England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT at Manchester
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND THE ADOPTION & CHILDREN ACT 2002

		Manchester Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester. WC2A 2LL
		30th January 2018

Introduction

1. I am concerned with the interests of the child to whom I will refer as HB for purposes of anonymity who was born on the 7^th February 2016 and is now 1 year 11 months old. I will refer to the parents and other family members by their initials. His mother is KB and his father is JPM and to whom I will refer for convenience where appropriate as the 'mother' and the 'father' without intending any disrespect to either. The mother and father are not living together. They are not married. They were in a relationship which ended shortly after the father was informed that KB was pregnant. The father has parental responsibility by virtue of an unopposed order made by this court in these proceedings on the 10^th November 2017.
2. The mother and the father are unusually young to be parents as is the mother's current partner to be considered as a joint carer for HB. The mother who is now just short of her 19^th birthday was just 17 when HB was born. The father who was born on the 30^th October 2001 is 16 years old and was just 14 when HB was born. The mother is in a relationship with AK who is 17 years old and was born on the 22^nd March 2000. They have been in a relationship since November 2015 when the mother was pregnant and are currently living together.

Applications

3. The applications before the court made by the applicant local authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, are for a care order in respect of HB pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act 1989 issued on the 13^th July 2017 and for a placement order pursuant to section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 issued on the 30^th October 2017.

Circumstances leading to the proceedings

4. During her pregnancy with HB the mother reported being assaulted by her parents in September 2015. There was police intervention and the mother was placed in a place of safety at a friend's home until a risk assessment was completed and a plan for her agreed. She was formally accommodated and placed in foster care on the 12^th October 2015 following a section 20 agreement with her parents who were then unwilling to agree to having her back at home.
5. On the 21^st December 2015 the mother moved to a mother and baby placement in anticipation of the birth of HB. She was said to settle well in the placement and was well supported by the foster carer. Her relationships with her family started to improve. She continued to see her boyfriend, AK, regularly and sought support from his family.
6. HB was born on the 7^th February 2016 and he and the mother were discharged from hospital on the 10^th February 2016. They went to live with the foster carer. There were issues around AK being verbally aggressive and threatening to the foster carer. The mother was saying she wanted to go home to her own mother's house.
7. On the 2^nd March 2016 the mother and HB moved back to live with her own parents. Circumstances deteriorated over time as a result of the mother's behaviour and, on the 17^th August 2016, the mother's father, AB, admitted having slapped her. On the 14^th September 2016 the mother's parents decided they could no longer cope with the mother and HB living with them due to her behaviour. The mother and HB then moved in to live wither partner, AK, and his family.
8. There were several reports by AK's mother, JK, of the mother and AK arguing in November and December 2016 and January 2017 to the extent that JK felt she could no longer have the mother living with them. She was concerned about the impact the arguing was having on HB. On the 13^th January 2017 the police were called out due to AK's behaviour when the social worker visited to offer the mother supported lodgings.
9. Just under two weeks later, on the 26^th January 2017 as a result of a domestic incident between the mother and AK the police were again called out by AK's mother. AK was aggressive to the police and arrested. The police determined to exercise Powers of Protection and the mother and HB were placed in a mother and baby placement.
10. The first of four PLO meetings was held on the 21^st February 2017. The mother did not really engage with the mother and baby foster placement. There were a number of reports by the foster carer of concerns around the mother's behaviour when shouting and swearing and having arguments over the telephone with her partner, AK. In March and May. Since the mother said she felt stifled and judged in the foster placement a Working Agreement was entered into as she said she was spending time away from the placement because of that. At a PLO meeting on the 23^rd May 2017 which the mother did not attend she was noted to be in breach of the new Working Agreement to allow her to go out alone with HB twice a week and spend only two days a week with AK as she was spending 3 to 4 days each week (including overnight) out of placement leaving HB in the care of the foster carer. There were concerns about the mother failing to prioritise HB and meet his needs.
11. On the 29^th May 2017 the mother was reported to have been arguing on the phone with AK all day when she was crying, screaming and shouting and broke her phone. She had no patience with HB and was screaming and shouting at him. On the 15^th June 2017 the mother and AK were informed of the local authority plan to commence care proceedings. On the 19^th June 2017 the mother was reported to have returned to the placement after being with AK with a black eye and broken phone screen. On the 22^nd June 2017 the mother was reported to be in breach of the Working Agreement as she had been seen by the foster carer with AK when she had HB with her.
12. There had been a lot of concerns about the mother not being able to care safely for HB at times when she was in an emotional state and distressed and showed an inability to control herself and showed aggression to HB who became "extremely scared". In addition, there was concerns about the mother neglecting HB's basic care needs and leaving these to the foster carer. She failed to put routines into practice and frequently did not interact with or talk to HB when she was more preoccupied with television. She only attended the Children's Centre with HB on one occasion when she was supposed to attend on a weekly basis. She was spending the majority of the week away from HB and on those days when she was at home she spent time on the phone to her partner, AK, frequently arguing and not paying attention to HB or giving him any quality time. This resulted in the application for a care order being issued on the 13^th July 2017.

Progress of proceedings

13. Directions on issue were made on the 14^th July 2017 when the proceedings were allocated to His Honour Judge Harper for case management and hearing and listed for a Case Management Hearing on the 1^st August 2017. At the Case Management Hearing on the 1^st August 2017, the father was formally joined as a party and an interim care order made on an unopposed basis in respect of HB. The mother agreed that she would move out of the mother and baby placement to go and live with AK at his parents' home while HB would remain in the foster placement. Directions were approved for hair strand drug testing in respect of the mother, father and the mother's partner, AK. In addition, directions were given for social work assessments to be updated in respect of the mother and her partner and to be undertaken in respect of the father with his mother as a support. Directions were also made for filing and service of Viability Assessments of extended family members together with the timetabling of final evidence including presumptive directions to apply in respect of any proposed placement application being made. An Issues Resolution Hearing was listed to be heard on the 10^th November 2017.
14. The assessment of the mother and her partner, AK, as carers for HB was negative as was the assessment of the father, JPM, with the support of his mother, LJ. The assessment of the maternal grandparents, SB and AB, as carers for HB was also negative as was the assessment of the paternal grandmother, LJ. In addition, the assessment of AK's parents, JK and RK, was also negative. In the light of the negative assessments of the mother and the father and other family members to provide suitable care for HB the local authority plan to provide permanence for HB was one of adoption.
15. The local authority filed and served its final evidence in the proceedings as directed and lodged its placement application. The placement application was issued on the 30^th October 2017. The mother filed and served her final statement as directed and opposed the local authority plan for HB. A Final Case Analysis Report dated the 6^th November 2017 was completed and filed by the guardian in which she supported the local authority plan for adoption for HB.
16. At the Issues Resolution Hearing on the 10^th November 2017 the father was granted parental responsibility for HB by agreement of all parties. The time for the father to file and serve his final statement was extended. Both the mother and the father were directed to file and serve their responses to the amended threshold and respectively given permission to file additional statements from AK and the paternal grandmother, LJ, by the 24^th November 2017. The matter was listed for final hearing before His Honour Judge Harper on the 8^th January 2018 with an estimate of three days.
17. In the event, due to the indisposition of Judge Harper through ill-health, on the 4^th January 2018 the final hearing was reallocated to me to deal with as a Deputy Circuit Judge. The local authority filed and served an updating statement from the key social worker on the 5^th January 2017. I was helpfully provided with a paper bundle by the local authority which I was able to read and consider over the weekend.

