England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT LEYLAND

		Lancastergate Leyland, Lancashire
		17th November 2017

HIS HONOUR JUDGE DUGGAN:

1. I have spent the last few days conducting this final hearing of the local authority's application for care and placement orders. The child was six weeks old when he was taken to hospital in East Lancashire. He was found to have two fractures to the arm and a fractured skull. Up to that point he had lived at home with his mother, his father and the maternal grandparents. The issues before the court are the cause of the injuries and the future safe arrangements for the child. The local authority blame the family for the injuries and argue that it is necessary for the child to be placed for adoption. The children's guardian supports that argument. The family attribute the injuries to hospital doctors or hospital treatment and seek the return of the child to their home.
2. As to outcome the welfare of the child throughout his life is my paramount concern and I shall return to that in greater detail in due course. As to the facts the court has followed clear guidance. The burden of proof is on the local authority. The family need explain nothing. The local authority must prove their allegations on the balance of probabilities and proof must be based on evidence and proper inferences from evidence. It must not be based on speculation or suspicion. My task is to consider all the evidence and to consider each piece in the context of all the other evidence. This approach applies to medical evidence as it does to the rest of the evidence. It is the judge that makes the final decision after considering the medical evidence alongside all the other evidence. The evidence of the parents and the grandparents is of the utmost importance and my task has included the assessment of their credibility and reliability. Experience indicates that it is common for witnesses to lie in circumstances like this, not just in the investigation process but during the hearing itself. I reflect that a witness might lie for many reasons including shame or loyalty or fear. The fact that they lie about one thing does not mean that they have lied about everything and certainly does not necessarily mean that they are responsible for injuring the child. Only if I am satisfied that there is no innocent reason for a lie can I take the lie into account as supporting evidence.
3. It is necessary to reflect that medical knowledge is developing all the time and so the court must consider the possibility that we just do not know the cause of these injuries. I have concluded that this is not a case in that category. We are dealing here with mainstream science. Fractures need force. This was an immobile baby and the issue therefore becomes where the force came from. It is desirable if possible that the court should identify the person or persons responsible. The test is the balance of probabilities. However, it is recognised that it is not always possible to achieve identification and the court should not unduly strain to do so. Rather in this circumstance the court should identify all those of whom it can be said that there is a real possibility that they are a perpetrator.
4. The local authority have prepared a schedule setting out their allegations and the evidence has been assembled in a number of bundles. I have studied the evidence in the case and my attention has been drawn to the relevant parts of the supporting materials. I have heard oral evidence from the two social workers, the neighbour who observed the family on 8^th May, from the hospital receptionist and the doctor who dealt with the family on 13^th May, from the two parents, two grandparents and the children's guardian.
5. The opinion of the treating doctors has been challenged by the instruction of independent experts, who have overall come to the same conclusion. Those experts themselves have been extensively challenged on behalf of the family by the submission of written questions which have been answered. The parties then reached the correct conclusion that the issue now lay with the judge.
6. It is important that I start with the parents for whom it is appropriate to make due allowance. The father has a learning disability with traits of autism. The consequence is that he has difficulty understanding. I have received professional advice on how to assist him best to contribute and with the assistance of the counsel engaged in the case I have followed that advice. The mother is described as in the low average range of ability, which places her rather higher than the father. However, she has a problem understanding verbal communication which is linked to her autistic spectrum condition. In the past she has had treatment for ADHD. Again in her case I have acted on advice as to how she should best contribute to the hearing.
7. Wider Social Canvass

The grandparents have cared for many children and they are entitled to assert that they have a decent C.V. in relation to child care, as asserted by their counsel. There is nothing in their busy home or in their backgrounds to suggest that the baby should live elsewhere. An older child suffered sexual abuse in the community and the grandparents are of the strongly held view that they did not then receive the professional help that they needed. It is clear that this has resulted in them taking a negative attitude to professionals. The grandmother in particular refers to her past experiences as relevant to her current approach. Nevertheless the evidence is that the grandparents have worked with other professionals and they developed a working relationship with the social worker in the present case. It is however noteworthy that this did not extend to their untenable position in relation to the injuries sustained by their grandson where what they perceived to be any criticism of the parents was clearly off-limits.

