfer of blood would have happened at all. The shaking itself, the mother moving her own arms backwards and forwards caused that travelling of blood from her hands and her face on to the walls.
153. B had described in his ABE interview the mother flicking blood as she shook the child, holding his sister out. That was his phrase. If the shaking had not taken place neither Mr. B or AJ would have had any cause for concern about the baby's state of health and would not have needed to call the Police and ask for an Ambulance at all.
154. Mr. B was not injured himself but was naturally and immediately concerned that the child may have been damaged, precisely because of the shaking action by the mother. I am entirely clear that this was not a rapidly concocted or fabricated or manufactured story in some swift thinking Machiavellian way, Mr. B telling AJ to say there had been a shaking and then "let's get the Police and Social Services involved and then we can have D for our own", allegedly obsessed with her and wanting to replace their dead daughter, R, with her. That is so farfetched and ludicrous as to be laughable and as a product only of the mother's warped thinking.
155. I am clear too that neither of them sat B down and coached him to tell a story to get his mother into trouble. He is a bright child and knew exactly what he had seen and witnessed with his own eyes his mother doing that evening. It is highly significant in my judgment that he did not immediately mention to Miss Gates the shaking at the time that he lived with AJ and Mr. B for less than two days. If there had been that conspiracy that the mother sought to rely upon he would have been immediately up to speed and very keen to tell the story, but his consistent explanation came out in dribs and drabs, in a natural unforced way over subsequent days in his ABE interview and also of course in his evidence to the Criminal Court. I reject resoundingly that there was some sort of trumped up conspiracy, fed to B too to brainwash him, as has been asserted.
156. I find that the reality is that there was no time or inclination at all to start concocting any untrue story. The reality happened in front of them, seen too by B, and that reality was more than enough.
157. Mr. B in fact went straight to the Hospital in the Ambulance with D. He stayed there overnight until 9 or 10 a.m. in the morning and was then late for work and got a lift from his father. He returned to the hospital after work on Monday the 21^st staying there until 9 p.m. and only then went home. On the Tuesday again he went to work.
158. He was told by AJ that Mr. W had been in the back garden and banging on the front door while he was at work. Later that same day he was also told that all three children had been removed into foster care at the mother's particular behest. There was no opportunity whatsoever for them to sit down and concoct a story and to feed that to B. That is ridiculous in my view and did not happen.
159. B was keeping an eye on what was going on, looking through the gaps in the bannisters and coming down and being told to go up again, and then coming down again, just as he has always had to be responsible to look out for the younger children and see how his parents were behaving in his own home.
160. H too had mentioned at a contact visit when the mother had passed a comment about D being unwell that his mother had "shaken" D. He said that he had seen it and it was true. The mother had worked herself up into a real state of ferocity and uncontained emotion that early evening.
161. I also draw the inference, that common sense conclusion from all the circumstances, that the mother realised she had gone too far and may in fact have been worried about her daughter's condition and whether she had damaged her knowing full well that she had shaken her repeatedly in a way not conducive to a child's health and safety. That is what caused her to stage the elaborate charade of cleaning herself up, returning, seeing the Police car there and pretending to be shocked that she had heard bad news about her daughter being covered in blood. She has that ability to concoct things, not Mr. B or AJ in this regard as I find.
162. Moreover the clashing of mother's and D's head, heard and seen by Mr. B and AJ and referred to by B, producing those two small red marks seen by the Registrar are highly indicative of a rough and sudden snatching upwards of the baby consistent with the shaking thereafter.
163. It is also noteworthy that Mr. B immediately phoned the baby's father, Mr. S, to report that the child was in hospital after a shaking incident and that Mr. S dropped everything and travelled immediately straightaway to see her. He stayed with her overnight at Hospital. None of that would have happened had this not been a genuine injury perpetrated by the mother.
164. The mother has perpetuated a blatant lie. This was not a gentle taking of the child. That would have produced none of the factors that the Court has relied upon. The mother needs to accept the Court's Judgment on the impact that her volatile behaviour has had on the boys in particular, acknowledge that B has told the truth, close that chapter, grow in perspective and insight and move on. The ball is very much in her Court.

THE WELFARE DECISION

THE LAW

165. When considering the welfare issues I take full account of the fact that the welfare best interests of each child are my paramount consideration pursuant to section 1(1) and the Welfare Check List in the 1989 Children Act set out in subsection (3).
166. The President reminded Practitioners in Re A [2015] EWFC 11 of the fundamental principle of avoiding the temptation of social engineering and the need to recognise the inevitably diverse and unequal standards of parenting. He referred to the Judgment of Hedley J in Re L in relation to that. It was pointed out that some children will experience disadvantage and harm while others will flourish in security and emotional stability. It is not the provenance of the State to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. Therefore those very diverse standards of parenting including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent are taken into account.
167. He also expressly approved the Judgment of His Honour Judge Jack in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCCB 77 in which it was stated that Courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasions had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the Courts.
168. The starting point is of course the oft quoted words of Lord Templeman in the old 1988 case that the best person to bring up a child is a natural parent, whether he be wise or foolish, rich or poor, etcetera, provided the child's moral and physical health are not in danger. There are no presumptions in favour of the natural family as has been stressed recently in Re H (A Child) by McFarlane LJ [2005] EWCA Civ 1294.
169. In Re J (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 222 Aikens LJ, summarising The President's guidance promulgated in Re A, stated:

"It is vital that Local Authorities and even more importantly Judges bear in mind that nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or another. The State will not take away the children of those who commit crimes, abuse alcohol or drugs simply because those facts are established. We are all frail human beings and that sometimes can manifest itself in bad behaviours."

170. In the North East Lincolnshire case His Honour Judge Jack had stated that he deplored any form of domestic violence and deplored parents who care for children when they are significantly under the influence of drink.
171. Hale LJ in Re C & B (Care Order) (Future Harm) [2011] 1 FLR 611 had stated that intervention in the family must be proportionate but the aim should be to reunite the family when the circumstances and where the circumstances enable that and the effort should be devoted towards that end. Each case of course falls to be determined on its own facts in accordance with the proportionate approach described by the Supreme Court in Re B [2013] and Re B-S. The Court must be robust and realistic, particularly whereas here there has been an unpredictable and volatile lifestyle and not adopt a sentimental approach that something may turn up.
172. I have taken into particular account here the children's emotional needs, the harm that each of them have suffered and are at risk of suffering if returned to their mother who has not yet made the huge and significant changes that are required to be made in her life.
173. I have also considered of course how capable each of the children's parents are in meeting the children's needs. Mr. W has always been realistic and acknowledged that he cannot care for the children.
174. Particularly in this case I have had regard to the express wishes and feelings of B and H given their ages and characteristics and also the likely effect on each of them of any change in his or her circumstances. Their welfare throughout their respective lives is the Court's paramount consideration and any delay in determining their arrangements is likely to be prejudicial (pursuant to Section(2).
175. I have also had regard to the State's intervention with all three parents' Article 8 rights and also the children's rights too which I find to be proportionate, appropriate, justifiable and necessary in all the circumstances of this case.
176. I remind myself also that in Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965 McFarlane LJ helpfully described the right approach in deciding which set of arrangements and which Order to endorse for a child's future care. He said this:

"The linear approach in my view is not apt where the judicial task is to undertake a global holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child's future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the children's welfare."

177. So in carrying out the crucial welfare evaluation which is for the Court of course and not for the Local Authority or the Guardian or the parties, the Court being the ultimate arbiter as was stressed in the Neath case, I have considered the full range of powers available to me, including of course making no Order at all. That plainly would not be the right approach here as the Court and the Local Authority's intervention clearly is required and has been involved for more than a year now in any event.
178. In conducting the necessary balancing exercise I set out all the various options and analyse the arguments for and against each option. The Article 8 rights and the yardstick of proportionality of the intervention must be justified. As McFarlane LJ had said in Re G what is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree and detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared side by side against the competing option or options.
179. There are several potential options or permutations, if I may call them that, for these three children and I have grappled with all of them. They are the return to the mother of all three children; the return to the mother of D only, producing a split and the boys remaining in foster care; or possibly H too being returned to the mother with the hope or assumption that B may want to follow his siblings after some work has been done with him and his mother to try and heal that rift. There is the option of all three children being left together in foster care with regular contact arrangements with their parents. There is the option of D going to live with her father, Mr. S, and producing the separation of siblings in that way with arrangements again needing to be made to maintain contact with her brothers and mother.
180. I record for completeness that nobody of course has proposed a Placement Order and Plan of Adoption for D or for any of the children.
181. Furthermore disappointingly there is now no prospect of any family member being available to act as Special Guardians for these children.
182. The positive Viability Assessment by Melanie Gates in February 2016 of AJ and Mr B of course has now been found to be a negative proposal for the children and that couple have in any event of course entirely separated meaning that that option is not available at all.
183. When the children had been subject to Child in Need Plans in 2014 the couple had provided a lot of financial, practical and emotional support to mother and they saw each other every day, walking the children to school and having them over for dinner and sleepovers and so on. B of course had been very enthusiastic about the proposal saying that he had a good and close relationship with both of them. He felt loved, safe and cared for in their home and listened to. He thought it was good to have the rules that his uncle had.
184. However, Lois Tuckwell who inherited this case in February 2016 then conducted a full Assessment producing her negative Report on the 17^th May 2016. To add a further three children to the demands and commitment of AJ's own two children was considered ultimately to be too much and not giving enough time to meet the needs of the three siblings, as well as the couple still being in the process of grieving for their own daughter. There were also the potential risks of living in such close proximity with the mother only two minutes away and worries about her coming to bang on the door and shout as the children had experienced previously, causing them fear and anxiety and potentially reliving the trauma that certainly B and H had experienced from a young age.
185. The revelation at the Criminal Trial that Mr. B had in fact been controlling and violent and that the couple's relationship had entirely broken down around 10^th July as AJ outlined in her oral evidence to this Court, meant perforce that any Application to challenge the negative Special Guardianship Assessment would be entirely unsuccessful. It has therefore been difficult for B to have to come to terms with his uncle's bad behaviour which had obviously disappointed and shocked him.
186. I am going to read into this Judgment for completeness my brief Decision and Judgment given on Day 10 of this case and then expand upon the Court's approach and the reasoning. I said this:

