England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

Case No: ……SE17C00594.

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN SHEFFIELD

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002

Date:18^th September 2017

Before:

HHJ Pemberton

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN THE MATTER OF LS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Andrew Lord for the Applicant LA, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Helen Davey for the Mother

Laura Gibson for the Father

Sarah Ewbank for the Child

Hearing dates: 13-14^th September 2017

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

1.         I am concerned with the welfare of LS, who is at the time of this final hearing 20 months of age. 

2.         LS’s parents share parental responsibility for her.  LS is the parents’ first child. Both parents have been represented and present at this hearing before me.

3.         This hearing has been listed to determine the Local Authority’s (LA) applications for a care and placement order in relation to LS. The applications are opposed by the mother who invites me to place LS in her care either now or in the very near future. Alternatively, the mother proposes that LS remain in foster care but with her mother playing an increasing role in her upbringing. Finally, the mother suggests that LS be placed in her care with her close friend, Ms P moving in with her to support her in the care of LS.

4.         The mother has, just prior to this hearing, lodged an application for an independent social worker assessment. The application records that the LA have not explored all options of LS living with her mother with appropriate support. The mother proposes that an independent social worker carry out a further assessment to specifically consider the mother’s ability to care for LS with support. All parties agreed that this application should be dealt with as part of my overall analysis of the evidence before the court and whether in my view, further evidence is necessary before final decisions could be reached in relation to LS.

5.         The father opposes the LA applications and supports any application which would enable LS to be brought up by her mother. He recognises that he is not in a position to challenge the assessments of him and indeed has not filed any final evidence in these proceedings.

6.         A Children’s Guardian has been appointed to represent LS’s interests within these proceedings. She has filed a final analysis in which she confirms her support for the LA’s plans.

7.         The background to these proceedings is not in dispute and I therefore set out a brief summary which is largely taken from the LA’s case summary. Both of these parents have had difficult backgrounds. The mother and her family were known to Children Services in another local authority area since August 2006, when mother was herself only 12 years old. The mother was eventually accommodated in 2010 when she was 16. She appears to have endured multiple moves between foster homes.

8.         In her interview with Dr Raviraj, the jointly instructed consultant psychiatrist, the mother described a very difficult childhood with physical, mental and emotional abuse from her mother and stepfather. She also suffered from bullying at school. She describes that her own mother suffered from depression as did her father who also suffered from PTSD and alcohol problems.

9.         The mother describes drinking heavily during weekends between the ages of 13 and 18 to such an extent that she struggled with shakes when she tried to cut down on her alcohol use. She smoked cannabis when she was 16 and used speed when she was partying. She entered into an abusive relationship when she was 14 in which she described that she was the victim of rape.

10.     In addition, the mother has physical difficulties having developed congenital dislocation of the hip which at times appears to affect her mobility and has meant that she has had to undergo numerous operations, many of which when she was still a young child.

11.     The mother developed depression and eating disorders during her teenage years and her medical records record a number of self-inflicted injuries, either as a result of the mother losing her temper or of deliberate self-harm. In 2013 she is recorded as frequently wishing to end her life. The review of her medical records indicates that the mother has been prescribed antidepressants at various times from 2013 to the present day.

12.     The father became a looked after child at a very young age and was adopted before he was two years old. He identifies problems in his relationship with his adoptive mother and problems in developing an attachment with her. At some point during his childhood, the father was reported to be diagnosed with an attachment disorder. The father however did report to the instructed psychologist that carried out the assessment of him, that he always felt loved as a child and still feels that he is loved by his parents. He described many positive memories of his childhood.

13.     LS was born when the mother was 21 years old. Prior to this, the mother reports that she had suffered four miscarriages. Due to the difficulties in the mother’s own background, a pre-birth assessment was carried out when it became known that she was pregnant. The outcome of the pre-birth assessment was that LS should be subject to a child in need plan due to the mother’s own childhood experiences and the likely impact of these on her own parenting. It was recognised that she would need further support to ensure the baby’s emotional needs were met and that the parents were responsive to the baby’s needs. It is recorded that prior to LS’s birth there were concerns around home conditions.

14.     When LS was 10 days old, a video was posted on Facebook recording a friend of the fathers inappropriately holding LS and simulating breastfeeding her. LS is recorded to be crying during this video.

15.     However, in March 2016 the case was closed to the LA with the chronology noting that the mother was in a safe relationship and that her mental health had significantly improved and no concerns were noted around her parenting ability.

16.     Matters appear to have deteriorated by November 2016 with the social worker recording that home conditions around this time were observed to be chaotic, and recorded as cluttered and unclean. The social worker records that there was no clear space in the kitchen to prepare bottles or food, the bin was often overflowing and the home was at times unsafe with exposed wires and debris on the floor. LS herself was observed to be unclean with her face and hands noted to be dirty and discoloured and her feet black due to dirt acquired from the home environment.

17.     An initial child protection conference was held in March 2017 and LS was made subject to a child protection plan but concerns then escalated when on 21 March, LS was observed to have a bruise to her left cheek the size of a two pence coin. The mother and a family friend, Ms Z, gave conflicting accounts to various professionals of how the bruise had been caused. It was concluded that the likely cause of the bruising was lack of supervision, rather than physical abuse. However, the section 47 medical examination concluded that the bruising was unexplained and did not fit with any of the explanations provided by the mother.