8. The reports give an impression of the parents but in truth it was only in the court room and on the police body-cam pictures that it was possible to see the true extent of their naivety, their simplicity and their dependence on the grandparents. The grandmother stands out as a strong protector of the parents. I have mentioned their problems. The father had a very unhappy childhood of abuse and neglect. In foster care he continued to be unhappy. In 2016 he met the mother and was quickly invited to move in by the grandparents. Since then he has undoubtedly benefited from the protective blanket which the grandparents provide.
9. This baby was born in early 2017. The grandparents gave guidance and help. For example, most nights the grandmother took charge, caring for the baby herself until as late as 5 a.m. when the parents assumed his care for the day. The grandfather was no doubt less involved, but he spoke, I think with some pride, of his contribution – holding the baby, feeding the baby and being part of the family team which provided for the baby's care. All the adults have participated in contact and the reports describe that as being a good experience for all concerned.
10. The bespoke parenting assessment suggested that if the parents were not responsible for injuring their baby their care would be assisted by parenting courses. Certainly their histories show that they have had problems. The father had a history of hitting walls in frustration and anger. Most recently this occurred at court when a calm presentation in the witness box seems to have produced frustration in the precincts and an assault on the court wall. This has also been seen in foster care and at the hospital in May. The care documents suggest that he has been perceived to occupy a fantasy world and certainly in the context of this case he has spoken about brittle bones and a succession of motorcycle accidents. He was skilfully cross-examined about this with reference to the records, and I am satisfied that the probability is that his account is largely untrue.
11. Turning to the mother, in May 2016 she was excluded from school for kicking a teacher. She explains that this was an instinctive action under provocation. The grandmother found her behaviour to be a problem and had sought help in February 2014. Anger issues were mentioned. She received medication for ADHD which seems to have produced a calmer disposition. The use of that medication ceased with pregnancy.
12. Four days before the hospital admission Social Services received a report from a neighbour about the father's activities during the previous day. The neighbour told me that from the kitchen window he saw the father trying to calm a crying baby but this involved shaking and what he described as a push-throw which took the baby out of his field of vision. The neighbour explained that what he saw made him angry. He felt he had to intervene. He went outside and shouted to other members of the father's family, who clearly had not seen what he had seen. The next day his wife contacted Social Services and investigations ensued. The neighbour's observations were challenged but I accept the overall accuracy of what he says. He was generous to the family, describing these as loving parents. I did not find any exaggeration in his account, which was consistent. For me the family reaction on the day cannot be criticised. They were clearly bemused by the neighbour's observations. They looked into them with the child. They could not see any harm. That was confirmed when Social Services became involved the following day. A medical examination, albeit without x-rays, showed no sign of harm. The episode only directly involved the father, and he denies that he acted as alleged. Under cross-examination he accepted that he was dealing with an upset child. He spoke about the baby upright on his knee, the baby apparently expected to support his own head. This betrayed ignorance on the part of the father in relation to child care matters.
13. Overall for me the importance of this episode is to establish that the father was not a skilled carer. It also establishes just how defensive the family can be, particularly in relation to something that they never saw. They knew that the father was inexperienced. They knew that he had personal problems. In those circumstances they might have been expected to take seriously remarks which indicated that a stranger was concerned, and yet they were content to dismiss those remarks out of hand.
14. 13^th May

I accept that the grandparents went out that day and left a healthy baby in the hands of the mother and father. I have studied the police body-cam recordings. The grandmother gives the clearest impression that she was present in the home. The body-cam recordings for the parents reveal to me their vulnerability and confusion and it would be wrong to give weight to what they said. The grandmother's body-cam recordings are not to be undermined in that way. They show her in an aggressively defensive mode, protecting her family. I find that there was on her behalf a dishonest, short lived attempt to suggest that the mother and the father had not been left alone to care for the baby at the relevant time.