The parties' positions

18. The local authority position is that it seeks a care order for HB based on its care plan which is predicated on the basis that he should be placed for adoption. If the court approves the local authority plan and makes the care order, the local authority invites it to proceed to deal with the placement order application, to dispense with the agreement of both the mother and the father to adoption and make the placement order. It is proposed that the mother and father's contact with HB should be indirect contact on a yearly basis through the "letterbox" system. Post adoption counselling will be offered. If the placement order is granted, the local authority proposes to reduce the contact between HB and his mother on a stepped basis within a four-week period to once a month until an adoptive placement is found, and a final goodbye contact will then be arranged. Similarly, the contact for the father, JPM and his mother, LJ, will reduce on a stepped basis to once a month until an adoptive placement is identified when they will be offered a final goodbye contact. The children's guardian supports the local authority's plan for HB and the orders which are sought but recommends indirect contact on a twice-yearly basis.
19. The mother is opposed to the local authority plan. She wishes the court to allow her and AK to care for HB under whatever order might be considered appropriate. Following discussions before the hearing commenced the local authority has further amended its Threshold Statement and consequently the 'threshold criteria' for making the care order is not challenged by either the mother or the father.
20. The father is opposed to the local authority plan for adoption and wishes to care for HB with the support of his mother, LJ, under whatever order the court might consider appropriate.

Legal Framework

21. A care order or supervision order may only be made on the application of a local authority if the Court is satisfied that the "threshold criteria" under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are established. Section 31(2) provides that:

"A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied – (a) that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm; and (b) that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him; ……."

22. Section 31(9) defines "harm" as meaning ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development and "development" as meaning physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development and "health" includes both physical and mental health.
23. If the threshold is established, the court then has to pass on to the 'welfare' stage with a view to considering what, if any, order is to be made. Consideration of this requires me to have regard to section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and to treat the child's welfare as paramount and to apply the 'welfare checklist' or relevant parts of it in arriving at my decision.
24. The "welfare checklist" is set out in section 1(3) of the Act and requires the court to particular regard to:

(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);

(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;

(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;

(d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;

(e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

(f) how capable are each of his parents, and any other person or relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

(g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question."

25. An order should only be made if I consider that making an order is better for the child than making no order at all. If the court considers that an order is necessary it should go on to consider the range of options available to it, which include where appropriate private law orders under section 8, Special Guardianship Orders under section 14A as well as supervision or care orders under section 31. Before making a care order the court has to consider the local authority's proposals for contact with the child and has to have considered the local authority's care plan for the child. Since the care plan is one of adoption and the local authority is seeking a placement order in the event of a care order being granted on that premise, I am bound to have regard to the welfare checklist as set out in section 1 (4) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 (see paragraph 31 below) at this stage.
26. The court should only make such order as the facts require, and only then in compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality set out in Article 8 (2) of The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.
27. If, however, I approve the local authority plans and conclude that a care order should be granted in accordance with the local authority application, I then have to go on to consider the application for a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
28. By virtue of section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the child's welfare throughout his life is the court's paramount consideration. The court also has to have regard to the 'welfare checklist' set out in section 1 (4) of the Act. The matters to be considered are:-

(a) the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings;

(b) the child's particular needs;

(c) the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of his original family:

(d) the child's age, sex, background and any of the child's characteristics which are relevant;

(e) any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

(f) the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the relationship is relevant, including –

(xcviii) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of it doing so;

(xcix) the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise meet his needs;

(c) the wishes and feelings of any of the child's relatives or of any such person regarding the child.

29. Section 21 Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides that a placement order shall not be made unless the child is subject to a care order or the court is satisfied that the conditions for making a care order are met and only then if either the parents have consented to the making of such an order or, in the event that no such consent has been given, if the parents consent should be dispensed with.
30. Section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides that the court may only dispense with parental consent either if the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or the welfare of the child requires consent to be dispensed with.
31. I have reminded myself of the guidance from the Supreme Court in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and the Court of Appeal in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 to be applied in cases involving care applications for children in respect of whom the plan is for placement for adoption. These authorities in line with the many other recent Court of Appeal cases dealing with care proceedings revisit and restate the key principles which underpin public law proceedings and provide a reminder that adoption for any child who has had to be removed from its parents care by state intervention must be seen as being the last resort.
32. In Re B-S we are reminded that there must be evidence from the local authority and the children's guardian to address all options which are realistically possible and should include an analysis of the arguments for and against each option. There must also be an adequately reasoned judgment which should demonstrate that the court has undertaken a global, holistic evaluation of the options for the child's welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each option.

The Evidence

Threshold Criteria

33. A document headed Final Threshold and Findings of the Court which is dated the 8^th January 2018 is to be found at pages A16-A18 of the bundle. Following amendments by the local authority in discussion with the parties before the hearing commenced, I was informed at the commencement of the hearing that the Threshold was now agreed by mother the mother and father. The amendments are clearly reflected in the document. Although as I will refer to further on in this judgment, the mother in her oral evidence purported to dispute aspects of this Threshold document, there is in reality no issue about the threshold being crossed. As will become clear the evidence presented by the local authority as to the issues which led to the implementation of protective measures following the actions of the police on the 26^th January 2017 was clear and cogent. The evidence in respect of the threshold issues is overwhelming and I am entirely satisfied that the threshold is crossed. I am content to accept and adopt the Final Threshold document agreed between the parties.

Local authority evidence

34. The local authority case for commencing proceedings and seeking the removal of HB from the care of the mother under an interim care order is set out in detail in the Social Work Evidence Template (SWET) completed by the social worker, DF, and dated the 12^th July 2017. DF took over case responsibility on the 22^nd June 2017 from the previous social worker, TK. The chronology in the SWET at C8 to C12 reveals the extent of the local authority involvement which commenced with a pre-birth assessment in September 2015 consequent upon the breakdown of the relationship between KB and her parents. After HB's birth and subsequent discharge from hospital following a period of some 3 weeks with KB in the foster placement, they both went to live with KB's parents between March and September 2016. In September 2016 KB and HB then moved to live with her partner, AK, at his parents' home after KB's parents decided that they could no longer cope with her behaviour. Difficulties in the relationship between KB and AK resulted in AK's parents wanting KB and HB to leave. Following a domestic incident between KB and AK the police were called by AK's mother which resulted in the police exercising Powers of Protection and placing KB and HB in a mother and baby placement on the 26^th January 2017.
35. The PLO process was started. There were continuing concerns regarding the failure of KB to engage with the placement and the care of HB resulting in a number of PLO meetings being held and a Working Agreement being entered into with a view to trying to support the mother. Continuing concerns about KB's behaviour including arguments over the telephone with AK and her volatile response to those as well as her lack of engagement in caring for HB coupled with a breach of the Working Agreement then resulted in the commencement of the proceedings.
36. A Social Work Assessment of KB and AK which was undertaken by the previous social worker, TK, in sessions which took place in March, April and May 2017 but not written up and completed until the 26^th July 2017 is at D1-D24. Although it was said that KB and AK had engaged well in the assessment and were able to demonstrate good insight into the local authority's concerns and meeting HB's needs, a number of concerns were identified which included -

No confidence that KB understood the implications and seriousness of HB being exposed to domestic violence between herself and AK

The domestic violence between KB and AK had continued in the foster placement in telephone arguments

KB had spent considerable time out of the placement in the company of AK including overnight stays and not prioritised HB's needs

Both KB and AK suffer from emotional instability placing HB at risk of emotional harm

KB's lack of consistency in meeting HB's needs for emotional warmth, physical affection, stimulations and his basic care needs

Her conclusion was the recommendation for care proceedings to be commenced to ensure that a clear plan for permanency for HB could be reached.