"Turning secondly to the crucial welfare decision. It is very plain to me that the return of all three children to the mother at this juncture is a non-starter and would be premature and doomed to fail. She is somewhat defiant and in denial as the Guardian recognised. She has not begun to tackle her own issues with both alcohol and anger which have so bedevilled her children's lives. A first visit to AA in the second week of this case was too little, too late. Turning Point with its potential ability to fund the Scram X bracelet has not yet been approached by the mother. Nor has she been able yet to commence the much needed CBT although I acknowledge that she has properly pushed for it. Succinctly put, the mother is at the very beginning of her journey. While there appears to be some shift or acknowledgement, as the Guardian felt it, she very quickly fell back on to her conspiracy theory and the denials. Most particularly she has had no contact with B at all for those many, many intervening months and he has made it very plain that he would feel it unsafe for himself and his siblings to return thereto, to an unchanged mother for more of the same chaos, a mother whom very sadly he simply does not trust to have changed at this time. I only therefore partially approve of the Local Authority's Care Plans and have decided to Order a mid-way through. While it is far from an ideal situation here the Court must seek to always achieve the least worst intervention in the children's lives, putting their welfare absolutely as its first criterion. Potentially it would be a very different case if the Court had been deciding the matter in February or March or April of last year. However we are where we are and the Criminal Trial, that huge burden for B, and then this Family Hearing had been awaited for many months during which entrenched positions have been taken and the children have become accustomed to safe, predictable care without arguments over their young heads.

I am very clear that to split these children now at this stage of their prospective lives would be irrevocable, do them emotional harm and lead to D having a completely different lifestyle and experience to her brothers in what are often said to be the most formative years of a child's life, between two and five. The Court has decided to leave the children in their excellent foster carer's care under Final Care Orders.

These proceedings must come to an end. That will give stability, certainty and finality and hopefully allow B to relax and understand that this tight sibling group will stay together in the longest lifelong relationship that siblings enjoy.

It is to be hoped that it will enable him to access the therapy that he needs and then if he feels more stable to be prepared to engage in some sort of building of bridges and conversation with his mother.

What I am also going to do though is order that D should spend certainly alternative long weekends with her father who has parental responsibility for her so that he can spend much longer chunks of time with her and have her for full days and nights whether that be in Kent or him taking her to Plymouth. That experience should then grow over the next few weeks so that the boys understand that inevitably D's separate Daddy who lives quite far away will want to see her. Ultimately I want to see her spending one week in every four in her father's care and later on certainly one-third of her school holidays to coincide with his own six weeks' paid annual leave.

He can source a flexible nursery or childminder or perhaps another parent to provide care for D at times that he is working. I bear in mind that it is quite a lengthy round trip for a young child and it may be that for some of those weekends Mr. S will choose to stay in Kent. The whole seven days a week Nanny had not been properly thought through which would have been needed when he is deployed.

It may be in a year or two, I simply do not know, it may be never, when the mother has done everything that is required of her and she has been able to re-establish a relationship with B so that he trusts and respects her, that she or the Local Authority within its usual Reviews will seek to revoke the Care Order and return the children to their mother. That is clearly some way off at present. The stakes are high for the mother. The next move if any must be the last one for these children it seems to me."