15. There are inconsistencies in the parents' accounts, but the final position is that the father undressed the top half of the baby and the mother removed the nappy. It was then that the parents noticed that the baby's arm had gone floppy. The father has said more than once that the discovery of the floppy arm was accompanied by the child screaming. In oral evidence he unconvincingly repudiated his use of the word "scream". The grandfather used the same word, both as his hearsay account of what he had been told by others and his own later observation of the baby. The neighbour says that she saw the baby scream. On the other hand, the grandmother and the mother have given intransigent evidence that there was no scream from the baby until he was abused by the hospital doctor. In the course of the hearing I observed other members of the family seeking to fall in line behind that version.
16. The grandmother is clearly not telling the truth when she says that she did not produce a scream from the baby in front of the receptionist. It was the grandmother's production of the scream which motivated the receptionist to expedite the treatment of the child. I accept that the grandmother so manipulated the arm as to produce a scream. I reject the grandmother's allegation that the receptionist has fabricated this evidence against her. My finding is that this represents a deliberate attempt to minimise the symptoms exhibited by the baby in the period prior to him seeing the doctor.
17. At East Lancashire Hospital the child was seen by Dr. Hussain. X-rays revealed two fractures to the arm, one above and one below the elbow, and later scans revealed a fracture to the skull. Testing revealed that the child had no medical abnormality. These fractures were caused by excessive force. In relation to the arm the doctors suggest a mechanism of grip and pull, which would produce a scream of pain. In the aftermath the child would not wish to move the fractured limb because movement would produce pain. The medical evidence is that the absence of any sign of healing on these arm fractures indicates that they were a maximum of eleven days old at the time of the x-rays. The skull fracture cannot be dated. It is said to be attributable to a blow, an impact or a fall. The simple nature of the fracture persuades the Consultant Paediatrician that the cause was probably a fall or a drop of an accidental nature rather than an assault. The fracture would produce swelling which a carer should see and be motivated to obtain treatment. There is no sign of a fractured skull in the birth records or the photographs which followed the birth. The medical evidence has been fully tested in reaching that conclusion.
18. The family do not accept the medical conclusion. I must consider their evidence and I must place it alongside the professional medical evidence and decide whether the local authority have proved their allegations. The family say that the fractured skull and one of the fractures to the arm were caused at birth. The injury was unsuspected at the time or subsequently. However, the mother gave birth in a birthing pool and I am told that the baby emerged with some force into the discoloured water. The midwife had to search in the water to find the newly born baby and fish him out. The family believe that the lifting out caused the fractured arm and a blow against the side of the birthing pool caused the fractured skull. The family's belief is enhanced by the account they say they received from hospital doctors investigating the injuries on or after 13^th May. They say that they were given an alternative medical opinion that these were two birth injuries.
19. The medical records have been searched. No such view was ever committed to paper. In cross-examination the grandmother went so far as to say that no hospital doctor had said that the injuries could not be attributable to the birth. This took us to the section of the records prepared by Dr. Thornton, who clearly spoke to the family on about 18^th May, discussing the possibility that the injuries were attributable, firstly to the birth and, secondly to the conduct of the medical examination at the hospital. It is clear from the records that Dr. Thornton rejected both possibilities. So there was a doctor who was saying that these injuries were not birth related. The grandmother is wrong. Her advocacy of this theory extends to the grandfather too. Bizarrely the grandmother told the father's psychologist that there was a new report indicating that the injuries could have been sustained at birth. In cross-examination the grandmother was very evasive when she was asked about this, and I am driven to conclude that this is not a subject on which the grandmother tells the truth. She tells lies to bolster her theory that the baby was injured at birth.
