England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT READING

		14th May 2018 To 17th May 2018

Introduction

I am dealing with an application for Care Orders in respect of M, U and J. As set out in my previous judgment at the conclusion of the fact-finding part of these proceedings, EO is the mother of all three children. JU is the father of M and U and RA is the father of J. M and U are aged nearly 9 years old and J is aged 1 year. This is a final hearing to determine the welfare stage of these proceedings. In terms of the background and findings made previously, those are set out in my judgment handed down in November last year and which I adopt for the purposes of this judgment.

Updating events since the Fact Finding

On 13^th December 2017 Dr Parsons filed a psychological assessment of EO (E1-48). Extremely unusually this concluded that, although EO had qualified as a nurse and there had been no reports of her having significant deficits in social and adaptive functioning, her apparent functioning was in the extremely low range of adult intellectual ability (E18). As a result, Dr Parsons concluded that "she may well have difficulty understanding complex information and processing such information quickly and, in my opinion, she has probably developed very comprehensive strategies in order to mask her apparent cognitive abilities" (E19).

On 8^th January 2018 the Local Authority filed their Parenting Assessment of EO (C229-244), this having been directed before the report of Dr Parsons was received. The conclusions of that assessment were negative but, considering the conclusions reached by Dr Parsons, EO applied for permission to instruct a PAMS trained Independent Social Worker (ISW) to conduct a fresh parenting assessment of her. That application was not opposed by any party and I agreed that it was necessary in light of the concerns about her cognitive functioning. The ISW filed her report on 16^th March 2018 and overall it was a negative assessment, identifying a number of recommendations regarding work that EO would need to complete to enable her to parent any child to a good enough standard (E49-100, recommendations E85).

In the course of this final hearing I have read the Bundle (including the contact notes) and heard evidence from the allocated social worker, the ISW, EO, RA, JU and the Guardian.

Parties' Positions

SCST accepts the recommendations of the ISW and her conclusions. For M and U, the Trust seeks a Child Arrangements Order for them to live with JU and his partner, supported by a 12-month Supervision Order to the London Borough of Hillingdon. In respect of J, the Trust seeks a Special Guardianship Order to maternal aunt and uncle, supported by a 12-month Supervision Order to the London Borough of Hillingdon. The London Borough of Hillingdon have accepted that they should be the designated Local Authority for the proposed Supervision Orders for 12 months, and a document has been produced which sets out what has been agreed between the Trust and Hillingdon with regard to what each Authority will provide by way of support under those Supervision Orders. The Trust's final care plans are predicated on the need for EO to undertake a comprehensive teaching programme as identified by the ISW in order for EO to be able to meet the needs of the children during contact. The Trust is willing to instruct the ISW to complete this work and has agreed to meet the costs of that work with her for 8 sessions with a review after the first 4 sessions and then also after the second 4. Until this work is completed, the Trust considers that contact between the children and their mother will need to remain supervised. The plan for contact between J and his mother is 12 times per year, to be supervised by the special guardians. The plan for contact between J and his father, RA, is for supervised contact six times per year. For M and U, the plan is for supervised contact 12 times per year with their mother and other contact with J on top of this. The Trust have produced, as suggested by the Guardian, a document setting out which Local Authority will be responsible for the various pieces of work required under the Supervision Orders, contact logistics in relation to the twins and their mother, and the SGO support required in relation to supervision of RA's contact with J.

EO accepts the proposal for M and U to live with their father but would like them to have unsupervised contact with her, including overnight staying contact, every weekend. She seeks the return of J to her care and has made a proposal for the MGM to live with her to support her in caring for J. She accepts the conclusions of Dr Parsons and some of the recommendations made by the ISW, but does not appear to accept the conclusions of the ISW about the deficits in her parenting. She is agreeable to attending mediation with JU and, from her oral evidence, with his partner as recommended by the ISW. She is applying for a two-week adjournment to enable a short piece of work to be done by the Local Authority assessing the MGM in relation to her proposal to have the MGM living with her to support her parenting. She does not accept the findings made against her. If I do not adjourn the case and make an SGO for J to live with his maternal aunt and uncle, she seeks contact with J at a frequency of 3 times a week.