187. I approved the proposed contact for the boys and required Amended Care Plan and those were the Court's essential conclusions.
188. Considering therefore the mother. When focussed on her children the mother can be as she has said – and I think other people have said about her – a "brilliant" mother. The positives of the children being raised by their mother, as they each were until they had to be removed in December 2015, are obvious. She loves them dearly and all things being equal she ought to be able to care for and support them through their minorities, but things are not equal at the moment. They are far from it.
189. She has let herself and her children down badly when she has moved her focus from them to silly adult issues and allowed drink to interfere with her daily parenting. She has wanted to control each of those two young men, her brother and Mr. S, and hates their closeness which irritates and angers her. She decided to take her grievance with them right to where her children were safe.
190. While there has now been that late acceptance of her problems, allowing alcohol to run her life at times and to embolden her angry and resentful moods, the attendance at AA only on the 28^th November last year is very much just the beginning.
191. She has branded B a liar when she knows in her heart of hearts and he knows that she is the liar here as the Court has found. He just knew instinctively that what he saw her doing to D was wrong and he cannot re-write that image in his mind. It is a haunting image indeed. So it is unforgiveable that the mother cannot yet accept that.
192. Perfectly understandably B has erected a barrier to protect himself from being hurt by his mother again. The direct work to date, 18 hours in total as Miss Tuckwell told the Court, has not yet ameliorated that impasse.
193. In 2014 the mother had said that her relationship with Mr. W was over. Between February and September 2014 after that anonymous referral to the NSPCC that I referred to regarding the parents, her engagement with the Local Authority at that time did suggest that she was able to protect and safeguard the overall wellbeing of the boys. Mr. W then suffered with his own mental health around that time which he told Dr. Alison Conning, the Consultant Psychiatrist, in April 2016 when she assessed him was triggered by the mother starting her new relationship with Mr. S in February 2014. He was actually sectioned and spent some three months in the Priory Hospital, a period that he described as "very beneficial" to him. Of course Mr. S has stated that finding Mr. W at times at the property has caused him some confusion also.
194. Mr. S in his two Statements described the mother as being "very violent" towards him, indulging in head-butting, B having referred to that as being his mother's "trademark". She has also screamed and shouted and kicked and punched him and smashed the house up. Consequently that sort of behaviour had continued right up to December 2015. Sadly the boys would just sit there not even flinching or crying as if this was an everyday occurrence for them.
195. Mr S said that he had seen some erratic parenting from the mother, particularly on the 8^th November 2015 when he was having one of his infrequent on and off contact visits. Mr. W was present at that time and Mr. S said both men were concerned about the way in which the mother was handling D.
196. He had experienced her when wound-up sending some very bizarre and nasty text messages and tending to use the child as a means of trying to start arguments with him and as a "weapon", so very much the bait and the weapon as others have said. She would soon throw him out of the house when he returned for the weekend from Plymouth to see them both. The mother often cancelled and refused his contact and had even of course denied paternity in the early stages of these proceedings and failed to stick to agreements. He felt all of that was confusing and upsetting for D.
197. The DNA test results on the 10^th March 2016 confirmed that Mr. S was indeed D's father.
198. Mr. S is deeply concerned that there remains a relationship between the mother and Mr. W, particularly as the mother had never spoken to him positively of Mr. W, quite the reverse, indicating he was a violent man. He fears that if in due course the children – D in particular – were to return to the mother "old habits" will return in respect of both of them. He does not believe that Mr. W is an appropriate person to be around his child at all.
199. He considered that while the mother could pass muster now because she has had a shock to her system as to what can happen when you do not care for your children properly, that long term she will revert back to her old ways and he could see all of this happening to D again. Therefore, D needs to be placed away from her mother in another family placement which at that time, in April 2016, had of course been considered potentially to be with the maternal uncle and his partner.
200. Mr. S's analysis of the shaking was that the mother, who had said to him in the past that she could be a bit of a "head case", had got herself so wound-up that she would not really have thought about what she was doing and shook her child in a fit of temper.
201. Melanie Gates the Social Worker had carried out a full Parenting Assessment of the mother in May 2016. There was proper and full credit given to the mother for consistently attending all the contact session at that stage, bar one, and showing that she was well able to meet H and D's basic care needs with affection in that supervised and contained environment.
202. All the contact notes have been very positive as I have read and I have noted of course that the mother thoughtfully arrives prepared with crafts and activities and so on. She has thoughtfully also provided some football cards and other things to be passed on to B, very much showing that she has not forgotten about him and is thinking about him too.
203. The children's school attendance interestingly has never been a problem. So this is not a case of a drunk mother failing to take her children to school. The school have had no concerns about that. There was a good relationship always between the mother, the school and the nursery.
204. The home too has always been observed to be very clean and tidy. That again has not been a concern intriguingly with a mother who has had alcohol and violent issues in her own life. The mother has decorated the bedroom which B commented that they had been asking for for ages, but belatedly the mother has done that. That was good to hear.
205. Miss Gates did consider that the mother appeared still to struggle to accept what the Local Authority's concerns are regarding her care of her children.
206. It was found that the mother has not been able to put her thoughts and feelings for Mr. W aside for the sake of the children which has exposed them therefore to domestic abuse and volatile and inappropriate behaviour likely to have caused all three children to feel unsafe within their home environment. It was recommended that she should undertake work regarding the impact of domestic abuse upon herself and its impact upon children.
207. The mother had taken the initiative to undergo the online version of the Freedom Programme but needs to attend direct group sessions. She had maintained that on and off relationship with Mr. W having met him back in October 2005 but she says now it is based on friendship and is platonic. Despite their reported separations she has allowed him to visit the family home to have contact with the boys notwithstanding the violent altercations fuelled by alcohol that have then occurred between the two of them.
208. She described him as a "changed man" since his mental health breakdown. She had also described feeling sorry for him at times when he was homeless and she had given him a bed. Intriguingly she did not recognise him as a perpetrator of domestic violence but extraordinarily attributed those tactics of a perpetrator both to her brother and to Mr. S.
209. B of course has spoken of his parents as looking like they are "back together". Indeed there was comment in one of the foster carer's notes that there was mention of an engagement and Mr. W and the mother marrying. That was in fact denied by them.
210. The mother needs also to learn alternative strategies and how to have consistent boundaries in place for the children rather than being easily persuaded to "give in to them". An evidence based Parenting Programme was recommended by Miss Gates.
211. During that Parenting Assessment though the mother continued to minimise the events of the 20^th December. She initially denied drinking at all. She referred to B and H as having been "brainwashed" by her brother and AJ. The incident occurred she asserted as a result of her brother's jealousy that she and Mr. W had had a nice family day Christmas shopping with the children. She strenuously denied an argument between herself and Mr. W and said that there had not been any domestic incidents between them since December 2014 because he was this "changed man".
212. The mother did accept that her own behaviour and actions had exacerbated and led to the incident on the 20^th December and regrets overreacting and stated that she should have ignored her feelings regarding her brother and his communication with D's father. We cannot undo the events of that day.
213. Miss Gates' assessment was that mother was still showing a lack of insight as to the seriousness of the incident and that increased in fact the likelihood of a similar incident occurring again in the future, thus placing the children at risk of potential physical and emotional harm.
214. The mother had also minimised the events with the neighbours and her suspended prison sentence and said the neighbours were the ones who were at fault. If the mother continues to present with these unpredictable behaviours it will have a long term impact on the stability of all three children. Potentially they could learn unhelpful strategies in order to cope with their own emotions in the future.
215. The mother's own mother, DK, had been an alcoholic with a bad temper. The mother remembers spending a lot of time as a child in Public Houses and Clubs. DK in fact withdrew from the Viability Assessment of herself as a possible carer for the children. She too had described the relationship between the mother and Mr. W as "toxic" and advised that Mr. W would "never leave the mother alone". That plainly will need to be tested in the future.
216. It was noteworthy that the mother said to Miss Gates that she had never considered getting through one large bottle of Vodka every three days allegedly shared with friends as "problematic". She did not herself fit the description of an "alcoholic" that she would be able to spot in the street. She denied having a problem with alcohol misuse.
217. The hair strand test results for the period 14^th November to 12^th February 2016 did not evidence chronic excessive alcohol consumption, but should be treated with some caution Miss Gates suggested because the mother had treated her hair with dye before the samples were taken. Helpfully the mother has agreed that she is willing to wear a Scram X bracelet in the future to monitor her alcohol intake. That is something which could be conveyed to B in particular as his mother showing a willingness to change and proving it with unassailable evidence.
218. Cansford Laboratories had provided a letter on the 1^st August explaining that the mother's results were consistent with alcohol consumption during the two to four week period prior to the sample collection but did not consider that the declared use of hair dye significantly affected the result. It is fair therefore to read that into the Judgment.
219. The mother in May 2016 was talking about the only option available for B if he did not want to return to her care as being adoption and spoke about that in a way which Miss Gates viewed as appearing "devoid of emotion". She had also said that B does not like change.
220. Regrettably although the mother had previously advised that she would welcome help with support regarding learning new strategies to help with routines and boundaries, when offered she she was unwilling at that stage to contemplate attending as it would take time away from the children. That could have been looked at in more detail, with alternative contact arrangements being considered, if the mother had been willing to discuss it further.
221. When the mother then made some enquiries on the 18^th May she had already missed too many sessions to be able to join at that stage and a new Programme was anticipated for September with the mother then saying to Miss Gates that she would be willing to attend. That is obviously all well and good.
222. Overall, despite advising on a number of occasions that her relationship with Mr. W was over, the mother has continued to maintain an abusive and inappropriately strong relationship with him, about which B has expressed his confusion and upset and which has impacted upon her parenting capacity and ability to safeguard her children, exposing them to those frightening and aggressive behaviours at times.
223. Miss Gates noted that at times the mother can present as wanting to work with the Local Authority, presenting also as remorseful for her actions and what has happened for her children, but even on the same day she can then present as confrontational and defensive and again justifying her behaviour.
224. Miss Gates had no doubt that the mother loves all of her children dearly and the Court readily accepts that too. However, at this time she concluded that the mother had not addressed her emotional or behavioural difficulties in order for the professionals and the Court to be assured that the mother has made the necessary changes to ensure the safe care and emotional and physical wellbeing of any of the children.
225. She considered that the mother's lack of insight into the incident that had occurred, and the minimisation of the events leading up to it, may mean that she will continue to place the children at further risk of harm and simply not put their needs first. The Court whole heartedly accepts that conclusion.
226. Miss Gates said that the mother needs a counselling service to address her own emotional wellbeing and engagement with a service that will help to find strategies to manage her feelings. She needs to work with Sateda (Swale Action to End Domestic Abuse) or similar to aid her understanding of the complexities of domestic abuse and how it can impact significantly on her and others close to her.
227. The Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Dr. Conning, prepared a report a little earlier than Miss Gates. It was on the 29^th April 2016. She revealed that the mother is:

"Inclined to present herself in a socially acceptable and positive light indicating that she may have concealed some aspects of her psychological or inter-personal difficulties."

228. That may be therefore an indicator as to why she has had difficulty in acknowledging the extent of her actions and behaviours and in contrast has justified and minimised those in her own mind. As I have found already that is irreconcilable with the experience of the boys and Mr. B and AJ and Mr. S too.
229. Dr. Conning, who was not required to attend for cross-examination, dealing with the mother's insight, said that she did not appear to be fully aware of the relationship between her use of alcohol, her propensity to feel slighted by others and her outbursts of anger. She did not discuss the children having witnessed her behaviour after she had used alcohol, despite acknowledging that she had increased her alcohol intake, having started drinking at 1 p.m. after collecting B from school that day. The Psychologist felt that the mother may use alcohol to "numb her emotions".
230. Dr. Conning also identified that the mother was suffering from anxiety and severe depression. The mother was speaking to her doctor about this and had evinced a wish to have counselling rather than antidepressant medication which her mother had always taken.
231. I do bear fairly in mind that there may well have been an element of perhaps postnatal depression still operating here, D of course being nearly 9 months of age at the time and the mother being in essence a sole carer for three children, but the mother had not herself complained to her G.P. or sought help about that.
232. The test scores from Dr Conning's assessment also indicated the presence of Dependent and Compulsive Personality Traits tending to a need to be taken care of that lead to submissive and clinging behaviours and a fear of separation. Dr. Conning noted the turbulent relationships and opined that the mother nevertheless finds it difficult not to be in a relationship which may explain the on/off nature of her relationships with Mr. W despite the former abuse in the relationship. She considered that mother may have learned to use alcohol from her own alcoholic mother as a "means of coping".
233. The mother told Dr. Conning that she was aware that B had observed domestic violence between herself and Mr. W in the past commenting:

"B went through a six weeks Spark Programme. He was fine."

That again rather glibly under-estimated the effect on B and what he has suffered in his life to date.