20. Another crucial factor is that one of the arm injuries is also said to have been caused at birth. No problem indicating a fracture to the arm was seen or suspected at the time of the birth or subsequently. The medical evidence showing no signs of healing on 13^th May is clear evidence that the fracture is too recent to have been caused at birth. I was treated to the spectacle of the grandmother disagreeing on the basis that she had seen the x-rays herself, and the grandfather disagreeing on the basis that he did not feel able to trust a doctor who had not seen the baby in the flesh.
21. The family position is underpinned by their assertion that the child could not have been injured by a member of the family because that member of the family could be relied upon to confess what they had done. I am afraid I cannot accept that logic. It is of course a logic which has very serious consequences in any assessment of the ability of family members to offer protection to the baby in the future. The parents have been happy to go along with this theory. I have seen the grandparents. It is clear to me that the parents are the followers and the grandparents, particularly the grandmother, are the leaders.
22. Another important point in relation to the skull fracture is that there is evidence of a period of swelling to the head while the baby was living with the family. The father has said that this was at about five weeks of age and was discussed in the family. This appears in the grandfather's statement, although he now retracts it. The grandmother said that this occurred at about two weeks rather than five weeks. This proposition was something which the father was now happy to accept. In oral evidence the grandmother suggested even earlier in the child's life. It seems clear that there was swelling to the head. It seems clear that the grandmother discouraged concern. No treatment was sought. In due course a fracture has been seen and at no time did the child receive treatment for that fractured skull. On the balance of probabilities the fracture occurred at the time the family saw the swelling. This was not at birth. I accept that doctors present at the time of birth and doctors involved subsequently, including doctors who had observed photographs taken at about the time of birth, are accurate in their opinion.
23. This fracture to the skull occurred at home. I accept that the cause was an accident, probably the dropping of the baby by a carer due to careless handling. The person responsible has not been prepared to confess what they did. They failed to get treatment for the baby. The family who subsequently saw the swelling failed to get treatment for the baby. There were four carers. I do not find help in the task of identifying who was responsible for the fractured skull in considering who may have been responsible for the fractured arm. The two fractures are of an entirely different nature, one inflicted and associated with a loss of control, one an accident probably caused by careless handling. The parents are obvious candidates for such an accident but the grandparents too are in that category. The grandmother provided care at night and it is clear how little sleep this offered her. The grandfather played a caring role, albeit on a lesser level. Both grandparents have tried to blame the birthing process. Both have persisted in the face of clear evidence that the theory is nonsense and this approach in itself creates an inference against them.
24. I conclude that to attempt to identify the person responsible for the skull fracture would be to strain beyond what the evidence reasonably permits. I find that it was an accident caused by one of the four carers, who dropped the baby and caused the fractured skull. They have failed to acknowledge what they did and at the time they failed to obtain treatment. All of the carers became aware of the swelling which flagged up the head injury. They all failed to seek treatment. Importantly, they have all tried to divert blame from the person responsible.
25. Fractured Arm