JU supports the making of a Child Arrangements Order for M and U to live with him and for there to be supervised contact between M and U and their mother 12 times per year. He accepts that a 12-month supervision order would be appropriate to provide him with support. He does not agree to undertaking some form of Domestic Abuse Perpetrator Programme as recommended by the ISW in her report, but would agree to some social work around understanding the impact of domestic conflict on children and something akin to a SPIP in terms of improving communication with EO to avoid conflict around contact arrangements in future. He also agrees to attend mediation with EO.

RA supports J returning to the care of his mother in the first instance and, if that is not possible, then for J to remain in the care of the proposed special guardians. RA would like his contact with J to be more frequent than the proposed six times per year. He accepts that the contact needs to be supervised considering the findings made against him, though he is very clear that he does not accept those findings.

The Guardian recommends that M and U should remain in the care of JU and his partner as the Trust proposes and agrees with the proposals for contact with their mother as outlined in the final care plans. He also agrees with the Trust that J should remain in the care of his maternal aunt and uncle under a Special Guardianship Order, and endorses the final care plan for J to have contact with his mother twelve times a year and with his father six times a year. He does not agree that EO can safely parent J whilst she undertakes the work identified in the PAMS parenting assessment of her, even with support from the maternal grandmother. He was initially concerned that there was a lack of clear detail about which Authority would provide which support required by the various adults involved in caring for the children and for the parents. However, the document produced by the Trust and agreed with Hillingdon during this final hearing now addresses those concerns and the Guardian is therefore of the view that I have sufficient information to enable me to conclude proceedings with final orders.

Relevant legal considerations

I have considered section 31 of the Children Act 1989 during the fact-finding stage of the proceedings. My findings mean that I have found threshold to be crossed for the purposes of making public law orders. In relation to this welfare stage of the proceedings, I have also considered the welfare checklist contained in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and the considerations outlined in the case of Re B-S about realistic options for permanence for the children.

Welfare Findings

The first relevant heading on the welfare checklist is the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children concerned, taking into account their age and understanding. M and U are old enough to be able to articulate their independent views, but J is clearly too young to be able to do that yet. M and U have told the ISW that they would like to remain living with their father. U said that whilst he did want to maintain contact with his mother and "maybe sleep over, but at dad's decision" (E64). M said that she also wanted to maintain contact with her mother "on Mondays and Fridays after school" and when asked why, said "I'm not busy on these days…I don't want to sleep over now" (E64). M's comments to the ISW were echoed in what she said to the Guardian when they met (E108). What is proposed in respect of M and U living with their father is therefore in accordance with their wishes and feelings. EO's proposal for overnight contact at weekends with her is not something that is in accordance with their current wishes and feelings, I find.

The next relevant heading is the children's physical, emotional and educational needs. All three children need to be kept physically safe and have an emotional need to maintain relationships with their parents. They also have an emotional need not to be exposed to further emotional harm in light of the behavioural difficulties which both M and U to some extent are displaying, as all the professionals have told me. This includes M and U not being exposed to any further conflict between EO and JU, I find.

The children's age sex and background is the next relevant heading in this case. Nothing that is proposed by way of placement options would result in the children being placed outside of the family and hence all the options before me would enable their identity and cultural needs to be met.

Any harm which the children have suffered or are at risk of suffering is the next heading and, as is not uncommon in cases such as this, links in my view to the capability of parents or others to meet the children's needs. In this case as I have found previously J suffered physical harm at the hands of RA, EO failed to act protectively in relation to this physical harm, and M and U have suffered emotional harm because of the conflict between the adults involved (finding number 13 on the schedule).

