Case Nos: RG16C0077 & RG16C01334
IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT READING
Reading County Court
160-163 Friar Street
Reading
Berkshire
RG1 1HE

Before:

HHJ MORADIFAR

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

IN THE MATTER OF:

Re R – T (No. 2)

AND

Re P 

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

Representatives:

Miss Isabelle Watson On behalf of the Applicant Local Authority
Mr Andrew Lorie Instructed by Reeds Solicitors on behalf of CT
Miss Judith Charlton Instructed by Turpin Miller on behalf of BR
Miss Roma Whelan Instructed by Clifton Ingram on behalf of JP
Miss Jasbinder Dail from Rowberry Morris on behalf of the children
through their Guardian

Hearing Dates:15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 February 2018

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

JUDGMENT
Introduction

1.	In May 2017, I handed down a judgment concerning disputed facts relating to the children who are the subject of these proceedings. I have previously identified the children, and will continue to identify them as P, who was born 18 April 2011; R, who was born on 27 May 2012; L, who was born on 6 January 2014; and MG, who was born on 6 December 2016. The children share the same father who I will continue to identify as BR. CT is the mother of P, R and L. JP is the mother of MG. 
2.	The background of these two cases is fully detailed in my aforementioned judgment and this judgment must be read in conjunction with the same. At the conclusion of that hearing before me, I made a number of findings concerning these three parents. My findings on the disputed issues were that:
 	A. Events of 12 and 13 June 2016
i. From March 2016 BR was responsible for collecting R's prescribed medication in the form of Tegretol.
ii. Between 21.30 hours 12 June 2016 and 9.30 am 13 June 2016 L ingested a large quantity of carbamazepine that was potentially life-threatening.
iii. As a consequence L went into a coma and required immediate medical attention.
iv. He was admitted to hospital after an ambulance was called at 09.33 am on 13 June 2016 where he suffered two seizures and required ventilation.
v. The carbamazepine was administered to L by either BR and/or JP.
vi. If carbamazepine was administered to L by BR or JP and not both, the other was aware of it.
vii. BR and JP failed to seek appropriate medical attention for L in a timely manner, thereby increased the risk of harm that he suffered. 
viii. BR and JP concealed from the treating medical professionals, the police and social workers that L had ingested carbamazepine.
ix. By reason of the above findings CT and her household had no responsibility for the carbamazepine that was ingested by L.
x. P did not attempt to give R carbamazepine in February 2016 as described by BR. 
B. Previous ingestion of carbamazepine
Whilst there is a sense of clarity about Dr Kintz’s evidence in this regard, in particular when he stated that he cannot think of another explanation other than ingestion of carbamazepine, I am not satisfied that the evidence is sufficiently reliable. There are far too many variables and a distinct lack of reliable scientific research and consensus amongst the research scientists. The medical evidence is not corroborated by any other evidence. In the circumstances, I do not make the findings sought in this regard.
C. Domestic abuse
In addition to the concessions by the parties, I make the following general findings
i. The relationship between BR and CT was characterised with arguments and violence. They were violent to each other.
ii. On one occasion BR placed his hands around CT's throat and attempted to strangle her.
iii. On one occasion when CT was pregnant with R, BR punched her in the abdomen.
iv. The relationship between BR and JP was characterised with arguments and violence. BR was the perpetrator of violence and JP has sought to minimise this.
v. On one occasion when JP was pregnant with MG, BR placed his hands around her throat and attempted to strangle her.
vi. BR was controlling in his relationship with CT and JP.
vii. BR instructed R to misbehave when in the care of her mother.
viii. P, R and L have been exposed to C. i. and iv. above.
ix. The children have been exposed to illicit drugs and adults taking illicit drugs.

3.	Prior to the finding of fact hearing, assessments of the two families had commenced. In the intervening 10 months that followed the conclusion of the fact finding, those assessments have been completed. Additional new assessments of the parents have also been undertaken. In light of the those assessments and other factors that the local authority has taken into account, its plans for each of the children may be summarised as follows:-
(a)	In respect of P, R and L, the local authority initially planned to place the three children together for adoption. In doing so, it recognised that this may prove to be difficult and it will also look at other options that include long term foster care for all three children together, separation of L and his placement for adoption whilst recognising the importance of the relationship between the sisters siblings and placing them together in an adoptive or long term foster placement. At the conclusion of the oral evidence before me I granted a short adjournment during the course of which the local authority undertook an assessment of the children’s foster carer. The outcome of that assessment was positive and the local authority applied for permission to withdraw its placement applications for placement orders in respect of P, R and L having amended its care plans to the placement of all three children together with the current foster carer under care orders. I granted those applications. In its updated care plan the local authority also proposes that the parents’ contact is reduced gradually such that by December 2018, each parent will have supervised activity based contact four times per annum.
(b)	In respect of MG, the local authority’s plan is that she is placed for adoption. The contact with her parents will reduce over a period of three months to monthly contact which will cease with a “wish you well” contact before she is placed with adopters.
4.	Each of the respondents’ positions in respect of the local authority’s plans may be summarised as follows:-
(a)	CT does not put herself forward as a carer for her three children. She opposes any suggestion that those children, whether together or separately, should be placed for adoption. However, she supports the children’s continued placement with the current foster- carer. CT recognises and accepts that her contact with the three children will have to be reduced. Whilst she accepts the reduction will be significant, she does not accept that her contact should be reduced to a level of less than three contacts per annum.
(b)	JP strongly opposes the local authority’s plan for adoption in respect of her daughter, MG. She seeks the return of MG to her care and if that is not achievable, she invites me to make such orders as are necessary to ensure that she can continue to live with her current foster carer. JP accepts that her contact with MG will be reduced from the current level of regular contact but does not accept the local authority’s plan that her contact with MG should be limited to letterbox contact once she has been placed for adoption 
(c)	BR seeks to care for all of his children. He strongly opposes the local authority’s plan for adoption. He supports JP in her wish to care for MG. However, if that proves to be impossible, he wishes to care for MG. Similarly, he wishes to care for his three older children and in the event that that proves not to be possible, he would support their continued placement with their current foster carer. He would like to have contact with all of the children as often as possible and in any event at not less than monthly intervals.
(d)	The guardian’s preferred option for the three older children is that they are adopted. He does not oppose the local authority’s amended care plans. He supports the final care plan in respect of MG. However, in respect of MG, he invites me to observe that the contact between MG and her parents should come to an end after a period of three months. He estimates that MG will by then be placed for adoption but if she is not, he sees little benefit in the contact continuing. 
The Law

5.	As the applicant, the local authority, has to prove its case and it must do so on a balance of probabilities. This means that the parents do not have to prove anything. Before I can make a care order, I must be satisfied that the “threshold criteria” pursuant to section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 are satisfied. Only if I am satisfied so can I then go on to consider whether to make a care order would be in each of the children’s best interests. In this case as I have set out above, threshold findings have been made. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider the issue of threshold beyond that which I have already found. 
6.	However, to reach any conclusions on the local authority’s applications, I must consider the local authority’s care plans in respect of each of the children. In doing so, I remind myself that each of the children’s welfare respectively is my paramount consideration and I must make my decisions about each child’s welfare by reference to the checklist that is set out in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. I must identify and consider all of the realistic options for each of the children’s futures. I can only make a care order if I approve the local authority’s care plan. 
7.	I can only consider the local authority’s applications for placement orders if I make care orders. In this respect, the children’s welfare throughout their lives remains my paramount consideration. I must decide issues concerning their respective welfare in this context by reference to the checklist that is set out in section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. In the absence of the parents’ consent to a placement order, I can only dispense with such consent if the welfare of these particular children renders it necessary to do so.
8.	The making of a placement order is an option of last resort. As Lord Justice Wilson observed in B (a child) [2013] UKSC 33 (at paragraph 34):
“Thus, domestic law makes it clear that:
a.	It is not enough that it would be better for the child to be adopted than to live with his natural family (In Re S-B (Children) (Care proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2009] UKSC 17; and
b.	A parent’s consent to making of an adoption order can be dispensed with only if the child’s welfare so requires (section 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002); there is therefore no point in making a care order with a view to adoption unless there are good grounds for considering that this statutory test will be satisfied.