18.     Due to the supervision concerns and unexplained bruising, the LA was concerned that LS would be at risk of physical harm if she were to remain in her mother’s care, and LS was placed with her father the following day. AB lacked appropriate accommodation suitable for a child and therefore on 28th March 2017 LS was placed in LA foster care and became the subject of an interim care order. She has remained in foster care since this time.

19.     During the course of these proceedings, a number of assessments have been carried out.

20.     A comprehensive parenting assessment of both parents was conducted by the allocated social worker. The assessment of the mother recognises a number of strengths; the mother has a secure tenancy; clearly loves her daughter very much indeed; has attended the majority of the contact sessions and has engaged with professionals and committed to the assessment process. She has an ongoing relationship with LS although the social worker questions the quality of the relationship at times.

21.     Balanced against this, the social worker sets out a number of assessed risks and needs. He assesses that the mother does not fully accept the LA concerns and believes them to be exaggerated;  He notes that the extremely difficult childhood that the mother had appears to have impacted on the mother and caused her emotional trauma which in turn affects her ability to provide LS with the opportunity for positive attachment; The mother has no model of positive parenting to draw upon when parenting LS; The mother was inconsistent when giving an explanation as to how LS had sustained her injury in March of this year and does not accept any responsibility for the harm caused to LS whilst she was in the mother’s care.

22.     During the course of the assessment, the mother had become hostile and refused to answer a number of questions, particularly in relation to her background and in the social worker’s view, was avoidant of meaningful assessment and demonstrated disguised compliance. In addition, the mother was not honest in respect of her relationships, did not disclose that her former relationship was abusive or that she had been the victim of a stalker during the course of the assessment. She was unable to recognise why she may need to disclose these matters. The social worker concluded that the mother is a very vulnerable person and vulnerable in the relationships that she enters into which in turn would place LS at risk of harm.

23.     The mother has no family support network around her although she did have the support of a friend, Ms Z.  Ms Z was someone that the mother had proposed for assessment as an alternative carer.  Ms Z herself has vulnerabilities in terms of her own parenting capacity and her family have been known to social care.  In her statement, she tells me that that friendship has now ended. 

24.     The mother struggled, when completing the needs jigsaw with the social worker, to identify the needs of her daughter and how those may best be met. In addition, the social worker notes that the psychiatric evidence recommends work for the mother to undertake in order to improve her emotional and psychological functioning, work which the mother has to date been unable to access.

25.     As part of the assessment of the paternal family members, the social worker did consider the possibility of shared care between the paternal family members and the mother. As the paternal grandparents were not supportive of such a plan, shared care was not further explored.

26.     The social worker carried out a parenting assessment of the father which concludes: -

27.     He is unable to recommend LS being cared for by her father. The father has not sought to challenge the parenting assessment in relation to himself.

28.     An initial viability assessment was positive of the paternal grandparents.   The LA had commenced further assessment with a view to preparing a SGO report.  However, on the 14^th August 2017, the paternal grandparents withdrew from the assessment process citing financial reasons and being unable to manage the parents’ behaviours. They consider that parents’ behaviours will not change, potentially affecting the stability of the placement which the LA feels would be unsettling for LS. Paternal grandparents view is that the best care plan for LS would be one of adoption.

29.     The LA has contacted other family members but no family members are willing or been assessed to care for LS. The LA therefore concludes there are no other family members available to offer long term care to LS.

30.     The social worker has also undertaken a viability assessment of Ms Z and Ms C who had been put forward by the mother however these both concluded negatively.

31.     In addition to the social work assessments, the court directed an expert assessment in respect of both parents.

32.     Dr Prakash Raviraj, Consultant Psychiatrist, was instructed to undertake an assessment of the mother. Within his report, he reviews the mother’s medical records and as already referred to, sets out some of the difficulties from her own history and childhood. He confirms that the mother had previously been diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder, impulsive type.  However, at the time of the assessment by Dr Raviraj in June of this year, he assessed that “she no longer met the full diagnostic criteria for a personality disorder and only suffered from some of its traits”. He records that the mother now has some insight into her difficulties and seems to be maturing. She had reported to him that she would seek help now rather than self-harm and is aware of support available to her from mental health services which was not available to her in the past.

33.     He records that the mother suffers from recurrent depressive disorder against the background of long-standing traits of emotionally unstable personality disorder, which is precipitated by the stresses and strains of life. At times of stress, she presents with markedly depressed mood, loss of interest, reduced self-esteem, feelings of guilt, a very pessimistic view about the future with acts or ideas of self-harm, disturbed sleep and appetite, and low energy and concentration. She has also been aggressive at times punching walls, doors or injuring herself.

34.     He recommended “medication and psychological therapy in the form of CBT and DBT with adequate support in terms of crisis and home treatment team”.  He is unsure of the timescales of such treatment but notes that the mother is “very keen to engage in psychological work”. He notes that such work would normally last between 20 and 30 weekly sessions. He records that the mother has historically been non-compliant with her prescribed medication and that this needs to be addressed by her local team to make her fully aware of her mental health condition and the benefits of taking her medications regularly.