37. Within the proceedings DF completed a Social Work Assessment of the paternal grandmother, LJ, as a carer for HB and of the father, JPM, as a carer supported by his mother which is dated the 9^th October 2017 and appears at D77-D104. It was acknowledged that there were a number of positives in respect of JPM's care of and commitment to HB within the proceedings in the context of the weekly 1 hour contact which he had with HB. However, it was said to be questionable as to whether he had the capacity to sustain that on a long-term basis. There were concerns about the domestic violence he had witnessed as a child and the impact on his ability to manage conflict and difficulties effectively. He had declined to continue with services to address his emotional difficulties and now denied having such emotional difficulties. He also continued to use cannabis on a regular basis and there were concerns about his friendships and associates which could pose risks to both himself and HB. Other issues related to the role of the paternal grandmother, LJ, on account of her experience of domestic violence and the relationships she keeps.
38. So far as LJ, the paternal grandmother, was concerned, the assessor concluded that she would need local authority assistance in managing relationships with KB and AK if HB were to be placed with her. Questions were raised about adequacy of her accommodation and how HB would cope becoming a member of a family where there were already three very much older children given his very young age. Concern was also expressed about her capacity to keep him safe due to her relationship choices and the ongoing domestic abuse between herself and MW. The issue of her relationship with MW also called into question her honesty with the local authority. Questions also arose as to her ability to manage any future challenging behaviour in adolescence based on her past history with JPM and also the fact that she had minimised concerns about JPM's behaviour, aggression, drug use and associates. The conclusion was that HB could not be placed in the care of his paternal grandmother and that neither she nor JPM could offer HB the safety and stability he requires to reach his potential into adulthood.
39. A further Social Work Assessment of KB and AK was undertaken by DF in the proceedings in sessions which took place in August and September 2017. The report is dated the 9^th October 2017 and appears at D105-D133. The assessment acknowledges that KB clearly loves HB and is able to meet his physical and emotional needs within contact sessions. AK is said to have a positive relationship with HB and is very much involved in parenting HB during his contacts with him. They demonstrate that they could meet HB's needs in supervised contact. Questions arise as to whether they have the capacity to meet these needs on a more long-term basis. The history of domestic abuse in their relationship and issues referred to by AK's parents as to continuing arguments led the social worker to question whether AK would be a protective factor for HB. The relationship between KB and AK highlights a lack of capacity to manage and control their behaviour towards each other.
40. The social worker also considered that KB was unable to understand the impact on HB of her spending time away from him as she preferred to spend time with AK and his family. This caused her to question KB's capacity to prioritise HB and ensure his emotional needs would be met consistently. She also had concerns that given the history of domestic abuse and non-engagement with domestic abuse services that the concerns regarding domestic abuse will continue. She also considered that KB had an emotional reliance on AK and given the volatile nature of their relationship it would be harmful to place HB in that situation. She considered that KB's entrenched behaviours, choice of partners and lack of honesty and openness with professionals all impacted on her ability to offer HB the safety and stability he requires.
41. DF also completed a Viability Assessment of AK's parents, JK and RK which is dated the 23^rd October 2017 and appears at D149-D159. This is negative with DF concluding that JK would be unable to prioritise HB over her own son, AK. The assessment indicates in the Social Services Care History section the difficulties which Mr 7 Mrs K have experienced with their son, AK, since December 2015, and issues which have arisen in respect of his relationship with KB and the extent of their arguments from November 2016 until KB was removed under a PPO in January 2017. In addition, it records the report of a further incident between AK and KB on the 22^nd September 2017 when RK had to intervene. In the assessment, JK acknowledged that her son, AK, manages his anger by shouting, screaming and punching objects.
42. DF prepared and filed another SWET (Final Statement) which is dated the 24^th October 2017 and appears at C38-C58. DF reviews the outcome of the hair strand drug test results in respect of KB, AK and JPM and their responses to those. She confirmed that Viability Assessments undertaken of the maternal grandparents and AK's parents, JK and RK, were negative and that a proposed assessment of a maternal aunt, SB, did not proceed as she was not in a position to care for HB due to her own family commitments. The assessments of the mother and her partner, AK, and of the father, JPM, and his mother, LJ, were considered within her analysis of parenting capacity. DF clearly set out her reasons for discounting the possibility of KB caring for HB.
43. She considered that the evidence showed that domestic abuse was a continuing and enduring issue between KB and AK and that they lacked the capacity to manage and control their behaviour towards each other. There was a denial of the extent of their difficulties and their fraught style of communication. Their behaviours were entrenched and she considered that this and their lack of insight into the concerns meant it would take considerable time to work through the barriers to change. She observed that both had declined to engage with drugs services to address their drug abuse issues as they did not accept it was an issue. She considered that AK lacked a level of maturity and understanding about the importance and significance of the concerns about his relationship with KB. KB had not been able to evidence any sustained change during the proceedings. In addition to her entrenched behaviours and choice of partner, she had not always been open and honest with professionals which all impacted on her ability to offer HB the stability and safety which he would need.
44. In respect of the paternal grandmother, LJ, while acknowledging the positives in what she could offer HB, DF expressed significant concerns about LJ's choice of partners and relationships specifically in regard to domestic abuse issues. An issue arose as to her lack of honesty about her relationship with MW because of domestic abuse and her sons emotional and behavioural difficulties. So far as JPM was concerned there were issues about his behaviour, aggression, drug use and associates which all raised concerns. These had been minimised by his mother in the assessment and as a result DF concluded that neither JPM or his mother could provide the care and stability which HB would require.
45. Having considered the available options for HB's placement and having discounted any placement within the family and remaining in foster care not being appropriate, DF concluded that the local authority's preferred care plan for HB is one of adoption. She sets out proposals for reduction of contact with a view to contact after placement being letterbox contact on an annual basis.
46. DF prepared and filed a further updating statement on the 5^th January 2018 which is at C74-C84. In this statement DF recorded the updates she had received in respect of KB's engagement with Stockport Without Abuse Service (SWA) which confirmed she had attended three out of six sessions. The work with KB is ongoing. KB has agreed to a referral to the Drug Service MOSAIC although work with her is yet to begin. Although she had been offered temporary housing, she had declined that preferring to continue to live with AK at his parents' home. AK said that in relation to drug work he had attended two sessions with the Transitional Team 1 to 2 years ago. He had not requested support from MOSAIC and continued to believe it would not be useful for him. He was apparently awaiting to be assigned a Youth Offending worker to do work with him on domestic abuse.
47. In respect of LJ, she and her children as a family are open to Social Care and there have been additional concerns over threats made against her and her family by her former partner, MW. She had been referred to domestic abuse services to undertake work around the risks of domestic abuse and the impact on children. JPM has been helping her out with her children since she started part-time work and LJ considered this meant he was using less cannabis.
48. However, despite the positives in respect of the love and commitment which the mother and her partner, and the father and his mother, all have for HB and the mother's engagement with domestic abuse services, DF concludes that placement with any of them would not be secure and that so far as LJ is concerned the risks to such a placement have increased. She confirms that the local authority plan for permanence for HB remains as one of adoption.