The same thread therefore runs through both domestic law and Convention law, namely that the interests of the child must render it necessary to make an adoption order.  The word “requires” in section 52(1)(b) “was plainly chosen as best conveying… the essence of the Strasbourg jurisprudence” (RE P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535’.”

9.	At paragraph 198, Baroness Hale stated that: 
‘Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s welfare, in short, where nothing else will do.  In many cases, and particularly where the feared harm has not yet materialised and may never do, it will be necessary to explore and attempt alternative solutions.  As was said in Re C and B [2001] 1 FLR 611 at paragraph 34, 

“Intervention in the family may be appropriate, but the aim should be to reunite the family when the circumstances enable that, and the effort should be devoted towards that end.  Cutting off all contact and the relationship between the child or children and their family is only justified by the overriding necessity of the interests of the child”.

10.	Baroness Hale continued at paragraph 215:  
‘We all agree an order compulsorily severing the ties between a child and her parents can only be made if “justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interests”.  In other words, the test is one of necessity.  Nothing else will do’. 

11.	This test has been most helpfully summarised by McFarlane LJ in Re W (a child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793, where he expressed it in the following terms: 
‘Once the comprehensive, full welfare analysis has been undertaken of the pros and cons it is then, and only then, that the overall proportionality of any plan for adoption falls to be evaluated and the phrase “nothing else will do” can properly be deployed.  If the ultimate outcome of the case is to favour placement for adoption or the making of an adoption order it is that outcome that falls to be evaluated against the yardstick of necessity, proportionality and “nothing else will do”’.

12.	The Court of Appeal’s decisions in CM v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1479, and Re M (a child) [2014] EWCA CIV 152, considered the issue of the “twin tracked care plan”. In his leading judgment Ryder LJ, made these following comments at paragraph 28:
‘In summary, therefore, it is no part of the court’s function to fix a timetable within which a local authority is to undertake the functions that are exclusively within its responsibility and operative discretion once a full care order and/or a placement order has been made.  Such a direction would fall outside the jurisdiction of the court.  There is no requirement in the regulations which prescribe the content of the care plan that a timetable for a placement search to be contained on the face of that plan.

There is an inevitable tension between a decision that adoption is required (in particular given the finality of the severance of the status of the birth family that such a decision involves) and the impact of delay on a particular child who is waiting for a placement.  Once a court has decided that adoption is required, that tension is a matter for the local authority to consider during its review processes.  Ultimately, if an adoptive placement is not found the local authority should return to court to revoke the placement order.

29. In Re F (a child) [2013] EWCA Civ 2177, this court considered the circumstance in which a child who required intensive therapy and was not ready for adoption at the date a placement order was made (and would not be ready for adoption until the therapy was provided) could be the subject of a placement order i.e. whether it was too soon to be able to say that it was in the best interests of the child to make a decision. At [24] Black LJ reminded practitioners of the decision of Hughes LJ, as he then was, in Re T (Placement Order) [2008] EWCA Civ 248 at [17] namely that:

"mere uncertainty as to whether an adoption will actually follow is not a reason for not making a placement order" and that,

"a placement order can be, and perhaps usually should be, made at the same time as a care order is made on a plan for adoption which the judge approves, even though at that stage a good deal of investigation and preparation is needed before the child can actually be placed, and it is not known whether a suitable family will be found or not"'.

13.	At paragraph 32, Ryder LJ continued:
‘Turning then to the issue in this appeal.  I do not accept that Re B and Re B-S re-draw the statutory landscape.  The statutory test has not changed.  I have set it out at [26] above.  It is unhelpful to add any gloss to that statutory test as the gloss tends to cause the test to be substituted by other words or concepts. The test remains untouched but the court's approach to the evidence needed to satisfy the test and the approach of practitioners to the existing test without doubt needed revision. That can be seen in graphic form in the comments of the President in Re B-S at [30]

"we have real concerns about the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis of reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption, both in the materials put before the court by local authorities and guardians and also in too many judgments. This is nothing new, but it is time to call a halt."

14.	Furthermore, at paragraph 36, Ryder LJ stated:
‘It is in the very nature of placement proceedings that in many of them there will be alternative options that are at least hypothetically feasible and which may have some merit. The fact that, after consideration of the evidence, the Background does not mean that such a choice is tainted because something else may have been reasonable and available. The whole purpose of a proportionality evaluation is to respect the rights that are engaged and cross check the welfare evaluation i.e. the decision is not just whether A is better than B, it is also whether A can be justified as an interference with the rights of those involved. That is of critical importance to the way in which evidence is collated and presented and the way in which the court analyses and evaluates it'.

15.	Finally, I must ensure that each of the parent’s and children’s rights to a private and family life, to a fair trial pursuant to articles 8 and 6 respectively of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 are protected. There can be no interference with those rights unless such an interference is in pursuance of a legitimate aim necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law.

Updated background

16.	P, R and L have continued to live with their foster carer (“FC”). Until the end of April 2017, MG was residing with her mother in a residential unit in Somerset. At the conclusion of the factfinding and the residential assessment having long been completed, they were sadly separated when MG was placed in a foster placement. JP has had regular contact on four days each week since their separation. Both CT and BR have also continued to have regular contact with their respective children. On 25 June 2017, CT gave birth to her fourth child, L, who has also been the subject of a public law application by this local authority. CT together with her new partner, G, have been the subject of ongoing assessments as long term carers for L. The proceedings concerning L were listed to take place at the same time as these two proceedings. However, due to a change in the local authority’s interim position, those proceedings have now been adjourned whilst L is rehabilitated back to CT’s care. 
17.	Following the finding of fact hearing, BR’s engagement with the court process greatly suffered. However, later in these proceedings, I acceded to an application by him for a further psychiatric assessment. The Anna Freud Centre commenced its assessment the parents prior to the finding of fact hearing. This work was completed and their final report published in July 2017. By the end of 2017, JP had been the subject of a parenting assessment by an independent social worker and a psychological assessment. BR had been the subject of a psychiatric assessment at his request. BR and CT had both been the subject of further parenting assessments by independent social workers. 
Evidence

18.	I have read all of the case papers that are contained within the court bundles. Additionally, I have heard the evidence of a number of witnesses. Some of these witnesses have dealt with all of the parents or the children and some with particular parents or particular groups of children. I will summarise the evidence below. 