The family accept that the baby had a floppy arm to justify attending hospital on 13^th May. I have already referred to the retreat from the description of a scream accompanying the child's condition. The local authority case is that the hospital doctor did not suspect a fracture, rather a pulled elbow. This is a frequently encountered condition, easily corrected by gentle manipulation. Dr. Hussain explained that this is what he did, supinating the hand which in the majority of cases will have the effect of correcting the pulled elbow. However, in this case he explained that the supination of the hand produced an increase in the child's pain, which caused him to suspect that there was a fracture, which the x-rays subsequently confirmed. The mother, the father and the grandmother were present at the time of this manipulation. They describe a much more violent flexing of the elbow, involving the placing of the child's arm across his chest. They agree that it produced an increase of pain. They say that they heard a crack, and they suggest that this is how the second fracture to the arm was caused. It did not arise earlier at home.

26. The expert evidence is that this medical process should not involve a degree of force which would be consistent with causing a fracture. The issue is whether the local authority have proved that this manipulation did not involve that degree of force. Dr. Hussain clearly says that he did not apply that high level of force. He quoted his experience, having performed this exercise many times before, and he indicated that this outcome had never arisen before.
27. I take into account my finding that the family have deliberately minimised the symptoms manifested by the baby before he reached Dr. Hussain. I have already referred to their distancing of themselves from their original use of the word "scream". It is clear that the allegations against Dr. Hussain are of the nature of an afterthought. The body-cam interviews, particularly that with the grandmother, and the early formal interviews and statements from all carers just do not raise this complaint. A low point in the grandmother's evidence was when she told me that she had accused the doctor of causing the fracture in a conversation with a plain clothes policeman before these interviews took place. She was of the clear view that her police statement had been manipulated against her. I find the grandmother to be lying. It is clear that overt attention to the possibility that the doctor caused the fracture is first recorded on 18^th May. The only reason why it was not mentioned earlier was that it did not happen.
28. The parents were alone when the arm became floppy. They say it happened without the application of force. Their evidence is inconsistent about whether the child screamed. I find that the child did scream and I find that there was an application of excessive force. In identifying the perpetrator there is no real possibility that anyone other than the mother and the father was responsible, but I conclude that it is not possible to identify which is the more probable. They both laboured under personal problems which had involved issues of anger. Neither had hurt the baby before. They both loved him and were both good in their exercise of contact. The baby is recorded as being resistant to being changed. The mother said that she was rather better at changing than was the father. Here it seems it was the father who changed the top half of the baby while the mother dealt with the nappy. However, neither parent blames the other. They were both there. They both know and the one who did not inflict the force is covering up for the other. The probability is that an injury of this kind arises from a momentary loss of temper, loss of control, probably in circumstances of frustration. This would, in my judgment, produce an injury which has been described as involving grip and pull. It is impossible to determine which of the two parents is the more probable perpetrator.
29. My findings then in summary are that the fractured skull occurred when the baby was accidentally dropped by one of the four carers. The person responsible obviously knew but concealed what they had done and did not seek treatment. The other three carers saw the swelling but did not seek treatment. All have sought to divert blame from the person responsible. The two fractures to the arm were inflicted by the mother or the father in frustration, in a momentary loss of control on 13^th May 2017. The family did appropriately seek treatment but the mother and the father concealed the real cause. The grandparents must have suspected and come to know the true cause, but they have all sought to divert blame from those truly responsible. The family have put forward a manifestly untenable explanation for these injuries, seeking the return of the child to the home and they have thereby failed to protect him from the risk of repetition.
30. Welfare

My findings clearly meet the threshold under section 31 of the 1989 Act. The local authority seek care and placement orders so the welfare of the child throughout his life is my paramount consideration. The local authority apply to dispense with parental consent to placement for adoption. They rely on the statutory ground which is that the welfare of the child requires, in the sense of demands, that he be placed for adoption. For the local authority this represents a high burden. They must establish that it is necessary and proportionate for the child to be adopted. The general principle is that children should be with the natural family unless there are overriding requirements of welfare which make that impossible. The local authority must persuade me that nothing else but adoption will do.