35.     He notes that dysfunction in terms of relationships is ongoing and that the mother remains prone to mood instability.  Her depression will worsen her irritability and affect her energy levels in coping with the demanding task of looking after an active child. In her current mental state, with her regularly complying with medications and the support structure available to her, he feels that her parenting abilities are unlikely to be “fully affected by the current psychiatric diagnosis or medications”. He is cautious in terms of prognosis. Her underlying traits of personality disorder mean that she is likely to engage in conflict with others, mainly professionals and partners and during periods of stress she also presents with suicidal risk or acts of self-harm Impulsivity and lack of self-control are features of her illness although he notes these appear to have been less prominent in recent years. He concludes that the mother would struggle with the full responsibility of caring for a child without appropriate support. He notes that a barrier to her progress is that her ability to handle stress is very limited due to the underlying traits of personality disorder, mild learning disability and susceptibility to depression. He notes that she minimises her difficulties and overestimates her abilities to care for her daughter. She is suspicious of the social worker’s motivation. He notes that trusting relationships make might take some time to develop.

36.     His final recommendation is slightly ambiguous. He recommends that “with the current professional support around her and possible further psychological work, I am of the view that she should start getting involved in the care of LS”. However, in answer to a further question in respect of any issues the mother may have relevant to her role as a parent, he recommends that the mother should have “a limited role to begin with. She needs a gradual introduction rather than full-time care of her daughter at the present time. LS has attained normal developmental milestones and will benefit from having her mother around, for her emotional development. At times of stress the mother may struggle with this role and this may not be a positive experience for LS”. He notes that she is on the waiting list to get a care coordinator in the community. He recommends that the mother would benefit from mental health awareness, anger management work, drug and alcohol awareness and therapeutic work to manage her personality disorder.

37.     Dr Mosher, Clinical Psychologist, was instructed to undertake an assessment of the father. Despite considerable efforts, he was unable to consider the father’s medical records. He is however aware of a previous diagnosis in childhood of attachment disorder and in his view, having assessed the father, attachment issues may be a reasonable explanation for his emotional and apparent interpersonal difficulties. However, he concludes that the father does not have a diagnosable psychological difficulty. He is rather defensive and can fail to see the impact of his actions on those around him. He is also assessed as selfish and self-absorbed.

38.     Dr Mosher notes from the evidence that the father has struggled to form a healthy and loving bond and whilst Dr Mosher does believe that the father loves LS, his attachment to her is not as robust as he would lead people to believe. Whilst the father is intellectually capable of understanding the concerns, the issue for this father is acceptance of the role he has played in those concerns rather than his understanding. Whilst expressing motivation to address the concerns, his actions do not appear to match his words. There are no cognitive barriers to him in understanding and accepting the concerns or any emotional barriers. Dr Mosher concludes that the issue appears to be more motivational than psychological. His lack of motivation is likely to mean that LS’s needs will not be prioritised should the father be caring for her. His inability to see things from her perspective could result in inconsistent caring and her emotional and physical needs not always being met.

39.     In terms of treatment, Dr Mosher does not recommend psychotherapy or counselling. He reports that motivation is not amenable to intervention although motivational interviewing could be of value in terms of gauging history motivation levels and increasing his motivation he suggests that the father’s GP could be approached to identify worker competent in motivational interviewing. Timescales of such work will be relatively short and the prognosis in Dr Mosher’s view moderately positive. Dr Mosher’s report is dated 18 July and I understand he met with the father on 7 July. I have not been told of the father undertaking any motivational work following on from the assessment sessions or receipt of the report.

40.     I have considered all of the papers contained within the core bundle together with some additional contact notes that I was referred to by the parties. I have heard oral evidence from the social worker, the mother, her friend and supporter EP and from the Children’s Guardian.

41.     No party had requested the attendance of Dr Mosher or D Raviraj and I therefore accept their evidence as unchallenged.

42.     The social worker in his oral evidence confirmed the contents of his parenting assessment. On behalf of the mother he was asked questions about the support services that could be available to this mother in caring for LS. He accepted that he had not set out specific details of support services that may be the available to the mother. In his view, the LA had assessed family members and friends who could offer support and those assessments have sadly concluded negatively. In his view, if this mother were to care for LS she would need 24 hour a day supervision and monitoring. That is simply not available on a professional level. The mother has no positive support networks in relation to her friends or family.

43.     He acknowledged that following the receipt of Dr Raviraj’s report he had made some preliminary enquiries of the paternal grandparents in terms of the potential for shared care with the mother. However, the paternal grandparents had not been prepared to consider this as an option and it had not therefore been further pursued. What the social worker told me in his oral evidence was that when considering a shared care arrangement, he was considering LS being settled in a placement and then a gradual reintroduction of LS into the mother’s care to establish a shared care arrangement. He did not believe that this would be a viable option with LS remaining in foster care.  As the mother’s proposal for shared care with the LA foster care had only been raised the previous day, he had not explored this as an option with the foster carer. In his view, this is not a viable or realistic option.