Other evidence

49. Hair Strand Drug Testing was authorised by the court in respect of the mother, father and AK and the reports appear at D33 to D76. The report for JPM is at D33-48 and is dated the 18^th September 2017. His results show a use of cannabis on what is likely to have been a daily basis for the significant majority of the approximate 2 months around July and August 2017. His declared frequency of smoking cannabis was said to have been a little understated.
50. The report for AK is dated the 21^st September 2017 and appears at D49-D62. His results are compatible with him having used cannabis for what is likely to have been mostly a daily basis for each of the moths around June to August 2017 with an increase in frequency around July and a reduction in August. AK had declared using £5 to £10 value of cannabis on 3 days each week for a period of 12 months before sample collection. He had admitted having an ongoing cannabis problem since he was age 12. The reporter considered that his declared frequency of cannabis use was likely to be understated based on the test results.
51. The report for KB is dated the 22^nd September 2017 and is at D63-D76. Her results are compatible with him having used cannabis for what is likely to have been mostly a daily basis for each of the moths from around June to early September 2017. She had declared smoking cannabis until around mid-July without being able to say or recall what quantity but said that in the next month she used £5 value on 4 days a week and in the month before the sample collection on 2 to 4 days each week. The reporter considered that the results were compatible with her declared use during the 2 months prior to sample collection but that in respect of the earlier period before July the frequency of use was likely to be understated.
52. In the E section of the bundle there are at E4-E41 copies of 11 FWINs obtained from the police which relate to issues concerning KB and AK. The majority relate to issues concerning AK and arguments which he had with his parents (E9; E12; E14; E17; E25 and E26). The first at E4 relates to an argument KB had with her mother and those at E18 and E21 to complaints KB made about threats she alleged had been made by JPM. The last two to which specific reference was made in the oral evidence at E28 on the 13^th January 2017 relate to AK losing it and punching a hole in the shed when the social worker, TK, suggested moving the mother to a new placement and then at E38 on the 26^th January 2017 which relates to the domestic between KB and AK when HB was present and which resulted in AK being arrested and KB being subjected to a PPO for the safety of herself and HB.
53. During the course of the hearing the local authority produced copies of Domestic Abuse Referral Forms dated the 4^th August 2007 and the 29^th December 2017 relating to domestic abuse issues and threats against LJ and her family. I directed that those should be filed without service on the mother or her solicitor together with a copy of the social work assessment report which had been prepared in draft by the social worker, CW, in respect of LJ and her family.
54. In her oral evidence, DF demonstrated a thorough grasp and understanding of the issues and a knowledge and appreciation of the vulnerabilities of the mother, father and AK on account of their youth. Although she acknowledged that it was positive that the mother had started to engage with SWA, she still questioned her motivation to change in light of the history and discussions she had had with her. She was clear that in respect of the relationship between KB and AK that work needed to be done with both of them.
55. She remained very concerned about KB and AK's cannabis use. The mother had minimised her cannabis use within the social work assessment as evidence by the Hair Strand Test results. She had only very belatedly agreed to a referral to MOSAIC although no work had yet been done. AK considered that he did not need to engage with any Drug Service and his cannabis use remains unaddressed. She said that JK had told her that she had not discussed issues in the case with KB and AK. She had said she was surprised that KB and AK wanted to stay living with her and her husband given the past problems which had been experienced. DF considered that none of the previous risks which had existed had been ameliorated and AK had said he had a difficult relationship with his father. She considered that there would be a very high risk if KB and AK were to be caring for HB independently.
56. In respect of LJ and the father, she considered the main issues related to the history of domestic violence and the relationship with MW in view of his criminal history. While she acknowledged in response to questioning by Mr im Thurn that there was a constructive relationship between LJ and the father, that LJ's other children were progressing well and the contacts with HB had been excellent, DF remained concerned about the relationship with MW. The failure to disclose it to her in discussion was a worry as was the fact that LJ had subsequently told her that she had let MW in to the house in order to keep the peace and thereby placed her children at risk. In reply to Mrs Penman she said she was not confident that LJ would be honest about issues and was concerned that her family was now an open case to social services.
57. She was also clear that the cannabis use was an issue which should have been addressed by the mother and AK early on. The domestic abuse issues in the relationship between KB and AK required both to engage in support but at present AK was only "thinking about it". This was a concern for the dynamics of the relationship and caused her concern for any placement of HB with KB when domestic abuse work had not been started. She also questioned the mother's motivation and ability to prioritise HB and his needs since she would have expected her to be willing to spend more time caring for HB than being with AK. She had been surprised that KB had not been willing to spend time taking HB to the Children Centre.