31. There is for consideration applications by the family for the case to be adjourned for the purpose of further assessments. These applications must be seen in context. This is a case which has been carefully case managed with the proper help which the court expects to receive from the representatives of all parties. In accordance with modern practice no one even suggested that this case should proceed by way of a split hearing. There was no justification for a split hearing and the case was timetabled for this combined final hearing, with the local authority conducting full assessments of parents and others alongside the factual investigation. I recognise that the social work professionals and the guardian were probably slow to understand what was expected of them at a combined final hearing. However, at case management hearings guidance was given. The evidence was in due course finalised and oral evidence has been given. On the facts as found there is no professional support for an adjournment for any further assessment work. I have received all the help I need in order to complete the holistic analysis expected of me.
32. The father applies for permission to instruct an independent social worker to assess the family under the model promulgated in the late 1990s as the "resolutions approach". Counsel confessed that this was an inspiration while driving to court to conduct the final day of evidence. There is no supporting material, but her endeavours have identified a local independent social worker who was said to have the necessary skills. There are no time scales, no costings and it is difficult to imagine an application further removed from what is expected by the Rules. Nevertheless I consider it. This type of further assessment proceeds on a hypothetical basis in which the family discuss another family who are "similar but different". The worker explores with the family hypothetical situations aiming to produce change from perpetrators who remain in denial. There is in this approach an important role for reliable non-perpetrator figures. This summary only has to be stated to understand that it has no relevance to the present case. We have no reliable non-perpetrator figure. The psychological assessments of the parents indicate that they are not capable of the sophisticated hypothetical analysis which would be involved. This application proceeds on the basis that the family continue to deny. The alternative application is for an adjournment to give the family the opportunity to confess. There is of course an inconsistency in those approaches.
33. I turn to the second approach put attractively on behalf of the grandparents as an application for an opportunity for reflection. The idea is that the family have now heard my judgment on the facts. They should go away and think about their position. They may return accepting what the judge says has happened and they may be amenable to work to avoid repetition. In effect it is the old split hearing approach which the Court of Appeal has discouraged. More important is that in this case the approach is wholly unrealistic. This family unit has drawn together dishonestly to resist the clearest evidence that one or more of their number has injured the child. The expert evidence has been challenged and has withstood challenge. It is inherent in that process that the family with their lawyers have studied the expert evidence, identified the questions to be asked, have received the answers, reflected on those answers and continued in their conduct of the case. They have had every opportunity for reflection. Continued resistance to the expert evidence was totally illogical and further reflection is unrealistic.
34. I reject the proposition that it makes any difference that the family may now conclude that they have not got away with misleading the judge and so must take a different approach. If there was a sudden confession coupled by a determination by other members of the family group to protect from the danger represented by one of their number, this conversion would lack all credibility in the context of everything that has gone before. Attractively, Counsel puts this as a request for an adjournment for a couple of weeks. I am afraid that is not an accurate analysis. It would require an adjournment and work of assessment over months if not years before change in this family could be clearly accepted.
35. The applications to adjourn then present me with case management decisions. The overriding objective applies and the provisions of Part 25 are in point. I need to be persuaded that adjournment and expert evidence are necessary to resolve the proceedings justly. Of course adoption is in issue with its draconian consequences. As I have explained, the information produced by an adjournment will not help my task. Adjournment would involve the extension of the proceedings. It would involve the incurring of expense. Most significantly of all, adjournment would produce delay for the child. Any realistic analysis of these applications to adjourn would see the case extended well into the new year, beyond the significant first birthday of the child. Statute indicates that delay is expected to be harmful for a child. Certainly the sooner the child can reach his permanent home the easier that process will be and the more successful it is likely to be. Adjournment would be detrimental and would have no real purpose.
36. The realistic options for analysis are return to the family, placement in long term foster care and adoption. Adoption has disadvantages. It can be difficult, even impossible, to find an appropriate placement. Placements once indentified can fail. In the case of a small baby like this the prospect would seem to be good. However, as the teenage years approach problems of identity can come to the fore in even successful adoptive placements. Adoption involves the loss of the birth family. This is a very important element which is not to be contemplated unless overriding requirements of welfare require it. Against that adoption offers significant advantages. It would offer this child a safe home and adoption carries with it the crucially important element of security and permanence so important for such a small child.