44.     The mother had raised in her statement the fact that she had struggled to understand some of the questions when she was completing the needs jigsaw with the social worker. He confirmed to me in his oral evidence the way in which he had approached the needs jigsaw with the mother. He asked questions from prompt cards and if he felt that she was struggling to understand, he reworded the questions. He acknowledged that the mother suffers from dyslexia and that he did not ask the mother to read the questions herself but read them to her. He described them as simple questions in terms of how she would meet LS’s needs now and how she had met them previously. In his view, it was not that she did not understand the questions but that she was not able to identify her daughter’s needs and how she could meet them. He disputed that she had raised with him that she was struggling to understand the questions.

45.     It has been put on behalf of mother that the parenting assessment was fundamentally unfair as the mother did not understand what she was being asked. I’m afraid I reject this suggestion. It has never been raised prior to the filing of the mother’s statement which is signed and dated 11 September 2017. I found the social worker to be balanced in his evidence and readily able to acknowledge the positives that this mother does demonstrate in terms of her capacity and her love for her daughter. I find that I prefer his account of the reasons why the mother may have struggled to answer some of the questions, in that her difficulties lay in understanding the needs of a child rather than in the format of the assessment.

46.     The Social worker was asked about referrals for parenting courses and for additional support and work for the mother. He told me and I accept that he wanted to encourage the mother to be more proactive in establishing support for herself and had given her the information to enable her to self-refer for a parenting course but that she had failed to act on that advice until very recently. The social worker told me about concerns that had been observed in contact where the mother was noted to appear to sit back and observe LS rather than to become involved in playing with her and stimulating her. I have noted this concern is recorded in many of the contact notes. He acknowledged that the mother’s commitment to contact has been good but that the concern about stimulation and motivation was frequently present. He acknowledged that Early Help could provide this mother with support in learning how to play with and stimulate her daughter. It was clear however that in his overall assessment, this was only one aspect of the work that the mother would have to undertake in order to meet LS’s needs.

47.     The social worker has produced a thorough assessment in his parenting assessment of both the parents. I am satisfied that he approached the assessments in an open-minded and fair way and assured himself whilst carrying out the assessments that the parents were able to fully participate. I do not accept that the mother’s difficulties in answering questions were due to her learning difficulty or a lack of adaptation of the questions to meet her needs. I accept that he has not set out in his written evidence, the services that may be available to the mother were she to assume care of LS. He explained that this was because he simply could not see what services could be in place to compensate for the mother’s difficulties. I agree that it would have been helpful him to set out the local services that are available for this mother although I have the advantage of being familiar with local services and resources given that I sit full-time in South Yorkshire and deal with cases with this LA on a daily basis.

48.     The mother was the next witness I heard from. I have been able to observe her throughout this hearing. I have no hesitation at all in finding from all of the evidence that I have read and heard and from my impression of her, that she loves her daughter LS very much indeed.

49.     She confirmed the contents of her statement. In that statement, she refers to the support she has received in terms of her mental health. She describes that her mental health is greatly improved as when she has had bad news or a low day, she has not resorted to self-harm or overdose that she would have in the past.

50.     She is receiving support from the Ferham clinic who she says have supported her with her medication and various courses and she has completed an emotional coping skills course which was four weeks in length.

51.     She described threats that she had received from the father, which she alleges were made very recently, which did not lead to her fighting back or becoming angry or engaging in self harm. In summary, she feels far more stable and in a better position to care for her daughter. She is awaiting the therapy that was recommended by Dr Raviraj.

52.     The mother addresses the concerns raised within the proceedings in relation to the mother’s relationship history. In her written statement, she confirms that she has been in a relationship with her current partner, his name and details she does not give, since the middle of July. She says that he has no criminal record and has no children. He lives with his own mother. The mother confirms in her statement that she is currently pregnant and in her oral evidence she confirmed that she is approximately eight weeks pregnant. She acknowledged that in discussions with the social worker she had previously suggested that the father of her unborn baby was in fact her ex-boyfriend but she now believes that she got her dates muddled up.

53.     She confirms that prior to her current relationship she was in a relationship with a man in Daventry, Mr J. She tells me in her statement that they were together March until May. She now, on reflection, recognises that he was controlling and abusive towards her.

54.     Prior to that relationship, the mother was in a relationship with the father which she describes as being on and off and nearly 2 years. She describes it as positive in the beginning but she felt that the father did not prioritise LS’s needs. In her written statement, she sets out that the relationship broke down due to rumours being spread that the father had raped the mother and that this was an accusation that she had made. She tells me in her written statement that this was not true but that the relationship could not sustain the stress of the rumour.

55.     The mother reports that she has recently received threats from the father and is contemplating moving to a new house in order to avoid further threats. She is also contemplating an application for a non-molestation order.

56.     As set out above, within the parenting assessment, the social worker described how the mother had failed to disclose information during the assessment process unless she was challenged. He described her as evasive and avoidant. She was unwilling to talk at previous social care involvement. Furthermore, she had failed to disclose that she had been the victim of a stalker incident which apparently occurred over a period of four weeks whilst the parenting assessment was ongoing. It was the social worker’s view that the mother would fail to disclose information which she feared would place her in a negative light. Within the mother’s own statement, the mother acknowledges that these matters should have been reported to the social worker and gives an assurance that if they were to occur in the future she would report them.