The Anna Freud Centre

19.	The first witness that I heard from was Minna Daum. She is a registered family therapist with postgraduate qualifications in Family Therapy and many years of experience. She was part of the assessing team at the Anna Freud Centre who undertook the assessment of all the parents and the children. She has made her contributions to the final report and the recommendation from the Anna Freud Centre. Ms Daum confirmed the accuracy of those parts of the report that related to her. She further confirmed that having read all of the updated evidence, her opinion as expressed in that report remains the same. In short, her opinion is that the children, P, R and L should not be separated from each other and that they should continue to be cared for by the current foster carer. Additionally, she has recommended that the children’s contact with the parents should be reduced to about once every three months. She further stated that whilst statistically adoption may provide the most secure placement option, permanency of any placement is based on a secure relationship to the carer and the child’s sense of belonging. She told me that this particular foster carer has got to know the children over a period of time and has a substantial understanding of each of these children’s needs. She has expressed and shown a great commitment to looking after these children. 
20.	She told me that in her view any move from the current placement would be “risky”. She reminded me that she has experience of working with adoptive parents where children’s placements have either come under the threat of breaking down or have broken down. She expressed her concern that there may be an unrealistic expectation by professionals that adoptive placements will always provide the most secure placement for all children and that this will be a “happy solution”. She reminded me that in her opinion, R and P in particular are likely to be very difficult in their teenage years. She told me that the current foster carer has a realistic expectation and anticipation of what each of these children are likely to need in the future. She is also likely to receive a greater level of support as a long term foster carer than an adoptive placement might. One of her significant concerns is that any new carers may have a very unrealistic expectation of how these children may behave and what their needs may be in the future. She told me that P in particular is going to be a very difficult child to care for. She described her as likely to be “an unrewarding child” to look after and that she has a “precocious demeanour”. She also told me that R is currently very difficult to look after and that she too is likely to present with difficulties in her later years. 
21.	Ms Daum confirmed that she spent 14 hours seeing the children individually and five hours seeing them as a group. She commended the children’s mother for the difficult decision that she has made in not putting herself forward as a long term carer. She recognised that the father appears to have a very positive relationship with each of these three children and has shown a high level of commitment to the children and to having contact with the children. She also accepted that when the children moved to the father’s care and before being removed into foster care, the school had reported that the children’s attendance at school and presentation at school had much improved. She also accepted that at that time, there were observations of a positive relationship between the children and the father. However, she reminded me that the children had suffered neglect and trauma whilst in the care of their father. P and R’s current presentation is as a result of the neglect and the trauma that they have suffered. She also stated that the court has made some very serious findings against the father that implicate him in poisoning L. 
22.	Despite the passage of time, the father has failed to take any responsibility for his actions and the circumstances that his children find themselves in. In her opinion, the father has sought to deflect responsibility by his lack of acceptance and consistently blaming others. She was strongly against any suggestion that the children may be looked after by the father. She recognised that these are very young, disturbed children who are likely to say different things to different people. As such, she did not place much weight on the apparent wish of some of the children to live with their father. She repeated to me that these children will need a high level of care which will be much greater than an average child and this will not be met by placing them in the care of their father. She continued to express her serious concerns about any possibility of the children being moved from the current foster carer or the possibility that they might be separated from each other. Ms Daum further confirmed that in her view, the children’s contact with the parents needs to be reduced significantly. 
23.	The second of the witnesses from the Anna Freud Centre was Dr McLean who is a psychiatrist and has been a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists since 1979. Dr McLean has undertaken a psychiatric assessment of all three parents. In his conclusions, Dr McLean does not support any of the three parents looking after their respective children including the father looking after any combination of the four subject children. Dr McLean confirmed in his evidence that having read the updating case papers and having gained further information from those papers, his opinion had remained unchanged. In respect of BR, he explained that he only kept a third of the appointments that were offered to him. He felt that he had a sufficient grasp of BR’s psychiatric makeup to offer his opinion. He was adamant that alternative appointments had been offered to BR and clearly recollected that BR was “difficult to get hold of” to secure his attendance at those appointments that were missed. 
24.	Dr McLean explained that BR is unable to take any responsibility for the situation that his children find themselves in. BR does not accept the court’s findings or that he may pose a risk to any of the children. Therefore, he argued that the risks that BR poses cannot be “mitigated against”. In his opinion, BR’s difficulty in accepting his part in the domestically abusive relationships that he had with both of the mothers was “a huge problem”. He stated that BR “doesn’t own his part of the situation”. Dr McLean was quick to recognise many positive attributes about BR and his relationship with the children. He could not question BR’s commitment to the children and his attendance at contact. He went on to say that issues concerning BR’s anger and aggression are “very much current and unresolved”. Dr McLean qualified his expressed opinion in the report by stating that BR could benefit from psychological intervention. However, in his opinion there were incredible barriers in his way of achieving this. This included a lack of diagnosis as BR does not qualify for a diagnosis of personality disorder and most importantly his lack of acceptance of his difficulties and the need to address the same. If BR was able to engage with such a therapy, in Dr McLean’s opinion, Schema-based therapy or mentalisation therapy would be very helpful to him. He stated these are long term interventions and that he would expect BR to be engaged for at least 18 months and more usually up to three years. 
25.	Dr McLean next told me that JP is a vulnerable young woman who has a need to be “looked after”. He was also concerned about her lack of acceptance of the circumstances in which L came to be comatose. In his opinion, JP remained vulnerable to entering and forming relationships with partners who would be abusive to her. Without treatment, her prognosis remains poor. JP is a product of a highly deficient upbringing and those issues remain unresolved. In Dr McLean’s opinion, she presents very well and without her concerted effort to access therapy, she is sadly unlikely to be seen as requiring therapy. It is therefore, as argued by Dr McLean, unlikely that she will be offered the therapy that she very much needs and that has been identified by Dr Laulick.
26.	I next heard from Dr Tim Parker who is a therapist and a co-author of the Anna Freud Centre report and assessments of the parents. He no longer works at the Anna Freud Centre but felt able to speak to the report that he had contributed to. Having confirmed that he had read all of the updating material, his opinion as expressed within the final report remains the same. In his view, the separation of the children should be avoided even if this is at the cost of the “permanence” of an adoptive placement. He warned against an over-idealisation of the perceived security of an adoptive placement. He told me of his experiences of the consequences of adoptive placement breakdowns. He did not consider that L at age 4 would be “young” in terms of moving his placement. Dr Parker was clear that L will have his own memories of his early life experiences and his continued relationship with his sisters. The same could be said with greater gravity in respect of the two older children. He told me that in his experience children in such situations have a sense of grievance which they will attach to siblings if they are treated differently to their siblings. 
27.	When challenged, he did not feel that his recommendation of two years of psychotherapy for the children was “high”. He was very supportive of the children remaining in their current placement. He denied the suggestion that the foster carer may treat looking after these children as an occupation which may be different to an adoptive placement. Whilst he recognised that a couple would be better placed to look after these children, this in his view did not detract from the existing relationship and the proven track record that the current foster carer has with these children. He told me that the current foster carer has a realistic expectation as to how each of these children will be as they grow older. This is usually absent in adoptive parents. Adoptive parents may have an unrealistic view of how the children with their life experiences would be like as they grow older. This does increase the possibility of adoptive placement breakdown. He was very concerned that a subsequent move of these children to another placement may lead to further feelings of rejection. He was unable to commit to a prescribed level of contact with the parents but remained of the view as expressed in the Anna Freud Centre report that a frequency of about once every three months was likely to meet the children’s needs although this needs to be reviewed as the children grow older and their needs become different. 