37. Foster care would have the advantage of safety and family ties including contact would be preserved. If it was a case in which there was a real prospect of early change in the family that would be a factor in its favour, but this is not a case where I recognise the green shoots mentioned by Counsel in argument. The disadvantages of foster care are clear. It lacks the permanence and security which a young child requires in order to thrive. A child of twelve months placed in long term foster care is likely to find himself moving around the system during his minority. He would remain part of the system, and I am driven to conclude that foster care would be a very poor outcome for a child as young as this.
38. Returning to the family has the advantage that the child would be returning to a family where he is loved and the family is where he ought to be unless that is impossible. The disadvantages in this case are however immense. The family's chosen plan would be for the return of the child to the mother and father who would live in the family home under the grandparents' continuing guidance. This of course is a return to the regime in which these injuries arose. The child would be in the same home as the perpetrator. It would be in the light of my findings quite impossible to trust the grandparents in a protective or supervisory role. Throughout they have advocated the innocence of the mother and father. They have been unable to contemplate that they were responsible. As the case has developed it has been manifest to all that their alternative theory for the cause of these injuries was untenable, but they have introduced an element of dishonesty in their attempt to buttress their theory. The social worker has worked with the grandparents to some effect. However, she described the barrier which arose when the risk of harm was discussed and blame arose. There really is no reason to expect change. In addition one of the grandparents is themselves a real possibility for concealing the accidental skull fracture, and both grandparents have contributed to the failure to seek treatment. Parents labouring under the disadvantages of these parents are entitled to serious consideration being given to parenting with professional support, but I am afraid in a case of this nature where they are responsible for injuries professional support cannot produce a safe regime.
39. The family's alternative is that, contrary to their wishes, the court could order the mother and father to leave so that the grandparents could care for the child without the perpetrator's constant presence. This is not their desired outcome, although they say that they would comply. I have heard criticism of the absence from the local authority's planning of a scheme to re-house the parents if, contrary to their wishes they were ordered to leave. In the grandparents' favour I assume that the re-housing of the parents can be achieved and that support can be put in place such as to avoid concern about the parents unduly distracting the grandparents. However, I do not accept that the grandparents can be trusted to keep the parents at arm's length and to supervise contact. They do not believe that the parents have or are capable of injuring the child. The grandfather in a moment of insight confessed that, whatever the findings of the court, he would always believe that the doctors were to blame and that responsibility did not lie in the family. As I indicated earlier in dealing with the adjournment application, reinforced as it is by that quotation, it is not realistic to adjourn to further assess what is already a clear picture.
40. The checklist items have, I think, been largely addressed. Under paragraph (b) the child needs a safe, secure, permanent home. Under paragraph (c) the effect of adoption would be a detrimental loss of family and of heritage, but for the child there would be the counter-balancing gain of full membership of a new family. Under paragraph (e) harm has been sufficiently addressed. Under paragraph (f), the good relationship seen between the parents, grandparents and child in contact must be acknowledged. The child did leave home at seven weeks, so it is essentially now a contact relationship. The family would of course like it to continue. I expect that they would move heaven and earth to enable it to continue, but the sad conclusion has to be that they cannot safely meet the child's needs. I am driven to conclude that the continuation of the relationship with the family represents an obstacle to the making and the cementing of the important new relationships which the child must form, relationships with those who can meet his needs in the future.
41. Overall then I have reached the clear conclusion that this is one of those exceptional cases in which the welfare of the child dictates that he cannot live with the family. Nothing else but adoption will do. The child's welfare does require that parental consent be dispensed with in order that that plan be implemented.
42. The Act requires me to reflect on the contact position. The local authority's plan is an entirely conventional plan for the termination of direct contact and the substitution of indirect contact, which I think extends beyond the parents to the grandparents. That is in my analysis the right plan. Direct contact would only make the identification and the making of a successful placement more difficult, and that must now be the top priority so far as the child is concerned.
43. My order as circulated makes my findings, rejects the applications to adjourn, approves the care plan and therefore grants the care order, dispenses with parental consent and grants the placement order. There are some consequential matters on the face of the draft, and if there is anything else that needs to be included I invite assistance from the Bar.

Approved 14.12.17

RD