The mother

58. KB, the mother, has filed two statements dated the 4^th August 2017 at C29-C34 and the 6^th November 2017 at C60-C63. She has also filed a Response to the Threshold dated the 30^th November 2017 which is at A13-A15. At the beginning of this hearing I was informed by the advocates that an Amended Threshold had now been agreed by the local authority and both the parents. This now appears at A16-A18. I have dealt with it at paragraph 33 above. The mother purported to dispute aspects of the Threshold in the course of giving her oral evidence which, I am bound to observe, did nothing to assist her case.
59. In her first statement she describes very briefly her relationship with JPM and its breakdown when she asserts he told her he did not want anything to do with the baby. She started her relationship with AK when she was about 6 months pregnant. She acknowledges going to live with a foster carer after the birth of HB as there was a problem in her relationship with AK. She returned home with HB to live with her parents for some months before that relationship broke down and she and HB went to live with AK in his parents' home. That broke down on the 26^th January 2017 when she and HB were made subject of a PPO and went to live with her foster carer. She confirmed that it was true that she sometimes spent 3 / 4 days out of placement leaving HB with the foster carer but expressed dismay that she was criticised in relation to her care of HB. She denied being subject to domestic violence while with AK but conceded that they had heated conversations and that she raised her voice on occasions. She asserted that she was not aware that HB should not be in her company when she was with AK. She said she was not aware she was in breach of the Working Agreement.
60. In her second statement she made it clear she objected to the local authority's care plan for adoption for HB. She conceded that there had been an incident between her and AK at his parents' home on the 22^nd September 2017 which had been reported by AK's parents to the social worker. She expressed regret over that and asserted that they had sought advice and assistance in respect of their relationship. As a result arguments they had in the past had been "rescinded". In respect of her drug use she said she had made "every effort to reduce my use" and was willing to re-engage with MOSAIC. She disputed the conclusion of the Parenting Assessment that she would be unable to care for HB. She did not consider her relationship with AK would have any effect on her care of HB.
61. In her oral evidence KB confirmed that she found the work she had done with SWA was helpful and she should have done it earlier. She now understands more about communication in her relationship with AK. She said that both she and AK had stopped using cannabis but, I observe, provided no further detail. She had now agreed to go to MOSAIC.
62. In answer to Ms Houghton for the local authority, the mother said that if HB was returned to her she would live with AK at his parents' house until she could get her own house. She knew that if she got her own house that AK would not be able to live with her for 6 months. She and AK had not spoken to AK's parents about the situation and did not know what they would agree to. They had not been able to discuss it because everyone had been out at work.
63. In respect of the arguments between her and AK, she said the social worker had misrepresented what she said in the assessment when reporting that their arguments were in the evening when HB had woken crying and they did not know what to do. She did accept that she and AK had been screaming and shouting at each other on occasions. She said AK knew which buttons to press. She was very evasive when Ms Houghton sought to clarify issues in relation to specific incidents and especially the incidents recorded in the FWINs on the 13^th and the 26^th January 2017. She did, however, acknowledge when pressed that HB had been present throughout the incident on the 26^th and had been at risk and subject to harm by being exposed to the screaming and shouting.
64. When her cross-examination continued following an overnight break, the mother said that she and AK had not been able to speak to his parents about their proposal as to living there if HB was returned to her care. They had not got home until late. She did not know whether she would have a home for HB or not.
65. When asked about the reports of the arguments between her and AK continuing once she and HB were in the foster placement she became defensive and argumentative. She disputed that she had agreed what was recorded in the final Threshold before the court. When asked about an incident in the chronology on the 23^rd March 2017 where she was reported to have shouted and sworn at HB and thrown something at the wall, she said she got stressed out because the foster carer came into the room but then went on to say that the foster carer was lying about what she reported to the social worker. She returned to saying things had not been explained to her properly when the Threshold was dealt with.
66. She became very strident and agitated as her cross-examination continued demonstrating a significant degree of volatility. Some of what she said was confusing and contradictory. She said her meeting with AK on the 22^nd June when she had HB with her was not purposefully arranged but then went on to say that she had wanted AK to see HB because she knew he would not hurt him. She sought to minimise the extent of the arguments between her and AK describing the incident on the 22^nd September 2017 as a "stupid little argument" although she had told the guardian that it was "just screaming and shouting".
67. She gave a very distorted and, I thought, untruthful account and explanation of her cannabis use. Despite accepting the Drug Tests results showing high and moderate levels, she did not think that cannabis had any impact on her functioning and did not impact on her parenting. She also thought that cannabis had not affected AK. They had only stopped using it because of the money as budgeting had been an issue. She had not engaged with MOSAIC she said because she thought she could deal with her drug use on her own.
68. She agreed with Mr im Thurn that the father, JPM, had attended two scans and they had been friendly and supportive to her. The paternal grandmother had also attended on medical appointments with her. There had been talk about JPM attending the birth. However, she agreed that she did not tell JPM about the birth although he did come to the hospital and was able to hold HB for a short while before then leaving. JPM had only had one contact with HB before the proceedings started. This was a brief meeting at Stockport College when they walked down to the town centre. This ended she said when JPM went off with his mates.

AK, the mother's partner

69. I next heard from AK, the mother's partner who had filed a statement dated the 30^th November 2017 which is at C64-C67. He is 17 and has been in a relationship with KB since November 2015. He asserts that he has made efforts to reduce his cannabis use and accepts his anger has been a problem. He believes a lot of his emotional problems stem from the poor relationship which he has with this father. He acknowledges that there have been instances of anger in their relationship and some have taken place when HB has been present. He and KB are doing everything they can to prevent these happening again. He is presenting as a couple with KB and wishes for HB to be placed in their care. They are learning to parent and believe that they will thrive if HB is placed with them and they will have the support of his extended family and friends.
70. In his oral evidence, AK said he had self-harmed on the 28^th November 2016 following an argument with his father. He had been taken to hospital and had been referred to the Transitional Team but had had no contact with them since then. He had not seen or been referred to his GP. He conceded that he did not know where KB and HB would live if he were placed with her. KB is on the housing list. They had not got home until 8.30pm last night by which time he said both of his parents were in bed and they were not able to talk to them. Contrary to what KB had said, he confirmed that he was still using cannabis. He was now working as an apprentice between 10.00am and 6.00pm and he would be able to support KB and HB. His relationship with JPM was not good and he said he had been abused and threatened by him at a bus stop. He said he had not done anything to prevent JPM having contact with HB.
71. When Ms Houghton explored the issue of his self-harm it became apparent that this was quite serious involving him requiring butterfly stiches to cuts on his legs caused by a Stanley Knife. Stress had been a significant factor in this. The previous time he had self-harmed he said was 3 or 4 years before. He agreed that his statement was wrong when he said he had sought help for his cannabis use through the Transitional Team as he had not seen them since this incident of self-harm.
72. In respect of his cannabis use he said he had been a habitual user since he was 12 years of age. He did not think MOSAIC as a service would be helpful for him. That service had done nothing to help him stop his cannabis use. He had left school in 2015 and stopped MOSAIC. He agreed that his cannabis use had brought him into conflict with his parents when referred to the FWIN at E14 when they involved the police as he had gone missing and there was an issue about money which he said he had taken to pay off a drug debt. He conceded that his parents were frightened of his behaviour at times. He said he did not think he needed help with his cannabis use. He acknowledged that he has had a problem with anger and that he needed help with domestic abuse issues. He said he and KB had shouted at and abused each other and screamed and sworn in a derogatory manner as they both have short tempers.
73. He was taken through the detail of the FWIN records relating to the 13^th January 2017 and the 26^th January 2017. He acknowledged that his reaction to what the social worker was proposing for KB and HB had been extreme. He said the "bubble popped" and could not explain but understood the concern for HB's safety. In respect of the 26^th he said he had been an argument between him and KB and he had been provoking her deliberately after they had been bickering over changing the TV channel. The police had been called by his mother and when the police arrived he said he felt threatened by them and had equipped himself with a knife. He had made threats to kill and armed himself with crow bar and lost control as he was banging his head on the side of the van. He agreed that his father had frequently asked him to leave home and that he turned to KB for support when he was stressed.
74. He confirmed in reply to Mrs Penman that he was still using cannabis but that he intended to give it up. He now agreed it would be helpful to get assistance and that he should have done it some time ago. He also acknowledged that the relationship between him and KB had not been healthy for HB. It had been toxic and had affected the whole family.

JPM, the father

75. JPM, the father, has filed two statements dated the 16^th August 2017 at C35-C37 and the 17^h December 2017 at C68-C70. In his first statement he confirms the steps he has taken to obtain an order to see HB and to have parental responsibility. He asks to be joined as a party to the proceedings. He does not object to an interim order and askes for arrangements for contact to be made for him and his mother, LJ, to see HB. He put himself forward as a carer for HB jointly with his mother in view of his young age.
76. In his second statement he confirms that he has just turned 16 but wishes HB to be placed in his care. He acknowledges he will need the support of his mother to care for HB but ultimately wishes to care for him by himself. He acknowledges that he has continued to use cannabis throughout the proceedings. He uses it every day generally a small quantity in the evening. He is not allowed to smoke in the house. He says he has reduced his cannabis use. Referring to the report from his head teacher about difficulties he has had previously, he says he has now matured as a result of his involvement with HB. If he is given responsibility for caring for HB he says his mother will give up he part-time work to help care for HB and allow him to attend school/college.
77. In his oral evidence, he says he realises he has an addiction to cannabis and now wants a referral to MOSAIC. He helps his mother out with his siblings to get them up and to school on 2 days a week. He sometimes uses cannabis in the evening but never when he attends at contact with HB. He said parenthood is making him change his ways and he plans to kick using cannabis. His motivation is now different to previously. He denied that there had been any confrontation in November 2017 between him and AK as alleged. He denied having seen AK since he met him for contact with HB at Stockport College. He wanted to care for HB and recognised that this would be a life long commitment. He was not sure about how he would carry on at school if he was caring for HB but said his mother would give up work to help him.
78. Under cross-examination he said he had not been aware of how addicted to cannabis he was but was not sure why he had no accessed any support to help him get off it. He acknowledged that his cannabis use had to be addressed before HB could be placed with him and that he had not contacted any drug service agency yet. He had been using cannabis since he was 14 or 15. He was able to buy cannabis because he got spends from his dad and was paid by his mother. He said he had never dealt in drugs. He no longer has any hobbies although he told me he used to go to the gym and did boxing but is no longer motivated. He has never had a part-time job. He had confirmed that he viewed MW as his step dad and that his mother had split up with him some months ago. He had no issues with KB but said he did not have a good relationship with AK and denied that he was jealous of him. He said in reply to Mrs Penman that he would be responsible for caring for HB. He said if he had HB he would not use cannabis but confirmed that he had tried but not been able to give it up.