Other independent psychiatric and psychological evidence

28.	Dr McLintock is a forensic psychiatrist and undertook an assessment of BR. He confirmed the contents of his report remain accurate and his opinion remains unchanged having read all of the updating papers. He further confirmed that in his opinion BR needs to engage in a domestic abuse course and this is likely to last at least 40 weeks. He however, warned that that is not the only issue which concerns him about BR. He told me that BR remains at a high risk of perpetrating domestic abuse and violence with little insight into those difficulties. Even if he were to undertake the group based therapy that is recommended, there would then need to be a period of “testing out” which will prolong the process even further. Dr McLintock went on to say that forensic psychiatrists are very worried about “poisoners”. He explained that the act of poisoning is an aggressive and a controlled act in circumstances where the consequences of the act are not predictable when poison is administered. He explained that BR has no acceptance of the court’s findings and therefore there is no prospect of exploring these issues with him in therapy. As such, in his opinion, BR is unable to firstly gain access to therapy and even if he does, the therapy is unlikely to be of benefit to him. 
29.	Dr McLintock explained to me that he found BR to be very open about his background when discussing it with him. He said that he found it difficult to describe his denial of the court findings in any way other than “emphatic”. Dr McLintock drew a comparison between those who have been convicted of offences and subsequently incarcerated where they feel no option but to engage in services and therapy that may be available to them compared to those who may be in a similar situation to BR. In BR’s circumstances, not only the access to such services is difficult, the pressure on the individual to accept or want to access therapy is less. He commented once again that there is no acceptance of the court findings by BR and in those circumstances he would find it incredibly difficult to access the much needed therapy. He explained that he could attempt to access therapy through his General Practitioner to whom he must show Dr McLintock’s report or he could try and access it himself by accessing a special unit. He emphasised that BR does not have a personality disorder. He agreed that the paragraph expressed by Dr McLean in the report of the Anna Freud Centre (E50) is confusing to read and that provided BR is able to demonstrate acceptance of the concerns, acceptance of the findings of the court and he is able to access the right form of therapy, he may achieve necessary changes. However the timescales for such intervention remains as already described.
30.	Dr Laulick undertook a psychological assessment of JP. She confirmed that she has read all of the updating papers and that her opinion remains as expressed in her written report. Dr Laulick went on to explain that JP does not meet the criteria for the diagnosis of a personality disorder but does have “personality traits” that give rise to concerns. These concerns include regulating her emotions, struggling to manage anger and fear of abandonment with worries that people would leave her. She explained that JP has a history of unstable relationship dynamics and has a strong need to have a relationship which have in the past been abusive. Her expectations of a relationship are low given her past abusive relationships. To achieve the necessary changes in herself, she requires intensive therapy. Dr Laulick explained that change can come with maturity and with having positive role models. However, in JP’s case, her difficulties were “so rooted” that necessary changes will not be achieved without “targeted intervention”. 
31.	Dr Laulick told me that when she met with JP, she was unable to identify any other adult who would offer her any significant support. She also expressed her concerns that her parents are “risky adults”. She continued to express her concerns that JP would not be able to provide adequate and safe care for MG whilst undertaking the intensive therapy that she has recommended. Dr Laulick was concerned JP will find this process arduous and highly challenging. The therapy will take a significant period of time which may last between eighteen months to three years.
32.	Dr Laulick explained that JP has shown her commitment to her daughter. She is able to have a very positive and loving relationship during periods of supervised contact. This, she explained, did not detract from her opinion about the underlying difficulties that JP has and her incapability to provide safe parenting for MG until and unless she has been able to access therapy. Dr Laulick explained that JP will find it difficult to access the therapy as it is not readily available and that there is a lack of acceptance on her part of her difficulties. She explained that in her meeting with JP, she was taken aback by her showing no curiosity about what had happened to L and displaying no distress or empathy towards him.
33.	Dr Laulick further explained that JP needs to learn and to be able to form healthy relationships in the future. While she recognises that there may have been some positive changes in JP’s circumstances, this she did not consider to be significant. In her opinion, JP continued to lack insight into her own difficulties which in turn would make it very difficult for her to access therapy. Dr Laulick further explained that the prognosis for success is poor and certainly not in MG’s timescales. 

Other expert evidence

34.	Miss S Darby is a senior social worker instructed by the local authority to undertake a parenting assessment of the three parents. She did so comprehensively between March and August 2017. She confirmed that her opinion as expressed in her reports have not changed after reading the updated case papers.
35.	Miss Darby recognised fully that BR had a great deal of commitment to seeing his children in contact and that on the face of it there was a positive relationship between him and his children. She also recognised that he had demonstrated a good ability to set boundaries during those contact sessions and to otherwise behave appropriately with his children in contact. She told me that BR had accepted some of the difficulties in his relationships with the mothers of his children. However, she reminded me that he had difficulty in accepting the impact that domestic abuse would have had on his children. Whilst recognising that it was positive for BR to have attended some domestic abuse work sessions, she remained concerned that BR could not understand the impact that an abusive adult relationship would have had on his children. She told me that whilst BR is not in a relationship, it will mitigate against the risks of domestic abuse, however he remains vulnerable to forming abusive relationships in the future. This will expose any child in his care to that abusive relationship. She recognised that the father will benefit from ongoing intervention to deal with these issues. However, she reminded me that this will have to be considered in light of the timescales which in her opinion are likely to be outside those of the children’s, and not to forget that the father has been found to be one of the parties responsible for L’s poisoning. 
36.	In respect of JP, Miss Darby accepted that she had gained maturity over the intervening months in the course of her assessment. She told me that when she first met JP, she was in a residential unit in Somerset. Miss Darby found JP to be “edgy and wary”. She told me that on the second occasion meeting JP, she broke down and asked her what she could do. Ms Darby reflected that JP was a very young woman caught up in a very difficult situation. She described the contact between JP and MG as “exemplary” and very natural. She felt that JP required regular input to progress further and to gain greater insight. She told me that JP is isolated and does not have parents or family to rely on. She stated that MG’s timescales are very important. While she recognised that JP may wish to undergo a further assessment in a mother and baby foster placement, JP remains in the pool of perpetrators who have been found to have poisoned L. She therefore concluded by questioning the purpose and benefit of any such assessment. Particularly when reflecting on Dr Laulick’s evidence about the timescales and the requirement for therapy. Ultimately, Miss Derby could not support the return of MG to the care of either parent.
37.	Miss N Sullivan is the senior social worker in charge of the parenting assessment that was undertaken of JP at a residential unit which is known as Orchard House in Somerset. She confirmed the accuracy of a number of reports that have been filed within these proceedings. She explained that on average she spends between one or two days per week within the unit and has oversight of all of the social workers within the unit. She told me that in addition to monitoring, which, in JP’s case was 24 hours each day, they also provide a lot of support and guidance for parents within the unit. She explained that in her opinion, JP had experienced neglect and dysfunctional parenting as a child and that had impacted on her social and emotional wellbeing. Despite this support and the monitoring at Orchard House, she did not feel that JP had demonstrated sufficient progress. She recognised that BR was committed to contact with MG and travelled long distances every week to make sure that contact took place. Miss Sullivan denied being aware of any particular difficulties that JP may have had with other families in the unit. She expected that this would have been brought to her attention had this been a significant issue.
38.	She recognised JP’s commitment to MG but balanced her answer by stating that she did not feel that JP had engaged well with “the process”. She expressed concern that JP would not have the resources to be able to make safe decisions and safe relationship choices in the future. She was careful not to blame JP for this and to emphasise that this has been caused by JP’s own experiences as a child. Whilst she had engaged with the 24-hour support, she had made “small progress”. Miss Sullivan explained that it was very difficult to move “past” JP’s denials. Her openness to discussions around her denials remains a risk factor, Miss Sullivan was emphatic in her evidence that there has been a plethora of assessments in this case and that no further assessment is “necessary or indicated” in respect of JP. Miss Sullivan concluded her evidence by stating that the issues around JP’s vulnerabilities, domestic abuse, her lack of acceptance of the findings, her inability to discuss those findings, the lack of a support network and how little progress she had made, she could not recommend that MG could return her care.