The outcome of the PAMS parenting assessment of EO was that she was unable to understand and meet the needs of any of the children. Whilst the assessment does note some positives about her, it identified significant concerns about her ability to meet the needs of the children in respect of "Feeding, Child's Healthcare General, Child's Healthcare Hygiene, Parental Responsiveness, Development: Stimulation visual, Development: Stimulation Motor, Development: Stimulation Language, Guidance and Control, General Safety, Safety in the Kitchen/Living Room, Safety in the Bedroom, Safety in the Bathroom, Safety Abuse, Relationships and Support" (E83). The conclusion reached by the ISW is that EO requires teaching in relation to these areas immediately, with other areas requiring teaching in between 4 weeks and generally in the future. As the ISW says at E84 "the outcome of this assessment indicates that EO requires immediate teaching to be able to consider parenting as a sole carer. This is to ensure that the children's needs are not compromised. EO needs to develop an insight and understanding of the individual child's needs. EO does not appear to have experiences of caring for any child as a sole or a main carer. U, M and J are very young and vulnerable. U and M appear to be displaying emerging challenging behaviours. These behaviours are reported to be often directed to their mother. On the other hand, EO does not seem to understand her children's needs. She dismisses the children as 'liars' which I find it (sic) to be insensitive given the children's experiences of being parented…In view of Dr Parsons' psychological assessment, it is imperative that one has to consider the concerns, short and long term possible outcomes for the children if no intervention is put in place: Dr Parsons stated that: 'EO is apparently functioning in the extremely low range of adult intellectual ability which is true of both verbal and perceptual reasoning'. I believe EO's 'low range of adult intellectual ability' might have an impact on her ability to understand her children's needs. It is vital that the children live in a predictable environment with the carer who understand and respond (sic) to their needs".

I am afraid that EO has provided very confused evidence about whether or not she accepts the deficits identified in her parenting by the ISW. Her written evidence, particularly her statement dated 20^th April 2018 (C292-297) specifically states that she does not accept that she has limited understanding of the children's needs, or that she lacks in being able to respond to the children's emotional, social and behavioural needs, or that there has been observed to be limited interaction between her and the children during contact (C294). Yet at C296 she says "on reflection, I know I do need some help. I am not trying to deny this but I do believe stating I can meet their basic needs which is what I was trying to say (sic)".

EO's oral evidence demonstrated to me that she believes she can meet the children's basic needs, but feels she would benefit from being able to develop her parenting skills further. It did seem, as Mr Darlow for the Guardian pointed out in closing submissions, as if EO accepts all the positives about the ISW report but none of the negatives. Her closing submissions through her advocate, Mr Beddoe, reinforced this. EO was totally unable to identify any aspect of her parenting which may be lacking when asked by Ms Julien for the Trust about this, and simply kept repeating that she wanted the opportunity to develop her parenting skills as that would be beneficial to her and the children. She repeated the same phrase so often that it seemed more as if it was something she had learnt by heart than something she herself had concluded, something which echoes Dr Parson's opinion at E19 about her using strategies of rote learning to overcome her very low level of adult intellectual functioning. She was very clear in her evidence to me that she believed she would be able to care for J (perhaps with support from her mother) immediately or very quickly, and to be able to have the twins to stay very quickly. She did not at all accept that she would not be able to care for J alone or all three children together even with help from her mother.

Her proposal for the maternal grandmother to live with her is sadly lacking in detail and has only been put forward by her at a very late stage in these proceedings, I find. There is absolutely no mention of this proposal in her evidence until her statement dated 9^th May 2018 which simply says that "my mother has confirmed that she is willing and able to move in with me to support me and she has prepared a statement to confirm her position" (C316). She does go on to confirm that she is willing to attend mediation with JU, and to say that "I am happy to attend a family group conference and also a domestic violence awareness course" (C316). These last three were part of the recommendations of the ISW, set out at E85.

The statement from the MGM which EO referred to above was dated 9^th May 2018 and can be found at C317a-b. It is a very short statement less than one side of A4 comprising 7 short paragraphs. As the social worker highlighted in her oral evidence to me, it is apparently contradictory in that the MGM says "whilst I believe that EO is able to care for J on her own I understand that it has been recommended for her to undertake further work in respect of her parenting and I am willing to wholeheartedly support her in her care of J when she undertakes such work and until such time as the court would wish me to do so. I am willing to move in full time with EO to provide such support. I understand that EO wishes for the twins to spend time with her at weekends and I am also willing to support her in that respect" (C317b). It seems therefore as if, on the one hand she says that EO doesn't need support but on the other is willing to provide the necessary support identified as required. It is therefore, I find, questionable as to how far the MGM accepts that EO needs support to enable her to provide good enough parenting to any child in her care.