LJ, paternal grandmother

79. I then heard from LJ, HB's paternal grandmother who had filed a statement dated the 17^th December 2017 which is at C71-C73 in the bundle. In her statement she addresses the issues relating to her relationship with MW as her practical parenting ability was not in question. She said she had not told the social worker in her assessment about an incident which occurred on the 24^th July 2017 when the police were called to remove MW from her home because she did not see it as domestic abuse as her relationship with MW was over. She regarded him simply as someone visiting her home.
80. She said she had historically been in a relationship with MW and that he lived at her address in around mid-2016. He had mental health problems and was verbally abusive to her and called her offensive names. He would refuse to leave if she told him to and she used to have to call the police to get him to leave. She said they remained friends after their separation and that he would sometimes visit her home. She described the incident on the 24^th July 2017 in some detail. He was argumentative, and his behaviour was deteriorating, and he picked up a knife and threatened to harm himself. She asked her 14-year-old niece who was visiting but outside at the time to call the police. When the police attended MW moved on. She says that MW has not visited the house since then. She recognises that he might visit again if his new relationship ends but says she will not let him in the house and will call the police straight away.
81. She confirmed that her relationship with BM, the father of her three children, had been characterised by abuse. There had been no abuse since their relationship ended and her two younger children have contact with him regularly. She acknowledged that she may need help and support with domestic abuse. A social worker, CW, allocated to her family was undertaking an assessment and said he was going to refer her onto a course for domestic abuse but that had not been done. She was now actively seeking help through SWA and possibly attending the Freedom Project.
82. She proposed to positively support her son, JPM, in his care of HB but that JPM would be the main carer. She was prepared to give up her part-time employment to enable JPM to attend school or college or to socialise. She considered she would be able to promote contact between HB and his mother. She would be willing to facilitate and supervise contact.
83. In her oral evidence LJ said she had split up from MW in March 2017 and her case was open to social services because of MW. She knew nothing about allegations of drugs being dealt from her property which she had only heard about yesterday. She used to use cannabis years ago but does not now and does not deal in drugs. She was unaware that her daughter, FJ, had seen the knife MW had in the incident on the 24^th July 2017 she had asked her niece to get the police because her phone was in another room and she could not get to it.
84. In reply to Ms Houghton she said that she had suffered serious domestic violence at the hands of the children's father, BM. When JPM was young he had seen BM attempting to strangle her. In 2012 JPM had had to pull BM off her when he was assaulting her.
85. MW was sent to prison for burglary and driving dangerously when living with her. She visited him in prison every weekend with the children as she thought she had a future with him. She said the domestic violence in the relationship started when he was released. He believed that she had been sleeping about when he was in prison. She said the relationship was very bad at the end with him being very abusive and derogatory towards her. She stayed in the relationship because she felt so low and felt no one else would want her.
86. By the 24^th July incident their relationship was on and off. He had keys to her property still. He used to visit and they would have sex and then he would go. He had a nasty mouth. She said he was a dangerous man and was a monster. The times she had had to call the police were too many to count. He had been harassing her driving by the house and contacting her family on social media. Although she had blocked him he had harassed her sister. He had made a threat to burn the house down with the children in it. She agreed he presented a risk to her children and to HB and was a danger.
87. When Ms Houghton explored with her some aspects of the Social Work Assessment done by CW (which had only been disclosed to the parties apart from KB and her solicitor that morning), she accepted that she had a history of not engaging with services in respect of the abuse she experienced from MW and had never had him arrested. She had not engaged with SWA despite being referred. She did not know how she stayed in the relationship and said she was under a spell. She now knows she should have walked away. She accepted it was clear from the Assessment that her three children had been aware of the abuse. JPM said MW tried to bully him. He was abusive to all and she agreed that he ruled the family with fear. She agreed that exposure to domestic violence had affected JPM and the damage he had suffered was profound.
88. In respect of JPM she agreed the school had valid concerns about his drug use and gang involvement. She said JPM needed to stop his cannabis use but said he used it to cope. She thought he needed therapy to help him how to cope with things. She agreed that his lack of hobbies and lack of motivation stemmed from his cannabis use. She acknowledged that it was unrealistic to expect HB to be placed with JPM if he had not stopped his cannabis use.
89. She said she had attended courses for domestic abuse including SWA and the Freedom Programme. She had never invited MW to her house but had been anxious to see him. She could not bear to split from him and did not know how to end the relationship. He had not been to the door since July 2017 and she had never initiated any contact with him. In addition to the courses she had mentioned she had also done others including Webster Stratton Parenting Course, Respect and Surviving Teenagers.

DM (children's guardian)

90. DM, the children's guardian, had completed and filed two Case Analysis reports. The first is dated the 31^st August 2017 and is at D25-D32. The second is dated the 3^rd November 2017 and is at D134-D148. In her first report she addressed the case management requirements needed to progress the case, She supported the local authority's position in seeking an interim care order for HB to enable him to remain in his foster placement separately from the mother.
91. In her final analysis she focusses in some detail of an analysis of the parenting capacity of the mother and her partner and the father and his mother before considering other aspects of the 'welfare checklist'. In respect of KB and her partner she observes

In respect of their volatile relationship that KB has only recently begun domestic abuse work and it is "early days in terms of her being able to evidence any change in her behaviour" while AK is "thinking about whether to undertake some domestic abuse work".

KB has not taken up support around her cannabis use. She says she is not "smoking cannabis every day and could easily stop it and is now using every other weekend" although there is no evidence to support this.

In respect of KB's emotional health and emotional volatility of which she cited examples, KB had not sought support despite having been asked to do so via her after care worker.

KB had not met HB's needs consistently in the foster placement and accepted she had left HB for days to go out on her own with AK. There were positives in her relationship with HB and his needs were well met by her and AK in contact and both were practically capable

There are issues in their relationship which could impact on the care of HB and cause stress within their relationship and exacerbate their relationship difficulties leading to arguments they have previously experienced.

AK's emotional well-being is of concern.

AK smokes cannabis and lacks insight as to the impact of it on his parenting and behaviour. He lacks insight into his own behaviour and has not undertaken any work to deal with the issues.

AK does not wish to re-engage with the drugs services.