The allocated social worker and other local authority witnesses

39.	I next heard the evidence of Miss Jayne Kulan. She is a social worker who is employed by the applicant local authority and works in the adoption team. She confirmed the accuracy of her statement which she filed jointly with her colleague on 16 January 2018. In that statement, she sets out the results of enquiries and searches that had been undertaken to identify potential adoptive placements for the three eldest children. Through this exercise, she was able to identify that adoptive placements are very difficult indeed to be found for a group of three children of their ages. This is without any sharing of information or undertaking any matching process. As Miss Kulan identified in her oral testimony, the numbers that are set out in her statement are likely to significantly reduce once the process of matching begins. The same exercise having been undertaken to find placements for R and B together and L alone also illustrated that the number of potential adoptive placement options are significantly greater than the three children together. 
40.	Miss Kulan explained that it was a real difficulty to give accurate information about the potential placement options without a placement order being first made. She stated that if the local authority had the requisite permission to appropriately advertise details of the children, this may give a more accurate result. Miss Kulan also told me that adoptive placements are generally far more likely to succeed in the longer term and are generally thought to be much more stable. If the current foster carer wishes to be considered as an adoptive parent for the three children, she would have to undergo an assessment which will culminate in a presentation to an Agency Decision Maker. The process should take about 16 weeks. Whilst she was not involved with the process concerning assessments for long term foster carers, she estimated that any such assessment would take about 12 weeks and that it is likely to be a separate assessment to that which the foster carer may have to undergo as a prospective adopter. Ms Kulan finally stated that she would expect to have a short meeting with the current foster carer to ascertain what if any support she requires. Once that information has been made available to her, she would quickly document it and give it to the social worker team who can then approach the management team for approval of any package of support. Once again she confirmed that this will take place within the stated 16-week period. 
41.	I next heard the evidence of the allocated social worker. She was allocated to the children on or about January 2017. Having confirmed the accuracy of all of the documents that she has filed within these proceedings or has contributed to in these proceedings, she went on to give me a brief update about the three children. She told me that P continues to improve in her behaviour and that although there were some issues with her school in November or December last year, the change of school has benefited her greatly. She has been able to make two new friends and continues to enjoy her siblings. She further told me that R is a quiet child and whilst the social worker herself has not seen her difficult behaviour, the foster carer has reported that she can have tantrums which used to be at an almost daily frequency, although this may have improved recently. She is engaging with the school. She too has reacted well to the change of school in January of this year and has achieved much improvement. She told me that the options team within the local authority is already working with the foster carer to support her with R and P’s behaviour. Neither child is currently in receipt of therapy but the local authority is committed to providing such therapy as is required for the children. The recent behaviour of the children described by the social worker was subsequently amended as information from the foster carer illustrated that these children’s behaviour had not improved as much as the social worker had hoped for. They each have continued to display the same behaviours although this may be starting to diminish.
42.	The social worker finally dealt with L who she described as shy and that he has not allowed the social worker to see him on his own. However, she has been able to see him with his sisters and there are no apparent behavioural difficulties or issues concerning him. The social worker confirmed that the children have a good and close relationship with each other. The social worker finally confirmed that the plans for the reduction of contact between the children and the parents will be in line with that which has been suggested by the Anna Freud Centre which will include a reduction to once every three months. 
43.	The social worker confirmed that the care plan for the three children remains as stated in each of their care plans, although this was subsequently changed as I have summarised earlier in this judgment. She agreed with the evidence of Miss Kulan and confirmed that she had met with the foster carer together with Miss Kulan and the long term fostering team to discuss the options for the foster carer. The foster carer had said that she would not consider becoming a special guardian to the children or to adopt them because of the “legal ramifications for her family”. Through further questioning, it was apparent that the foster carer had concerns about potential inheritance issues for her own daughter as well as the financial impact that these orders may bring in her ability to look after these three children in circumstances where she may not be in receipt of foster carer’s allowance. 
44.	The social worker also confirmed the plans for MG, namely that the plans remains that she should be adopted. She told me that the evidence fully supports adoption as being the only option that would meet MG’s best interests and that there are no other realistic placement options that would meet her interests. She stated that JP will be offered support through the ordinary services to come to terms with the ramifications of an adoption order. She went on to explain that, notwithstanding the passage of time, JP has taken few steps to put in place any effective change in her circumstances or to take up the recommendations that were made by Dr Laulick. While she was sympathetic to JP in the difficulties she may have faced in accessing such services, she remained concerned that until there is a genuine acceptance by JP that she requires the therapy, it is unlikely that this service will be offered to her, or that if offered, it will be successful. Similarly, she expressed her concerns about BR’s attitude to the court’s findings and the recognition of his difficulties that require to be addressed. She reminded me that according to the experts in the case, as a minimum the programme that he will need to engage in will last 40 weeks. She expressed her concerns in line with the other witnesses that it would be unlikely that BR will be able to access this programme or to be able to successfully engage given his lack of acceptance of the identified difficulties. She reminded me that both JP and BR are in the pool of perpetrators for poisoning L. In her opinion, BR provided his children “with neglectful and chaotic care” whilst they lived with him. 
45.	In cross-examination, the social worker confirmed that the local authority’s plan for the reduction in contact with the parents will be such that during the first month it will take place at fortnightly intervals, the second month at monthly, from the third month, it would be at every two months, and finally every three months. The social worker readily accepted that in her balancing exercise and her analysis, she had not mentioned the older three children’s current foster carer who is willing and able to look after the children in the long term. 
46.	The social worker confirmed that in contact both BR and JP show a warm and caring attitude towards all of the children. She stated that BR has worked “quite well” with her. She denied that a mother and baby foster placement would offer further opportunity of assessments for MG and JP or that it would provide information that would be necessary to conclude these proceedings. She again recounted the comprehensive set of assessments that had been undertaken of each of these parents. In her opinion, she did not believe that there would be any merit for any further assessments of JP.