There is no clear detail as to what is proposed in any sense and neither EO nor the MGM appear to currently have suitable alternative accommodation to enable practical living arrangements to be considered. On her evidence, EO initially told me that she was looking for a two-bedroom property, only later adding that she had found one when asked about this by Ms Julien. Even if she has found a property, it seems at best that this is only recently and has not yet provided further details as to where this is, when she might move in and what security of tenancy might be offered. Her evidence about how she would fund this was also concerning, telling me that it would cost £950 per month for rent, but that she did not intend to return to work and would expect to fund this from savings, help from the family and benefits without any further details as to how much she had saved, how much help and for how long would come from her family and what benefits she may be entitled to. When she was pressed by Ms Julien for details about how the MGM might help her with parenting, EO seemed genuinely unable to explain this beyond referring to the practical support which MGM might be able to provide by looking after J while she took the twins to school. EO has also not provided any explanation whatsoever for the delay in her locating suitable alternative accommodation, nor for the late introduction of her proposal into these proceedings when she has known about the concerns around her parenting identified in the ISW assessment since the end of March this year. Her first indication of this proposal came at the IRH at the end of April, a month later.

I have noted that the viability assessment of the MGM conducted in May last year was cautiously positive, recommending further assessment but noting three areas of concern. It is important to note that assessment was over a year ago and prior to the outcome of the fact-finding and the PAMS assessment of EO. It is true that the three areas of concern noted in the viability assessment (accommodation, concerns about practical support available for MGM and social isolation) may to some extent be ameliorated or even resolved by the proposed move to live with EO. However, the lack of details in terms of what is proposed and the lack of clarity around accommodation would remain significant concerns as I have already noted above. The delay by the MGM in seeking any further assessment is also deeply concerning in terms of the potential that this now creates for delaying resolutions for all three children. It is also puzzling that the MGM has not sought to take up the offer of contact with the children, particularly J if she were to be involved in caring for him. As things currently stand, it is also not disputed by any party that she currently has no bond with J whatsoever. It is also deeply concerning that the MGM, having provided very few details in her statement about the proposal, was then unable to attend court to give any evidence or answer any questions about this when this final hearing has been scheduled for some months. I was told that she was looking after J for the proposed SGOs whilst they had their assessment and then MGM had a police interview to attend. These may well be reasonable but it does raise a question mark about her commitment to the proposal if she was unable to prioritise attending court for any part of a final hearing that is due to make decisions about J's permanency, I find.

It was put to the social worker and the ISW by Mr Beddoe that EO's proposal to care for J with MGM had not been assessed as an option. As the social worker pointed out in response, this was not something that had been put forward as an option until very recently and even then, there was little to explain the details of the proposal from either EO or the MGM. The ISW referred to this absence of assessment as a gap in the evidence when pressed in cross examination by Mr Beddoe. I do not find that it is a gap in the evidence which would prevent me from analysing the realistic options in this case in order to reach a conclusion about what is in the welfare interests of the children concerned. Mr Beddoe was seeking a short adjournment of around two weeks to enable EO to obtain alternative accommodation and for the MGM to be further assessed. I am not persuaded that this would be something that a short adjournment would resolve. As was noted by the social worker, the ISW and the Guardian in evidence to me, what would be required would be a longer and more detailed assessment of both the MGM and EO as what seems to be proposed is some form of joint care from each of them. Without any clear details about what is actually proposed from EO or the MGM it is also difficult to see how that assessment could properly commence. It is also far from clear what sort of timescale is proposed by EO and MGM for them to move to new joint accommodation given the confused evidence which EO gave me about whether or not she has actually found alternative accommodation. Put bluntly this is a late development which has the potential to significantly delay proceedings further for all three children (as it affects placement for J and contact for M and U).

The social worker was of the view in her evidence to me that EO would need to undertake the immediate parenting work which the ISW has identified as necessary before any child could be cared for by EO, even if that were just to be M and U for weekend staying contact. In my view that is a conclusion which is supported by the weight of the professional evidence, particularly the ISW assessment, in this case.

The Guardian was very clear in his evidence to me that he did not think that it was necessary to delay these proceedings further to assess the proposal. His reasoning was similar to that of the social worker, in that EO would need to undertake the identified parenting work first, and there would need to be more detail provided around what precisely was proposed. He told me that he thought that J needed permanency now and that this decision should not be delayed to consider a proposal that would create significant delay since there would need to be a detailed assessment of both MGM and EO, and where there was significant uncertainty around the outcome of that assessment. The ISW in her oral evidence told me that the lack of acceptance indicated in EO's statement of 20^th April of the assessment conclusions about the deficits in EO's parenting capability did not bode well for a positive outcome to the parenting work which she was prepared to deliver. The Guardian also quite rightly highlighted this in closing through Mr Darlow.