57.     In her written statement, the mother also acknowledges that historically she has moved into relationships rather quickly but says that she now has no intention of moving in with her new partner and that her priority is LS and the unborn baby. She confirms that she is in receipt of the contraceptive implant and is also taking the contraceptive pill. Despite these preventions, she has become pregnant very early on in her new relationship. She told me in her oral evidence that this is actually her second pregnancy since LS was removed from her care.

58.     The mother’s response to the concern that she fails to play with and stimulate LS is dealt with in her statement. She sets out that LS likes to play on her own and that she perhaps got used to this when she was living with the mother and the mother was suffering from postnatal depression and low mood.

59.     Overall the mother feels that she has not received the help that she needed to enable her to care for LS. She is planning on attending a course to address issues in relation to domestic violence and has been re-referred to the early help services whom she describes as having provided her with significant help in the past including developing a cleaning rota, a food rota and help in arranging contact between LS and her father following the parent’s separation. Ultimately, she proposes a shared care arrangement with the foster carers with her time with LS being gradually increased. Alternatively, she raised for the first time whilst giving her oral evidence, the possibility of her friend, EP, assisting her in caring for LS.

60.     As far as I can see from the written evidence, Ms P has never been mentioned before as a potential source of support for the mother. The Guardian confirmed that she had never heard about Ms P before. The mother told me that Ms P is 25 and has no children of her own. She used to help the mother in caring for LS when LS was still in the mother’s care. The mother told me that Ms P has had a CRB check which was clear.

61.     In respect of the mother’s proposals that EP assist her in the care of LS, she acknowledged that this was not put forward previously despite the fact that she described Ms P as being a friend whom she had known for some three years. She told me that Ms P had herself had issues to deal with in respect of her own relationship and that the mother did not wish to impose upon her.

62.     In her oral evidence mother also confirmed that she had stopped taking her medication due to the fact that she is pregnant. She told me that she stopped in the middle of last month. She has not discussed this cessation of her medication with any medical professionals. She told me that she had tried to speak to her mental health team but had been unable to speak to anybody. She does not have a key worker. She told me she has not spoken to her GP about stopping her medication as her GP does not get involved in her prescription in relation to her mental health, leaving this to the mental health team.

63.     Under cross examination, the mother acknowledged that there was a risk that her mental health may deteriorate now that she stopped taking her medication but that she now feels she has appropriate support in place from the mental health team.

64.     In terms of support for her parenting, she agreed that she did need some help with her parenting skills and a bit of help with playing stimulation but that she felt that she has the ability to care for her daughter now before any work is undertaken.

65.     She acknowledged that she does not like to talk about her childhood and that she had failed to be entirely open and honest with the professionals working with her. She acknowledged that this was a prerequisite to a good working relationship with professionals but did not agree that her previous failings created a risk for LS to be returned to her care.

66.     I asked the mother whether her current partner had attended court to offer her support and she told me that he had not and that she had chosen not to involve him in these proceedings. However, she told me that he was prepared to support her in seeking to care for LS.  I have been informed that he did actually attend court with her on the second day of hearing.

67.     By the time the mother gave evidence, the threshold document had been agreed between the parties other than one issue in respect of openness and honesty.  However, I note that the mother’s response to threshold which was filed on 11 September gives a rather different picture. Within the response, whilst the mother acknowledges some of the concerns, for each aspect of the threshold criteria the mother seeks to offer some challenge or explanation. I raised with all parties that the mother’s response to the threshold criteria did not actually show an acceptance of the concerns and the findings. Prior to the mother giving her oral evidence, counsel on her behalf confirmed that the threshold criteria were accepted largely as drafted. I’m afraid the mother did not in her written or her oral evidence convince me that she did accept responsibility for the neglect that LS had suffered in the parents care and the mother’s own role in and responsibility for that neglect. I am afraid I do agree with the Guardian that this to be indicative of a poor prognosis in terms of the mother being able to effect sufficient change to ensure that LS will be protected from such neglect in the future. In order to make changes in the parenting that the mother would offer, she needs to be able to acknowledge and recognise the need for those changes.

68.     The mother was understandably distressed during parts the hearing. Nevertheless, she gave her evidence in an articulate, clear and straightforward manner. However, whilst acknowledging some of the difficulties in the witness box, the mother did not persuade me that she truly appreciated the level of concerns in respect of her functioning and how those impact upon her ability to parent.

69.     At the mother’s request, I heard from her friend, EP. EP had not filed any evidence although she and the mother did prepare an outline of the plan that they proposed for me to consider on the second day of the hearing. The mother had told me that EP was prepared to offer her support and was prepared to move into the mother’s home with her to help her care for LS.  Ms P was understandably very nervous at suddenly finding herself in the witness box in court and I have taken that into account when considering her evidence. She told me that she has significant experience in looking after children because of the level of support she gives to her own mother in caring for her siblings. She told me that she cares for her siblings every weekend due to her mother and stepfather’s work commitments.

70.     She told me that she has a level I certificate in care and has a health and safety certificate and has clear CRB checks. She told me she was willing to move in with the mother in order to give her support. She described her relationship with the mother as being “like sisters”. When she was asked why she had not put herself at an earlier stage to care, she indicated that she had not really thought about it until she was at court. She was aware that LS had been taken into care shortly after her removal from the parents care and told me that it had been the previous day that the mother had explained the LA’s final plans for LS. She was asked about the personal difficulties that she had suffered that the mother had referred to.  She became very distressed when she described a very recent breakup with her partner. She told me that this had only happened at the beginning of this week.