234. Dr. Conning was also clear that the mother does not fully acknowledge her own role in the volatility of her relationships. She has placed the blame for the violence the children have witnessed with both Mr. W and Mr. S, ignoring in my perception her role as the common denominator there. The mother needs to acknowledge her poor anger control and to address her mental health difficulties precisely in order to prevent further incidents of aggression in her relationships in the future, both for herself and for her children.
235. Overall Dr. Conning concluded that the mother would benefit from at least 12 to 20 sessions of psychological therapy delivered over a four to six month period aimed at exploring her own childhood experiences, her formerly abusive relationship with Mr. W, her own grief which she does have over the death of R, her use of alcohol and her outbursts of temper and then better be able to prioritise the needs of her children.
236. There was also an Addendum Report provided, extra matters having been posed to Dr. Conning. She said that the mother would need to have commenced and engaged in therapy but not necessarily to have completed the therapy before any return of the children to her. Importantly she confirmed that the mother has "capacity to change". That is a very positive note which the Court is happy to emphasise.
237. Dr. Conning considered also that the mother would find it difficult to care for her children alone and would miss the practical and emotional support of Mr. B and AJ which of course is no longer available to her given the utter breakdown of that relationship and the rift between brother and sister. No support at all it would seem at the moment would come from that quarter.
238. Dr. Conning had also assessed Mr. W. He told her that he considered all three children to be his and referred to Mr. S as "just the sperm donor". In his heart D was his. That phrase "sperm donor" is a mantra that he has rather adopted from the mother. He accepted her script at various times through the case and through his own evidence.
239. He said he remained puzzled as to why B would not see him or his mother because in the past he had "spoiled B rotten" and referred to Mr. B as having "brainwashed him", very much adopting the mother's erroneous beliefs, and failing to acknowledge B's autonomy and experiences.
240. Mr. W told Dr. Conning that he and the mother had promised each other that they would never allow the children to see any more unkind behaviour between them again as the children have seen and heard too much. He considered himself to have been a "horrible person" prior to his treatment in Hospital which really had assisted him.
241. He believed that the triggers for arguments between himself and mother to have been his attitude at times, him being a bit lazy and not helping out and the stress of the Court proceedings too.
242. Dr. Conning was concerned about Mr. W's possibility of relapse in the future and the need to consult his G.P. or a Mental Health Professional about his current and future use of antidepressant medication.
243. The mother in her oral evidence to the Court, while denying still the shaking of D said that she was "begging for a chance". She very much wants to change and will stick by it. She will not use the foul language she had previously used. She will listen to her children more and has found life without the children heart-breaking and unbearable.
244. She has undertaken the Triple P Parenting Programme but had been advised by her doctor not to participate in the Freedom Programme at the same time as counselling.
245. She said she has changed in the past 11 months and disagreed with the Guardian's perception. Details have been obtained on her behalf of Mary Newman a Registered Psychotherapist who could undertake specialist work with the family. Dr. Conning had recommended that B should of course be referred to CAMHS in any event.
246. The mother has made a start by writing an appropriate letter to B when urged to do so by the Court. The Court is particularly pleased that she finally made that effort that has been seen by the Guardian who has confirmed that the letter is appropriate and is heartfelt and it is to be hoped that it has assisted B in some way.
247. Mr. W said that he views the children as a "package of three" and they should stay together as a unit of three no matter what even though Mr. S has "stepped up his game" as he put it. He said "they belong home with mum" who is a good, protective loving mother. He said that he and mother respect each other, are good friends and are there for the children. He is happy, as they are, even though the mother at times had complained about him being there too much and eating her food. He has no wish to restart a relationship with her although he admitted staying over for the odd night, or a couple of nights, but he would simply sleep on the sofa or get into H's bed. He said that would like the mother to meet somebody and settle down and be happy. I have referred already to sex happening sometimes between them.
248. He claimed said that alcohol was not one of his problems, saying he can "take it or leave it". He did say to mother that evening "leave it" when he saw that she was really wound-up about the present. He said it was not good for the children.
249. Dealing with the evidence of Lois Tuckwell, I found her to be a well-intentioned and caring Social Worker. She spoke to her three Reports, her Care Plans and her Assessment of Mr. S. When Melanie Gates handed over to her the mother's basic care of the children was said to be very good but that she lived in a "chaotic environment". It was to Melanie Gates actually that B had reported that in his nine years he had never had a good Christmas as his mother always ruins them and they end up in arguments. They have had seven televisions smashed. That is a really poignant and worrying indictment of his experience of his life. He had said to Miss Gates that he wants life just to be normal and fine. At that stage he was saying that he would live with his mum if she was not drinking.
250. H had said about the incident that there was lots of blood. Mother had stabbed herself in the head with a knife. She had pulled the tree over and all the decorations. "She was shouting at dad." He said he was being very brave and would not cry. He was actually seen to be comforting B who was very upset, B usually being the comforter and protector of the younger ones.
251. H had said that he was very angry and when he gets angry he watches T.V. He told the foster carer that his mother gets drunk, was "naughty" and "threw the tree".
252. Miss Tuckwell confirmed that the mother had acted properly on advice given about sugar and so on and contact was better now than in the March when certainly Miss Tuckwell herself had observed the mother having some difficulty in imposing boundaries.
253. Miss Tuckwell confirmed that the issue of funding the mother's CBT had been taken to Assistant Director level, to Karen Graham, who Chairs the relevant Panel but had been firmly rejected. The Court was particularly insistent that if at all possible the Local Authority should fund that therapy, while being aware that it is not part of the State's duty to make people better parents. Miss Tuckwell was aware that twice the mother herself had been making strenuous efforts to obtain CBT. The Social Worker said for the mother to continue to wear the Scram X bracelet would be important too.
254. She was aware that the mother had said the Freedom Programme was available for her to start in the November and the 12 week Incredible Years Programme is available now too.
255. She recalled that AJ had continued to say to her in the one session that "everything was fine" with her relationship with Mr. B. Miss Tuckwell herself had viewed Mr. B as "very regimented" and using "controlling behaviour" in her view during an observed contact visit.
256. I accept that it was not Miss Tuckwell who mentioned a hammer to B in relation to Mr. B. She had simply told him that his uncle was not very nice to AJ and they had split up.
257. Miss T confirmed that Mr. S was very open and committed to his daughter. She denied that his proposals were not thought through although she had thought or understood it would take two to three weeks for him to obtain the family accommodation of a three bedroom property rather than the six months that was mentioned later. She had no concerns herself about Mr. S meeting D's needs.
258. Through her research (undertaken by Mr. S it would seem) she had discovered that he could obtain a live-in Nanny for between £90 to £150 per week although sole care 7 days a week would be likely to be much more. She commented that B looks up to Mr. S and used to get on well with him when B's mother had a relationship with Mr. S. It had been naïve Mr. S allowing Mr. B to accompany him to his contact on the 1^st October. It may have been a misunderstanding because Mr. S felt that the foster carers were suggestive of someone accompanying him. That was really intended to be his mother or his sister. Miss Tuckwell herself had not received the email from Mr. S's Solicitor until the 3^rd October. That was two days later. Apparently Mr. S had requested of his Solicitor on the 29^th September that Mr. B could go with him and asked her to ask the Local Authority.
259. Miss Tuckwell said about B that he is "crying out" for therapeutic intervention. The boys had experienced now safe, secure and predictable care with BN and RC and going back to the mother's care would be more harmful than leaving them where they are. B still feels that his mother should be punished. The mother does need to make and sustain significant changes. There needs to be reparative therapy between B and his mother and it was very important not to start any sort of rehabilitation plan until B has been able to move a long way in his relationship with the mother. Despite all her work right up to the 18^th October 2016 – and there had been an unavoidable 8 to 9 week gap at one point – Miss Tuckwell has not been able to change B's mind. He continues to believe that life with his mother would revert back to how it was.
260. Miss Tuckwell had reiterated to him that his parents were not in a relationship. The mother had said to her that she more or less had stopped drinking and was prepared to stop absolutely if it was an issue. Clearly it is.
261. Miss Tuckwell described B's view of his parents as "getting firmer and firmer". It concerned her, as it does the Court, that he has not wanted a relationship at all with his parents for all these many months. She described his view as hardening and stagnating and him having built that barrier around himself to protect him from harmful experiences which the Criminal proceedings certainly have not helped.
262. When asked to describe what it was like for him to live with his mother B had become very upset and cried. He had said variously in her statement at C 78 and onwards:

" 'It was horrible when my dad came round. They argued lots which was scary for me, H and D. Mum used to drink lots of alcohol and shouted lots as well'. I asked what in his view his mother should do different and he said 'She needs to stop smoking and drinking alcohol, stop letting my dad in the house because I hate it when they argue which is most of the time. She needs to stop being on her mobile phone all the time and stop ignoring me H and D'."

263. About the phone contact which had happened he said that he was getting very upset and angry that both his parents keep on asking his younger brother, H, to ask B if he wanted to speak to them when they had that phone contact. He was able to identify that he felt very angry towards his parents as they choose to place him and his brother in foster care when they would have had other choices. He said:

"I don't want to see them. I don't want to live with them again. Why would I want to see them again?"