The professionals all agree that EO needs urgent work to address her parenting deficits and is only going to potentially benefit from that work if she accepts that she has such deficits. It is also concerning that she still does not accept the findings in relation to her failure to protect, as her oral evidence to me amply demonstrated. As one of the issues raised in the ISW assessment is around safety, this really does not bode well for ability to address this issue in the proposed parenting work. In the absence of acceptance of the findings and the deficits in her parenting it is more likely than not that the work proposed will not be successful, I find. I also find that EO does need to successfully complete the required parenting work before a child could be cared for by her at all. I therefore do not consider that it would be in J's best interests to investigate this option further at this stage and to adjourn the proceedings for what would be far longer than two weeks. As a result, placement of J with his mother, albeit with some form of support from MGM, is not a realistic option in this case. This therefore inevitably also leads me to conclude that the only remaining realistic option for J is for him to remain with his maternal aunt and uncle.

Given my conclusion that the only remaining realistic option for J is for him to remain with his maternal aunt and uncle, I also find that the proposed Special Guardianship Order for them in respect of J is in his welfare interests. There is a positive SGO assessment of the maternal aunt and uncle (C147-200) and a clear SGO Support Plan (C297a-297f) which, coupled with the proposed Supervision Order and plan of support under that order, will provide necessary support to the proposed special guardians to enable them to ensure that J's needs are met. J is reported to be thriving in the care of the proposed special guardians and it is greatly to their credit that this is the case. They deserve considerable praise for both this and for putting themselves forward as potential carers for J as that has avoided the possibility of J being placed outside of his birth family. I am satisfied that the proposed SGO with regard to J's placement is the necessary and proportionate outcome for this case. The SGO will give J's carers priority parental responsibility and therefore the ability to have the final say about the exercise of that PR, particularly important where there is a close familial link to EO and they will be supervising contact, I find. The SGO will also mean that ultimately the question of contact between J and his parents and siblings will be a matter for the special guardians, as Mr Darlow pointed out in closing.

The range of powers available to the court is the final consideration under the welfare checklist heading. It is accepted by the Trust, EO, JU and the Guardian that M and U should remain living with their father and his partner under a Child arrangements order with a 12-month Supervision Order for each child. This reflects the children's wishes and feelings and would ensure their safety and stability about their living arrangements. The proposed 12-month Supervision Order would also ensure the provision of the support which is outlined as necessary in the final care plans for them and identified as necessary by the Guardian in his final evidence is in place. The period of 12 months is not opposed by JU and would, I find, ensure that he has as much support as possible in handling the difficult issues around contact arrangements and in managing the children's challenging behaviour. U in particular has been exhibiting some very challenging behaviour and no party disputes that this has been the case.

As has been clarified during this hearing, whilst the ISW made a recommendation for both parents to undertake some form of domestic abuse work (E85), what is accepted by the professionals as actually required in this case is something more along the lines of social work with JU and EO to better understand the impact of domestic conflict on the children and SPIP type work to help them to improve communication to avoid such conflict in future. In passing, I would note that I am concerned that the ISW felt it appropriate to make a recommendation in relation to JU undertaking domestic abuse work when she was not instructed to assess him and relied solely upon what she read in the papers and heard from EO rather than the actual findings in this case. I have therefore disregarded her evidence on this matter and have instead concentrated on the evidence of the allocated social worker and the evidence of what happened at contact on 10^th February 2018 from the parents and the contact note of that session.

The contact on 10^th February 2018 is notable for the fact that it is alleged that there was an altercation between JU and EO in front of the children during contact at McDonalds. The note of that contact is at I585-589. EO does not accept that the note is accurate with regard to what is recorded about her actions. Having carefully read that note several times, and having heard evidence from JU and EO, it seems clear that JU was invited to accompany the children, EO and the contact supervisor to McDonalds and that suggestion came from EO (I585). The change in venue was due to the contact centre being unexpectedly shut. I did not find EO's evidence about what she says happened during that contact to be at all credible. She sought to portray herself as completely calm and quiet throughout and that the contact supervisor was simply making things up. That is not what the contact note says at I587 and my previous findings in relation to her noted that she tends to become loud and becomes angry and reacts poorly when placed under pressure (B41 Judgment). In her oral evidence she referred to herself being quiet yet also said that JU was speaking over her which was a contradiction. I do find that it is inherently unlikely that a contact supervisor would have made up the details about what happened, particularly where there is no issue generally with the accuracy of recording contact sessions.