71.     Ms P is no doubt a good friend to this mother and I am pleased to note that she intends to support the mother in the future. However, it is significant that she has never before proposed herself to care, that she does not appear to feature when the mother has been asked about her support packages and alternative carers. She did not appear to recognise any of the difficulties that this mother had when the mother was caring for LS. Indeed, she described this mother as being “a brilliant mum”. Given that she must have been observing this mother’s parenting at a time when things were simply not good enough and LS was suffering neglect, this raises significant questions about Ms P’s ability to objectively look at LS’s needs and to what extent they are being met.  I recognise that only a full assessment of Ms P can confirm the level of her understanding and it may be that work can be done with her. However, this delay that that would inevitably entail must be part of my consideration and decision making.

72.     The final witness I heard from was the Children’s Guardian. She had prepared a case analysis dated 5 September in which she confirmed her support for the LA applications. She evaluates the father’s current circumstances. In her analysis, he has not yet acquired or furthered his skills and knowledge of parenting and has not been able to demonstrate change. She believes he is still working towards achieving stability as a young adult but needs to sustain this for a period of time before consideration can be given to his capacity to parent a child. She notes the theme throughout the assessment in relation to the father’s lack of motivation.

73.     In respect of the mother, she notes that the mother has managed to achieve some change in her circumstances and commends her for the steps that she has taken to begin to address her long-standing mental health difficulties. She notes that at the present time she is waiting to be assigned a mental health key worker and has been signposted to volunteering work in the community. She is also awaiting a place on a course aimed at self-empowerment and raising awareness of the impact of domestic abuse on children.

74.     The Guardian is concerned at the timing of the mother’s current pregnancy and the fact that she has responded to this pregnancy by stopping her medication in an unplanned manner and without any input from health professionals. The Guardian notes the psychiatric assessment of the mother and the possibility that with further psychological support and professional support, the mother could start to become involved in LS’s care. However, she also notes his caution in terms of the mother’s ability to manage stress and susceptibility to depression set against her background of long-standing traits associated with emotionally unstable personality disorder.

75.     The Guardian shares the LA’s concern that the mother still does not have a meaningful support network, still demonstrates a lack of stability in her life and personal relationships and these issues continue to create vulnerability for her and therefore for any child placed in her care. The Guardian is concerned at the mother’s failure to report abusive behaviour in recent relationships. She notes the speed with which the mother became pregnant in a relatively new relationship and this adds to her concern in terms of the level of vulnerability that the mother is currently experiencing and how this may impact on her capacity to make safe decisions within relationships both now and in the future.

76.     In assessing the mother’s overall capacity, the Guardian’s considers the consequence of the mother’s lack of appropriate parenting modelling and the significant adversity she experienced whilst a child and young person.  In her view, these have impacted and are evident in the mother’s struggle to achieve stability herself as an adult, let alone to care for an infant. Whilst the mother is beginning to access support and embark on change, the risk factors which have previously caused LS harm, in the Guardian’s view, remain present and ongoing. Her assessment of the mother’s insight is that this is still limited and prevents them from fully accepting the concerns. This lack of acceptance within the Guardian’s view, lead to LS being exposed to further inconsistent care and an unpredictable environment were she to be return to her mother’s care.

77.     In the Guardian’s view, the changes that both parents appear to be embarking upon are still in their very early infancy and would need to be demonstrated and sustained over a period of time. For the mother, this would include the specific psychological therapies which have been recommended by the psychiatrist.

78.     The Guardian confirmed her recommendations when giving her oral evidence. She was asked about the mother’s application for an independent social work assessment.  She confirmed that in her view, there was no necessity for such an assessment. She did not feel there was anything further an independent social work could assess and commented that the social worker’s assessments were very full and thorough of both parents.

79.     She was asked about the recommendation from Dr Raviraj that the mother should become increasingly involved in LS’s care and confirmed her view that this could have been explored if LS was able to be placed in a secure long-term family placement which would offer her permanence in the event that the mother was unable to resume care of LS. Any introduction of the mother taking on periods of care of LS would, in the Guardian’s view, have to take place over a very long period of time. At this stage, the Guardian would not support any unsupervised contact between LS and her mother. In the Guardian’s view, the level of support that this mother needs would amount to 24 hour a day support and monitoring. Without such support, the Guardian believes that LS would be placed at risk due to the mother’s lifestyle and lack of openness with professionals.

80.     As I’ve already noted, the Guardian was very concerned that the mother did not report previous abuse within relationships nor the fact that she was the victim of stalking some four weeks during the period of the parenting assessment. The mother is aware that reporting such issues may raise concerns with professionals and she is therefore chosen not to raise these matters. These issues have continued throughout the proceedings and there is no evidence that they will now cease, or that the mother will make any wiser decisions in relationship choices. LS would therefore be exposed to the risks that the mother was exposing herself to.

81.     The Guardian was readily able to acknowledge the positives in the mother’s case, her commitment to contact and the assessment process and the recent steps she has taken to address some of her issues.  However, the Guardian notes this has to be set against the history of this case when the mother has been able to achieve periods of stability with appropriate professional support networks around her but these have not been sustained. It was the Guardian’s view that unless and until the mother has addressed her own personal issues through the recommended therapy and achieved a sustained period of stability, she would be concerned that LS will be exposed to further harm in her mother’s care.