The parents 

47.	For entirely understandable reason CT did not wish to give any oral evidence and no party sought to cross-examine her on the evidence that she has filed. Consequently I only heard the evidence of two parents, BR and JP. BR was the first of the parents to give evidence. Having confirmed the accuracy of the documents that he has filed in these proceedings, he went on to confirm to me that his position is that P, R and L should live with him, that MG should be reunited with JP and if that proved impossible, then MG should be placed with him. If P, R and L cannot be returned to his care, then he would support their continued placement with the current foster carer. He spoke in glowing terms about the current foster carer. He assured me that he would support the placement with the current foster carer going forward and added that he would like to see his children at least once every month. As far as MG is concerned, he finally confirmed that if MG could not be looked after by either of her parents, then she should be placed in long term foster care and not placed for adoption. 
48.	BR then went on to give a heart-warming and positive description of each of his children and the relationship that he enjoyed with each of them. He told me how well he gets on with each of the children in contact and that his relationship with MG has developed “very well”. He told me that he has a “massive support” from his network of friends and family. He stated that in his locality he has a significant number of family and friends who are able to provide him with support. Additionally, his employer is very sympathetic to his circumstances and will make such arrangements as are necessary to assist with him looking after his children.
49.	BR then told me that he did not attend some of the appointments at the Anna Freud Centre because they had been changed and additionally he was concerned because of the London bombing not to attend London. As for his interaction with Miss Darby, he said that he had faced difficulties in taking time off work and attending the assessment sessions with her. BR then moved on to tell me about his position in respect of the findings and accepted that the findings in respect of domestic abuse were accurate. He told me that he should have left the relationship much sooner. He denied knowing about L being poisoned or indeed poisoning L himself.
50.	He was challenged in strong terms about his position in respect of the findings. Despite various attempts by Counsel on behalf of the local authority to engage him in this process, BR was unable to provide an accurate or a detailed answer to any of the questions that were put to him in this regard. He did not accept that there was any “violence” in his previous relationships that might have been perpetrated by him and that he could not go beyond accepting that there was general “domestic abuse”. When pressed about his position in respect of the care of the children, he told me that he plans to move next month from his current address and, although he was unable to say where, he felt that this would be of great benefit in getting away from his neighbours who are incidentally JP’s parents. He also told me that he did not feel that JP would pose a risk to MG as she is “her own child”. He was taken through a number of documents that included his own statements and a record of his conversation with the guardian in which it says that he does not accept any of the court’s findings. BR struggled to explain this although he denied that he had told the guardian that he did not accept the findings. When pressed on this issue, he said “I want to tell the court in person”. This I took to mean that he wanted to tell the court in person and that is why he did not accept the findings in his statement. He did not provide an explanation as to why he had taken this approach. BR was unable to explain how he will explain to his children as they grow older that L came to be poisoned and that they had spent time in care. He told me that P and R were already asking questions about why they are in care. 
51.	JP was the last of the parents to give evidence. She confirmed the accuracy of her four statements. She told me that the local authority had allowed her to have unsupervised contact for a period of about three weeks at the beginning of October 2017. After Dr Laulick’s report, the social worker came to see her and advised her that her contact would have to be supervised again. She told me that she was “devastated” by this. When asked about the court’s findings, she made it clear that she was fully accepting the findings of domestic abuse but could not accept the findings relating to L’s poisoning. She told me that she knew nothing of the poisoning and if she did, she would have told the court and the professionals about it. 
52.	She gave me an update on the current situation and told me that she felt less isolated. She said that she had friends and the support of her closer relatives. Although she accepted that her relatives did not live locally, she felt that they were able to give her a great deal of support. She feels that two years ago, she was a very different person and that she has matured much in that time. She said that it would be “beneficial” to do an assessment. She said that she is making “small changes”. She said that she does not want to be separated from her child and that she would do anything including therapy. JP stated that she did not know how to apply for schema therapy or mentalisation therapy. She accepted that she did not approach her General Practitioner about accessing such therapy until days before the final hearing. She further accepted that this were a number of months that had been wasted. When challenged about her position in respect of BR looking after MG, she said that she could not state that she would be safe in the care of her father. She told me that it would be better for her to stay where she is with her current foster carers. 
53.	When taken through the previous assessments, she confirmed that she felt supported and worked well with the staff at Orchard House. She also confirmed that Miss Sullivan had seen her and was also supportive of her, although she did mention that there was little help offered to her in dealing with the issues that she had with another family. 
54.	JP confirmed that she had a good working relationship with Miss Darby. She also confirmed being seen by Dr Laulick. When pressed about why she had not tried to access the therapy that she recommends, JP accepted that four months had lapsed before going to her General Practitioner but told me that she had been devastated by the findings and was confused. 
55.	She was then taken through the general findings of Dr Laulick and in particular she was asked to suggest how any therapist might get over the “obstacle” of her denial in respect of findings around L’s poisoning. She was unable to provide an answer but stated that she wishes she knew what happened and that she would tell everybody. When pressed about the possibility that BR may have poisoned L, JP was forced into a logical conclusion that BR may be responsible although she, in my judgement, clearly struggled to accept that as a realistic option. She went on to say that her family had been made aware of the circumstances of these proceedings and that Dr Laulick had come to a conclusion about JP’s psychological needs including therapy. However, JP also told me that her family did not agree with those conclusions or the findings of the court. JP concluded her evidence by assuring me that she would never hurt any child especially her own child, MG. 

The guardian

56.	The final witness to give oral evidence was the children’s guardian. The guardian confirmed the accuracy of his reports. The guardian gave me a brief chronology of his career which culminated in his appointment as a guardian in 2012. In summary, he confirmed that he does not support the return of any of his children to BR or the reunification of MG with her mother. He also expressed his concern as to the potential of any further assessments by explaining that there is a great deal of information about the risks that MG would be exposed to if returned to her mother’s care.
57.	The guardian told me that the contact between all of the children and BR has been positive and he has shown a great deal of commitment to that contact. He has illustrated an ability to set appropriate boundaries and to have a warm and calm relationship with his children. He also accepted that he had been able to get his children to school when the older three children moved to his care. However, he was careful to point out that whilst the three older children live with him, the majority of the care was provided by JP and not BR. He told me that his main concerns continue to be the court’s findings and the children’s exposure to domestic abuse within the parental relationship. He found BR’s evidence telling when he was unable to go through the detail of the court findings which in his mind illustrated the difficulty BR would have in trying to address the issues and the risk factors that have been identified. He further confirmed that when he did speak to BR, he did not accept any of the court’s findings including the findings of domestic abuse. He strongly disagreed with the suggestion that this was a misunderstanding on his part. In the guardian’s opinion, BR needs to be “honest with himself” before he can move on. The guardian told me that he was taken aback by BR’s blanket denial of any of the domestic abuse findings. 
58.	He told me that in his opinion the children are traumatised and they will need a high level of skilled parenting. BR has a great deal to address, particularly in relation to domestic abuse and issues of poisoning. The guardian expressed his doubts that BR genuinely accepts the need for any form of therapeutic intervention. In respect of BR, he ended his evidence by stating that his children clearly love him and he is committed to his children. 
59.	He agreed that JP had tried her best in her assessments and in her contact with him she had been very positive. He confirmed that he has not seen JP many times but in his assessment having looked at the totality of the evidence, it seems that in the course of the last 12 months JP has moved on very little. The guardian agreed with the experts and recounted much of the evidence of Dr Laulick. When pressed on the issue of contact, he confirmed that in his opinion, contact needs to be reduced to a level of around once every three months. Contact between MG and her parents should conclude with a “wish you well” contact at the end of that three-month period. When pressed as to why contact needed to come to an end potentially before any prospective placements had been matched, the guardian explained that in his view, the parents needed to understand the purpose of contact and that MG should not be confused by ongoing contact. 