JU's account in oral evidence accorded with that of the contact supervisor as recorded in the contact note at I587. He also accepted that what happened during the contact was regrettable and he showed insight into the adverse impact that this would have had on the children. He was, as Ms Julien rightly submitted, clearly distressed by the description of how upset the children were. Interestingly, in his oral evidence he also showed some insight and empathy towards EO in terms of her frustration at contact being shorter because of the change of venue. No such empathy or insight was demonstrated by EO, either towards JU or more importantly towards the children who were clearly deeply distressed by the argument as I587 shows. I am afraid that this reinforces the concerns expressed by all professionals as to the lack of insight that EO has about her inability to meet the needs of the children and is part of a wider picture of her struggling to meet the needs of the children, even on occasion during supervised contact.

The ISW highlighted some of the concerns around EO's ability to meet the needs of the children during supervised contact, both in her report and in her oral evidence to me. She noted that the quality of contact which she observed was "poor" (E66). She also identified specific instances during the contacts that she observed where there were concerns about EO's basic parenting skills. These include failure to ensure that M and U were playing safely resulting in M accidentally kicking U on his lip causing a cut (E68), not feeding J in an appropriate position (E74), not changing J's nappy appropriately (E76), and placing J's nappy changing mat very close to a metal table leg when J was moving around on the mat (E80). That latter incident and one where she observed EO to "spend about an hour holding J who was sitting in the Bob the Builder car. She maintained limited eye contact and communication…Bob the Builder toy car was inappropriate for J's age. There was a potential risk of J falling if EO lost control of him. EO was prompted to considers (sic) alternative suitable age appropriate play area" (E77) both raise significant physical safety concerns. The ISW did record some positives in relation to EO's interaction with the children during contact and notes that "During the second contact session there were some good qualities of EO's parenting as well as areas of development. However, it was positive that EO was receptive and responded well to advice although initially she found it difficult to accept feedback, she would challenge and sought justification. Overall EO took advice on board and made an effort to improve" (E78).

The evidence of the Guardian was different to the ISW in terms of his observation of contact between EO and J. He observed one contact on 12^th April 2018 as he noted in his report (E103). During that contact, as he confirmed in evidence to me, he had no concerns about EO's ensuring J's safety, about her feeding of him or changing his nappy. He also observed good interaction between J and his mother and noted nothing that raised a concern about attachment in the way that the ISW had. However, it seems that the ISW observed EO with U and J and with all three children and this was a month earlier than the Guardian (E50). The fact that the ISW observed concerns about EO's ability to meet the children's needs and the Guardian did not may therefore be at least partly explained by the fact that the ISW saw her trying to meet the needs of more than one child and the Guardian saw EO with J alone.

As I clarified with the Guardian, there are a raft of concerns around EO's inability to meet the children's needs which the ISW PAMS assessment identified. I find that these in turn mean that EO does pose a risk of both physical and emotional harm to the children during contact as she is not currently capable of meeting their needs and this includes ensuring safety. It seems that at times EO can respond positively to advice and support to enable her to meet the needs of the children from the evidence of both the ISW and Guardian. However, this is at best only small signs of improvement against a background of very significant deficits in her parenting ability. She has not yet begun the necessary parenting work which she requires to improve her parenting capability to a good enough standard. The successful outcome of that work is also in question as I have noted earlier. This is also coupled with the valid concern raised by professionals in this case about her lack of acceptance of the findings which I made about her failure to protect J. I therefore find that her contact with M and U does need to be at the frequency proposed and to be supervised at present until she is able to improve her basic parenting capability so as to lessen the risk of harm to the children during contact. For the same reasons, her contact with J also needs to be supervised until the risk of harm is reduced. The proposed mediation and SPIP type work should also assist with finding a way to handle contact handovers in a way that does not expose the children to any further conflict between the adults, I find.