In respect of the father and the paternal grandmother

JPM's drug test results show use of cannabis compatible with daily use and his school have concerns about his drug use, associates and his behaviour but these factors are minimised by his mother, LJ, in discussion.

The assessment of LJ is largely negative due to her history of domestic abuse in relationships and she needs work undertaken with her to improve her insight into domestic abuse. The relationship with MW was on / off and issues of abuse arose 'every other time' he visited.

JPM could not care for HB without the support of his mother but she has minimised the concerns around him and herself which is not helpful as the local authority would not feel confidently able to work with her to support the care of HB.

92. In her assessment, the guardian addresses the welfare checklist issues as required by section 1 (4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in a fairly cursory fashion. In respect of any harm which HB suffered or is at risk of suffering, she says HB suffered neglect as well as emotional harm caused by difficulties in KB's relationship with AK and could well do so again if he lived with them. JPM would have difficulty in parenting HB due to his age and own vulnerabilities. The history of LJ's relationships and ongoing risk caused by them suggest HB would not be safe in her care.
93. She acknowledges that both parents dearly love HB and would wish to care for him but indicates that on the evidence placement with either would present significant risks for HB. She goes on to consider the placement options for HB. Having discounted placement with the parents and confirmed that there are no other relative carers who have been positively assessed, she considers long-term fostering but discounts it as an option for a child of HB's age because of the uncertainties it involves. She agrees that adoption best meets HB's needs if there is no one else available to care for him. As all other potential carers have been ruled out on the basis of negative assessments she concludes that adoption is the only outcome. Accordingly, she was in agreement with the plan for a care order to be made and a placement order was necessary to facilitate a plan of adoption for HB. She indicates that the consent of KB will have to be dispensed with and recommends letterbox contact being set at twice a year but provides no rationale as to why she differs from the local authority in that respect.
94. In her oral evidence the guardian confirmed that nothing she had heard in evidence or read in the further documents produced during the hearing caused her to change her her recommendations. She described the outcome as being "draconian but proportionate". While KB had now started work on domestic abuse issues, AK had not. They had been here a long time but KB had not effectively engaged earlier. She was unsure about the accommodation position but concerned as KB had never lived independently with HB. It was evident that she would need support. The issue of cannabis misuse needed to be worked on but nothing had begun. HB was nearly two years old. KB had been given a lot of support and involved in the PLO process before proceedings. HB had a disrupted care history. It was important not to lose any more time for HB.
95. In respect of placement with JPM and his mother, she expressed concern about his cannabis use. In response to Ms Houghton she confirmed that she considered JPM would have to have stopped his cannabis use before HB could be placed with him. She told Mr im Thurn that she was surprised that JPM's motivation had not kicked in and galvanised him to address his cannabis issue. In respect of LJ, she was also very concerned about the issues relating to MW and the heightened risk he poses. Referrals for support on domestic abuse had been made way back and she had done work on the issues but that had not worked. The police had indicated that she had not been as helpful as she might have been in respect of MW's abuse issues. The guardian could not see work on domestic abuse now being done within HB's timescales. She thought the risks were too great for work to be done on domestic abuse issues with LJ in tandem with rehabilitation of HB. She considered that it was a "huge piece of work" saying that LJ's understanding needs to be progressed. She was concerned about the risk of other inappropriate relationships in view of what LJ had said about her on / off relationship with MW. Although she acknowledged that LJ had many positives, she had not been able to assess what went on between LJ and MW given her account of the on / off relationship. The risk posed by MW tipped the balance in favour of the local authority.

Discussion

96. I have been able to consider the succinct written submissions made by the four advocates. I am grateful to all the advocates for their assistance throughout the hearing which has been both sensibly and sensitively handled by them taking into account the ages of the mother, her partner and the father.
97. Mr Kerrigan in his submissions on behalf of the mother suggests that this is not an easy case and reminds the court of the very young ages of the mother and her partner, AK, and the father. I remind myself that it is acknowledged and accepted by the local authority and the guardian that these three and the paternal grandmother, LJ, all love and wish to care for HB. They have all shown commitment to attending at their contact with HB throughout the proceedings and a capacity to meet his physical needs and shown him affection and stimulation to which he has responded positively by all accounts.
98. I observe that the mother, AK and the father were of course even younger when HB was born given that he is now just short of his second birthday. Not surprisingly therefore these three have, within the evidence put before the court by the local authority by the social worker and in the context of the assessments of them, demonstrated a lack of maturity which reflects in their lack of insight and understanding of the issues of concern. This was all too apparent to me when listening to them giving their oral evidence which was illuminating. What is starkly clear, as Ms Houghton so appropriately observed in the opening of her submissions for the local authority, is that against those positives has to be set the facts that

"this is a case in which domestic abuse and cannabis misuse are endemic and have been viewed as the norm by all the lay witnesses spanning across the generations from the PGM to the young parents. This culture is part of their daily lives. It is submitted that none of the four witnesses has demonstrated an adequate understanding of the seriousness nature of these issues or taken appropriate steps to address them within these proceedings or the PLO process."