82.     The Guardian did not see the proposal put forward by the mother that Ms P assist her in the care of LS as being a viable or realistic option, noting that it had come very late in the day and did not appear to have been very well thought out. She did not support further assessment of that option.  In the Guardian’s clear view – we had reached the stage where nothing other than adoption would now meet LSs needs.

83.     I was impressed by the Guardian’s evidence both written and oral. She impressed me as having given very careful consideration to all the realistic options and in particular had looked at whether there were ways in which the mother would be able to care for LS. I accept her analysis and recommendations.

84.     The LA has drafted a schedule of findings by which it asserts that the threshold criteria under S31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 are satisfied. On the whole, these were not challenged by the parents. There was one area of dispute in relation to this document which was whether the mother had failed to work openly and honestly with professionals and whether she had given an inaccurate account to professionals about the injury sustained by LS.  The mother in her oral evidence accepted the LA evidence on this incident. I have considered the LA draft findings and find that the evidence I have read and heard is sufficient to enable me to make those findings and therefore to find that the threshold criteria is satisfied as agreed and with the additional finding sought by the LA in respect of the mother’s openness and honesty.

85.     The finding that the threshold is satisfied is the gateway to the making of orders in respect of LS. Her welfare is my paramount consideration. In determining what is in her best welfare interests I have considered each of the factors set out in the welfare checklist in s.1(3) Children Act 1989.

86.     As the plan for LS is one of adoption I have also considered the ‘welfare checklist’ in section 1(4) of the 2002 Adoption and Children Act. A number of the matters in S.1 (4) replicate the factors to which the court has already had regard under the CA 1989. However, there are two very important additional factors which I have also considered, these are: -

S1(4)(c) the likely effect on LS (throughout her life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person; and

S.(1)(f) The relationship which LS has with relatives and with any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, including –

                                          i.               the likelihood of it continuing and the value to the child of it doing so

                                        ii.               the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives to provide him with a secure environment in which he can develop and have his needs met

                                      iii.               the wishes and feelings of the relatives

87.     I have considered the fact that LS does have a relationship with both of her parents and has had ongoing contact throughout the proceedings.  LS has an attachment with her parents although I note that the Social worker felt that the attachment between LS and her mother was not necessarily a strong and positive one.  I note that if I grant the LA applications the plan is that ongoing direct contact will cease.

88.     Section 1(5) provides that when a court is considering whether or not to make an order under the Act with respect to a child, it shall not make an order unless it considers that doing so would be better for LS than making no order at all. In public law cases, this means that the level of state intervention should be no greater than is necessary in order to secure LS’s welfare.

89.     Section 1(2) sets out the general principle that any delay in concluding proceedings such as these is likely to prejudice the welfare of LS.  I am very conscious that if I were to grant the mother’s application for an independent social work assessment or for an assessment of her situation with support being offered by Ms P then this will inevitably build in delay for LS and will mean that she is unable to begin to invest in a relationship with carers that will care for her throughout her childhood – whether this is her mother or an alternative placement. 

90.     In addition to those statutory provisions, I have also considered the Article 8 rights of this child and her parents and have endeavoured to arrive at an outcome that is both proportionate and in her best welfare interests

91.     The legal principles of application when the court is confronted with applications of this kind are well known. Wherever possible, consistent with their welfare needs, children deserve an upbringing within their natural families (Re KD [1988] AC 806; Re W [1993] 2FLR 625). Care plans for adoption are “very extreme” only made when “necessary” for the protection of children’s interests, which means, “When nothing else will do,” “when all else fails.” Adoption “should only be contemplated as a last resort” (Re B [2013] UKSC 33; Re P (a child) EWCA Civ 963; Re G (a child) EWCA Civ 965).

92.     In a case such as this it is vitally important always to bear in mind two well established principles. The first is encapsulated in what the Strasbourg court said in Yv United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 33, [2012] 2 FLR 332, para 134:

“family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and … everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing. However, where the maintenance of family ties would harm the child’s health and development, a parent is not entitled under article 8 to insist that such ties be maintained”.

93.     The second is encapsulated in the well-known passage in the judgment of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050, para 50:

“society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent … it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”

94.     Before considering placing LS elsewhere than with her parents, or one of them, I must be sure there is no practical way of the authorities or other agencies providing the requisite assistance and support which would allow her to be cared for by at least one of their parents (Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146).

95.     I have considered what support services would be available to assist the mother in caring for LS, both from statutory agencies and less formal support services.  I am afraid I am drawn to the overwhelming conclusion that the problems that the mother would face in caring for LS and ensuring that she did not suffer further significant harm are not capable of being eradicated or reduced to a manageable level through the provision of support.  They’re far more fundamental and require the mother to be able to address some of the effects that her own upbringing has had on her, through appropriate therapeutic input to get her to a level where she is emotionally stable and able to protect herself from abusive relationships, able to make decisions where she is able to weigh up the pros and cons of each decision and ensure that LS’s needs are the determining factor.  I am afraid that I agree with the social worker, the Guardian and the psychiatrist that this is likely to be a longer-term piece of work – and fall outside of LS’s timescales as LS needs her future determining now so she can invest in carers who are able to commit to her throughout her life.  She cannot wait for her mother to undertake this work.  In any event, I am not sure the mother herself is ready to undertake this work, given the real difficulties she identified in talking about her past when she was undertaking the parenting assessment.