The frequency of contact between J and his parents is the next issue to consider. Both parents have had a high level of contact with J to date. The Trust plan is for a gradual reduction of this to twelve times per year for EO and six times a year for RA. Mr Liebrecht on behalf of RA submitted that there was a lack of evidence to support the LA's case that six times per year was in J's welfare interests as contact was generally agreed to be of a good quality. As the Guardian acknowledged in his evidence, it is a question of weighing various competing factors when assessing whether the frequency of contact proposed in a case such as this is in the best interests of the child concerned. It is not disputed by anyone that the purpose of the contact is to maintain a relationship between J and his father RA. It is also not disputed that, as I have said, contact between RA and J has been of a good quality, without some of the concerns that have been identified in relation to EO's basic parenting ability. Balanced against that are the arguments that J will need time to settle into his permanent placement and the fact that RA has been found by me to have caused serious injuries to J when he was very vulnerable and he does not accept those findings in any sense.

It is argued by both Mr Liebrecht and Mr Beddoe on behalf of RA and EO respectively that all the evidence is that J is currently well settled with his current carers and therefore would not be unsettled by maintaining a high level of contact. Both the social worker and Guardian expressed concern about J becoming unsettled as a result of continued frequent contact with his parents after the conclusion of these proceedings. Their professional view was that J will need time to settle into his permanent placement and that as J gets older he will look for explanations from both of his parents about what happened which they will not be able to supply because they do not accept the findings against them. The Guardian also told me that he would be concerned about more frequent contact between J and his parents in view of the impact that this would have on J's time overall as contact with his parents is simply part of a number of commitments for J which will only increase as he gets older and goes to nursery and then school.

Since no party is actively seeking an order in respect of contact between J and his parents, I am limited to considering whether what is proposed in the final care plans meets J's welfare needs as far as contact is concerned. Contact between J and his parents is ultimately a matter for his special guardians as I have already noted. I do find that what is proposed in the final care plans with regard to frequency is in J's welfare interests. This is because contact does need to be at a level that meets J's needs and not those of his parents. He has identity needs which will be met by the proposed contact but it is important to note that this contact is not about contact with people who may become his primary carers in due course. It is about maintaining a relationship with his birth parents whilst acknowledging that his primary carers will be his special guardians. He will need to know that his primary carers are his special guardians and it is important that contact is at a level that does not create any confusion for him about who his primary carers are, I find. This applies particularly whilst he is very young and less able to understand what is going on. He is also, as the social worker and Guardian both clearly told me, going to want to have explanations from his parents as he gets older. His parents' lack of acceptance of the findings made against each of them is going to make this more difficult for J and would be exacerbated by more frequent contact.

There is a distinction which can be drawn between the frequency of contact for EO and RA, I find. This is because there is potential for the risk of harm from EO to J to be reduced if she successfully completes the necessary parenting work (though at present this is not a high likelihood as I have already noted), and this may enable contact to move beyond supervised contact at some stage in the future. It is also the case that J will be placed with his maternal aunt and uncle. To some extent the frequency of proposed contact therefore reflects the reality that this may well mean more frequent supervised contact is feasible than for non-family members whose contact needs to be supervised by someone outside of the family. It is not currently foreseeable that RA will be able to reduce the level of risk of harm that he poses to J, unlike EO if she successfully completes the parenting work, and thus it is not possible to envisage that his contact will ever be able to progress beyond supervised contact.

All the above considerations also need to be added to the cumulative effect on J of contact, as both the social worker and Guardian told me. J is going to have contact once a month with EO, once every two months with RA, and once a month with M and U. This is bound to have an impact upon the time he has available to spend with his primary carers and his special guardians' immediate family, I find. The social worker and Guardian both told me that J is going to need time with them and that as he gets older and goes to nursery and then school this is going to reduce the time available to spend on contact in any event. He is also going to have his own activities and interests, as the social worker and Guardian also told me, and he is going to need time for those as well.

I will therefore make a Child Arrangements Order for M and U to live with their father, JU and his partner, Supervision Orders for 12 months in respect of M, U and J, and a Special Guardianship Order in favour of the maternal aunt and uncle in respect of J. The London Borough of Hillingdon will be the designated Local Authority in respect of the Supervision Orders.

17^th May 2018