Analysis and conclusion

60.	In coming to my decision I have been greatly assisted by the helpful oral submissions that were made by the parties and the subsequent written submissions on the issue of contact. I have fully considered all of those submissions. The local authority having undertaken an assessment of FC, has now amended its care plans for P, R and L. The local authority plans that the children continue their placements with FC as a long term placement. Consequently, the local authority seeks permission to withdraw its applications for placement orders. In light of the evidence before me, this application is entirely appropriate. I am most grateful to the local authority for the resources it has devoted to this case and recognising that adoption is no longer a realistic option. Accordingly I grant the local authority’s application and give permission to withdraw its applications for placement orders. 
61.	The placement options for the children may be summarised as follows;
P, R and L
a.	Continued placement with FC, or
b.	Rehabilitation to BR.
MG
a.	Rehabilitation to JP, or
b.	Rehabilitation to BR (with or without P, R and L), or
c.	Placement for adoption
62.	It is a very difficult and sometimes an impossible task for a parent to accept that he or she cannot care for his or her child. A desire to care for one’s own child is a fundamental human instinct. I commend CT for her very difficult and brave recognition of her capabilities, her children’s needs and her inability to adequately care for them. 
63.	P, R and L are now respectively seven, six and four years old. The children have been the subject of proceedings for a significant time. L’s behaviour and needs are age- appropriate. He is close to his sisters with whom he has lived all his life. P and R present with behavioural difficulties that have not resolved. The professional witnesses explain their difficulties as directly related to their upbringing, neglectful parenting and exposure to domestic abuse. P and R require therapy and their behaviour is likely to worsen as they get older and particularly in their teens. The children are likely to ask important and difficult questions as they get older which will require careful and sensitive management, particularly around the findings that I made last year. It is clear that the children each love their parents and are close to them. During supervised contact with their father, it is clear that they enjoy a positive and happy relationship. He is able to manage and interact with them appropriately and positively.    
64.	MG is fifteen months old. Her needs are entirely age appropriate. For the first five months of her life she lived with her mother in a residential unit. She also enjoyed regular contact with her father. Whilst I fully recognise that the confines of a residential unit with twenty four-hour supervision will be challenging to any parent, it is clear that JP struggled with many aspects of parenting in those early months. In particular and most notably concerns around her engagement and regulating her emotions. Since moving into foster care, MG has settled well and has enjoyed regular contact with both of her parents. Her contact with her parents have been entirely positive and appropriate. Within the confines of the supervised setting the parents have each demonstrated a good level of appropriate parenting and in JP’s case this has been described as exemplary. MG’s needs are no different to any child of her age. She requires safe, nurturing and consistent parenting for her minority and the quality of such parenting may impact on her life as an adult.
65.	BR has been the subject of a number of assessments. I have detailed these multi-disciplinary assessments above. Importantly, these assessments span a relatively significant period of time that commenced prior to the fact finding hearing and ended many months following the conclusions of that hearing. I have also carefully considered BR’s evidence. I found him to be genuine and trying his best to answer very difficult questions. In doing so, I found him to confirm the many concerns that the experts have identified about him. Despite his best efforts, BR was unable to demonstrate any level of acceptance or to take responsibility for the circumstances in which his children find themselves. He was unable to discuss my finding of domestic abuse in any detail whatsoever. Other than denying my findings in respect of L’s poisoning, he was unable or unwilling to begin to answer any questions about these issues. This included the possibility of JP being responsible for L’s poisoning. His challenge to the guardian’s evidence on this issue was a further illustration of his difficulties. On this issue I prefer the guardian’s evidence.
66.	I have little doubt about BR’s love, affection and commitment to his children. This is clearly illustrated in the contact that he has with his children. It was also clear when he gave his oral evidence. In my judgment, the fundamental difficulties in BR’s abilities as a parent, are his untreated issues that have been identified by the professionals. Having considered the evidence of Dr McLean and Dr McLintock, I found them each to give reliable expert opinion. Additionally, not only did they each corroborated the other’s findings, but their respective opinions were further corroborated by experts from other disciplines such as an independent social worker. The evidence that I found most supportive of the expert opinion, was BR’s own oral evidence. Having regard to the totality of the evidence before me, I have reached the inevitable and sad conclusion that BR cannot provide adequate or safe parenting for any of his children. I find that without intensive treatment any child in his care is likely to be exposed to chaotic, unstable parenting with a risk of exposure to domestic abuse if BR forms an intimate relationship with another adult. BR does not accept or is not able to accept the impact of his previous two abusive relationships on his children. Additionally, given his stance in respect of my earlier findings, there is little or no work that can be undertaken with BR to mitigate the risks that he poses as one of the adults responsible and involved in L’s poisoning. I find that the placement of any of the children with BR is not a realistic option.
67.	JP has also been the subject of a number of in-depth assessments over a number of months. These assessments have been undertaken by a number of professionals of different disciplines that included the Anna Freud Centre, residential assessment at Orchard House, parenting assessment by an independent social worker and latterly a psychological assessment. I have had the benefit of hearing JP’s oral evidence. I was left in no doubt that JP is highly committed and motivated to be reunited with MG and to care for her. She clearly loves her daughter and has demonstrated that she can provide her with excellent basic care. In her oral evidence JP demonstrated a far more accepting approach to the findings about domestic abuse. This I found to be a genuine approach on her part and not one that is designed to elicit a favourable outcome. JP is a young mother whose own childhood has been marked with tragic experiences of parenting. Her mother and father continue to suffer with addiction to alcohol and illicit drugs. In this context, JP’s vulnerabilities were palpably obvious when giving evidence. It would be very hard not to sympathise with JP and this has been clearly the experience of those professionals who have worked with her.
68.	The complexities of these proceedings have been such that it has not been possible to conclude them in the prescribed period. This has provided an opportunity for all of the parents to be further assessed. I accept that during this difficult period JP has somewhat matured. JP presented differently in the course of this final hearing. She appeared far more reflective on the journey that has brought her to this point and for the first time she seemed to accept the implications of the findings in respect of BR. I also accept that she and BR have not been in a relationship for some time now.
69.	Whilst recognising all of the above, in my assessment of JP’s evidence, her acceptance and the realisation of her difficulties have only just been evident. I have no doubt that in part this has been due to the approaching final hearing and the benefit of listening to and testing the evidence. There is a common thread that binds the professional opinion about JP’s capabilities as a mother. This was eloquently explained by Dr Laulick who found JP as lacking insight into her difficulties, needing intensive therapy that she is unlikely to be able to access and in any event will not be in MG’s timescales. Without this JP will continue to be at risk of embarking on relationships with unsafe individuals to meet her own needs and placing MG at risk. I found Dr Laulick’s evidence highly informative. The other professionals who also assessed JP, shared her opinion. I found JP’s own evidence to corroborate those concerns. This I have assessed together with all of the evidence before me and against the background of the findings that I have made. I have reached the very sad conclusion that JP cannot safely care for MG and that she will not be able to achieve the necessary changes within MG’s timescales. JP will be unable to provide MG with emotionally and physically safe parenting. Additionally, given her role in L’s poisoning and her stance in this regard, she will continue to pose an unmanageable risk to MG if she is placed in her care. I have also taken into account Dr Laulik’s poor prognosis that JP will be able to successfully access and benefit from the requisite therapy.