96.     I have analysed and considered all of the realistically available competing options. I have weighed the associated positive and the negative factors. I am satisfied there is a sufficient evidence in relation to each proposal to enable me to undertake the essential global, holistic, and multi-faceted evaluation of LS’s welfare. I do not require an independent social worker assessment of the mother or of her with the support of Ms P, I have sufficient information to make decisions now.

97.     The choices for LS, in truth, are limited. She could immediately be placed in her mother’s care.  Her mother loves her and would I am sure show her that love and affection. I have considered the detailed parenting assessment report prepared by the social worker which sets out in clear details the difficulties that this mother has in meeting the needs of a young child. I do not criticise her for this. I believe that she has tried to the very best of her ability However, the mother is emotionally vulnerable and has not achieved the stability in her life that she needs to do in order to care for herself before she begins to care for a dependent child.  I find that she does not fully appreciate and accept the concerns or responsibility for LS’s early neglect whilst cared for by her parents.  In all likelihood whilst the mother would not intentionally harm LS, she would expose her to further neglect. Whilst the support of Ms P is important for this mother, it will not in my view compensate for the mother’s own shortcomings.

98.     The only other possibility is that LS might be placed in long term foster care. This would leave the possibility open of the mother undertaking the necessary work and at some stage assuming an increased role in the care of LS as envisaged by the psychiatrist.  Long term foster care is an extraordinarily precarious legal framework for any child, particularly one a young as LS.  If there was evidence that the mother had begun and was well on the way with her therapeutic journey and there was a positive prognosis for her to assume the care of LS in the near future, then this may be a realistic option.  However, I accept the Guardian’s analysis (and indeed the timescales set out in the psychiatric assessment).  This mother is not yet at the stage of exercising unsupervised contact.  The reality is that LS would have to remain in foster care for the foreseeable future. Foster placements, long or short term, do not provide legal security. They can and often do come to an end. Children in long term care may find themselves moved from one home to another sometimes for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Long term foster parents are not expected to be fully committed to a child in the same way as adoptive parents. Most importantly of all in the current context, a long-term foster child does not have the same and enduring sense of belonging within a family as does a child who has been adopted. There is no way in which a long-term foster child can count on the permanency, predictability, and enduring quality of his placement as can a child who has been adopted. As I have already observed, a foster placement would not enable LS to form lifelong relationships with carers who commit to her throughout her childhood and beyond.

99.     The realistic, as opposed to the fanciful, options therefore are a return to her mother or a placement for adoption

100. The disadvantage of making a placement order is that LS will be deprived of an upbringing within her natural family. She will not be brought up by a mother who is obviously able to demonstrate emotional warmth and affection for her child. It may be that in future LS will need some professional assistance to deal with issues of loss and identity if she is not to be brought up within her natural family. I know that adoption is not always a panacea – the father’s own difficulties illustrate that.    However, experience suggests that so long as the adoptive family deals openly and sensitively with those matters – and age appropriately as LS grows – the potential for problems is markedly reduced, even eliminated.

101. The advantages of a placement order are many and obvious. Prospective adopters are required to submit themselves to a rigorous and very thorough assessment process over many months. Those who satisfy the selection criteria are ordinarily of the highest calibre. They may be confidently expected to provide extremely good parenting to any child who is matched with them in all areas of her development. They will protect LS from harm of whatever kind. The overwhelming probability is that they will be able to provide her with the priceless gift of a happy, secure, and stable childhood from which she will derive life-long advantages.

Overall conclusion

102. I have very great sympathy with the parents. Neither of them had the kind of start in life which anyone would want for a child. The mother was never given the opportunity or the foundation which might have enabled her to provide adequately for her child.  It seems that the state did not intervene adequately to protect her from the serious harm and neglect that she suffered as a child.  She is not responsible for her upbringing but it is a relevant and significant factor that cannot be ignored.  It has had a huge impact on the person that the mother is today and her capabilities as a parent.

103. I am satisfied that both the guardian and the social worker have conducted a proper analysis of the realistic options. I accept them. I am entirely persuaded that the course suggested by the LA and supported by the Guardian is the one which best accords with the LS’s welfare needs. I am also satisfied that this is a case in which it is right to find that adoption is necessary and that nothing short of that will do.

104. I therefore make a care order and approve the care plan.  I then dispense with the mother’s and the father’s consents to a placement order pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 on the basis that LS’s welfare demands that I should do so.

105. I have considered the proposed contact arrangements for LS and I am satisfied that I do not need to make any orders in relation to contact. 

106. I accept the LA analysis that direct contact with her parents would be likely to undermine any adoptive placement for LS and is likely to reduce the potential pool of available adopters. I therefore approve the plan for indirect contact only and do not make any order in respect of contact.

107. I give leave for a copy of this judgement to be released to prospective adopters for LS once a link has been approved so that they may be able to understand and share with LS the reasons for these orders being made.