264. Then on a Wishes and Feelings session on the 12^th May last year he commented that he wants to live with his uncle and aunt. That was his view at that time. He then stated:

"They are more loving than my mum and dad. They will love and care for us. They have good rules in their house and I like having rules because it makes me feel safe and properly looked after. I would feel worried about my mum and dad breaking into my uncle's house."

Then on the 11^th June he had reiterated:

"I have already told you, I don't want to write to them, speak to them or see them, so why do you keep talking to me about them? I know they don't love me. They don't love any of us. They just want me to forgive them and for all of us to go back and then it will just be the same at home again."

He said he is very angry because they just shouted and argued all the time explaining:

"They did not spend much time with us. Mum just got drunk all the time and then got angry and blamed it all on my dad. Mum shook D and then lied about not doing it and then they decided just to put us all into care."

So really his views have continued right through the summer of last year.

265. There had been also an album of photographs given by the mother so that Miss Tuckwell could try and identify some happy times with B. He said he would feel "really horrible" if his mum had a picture of him because he did not want her to know what he looked like. He "hates" his mother. That is all very upsetting stuff for him to say and for the mother to hear too.
266. That continued again through August. The mother lied about everything. She lied about not hurting D. She lied about not drinking alcohol too. This makes him really angry and upset. On it went with really no amelioration at all right through to October when I think Miss Tuckwell stopped those working sessions because of the impending Crown Court Trial.
267. There was concern that it was imperative to allow H to have his own views and his own relationship with his parents and not to be influenced by the feelings and views of his older brother. B became a little upset and said:

"I don't say anything bad about them to H. I don't speak about them at all. I have heard H tell RC and BN he does not want to see them but I don't get involved."

Of course after the Trial in October he was very distressed and cried. He could not believe and he was so angry that his mother had been acquitted. He felt that she should be punished and sent to prison. He continued:

"So this is another thing she is going to get away with. Does that mean we will be sent back to her because if it does and I am forced to go back to her I will just run away and keep running away. I don't want any of us to be sent back to her. She will pretend she has changed and she loves us but it would be the same at home: arguments, her drinking alcohol, and shouting and swearing and fighting with my dad or whoever her boyfriend is. I know her signature fighting move and that is headbutting people."

268. With the passage of time H inevitably has started to identify as part of the foster carer's family. He told Miss Tuckwell in some work that she did with him that he was happy when he did see his parents but did not want to see them as he missed his foster home and RC and BN and he views that now as his home. He just wanted to see his parents sometimes.
269. The significant levels of face-to-face and telephone contact that he had been having with his parents had reduced once he had commenced full time school from September last year. The mother had not telephoned for two weeks in September and when she did ring he told her that he did not want to speak to her. The mother had simply accepted that and said:

"I won't ring you again, babe."

That had made him feel more relaxed during the evening. The telephone contact has been sporadic since then.

270. Miss Tuckwell recorded that on the 29^th October of last year H had spoken about the past to his foster carers saying:

"Mum hurt D. She cut herself and blood went up the walls."

A couple of days later he said that he did not want to go home and loves BN and RC and want to stay there "forever".

271. B later said that he wished his mother was dead. He hates them both. He added:

"If they send us home I will ring Child Line and run away with H and D. I don't want any of us to go back to them. It would be just the same as it was before we came into care."

272. To his credit Mr. W has been able to place H's needs above and beyond his own needs and listened to H's wishes that he does not want to talk to his parents on the phone or see them face-to-face. The foster carers in their daily records accept that Mr. W had spoken courteously and responsibly to them about all of that.
273. Both Mr. B and Mr. S had alleged that the mother and Mr. W had rekindled their relationship. I have dealt with that already. The mother has denied it but if that were to be true the Local Authority as they stated would have concerns due to the historic domestic abuse within the relationship and exposing the three children to those behaviours as I have referred to already. Mr. W had said in his Response to Threshold that he did not understand why they needed to dissociate, showing a lack of insight.
274. Miss Tuckwell considers that H has endured those high levels of face-to-face contact and telephone contact without his needs being considered by his parents since he has been in Local Authority foster care. There also had been some inappropriate way in which the mother had spoken to the foster carer on the phone at times.
275. Miss Tuckwell believes that there has been no insight into the emotional impact upon H and over time this has had a detrimental impact upon his overall wellbeing. He feels safe and secure in his placement with his foster carers due to living in that calm, safe and warm environment coupled with the consistent care and the appropriate boundaries put in place. He has built that emotional resilience to enable him to build a positive meaningful relationship with his primary carers.
276. B had said to Miss Tuckwell that the mother drank alcohol from about 11:30 until she cooked dinner for them, a lot of which she burnt, and which was mainly pizza and nuggets. She had started drinking again once she had cooked the dinner. When his mother had a "bad day" he would text his uncle to let him know. If his mother was in a bad mood she would sleep in the afternoon and put the timer on so she would wake up in time to make them dinner.
277. There is a concern of course about the lack of sufficient stimulation that D may have received. The Physiotherapist, Sabrina Reina, on the 3^rd June 2016, had noted a weakness in D's upper body strength and she cried exhibiting a reluctance to stand. The Physiotherapist concluded that:

"D has developmental delay in her gross motor skills appearing to be strongly linked to environmental factors such as lack of stimulus during her first 9 months. The child did not attempt to roll over, crawl or pull herself up while otherwise thriving in care."

Mr S had commented about this lack of stimulation too.

278. B had said that his dad coming to the house quite a lot made him feel awkward and uncomfortable as he knew there would be an argument between them. He said that mum would kick dad or hit him. She would chuck food out of the fridge. Her main fighting move was her head-butting people.
279. He described how he and his younger siblings would feel scared when there were arguments and they would hug each other to feel safe. He would take the other two to his bedroom to watch T.V. and hug each other on the bottom bunk so as not to hear as much noise and to feel safer. That is a really poignant and deeply concerning picture.
280. Both the Social Worker and the Guardian were unequivocally clear that neither D on her own, nor one or both the boys can be rehabilitated safely to their mother's care at this time. The Court having considered carefully the totality of the evidence strongly endorses that view.
281. Miss Lobb, the experienced Guardian, stated that it was her opinion that the children would experience significant harm if they were returned to the care of their mother at this time. I can do no better than to quote the Guardian's conclusions and it is at internal page 13 and onwards of paragraph 60 of her Report:

"The children in my opinion would experience significant harm if they were returned to the care of the mother. They would be exposed to alcohol misuse, domestic abuse and mother exhibiting angry, disruptive behaviours when intoxicated. The children have been exposed to this all their lives but mother does not accept that she has caused significant emotional harm to her children. Her relationships with her partners and family members are extremely conflictual and take her focus away from the children. H and B do not feel safe at home and B was hyper-vigilant when his mother was drinking alcohol. The hair strand test did not reveal excessive use of alcohol and so mother is able to maintain her stance that alcohol misuse is not a concern, therefore she does not need to address this. The advantage of the children returning to their mother's care is that they could remain living together and they do have a very positive sibling relationship. In my opinion the positives in keeping the sibling group together do not outweigh the concerns I have for them returning to this violent, chaotic home where they are not protected from adult conflict."

282. She concluded that having weighed up the advantages and disadvantages she had formed the view that H and B's need for permanency are met by this foster family.
283. In her oral evidence to the Court the Guardian said that she had heard some acknowledgement in the mother's evidence that she does now accept that she has a problem with alcohol and had said with some feeling that she did not want to turn into her own mother. The Guardian said that was a shift as when she had last spoken to the mother she was saying that she was a very good mother and nothing needed to change. Indeed, once the mother had been acquitted at the Criminal Trial the Guardian said that the mother thought there really were no issues with her parenting and that the children would be returned to her care immediately. That shows just how much understanding and insight the mother needs to begin to develop.
284. The Guardian said that this was just the very beginning of the mother's journey and she could very quickly fall back into her position throughout most of the proceedings that she is a good mother and AJ and Mr. B have conspired against her. Regrettably, at the end of the mother's evidence, the Guardian said she was right back to her thinking that the mother had not really changed at all. Her anger is a big problem which she does not really acknowledge yet. Her text messages and the way the mother talks about people demonstrate that she is an angry woman, very easily angered by things as she has had a difficult childhood and life.
285. B had had that huge burden of the Criminal Trial hanging over him until October and he resents his mother for having put him through that. He was angry too that he could not have stayed with AJ and Mr. B and he blames his mother for that. Because of that Trial a lot of work could not be done until after that had taken place.
286. The Guardian recognised that the Social Worker has done a lot of valuable work with B and it was unusual in the Guardian's experience for a child of his age to maintain that stance of totally refusing contact. Miss Lobb too had tried to do some work with him. She had tried to talk to him about those good times that there must have been with his mother and Mr. W and that adults do make mistakes. He was just not able to consider that, being still so upset and angry.
287. He had looked up to Mr. B and spoken warmly of AJ . He was upset about what had happened between them as he had seen a lot of that sort of behaviour before in his own home. The Guardian herself also does not accept that B had been in any way "brainwashed" by Mr. B and AJ.
288. He was very angry that the Jury believed his mother and not him. The Guardian I accept had properly said to him that even if people had done wrong things that they would necessarily go to Prison. There had been some tension or criticism between the Guardian and the Social Worker about that. I think Miss Tuckwell accepted that she had perhaps ineptly conveyed that in one of her Reports.
289. The Guardian said that B is capable of engaging in weekly counselling now to explore his feelings and accepted that that might be a psychological ladder to allow him to get down from his present very negative stance. She was worried that B simply would not feel safe at home and would be very wary and watchful. There had been consistent conflict in this family with the mother and Mr. W, although there had been no Police calls-out in 2015 before the December incident, and also the conflict between the mother and Mr. S and also conflict between the mother and neighbours too.
290. Miss Lobb had thought very closely about it and did not think the compromise of splitting these children would work. All three of them would be too testing for the mother and B was certainly not convinced that his mother had changed saying "she never sticks to it, she never does, she always lies".
291. There was a real urgency in Miss Lobb's opinion in the mother doing the CBT. She said:

"We would have to know that she was properly engaging with it and wearing the Scramx bracelet, which would be obtained from Turning Point, before any of the could go home."

Mr W had offered to pay £50 a session for the CBT when it was clear that the Local Authority simply would not fund it come what may, even after that urging from the Court. The Court expressed the view that it would be in the interests of the children. I think also he is funding the Scram X bracelet.

292. If the Court decided against her advice to return the children home B would probably feel that he had not been heard again and that would make him very angry. Indeed, I cannot see how a 10 year old child could be forcibly put back in that home.
293. He had produced that letter to the Judge in a sealed envelope only in the November as it had been too hard for him to think of writing one earlier with the pressure of the Criminal Trial. I have referred to that letter already and again make it plain that B's voice has been listened to, has been heard and respected loud and clear by this Court.
294. The Guardian said that the heartfelt letter of apology and explanation that the mother eventually had written was helpful as B had needed some admission from his mother that she acknowledges and realises now how much her drinking and her anger really upset him. He needs that reassurance that she will not drink in the future. He is a very intelligent boy tuned into events but very entrenched in his position which did concern the Guardian.
295. She agreed that it had been very hard for the mother not to see B for a year now. It is an awful position for her as the Guardian recognised. She agreed that B was capable now more than two months after the Criminal Trial of engaging in counselling. Miss Mary Conway would be suitable she agreed. It was a shame that the funding options had reached that brick wall as a response from the Local Authority. There also may be a four to six months' waiting list via the National Health so that Mr. W being prepared to fund the CBT, as I confirm he has done, at a cost of £600 obviously was helpful.
296. As the Guardian said, it would not be helpful to anyone to set the mother up to fail. Things must be in place, the CBT and Family Therapy beforehand in order to give the children the best chance of returning home, if that can ever happen. If the mother falls down either by drinking or not attending CBT then that would be it really the Guardian said.
297. At the children's current ages being in care does not carry a stigma and B has moved on of course from wanting to be with AJ and Mr. B to now wanting to stay with RC and BN as has H, but it was not a Special Guardianship situation there and permanence of course is never guaranteed as things can change in a foster placement.
298. If B remains in foster care then she thought he may be more relaxed about seeing his parents in the future. As she said:

"We do not know."

She echoed really what the Social Worker had said about him erecting that barrier around himself where he knows now he is safe, but if he sees his mother, if he does see her in the future, he may feel that he has to go home. All of that has to be very carefully handled.

299. She felt actually that B felt pressurised with both the Social Worker and herself talking to him about contact. She recognised that it is a very strange situation for a little boy. There are all those unresolved feelings and the Local Authority will continue to work with him and refer him to CAMHS. Because of course a Final Order now has been made B is a settled position and CAMHS therefore now are obliged to provide that help to him.
300. The Guardian stated that if the children were to return to their mother under a Supervision Order she would be concerned that the mother would not continue to allow Mr. S to see D on a regular basis once the Order had expired having that historic hostility to the father having contact and the history of the mother having very difficult relationships with people. It all depends on her having CBT and we simply do not know yet either way.
301. About Mr. W the Guardian was clear that he is simply not able to challenge the mother about her behaviour and the way she has treated the boys sometimes. He has not been a protective factor for them. It is clear that H has had a positive relationship with his father whereas B had been closer to his mother. It was a short road to unsupervised contact for Mr. W and H if Mr. W was willing to sign a Written Agreement about contact. Mr. W has that capacity she said.
302. Ideally B would move to have a relationship with both parents again in the future once the proceedings are over and he knows the Court's final decision. It is likely to cause long term damage to him if he remains so alienated and totally detached from his birth family. The Court has interpolated that consideration.
303. The Court also has fully accepted the Guardian's professional conclusion that it is simply not appropriate or safe at the present time for any of the three children to return henceforth to their mother's care. B and H need a decision and I approve the Local Authority's Care Plans and have done so already.
304. The Court fully accepts Miss Tuckwell's evidence as accurate, thoughtful and child focussed.
305. Turning then to Mr. S. He struck the Court as a pleasant and sensible young man. He has been a Marine for four years and has obviously been through considerable challenges and training to accomplish what he has. He told the Court that he earns about £1,400 per month. He can leave the Marines whenever he wants to with immediate notice. If he had another job lined up it usually can be done within three months. He plainly enjoys his life in the Marines. It is an impressive career that he has and it gives him a very stable life and a good income.
306. He explained that at one point the mother had wanted him and Mr. B to bond and yet then all hell had broken loose on the 8^th November 2015 when he had been there for contact. It was mostly an on and off relationship that he and the mother had had. The first couple of months was all right, but then she would be drinking and "kicking off" and would kick him out of the house. She would chuck his things out, smash up the kitchen and she had thrown a glass at his feet more than once with the boys not even flinching at that.
307. He had given her money in cash for the baby. That was denied by the mother. He had taken some baby clothes and nappies and food and also a pram, but a lot of it had gone in the bin as not good enough for the mother. He described her pulling stuff out of the fridge and throwing it away.
308. He had come to Kent when notified by Mr. B about D being in Hospital and stayed there throughout the night with her and loved being involved in her care.
309. He too had had plenty of abusive texts from mother and had been told by her that he would never see his daughter and that the photos shown to him by Mr B would be all he would ever have. He had wanted to be at the birth but in the end was not able to see D until she was three months' plus old.
310. He reassured the Court that he would be able to give an absolute guarantee that neither Mr. B nor AJ would be involved in D's care in the future if she was to move to live with him.
311. He said overall there was only so much he could put up with. He thought if he raised the issue of seeing D the mother's threats of taking him to Court could happen. Their relationship had been based around drinking. He accepted behaving naively about allowing Mr. B to accompany him to see D on the 1^st October. He knew it was B's birthday and presents had been provided to him by Mr. B to deliver on Mr. B's behalf, but certainly he had not expected to see B there in the park. I have stated already that the Court does not need to make a finding of fact about whether or not he had had a drink in relation to that day. The foster carer thought she had smelt it on his breath when he returned D there that day, he having sheltered from the rain in the pub with Mr. B.
312. Moreover, he had not acted on Mr. B's suggestion that they remove D from Hospital. I accept Mr. Kenny's characterisation of those matters as really a side show and the Court does not need to get further involved in them.
313. There was also a matter of him bringing home completely by accident some sort of grenade or shell, or something like that, from the Marines, which he had forgotten was in his bag which ended up in mother's home and was shown to B. B very much looked up t Mr. S and had said he wanted to be a Marine like him when he grew up.
314. Mr. S agreed that in April 2016 he had thought it would be best for D to be with her siblings and had no reason to know that there was anything wrong with AJ and Mr. B's relationship. He denied exaggerating allegations against the mother to get back at her so that he could care for D. After he had found everything out he did not want D to go back to her mother. He said the mother is never happy. She "slates people" and she is a really angry and aggressive person when she drinks.
315. He certainly will though promote the mother to D. She needs to know who her mother is and the mother is important to D's needs. He accepted that in an ideal world the children should be together and that B will be devastated not to be with D. He does not want to be the person though, understandably, supervising the mother's contact with D.
316. He had been deployed abroad to theatres of war twice in the last four years, for two months and four months at a time. Sometimes there is only a day or five days' notice for such deployment but he said he will already have something in place for D. As there had been that Service over the last four years he said in his oral evidence to the Court that there may actually be a two or three year gap before he is required to go abroad. That was all revealed when he was in the witness box.
317. The Court was concerned about that because there was very little evidence even on Day 2 -- it may even have been later on in the Hearing – about the precise arrangements that Mr. S would be able to make for D. Miss Tuckwell of course had gone down to Plymouth and spoken to the Welfare Officer and we had a short Report about that, but really Mr. S's evidence seemed to grow as his oral evidence went further. There is nothing in writing at all from the Marines about that. There is no undertaking that he will not be posted abroad for some years.
318. The Marines have been very flexible. The Court acknowledges that. They have allowed him to work in Chatham for four months or more during these Proceedings and all the Hearings.
319. Dr. Conning who assessed him found him to be calm, gentle and unrushed with D, responding well to her cues and with D evidently being comfortable in his care. He expressed to Dr. Conning that he enjoyed being with his daughter and wanted to see more of her and be a major part of her life.
320. Mr. S told Dr. Conning of one occasion when some small arguments had occurred between him and the mother when he was about to be posted away for four months. He had gone over to his mother's home just for an hour-and-a-half to give his sister a birthday present and sent the mother a text saying that he was on his way back. She had then responded telling him not to come back as she would not be "second best". That is very much that "slighting" that we have spoken about. That is something of a theme here. The mother really cannot bear other people being important at one time or friendly.
321. He went around but in fact the mother had told the children not to let him in, so involving them in that argument. Although he knocked, the door was not answered and he eventually left.
322. Mr. S was aware that when he was at camp during the week Mr. W would turn up and be present at the house. He felt actually that he could not question that presence as the mother would "kick off" meaning express her anger.
323. He described that incident on the 8^th November 2015. The mother had invited him to her home and Mr. W was present when he arrived. The men were amicable with each other. They shook hands and hugged each other, but the mother at that quickly became angry moving D roughly in her arms such that he feared that the child would be dropped. The mother said that she would have more respect for Mr. S if he took Mr. W out and fought him. That was an extraordinary comment. The mother thereafter was neither calm nor civil and she walked away. Again she had kicked his stuff out. The mother blamed him on WhatsApp and would only give brief replies such as "D is fine" when he texted her trying to find out how his daughter was faring.
324. Mr. S also divulged that the mother had sent him pictures of Mr. W holding D saying, "Daddy's girl" and convincing him that Mr. W was her father, not him. The Court found that cruel and unnecessary.
325. Also in the past the mother had head-butted him while holding the baby. That was called the mother's "signature move" by B. She did that because she did not like him playing pool with Mr. B for a short time when the two families had spent a day together. She exhibited that strange jealously again, as I find it to be, of the men getting on, the men at one stage she actually had wanted to bond as friends.
326. At that stage Mr. S was expressing the opinion that all three children should be brought up together by Mr. B and AJ, recognising that he was not in a position to care himself for D and that she should remain with her siblings. If D had been placed with Mr. B and AJ he would be able to go and see her very often, as much as he could, and feared that she would not be safe with the mother because of Mr. W's aggression towards her.
327. He was also fearful that mother would bring D up to hate him. He had felt that D was not looked after properly by the mother due to her excess drinking and alcohol, keeping D in her pram and not stimulating her appropriately.
328. During his five successful sessions when the Parenting Assessment was undertaken by Miss Tuckwell in June 2006 other incidents too had been spoken about. In May or June the mother had shouted at him for dancing with another female the night before and had thrown a glass at his feet. She then stabbed a large canvass picture of him uncontrollably and repeatedly with a knife when the boys were in the living room together throughout this incident and D was in her cot. He had actually felt scared, a trained Marine, that she was going to stab him.
329. Other worrying incidents occurred in July 2015 when the mother had stormed into the Pub shouting and swearing at him, annoyed that he was there with her brother. Later back at the house she threw a whole Vodka and Lemonade drink and the glass at his face. The children were in the living room. A little while later she had head-butted him in the garden making his nose bleed while Mr. B was holding D and trying to calm down the shouting mother.
330. On the 8^th November 2015 – and I have referred to this already – Mr. W was in the house when he arrived which made him feel uncomfortable. D was crying and Mr. S took her from Mr. W which made the mother immediately angry stating, "He loves her like you do" and trying to give D right back to Mr. W. The mother was crying and shouting at both men. She commented that she would have had more respect for them if they had a fight out in the street and they were both a "pair of sperm donors" and "no good dads". The mother was shouting, screaming and swinging her arms around whilst holding D who was crying loudly. Both men in fact thought the mother was going to drop the baby to which she had shouted:

"She is my daughter and I can do what I like with her."

The mother then threw Mr. S out again and kicked out his belongings still while holding D. Mr. W had later said to him:

"I have had to put up with this for years. I feel sorry for you as you have another 18 left."

The mother had then come outside with D, so exposing her to further uncontained behaviour and had started pushing her forehead against Mr. S and spitting at him saying:

"Take me to Court. That is the only way you will ever see your daughter."

She said that she would not allow his family to form a relationship with the child. He felt that she used D as a weapon. Spitting is something the mother indulges in too, as I find.

331. On the 20^th December 2015 she had texted:

"You still will have no fucking rights to see my daughter and even more so now he's gone behind my back texting you about some lame present he's got you. Fuck off you absolute fucking cunt."

Earlier in the May of that year she had texted:

"You will never hear from me again and you will never see my daughter."

She was cross that her brother had sent Mr. S pictures of the baby.

332. The father can obtain compassionate leave for approximately six months at Plymouth. His usual hours of work are Monday to Friday 8 till 12 and 2 till 4 and so he could spend lunch times with D and every evening and weekend, employing a Nanny at times or a Childminder to cover other occasions.
333. The Royal Marines he said had advised him to have a live-in Nanny as D would have consistency of care in that regard if he was deployed overseas in the future, failing to acknowledge that no paid Nanny will work 24/7 seven days a week with sole care for weeks or months on end. That is an untenable proposition in the Court's experience and both the Guardian and the Local Authority I think latterly accepted that.
334. The Local Authority's view was that given how young D is it is not considered appropriate for her to be in long term foster care particularly as she has a father fully willing and able to care for her. That was entirely echoed by the Guardian.
335. In relation to Mr. S and D moving to live with him in Plymouth the Guardian accepted at the moment that this is not a choate and workable plan that has been devised today. She said that to be honest she wishes she had given the scenario a bit more thought over the Proceedings and the weeks and months leading up to the Hearing. Mr. S was a young man far from his family. He has never had the care of a young child before. B had cried and could not really consider D not living with them and H simply could not contemplate it. The Guardian agreed that it would be a loss to separate the siblings, that "very strong group" as Dr. Conning had called it. She was not minimising it. This was a sister they adore, the most enduring relationship in life that siblings have. She said the boys like Mr. S and know he is D's father. It would equally be a devastating loss for D who will not have the same bond in the future.
336. The more she thought practically about the Care Plan for D it worried her. There were too many holes in it. She felt that Mr. S needed to come up with a better plan really. The Nanny idea and D being left suddenly with a strange person, probably a young woman, for many months, while her father was deployed abroad, when a Nanny may suddenly decide to leave or have her own family crisis, had not really been thought through she now appreciated.
337. There may be another partner for Mr. S in the future. There will be other families living nearby in Marines' accommodation. His sister, SW, in Kent, who has her own young child and was at college had been positively Viability Assessed. She could be introduced to D. That has not happened as of yet. They could however become familiar with each other. There could be what was called that "patchwork of care" the Guardian felt. SW does not yet know D but could form part of her brother's support network. Miss Lobb thought that the boys could be reassured to a certain extent that D leaving them to live with her father was not the same as sending her to live with their mother. The Guardian had explored the alternatives and had come down on the side that it was better for D to be with her perfectly good father rather than to be in foster care for 17 years.
338. She confirmed that Mr. S is very committed to his daughter, delights in her and very much wants to look after her. There are no concerns about his parenting. But one cannot anticipate two years in the future. None of us know what will happen in the future and all Care Plans have uncertainties she said. She had heard Mr. S say that he would leave the Marines "if it comes to it" but he is not in that world right now and will have two years to iron out the deficiencies, and mix with other families on the Base; that two years coming very much from Mr. S's evidence in the witness box. He was now saying he would not be deployed abroad for two years. I have stated already that the Court has received no confirmatory evidence about that at all.
339. He had had a very positive Viability Assessment and he had gained insight about the chaos that the children lived in observing B and H chillingly showing no reaction to what was going on in the house.
340. At best though it was thought his sister would go to Plymouth at the weekends or D could be taken to her in Kent, she having her own commitments and that was "less than ideal I would say" the Guardian said. D is a vulnerable child who had spent a year in care and would be leaving her brothers and moving to live with somebody she has never lived with but she considered that D could be transitioned in that way.
341. A one year Supervision Order rather than the six months which she had recommended in her Final Report to accompany the Child Arrangements Order would give Mr. S time to explore with the Local Authority what to do if he was posted overseas as family situations can change. Single working parents juggle things it was said. They use childminders and so on. They have friends to call on. She felt that he could manage.
342. The Court was particularly concerned within Section 1 (3) (c) dealing with the likely effect on the children throughout their lives of any change in circumstances that if this sibling group of three are split now at this stage of their respective lives that it will be irrevocable. D will then be having a completely different lifestyle and experience to her brothers in those formative developmental years between two and five.
343. All that she has known to date in her first 22 months odd of her life is either sharing her home and her mother's care with her two older brothers or being with the boys, having that good quality care in the alternative excellent foster carer's home. In both environments she has been part of a busy family life, a family setting, with her brothers going to and coming home from school and so on and so forth, cared for by two adults, male and female figures. I consider that it would be absolutely devastating for the children at this stage of their recovery, particularly B, to be deprived of D's daily presence. There will have to be a comprehensive explanation for the children in the future as to why they have been separated and there will also have to be very good reasons for such a decision, given that a sibling relationship is the longest that any of us usually have.
344. In Plymouth she will be on her own with her father who has not as yet spent more than two hours in total with her once a fortnight. I take into account that it is intended that he will go to the foster carer's home and understand about her routines and her likes and dislikes and so on.
345. She will not understand though at her age if the Court had decided to place her with her father, that it is only 12 or 13 sleeps or whatever it be before she sees the boys again. She will simply be suddenly bereft of their daily company. Mr S will then have to buy in for part of her day paid childcare from a Childminder or Nanny during the hours that he works. While that would be one-to-one dedicated care it would deprive D of family life as she now knows it. There may well be a very difficult and distressing adjustment for her to make which will be distressing for Mr. S too.
346. He has undergone of course that vigorous physical and mental training and selection to achieve his role as a Commando Marine. It would be thought that ultimately he would be loath to give all of that up if push came to shove.
347. Furthermore there would be that weekly or fortnightly nine hour or so round trip if that commitment to contact is maintained with both the boys and the mother in Kent. The Court feels that really these arrangements have not been sufficiently drilled down into at all. It has been said by the Marines that other single parents have such arrangement. Other parents of course have all sorts of different circumstances. It may be the case that there is shared care. It may be the case that there is a separated parent or a grandparent living nearby who can exercise some care for the child. Those other children may be of school age, living together with the serving parent and able to live full time with the other parent when the Serving parent is away on exercise or deployed. One can only speculate. Each case needs to be scrutinised on its own particular facts and dynamics and I am less than persuaded that this has happened here. There should have been much more of a choate plan to convince the Court to make the decision that Mr S and the Local Authority and the Guardian were aiming for at the end of the case.