70.	In my judgment the option that would best meet the individual and collective needs of P, R and L is for them to continue to be placed together. Their sibling relationship is an enduring relationship that is of particular importance to each of these children given their life experiences to date. There are two placement options for these children; their rehabilitation to their father or continued placement with their current carer. Their placement with BR will have clear advantages that include the preservation of their existing positive relationship with him, continuing and developing their relationship with the extended paternal family, developing and preserving their individual and collective sense of identity. Their relationship with the mother and the maternal family will continue although this will be fraught with difficulties given the difficulties in the adult relationships. The placement with BR will have a number of identified risks. As I have found earlier in my judgment, without appropriate treatment, BR will continue to pose unacceptable risks to his children. These include chaotic and neglectful upbringing, exposure to domestic abuse, to physical and to psychological harm given my findings in respect of L’s poisoning. BR needs to undertake treatment to address these risk factors. Regrettably such a treatment will require a significant period of time and BR’s genuine engagement. The children cannot wait any longer for BR to address these issues. To do so would expose them to further harm through uncertainty about their future.
71.	The placement with the current foster carer is far more limiting of the children’s relationship with their parents. It is further limiting the children’s identity and a closer relationship with their extended family. The children’s parental responsibility will be shared by the parents and the local authority. The children will continue to be the subject of professional involvement that will include contributing to meetings such as the looked after child meetings. There is a risk of placement breakdown which would be highly damaging to the children. However, this placement will be supported by both of the children’s parents. There will be ongoing contact that will offer the children the opportunity to maintain a relationship with their parents. The children are already settled in this placement and by remaining there, they will avoid the uncertainties and associated risks of a move to another placement. The children have an existing bond with the foster carer which will develop further. The foster carer clearly has a good understanding and realistic expectations of the children’s current and future needs. As a foster placement, the children will have the benefit of ongoing support from the local authority and resources that the local authority can make available to the children. FC can provide the children with suitable positive parenting for their minority.
72.	Having considered the two placement options, in my judgment the continued placement of the children with FC is the only realistic placement option and it is the option that will best meet the children’s needs. Before I can approve the local authority’s care plans for the children I must also look at the issues concerning contact. The local authority proposes a gradual continued reduction in the parents’ supervised contact with the children to a level of three times per annum. This is supported by the guardian. CT does not oppose this level of contact which in her case may include sibling contact with L (if she is in the mother’s care) and the maternal grandmother. She would like this to be recognised as a minimum level of contact. BR does not agree with this plan. Whilst he recognises that his contact with the children will have to reduce, he would like to be at a frequency of not less than once a month with a view to contact not being supervised.
73.	The parties have very helpfully made additional written submissions on this issue. I congratulate both parents for recognising the difference in long term plans for contact and those during proceedings. The security of the children’s placement is a priority. The children must be supported to realise the long term plans for their placement. If contact is too frequent, it may serve to confuse the children and limit their opportunity to settle in their placement. This must be balanced against the huge benefits of contact with the birth family. Through their childhood, the children’s needs will continuously change. This makes it impossible to have a prescriptive regime in place that would meet their needs through their childhood. Having regard to all of the evidence on this issue, in my judgment the local authority’s plans in this regard are the most appropriate plans. This will be a minimum level of contact that will be the subject of regular reviews and independently overseen. To interfere further with this process, is in my judgment unnecessary and unjustified in the circumstances of this case. According I approve the local authority’s care plans and make a care orders in respect of P, R and L.
74.	The local authority’s plan for MG is an option of last resort. This is strongly opposed by both parents. Therefore the placement options for MG are placement with her mother, her father, foster care or finally adoption. Placement with one of her parents will allow MG to preserve and develop her bond with her parents, to cultivate her sense of identity and culture. She will also be able to have a relationship with her extended family that would enrich her life experiences and sense of belonging. I note that the placement with the mother is supported by BR, which is capable adding security to that placement. The parents’ individual abilities to meet MG’s basic physical needs are clear as demonstrated through supervised contact. The placement with each of the parents will bring with it unmanageable risks. In respect of BR I have already identified those risks earlier in my judgment and will not repeat them again. The risks that I have identified will apply equally to MG if she is placed with her father.
75.	MG has been under the careful supervision of professionals since her birth. She has had little exposure to her parents’ relationship. As such it is not argued that she has suffered harm. In this regard, the main issue is the likelihood of harm. Whilst JP is far more accepting of the previous findings, she remains adamantly in denial about L’s circumstances. It was with some pressure in cross-examination and some reluctance on her part that she conceded that BR may be responsible for L’s poisoning. JP lacks insight into her own difficulties that leave her vulnerable to forming unsuitable and abusive relationships. Coupled with her fears of abandonment, she remains highly vulnerable and unlikely to be able to prioritise MG’s needs. Her vulnerabilities are rooted in her childhood and experiences of parenting. I accept Dr Laulik’s evidence that not only JP will find it difficult to access therapy but that she will need a significant period of intervention. To attempt any form of rehabilitation to the mother’s care, MG will have to wait for many months and years when the prognosis for the mother remains poor.
76.	If adopted, MG’s important bonds with her birth family will be severed. This will be a great loss to her and may prove to be potentially damaging to her. The same concerns will also apply to the loss of her half-siblings that can only exacerbate these difficulties. The security of an adoptive placement will come at a high cost.  However, it will provide her with an opportunity to receive appropriate parenting and to gain security through her membership of a permanent family. Her life will be free of professional involvement and ongoing local authority intervention or attendances at meetings. An adoptive placement is capable of providing her with much greater security that would last into her adult life and beyond.
77.	This will not be the case with a foster placement. Until she attains majority, she will have ongoing involvement of professionals and attendances at meetings. The placement may be less secure than the adoptive placement. A placement breakdown and moving between such placements would be most unsettling and damaging to her. She is likely to perceive her new family as less permanent. Given her young age, this can be very damaging to her and may have a negative impact on her life not only as child but also as an adult. This option will clearly allow her to have a continuing relationship with her birth family. At some future date, it may offer her another opportunity of returning to one of her parents. She will have the support of the local authority and the services that it may be able to put in place for her.
78.	The local authority proposes that the parents should continue to have supervised contact with MG albeit on a much reduced frequency of monthly. The guardian disagrees by stating that the contact can cease after a three-month period over the course of which contact should be reduced. Given the anticipated timescales in which MG is likely to be matched and placed, this argument may be somewhat superfluous. Having considered the detailed arguments on this issue together with the relevant evidence, I agree with the local authority’s analysis on this issue. Both parents’ contacts have been positive for MG and they have each been able to demonstrate their commitment to her. MG enjoys her contact with her parents. She will be presented with many changes over the next few weeks. In my judgement minimising the change in her life until she is placed, would best meet her needs. Having considered the totality of the evidence and the detail of the plan, I approve the local authority’s care plan. For reasons that I have detailed above, rehabilitation to either of her parents is not a realistic option as they each present as the most damaging option to MG where the risk to her will be unmanageable. Given her age, adoption is the only option that can meet her needs for security and permanence. The other options would be contrary to her welfare. Therefore I make MG the subject of a care order. I find that her welfare demands that I dispense with her parents’ consent and I permit the applicant local authority to place her for adoption.

HHJ Moradifar