CONCLUSION ON WELFARE

348. While it was a finely balanced decision in the final analysis the Court has no doubt that it is not appropriate in her best interests or desirable for D to be moved away from what has been her daily settled life with her brothers and her carers for the last 12 months now. The Court does not wish to force upon the Local Authority a more draconian Order than that asked for. In fact I have decided on what I judge to be a less draconian Order than that sought.
349. D in her young life has already lost her normal home life with her mother. To impose another move upon her at this stage I judge to be a step too far and potentially very detrimental to her emotional development.
350. Although it is planned that Mr. S will attend the foster carer's home on several occasions and learn the routines and so on, suddenly to whisk her away from all that she has become used to and from daily contact with her brothers to a different part of the country, to a property she does not know, to be introduced to other carers, to live alone with her single father night after night with whom as yet she has never spent more than two hours with at any one time I cannot view as anything but a huge ask for both of them. To the Court that appears to be a disproportionate intervention in her life and in the lives of her brothers as well.
351. Mr. S a young man could well be faced with a grieving inconsolable child who is difficult to comfort and settle and who cannot intellectualise when or whether she will ever see her brothers again. The oft called "honeymoon period" could well find both him and D struggling, insecure, unsure and unhappy. I cannot and will not blithely assume that all will be well. It is untried and untested.
352. It will condemn her also to spending those nine hours or more in the car each weekend, long hours of travel on a Friday or Sunday nights when the traffic is likely to be at its heaviest and Mr. S only recently having passed his Driving Test. I cannot with my hand on my heart find that that is an appropriate, proportionate or reasonable arrangement in her welfare interests at this stage of her life looking at her both as an individual and also as the youngest child in a group of three. Each of the children has drawn and draws comfort from the very fact of being one of three as I find. I consider that to breach that wholesale is simply not a child focussed decision.
353. The Court has to look at the harm and/or likelihood of harm that would be attributable to arrangements made and what would be the best for the child as was set out by Hale LJ in the matter of J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9. That I have done. I have looked at the harm. I find that she would be caused harm by making that move.
354. It is the Court of course, not the Local Authority or the Guardian, which is charged with the responsibilities for making the crucial ultimate decision. The Court is fully aware that in so doing it departs not only from the Social Worker's expert evidence but also from that of the highly experienced Guardian. I stress that I do not do so lightly. I have the greatest of respect for this well-known Guardian's approach and expertise but in these particular circumstances, for all the reasons advanced, I feel unable to follow her conclusions.
355. Thorpe LJ had observed in Re N – B (Children) (Residence) (Expert Evidence) [2002] EWCA Civ 1052:

"The Judge was at liberty to depart from the opinion of the experts, even if unanimous, on issues of future placement and management and perhaps, even on attachment, balancing risks against advantages."

I am concerned that highly motivated and committed though he is that Mr. S will be entering into a situation that has been not as yet tested or trialled in any shape or form. It will be a sea-change it goes without saying from spending two hours once a fortnight with his daughter to full-on full time, night after night, week after week sole care.

356. His plan to date has been quite a moveable feast, it being unclear now how quickly he will acquire a single parents house and quite when he will be deployed. The Court received no further confirmation from the Royal Marines about those issues. That gap was surprising given that there had been many, many months for him to provide a full package as it were of alternative plans. I am not sanguine that he has thought through fully how it would be for him to be on his own with the young child. It would be a very different life for a previously footloose and fancy free single young man able to go out and socialise.
357. While he is in Plymouth it is right to say that he can afford to employ the childminder and will be able to pop back to see D during the day. Again though sometimes obtaining a Nanny or somebody to live-in, usually a young woman, to live alone with a single young father and a young child can itself be a difficult scenario. That too has not been fully thought through. That is particularly so when all around him may be couples and families.
358. I see that it could be said that any short term distress to D would be in the interest of her medium and long term gain but I am very exercised about the impact or the erosion of her daily relationship with her older brothers. The details simply have not sufficiently been investigated either by the Welfare Officer who makes that rather glib comment that "other single parents manage" . This Court cannot generalise in that way about this little girl's welfare.
359. Furthermore the prospect of that drive – I have referred to that already – may well begin to pall, however well-intentioned D's father is in the first throes of the new arrangements. That will then be to disrupt the siblings contact between themselves and also the mother's important relationship with her daughter which initially will have to be arranged, it would seem, at a contact centre as Mr. S understandably does not want to be responsible for supervising that.
360. Moreover if the mother is able to turn her life around, become abstinent, benefit from the CBT and other programmes and not invite Mr. W into her home or her life it will mean that D has missed out on family life with her brothers having been reared as an only child in Plymouth. She has already undergone one significant move from her mother to her foster carer and will have to have an equally significant move away from BN and RC's home and adjust to the new Order potentially with a further move back to live with her brothers and mother, if all goes well. All of that at the moment is totally in the realms of uncertainty.
361. I view that as a disruptive step too far for her. A new status quo over 12 months has crystallised. I am aware in reaching the decision I do the father's Article 8 rights are interfered with, but when balancing the child's own Article 8 rights against his, the Court must give precedence to the child's who is one of three and finds that it should intervene with that at its peril.
362. I do not rule out for all time that these children cannot live with their mother but the Court cannot indulge in crystal ball gazing. What I am clear about is that the children should remain together as a solid unit, benefitting each of them from that, and that the changes that the mother needs to make need considerable support and time and are simply not achievable within the children's already highly over-extended timescales. She is now rather isolated and needs to try and perhaps mend that rift with her brother if that is possible.
363. The children's lives have been in limbo for a considerable period of time. They need to get on with their childhood untrammelled by further legal proceedings. I propose that contact should take place once a month between the mother and the children and once a month to Mr. W to the boys. That contact should be separate for the parents it seems to me to reinforce for the older children that their parents are separate and apart and leading their own lives if that be the case. I am aware of course that eventually joint contact was the arrangement previously. That contact will of course be subject to the usual six months Looked After Child Reviews and be focussed as ever on the children's needs rather than the adults.
364. Whether Mr. W, who was I suppose for some of the time on and off D's psychological parent rather than her blood parent should see her is a moot point which I do not think has been canvassed at all and may or may not need some thought.

The Court wishes particularly to thank all the advocates for their great assistance in this challenging case. That concludes this Judgment.

AVTS REF: 6443/H5337