99. I was impressed by the quality of the evidence given by DF, the key social worker, and by the clarity of her written evidence in her statements, assessment reports and the placement report she had prepared. She is to be commended for the work which she has done. My impression is that she had formed good working relationships with the parents, AJ and the paternal grandmother within the context of the proceedings and her assessments of them. I sensed that she was genuinely sad that she was unable to recommend placement of HB with any of them. She gave her evidence in a very considered and clear way and impressed me as being honest and straightforward. She has clearly focussed on HB's welfare interests throughout in the work she has done and in her analysis and recommendations made. I have no difficulty in accepting her evidence as being reliable.
100. I cannot say the same in respect of the mother, KB. Even making allowances for her youth and immaturity, I found that she was not an impressive witness. Much of her evidence was confusing and contradictory and she was at times evasive and dishonest. She was untruthful about her cannabis use and minimised the extent of the arguments between herself and AK. She minimised the extent of her own volatility. In my judgement, she demonstrated a lack of insight and understanding of the issues relating to the impact of cannabis use by herself and AK and the abusive nature of the relationship which they have. This is reflected in why she had not shown any real interest or motivation in accessing the help and support to address these issues which had been signposted for her by the social worker until her belated attendance at SWA.
101. My impression of AK, her partner, as a witness was that he was essentially honest and at times transparently so as is evident from the account of his evidence above. Again he revealed a lack of maturity. He demonstrated a very real lack of insight and understanding of the issues relating to the abusive relationship he had with KB and the impact of his cannabis use on parenting or other aspects of his life despite acknowledging the conflict it caused him with his own parents. Again, like KB, his lack of insight was reflected in his refusal to access help or support to address the issues.
102. I also consider that JMP was essentially an honest witness who demonstrated a clear lack of appreciation or understanding of the issues relating to his cannabis use or its impact on him as a parent. His mother, LJ, as a witness was essentially honest although her oral evidence showed how limited her statement was in addressing the full extent of the domestic abuse she had suffered in her two long-term relationships. Her oral evidence also showed the degree to which she had minimised the domestic abuse issues in relation to MW within the context of her assessment by DF. The history of her relationship with MW was confused and unreliable. Her evidence also showed how limited her understanding of domestic abuse issues and the impact of it on her children was despite having attended on a variety of courses to address domestic violence issues over the years.
103. The guardian, DM, is a very experienced and competent children's guardian who is very well known to this court. Her final analysis report is succinct and properly focusses in some detail on the analysis of the parenting capacity of the mother and her partner and the father and his mother, LJ. She considers all relevant issues under the welfare checklist in her analysis and all the relevant options in respect of placement. Her oral evidence was clear and straightforward. I have no hesitation in saying that I accept her evidence as being reliable.
104. I have to consider relevant aspects of the 'welfare checklists' in arriving at my decision. The primary issue to consider is the capacity of the mother and her partner, AK, and the father and his mother, LJ, to meet HB's needs. The social worker included an analysis of the participants' parenting capacity in her SWET (Final Statement) and I have referred to her views at paragraphs 43 and 44 above. I do not need to repeat those which I consider having been both well-founded and well-articulated. As is recorded at paragraph 91 above these views are essentially replicated by the guardian in her final analysis. The evidence shows that neither AK nor JPM have shown any inclination or motivation to address issues in relation to their cannabis use. I regard the prospect of them now doing so as being remote and reject the suggestion implied in the submission of Mr im Thurn that JPM had not done so as "he has not so far been required to bear the full responsibility of parenthood".
105. Despite their youth the evidence clearly shows that the mother, AK and the father are all habitual users of cannabis. AK has used it since the age of 12 and JPM since he was 14. It is clear that AK's parents have drawn a link between his cannabis use and behaviour. The father's school reported similar concerns and his involvement with gangs as a result. LJ conceded that JPM's lack of hobbies and motivation stemmed from his drug use. It is axiomatic to say that possession of cannabis is illegal and that acquiring it to smoke is not only expensive but necessarily involves those who do in participating in the drug culture and exposure to criminal activity and gangs. Using cannabis is known to impact upon the exercise of judgment and alertness of a user and, inevitably, has adverse consequences for the capacity to parent. It is profoundly worrying that the mother, AK and JPM all appeared to view cannabis use as the norm and did not appear to consider had any impact upon them at all.
106. Although the mother has now attended at SWA on three occasions since October, her own evidence with her minimisation, evasiveness and protection of AK in respect of relationship difficulties all indicate that the scale of change required is very substantial. In my judgement, she is unlikely to have the motivation to see that through. On the evidence before me I conclude that AK is not likely to be motivated to support her in it given his lack of motivation. Accordingly, I conclude that the prospect of any significant change is remote and way outside any relevant timescale to meet HB's needs.
107. Neither the mother nor AK appear to have given any informed consideration as to where they would live and how they would care for HB if he were to be placed in their joint care. Although they were proposing that they should continue to live with AK's parents until the mother could find her own accommodation, they had not thought to discuss this with the parents. They failed to do so in the context of the hearing. Bearing in mind the content of the Viability Assessment undertaken by DF of AK's parents which I referred to above at paragraph 41, I can only conclude that AK's parents are not willing to offer the support to KB and AK. The mother's subsequent suggestion that she would acquire a tenancy of her own to live in with HB with AK joining her in 6 months' time was unrealistic given the dependency on AK which she has demonstrated in their relationship. I also accept the submission of Ms Houghton that given the past conduct KB has displayed at times in response to HB when he has been unsettled and crying in foster care, this indicates that HB would not be safe in her sole care.
108. The evidence shows that, in my judgement, LJ has effectively colluded with JPM in his continuing use of cannabis for some years and has done nothing in these proceedings to encourage his to stop his use or seek help and support. That is a profoundly worrying parental response. No thought or consideration appears to have been given to the illegality involved in his drug use although she acknowledged the validity of the school's concerns about it and his involvement with gang members as a result.
109. However, what I found even more worrying in relation to the paternal grandmother in respect of her role as either a support for JPM as a carer or as a carer for JPM herself was the extent of the domestic abuse to which she has been subject over the years. It is now clear to me from all the evidence that domestic abuse has been endemic within her family and the lives of her children for many years. I indicated above that I considered that she had minimised the issues and showed a limited understanding of the impact of it on her children. Despite having been previously involved with Social Services in relation to domestic abuse issues with the father of her children and having undertaken various courses to help her and improve her understanding, she clearly in my judgement had learnt little and put nothing into practice. What was concerning was her failure to acknowledge in the assessment undertaken by DF the harm to which her children had been exposed. However, that clearly came to light in the assessment of CW when he spoke to the children about the issues as she acknowledged when it was put to her. Consideration of this alongside what she said out about not knowing how to end the relationship coupled with the nature of the most recent threats made by MW all leads me to conclude that there would be a significant risk if HB were to be placed in either her care or that of JPM. I also conclude that even though she is apparently now being referred to SWA for support and assistance there is in real terms unlikely to be any positive benefit in view of her previous experience referred to above.
110. Taking all the above into account I come to the conclusion that the mother and her partner, AK, sadly lack the capacity to be able to care safely for HB either now or within the foreseeable future. I come to the same conclusion in respect of the father and his mother, LJ. I have asked myself if any of them could be helped to care for HB if they could be given other assistance or support from the local authority as Mrs Penman reminded the court in her submissions that it was required to do. The reality is that the evidence shows that the mother, AK and the father have all been offered help and support which they have failed to access despite encouragement with the exception, as I have already said, of the mother commencing work with SWA. For all the reasons I have already stated, I come firmly to the conclusion that no other help or support could have been given or offered. I should also say that in any event, given the entrenched nature of the difficulties facing them and the paternal grandmother no work which could now be started could realistically be completed in any timescale compatible with H's welfare needs.
111. In considering the checklist issue of what harm HB has suffered or is at risk of suffering, I find that, as is stated in the Threshold document, HB has suffered significant emotional harm because of his exposure to the behaviour of the mother and AK in their relationship. He has also suffered similar harm as a result of being exposed to his mother's volatility when she has screamed and shouted at him. He has also suffered neglect through the mother having prioritised her relationship with AK over him. I find that the evidence shows that these are continuing risks to HB as no effective work has been done by or with the mother and AK to ameliorate their behaviours. I find that the issues in respect of JPM's drug use, his behaviour, aggression and associates pose significant risk to HB of emotional, physical harm and neglect. There is also, I find, a significant risk of emotional and physical harm and neglect to HB if he were to be placed with JPM or LJ from exposure to domestic abuse issues in light of what is said about the threats posed by her former partner but, equally I would conclude from the choice of any potential future partner in view of all the evidence before me especially when I consider that she is still only 34 years old.
112. Consideration of the other 'welfare checklist' issues so far as HB is concerned lead to the obvious conclusion that at age of just two years he is a young child who is not capable of expressing his wishes and feelings. His age determines the need for a permanent placement to be found for him without any further delay. He has the needs of any young child for a stable and settled family life and to be provided with appropriate physical care with love and affection and encouraged to develop to his full potential in a safe and secure environment. He is a healthy child whose development is age appropriate. He is settled with his foster carers with whom he has been living for the last 12 months.
113. The change in his circumstances of making the orders sought by the local authority will mean that his contact with his mother, AK, his father and LJ will be reduced significantly and eventually cease when an adoptive placement is found. While that will involve a significant loss in view of his attachment to his mother, it is not one which is likely to have any significant immediate impact given the relationship which HB has with his foster carers. The loss of contact with AK, his father and LJ will be less significant given the limited time which they have spent with HB during the course of these proceedings in the last 6 months. HB will remain in his current placement until an adoptive placement is found. At two years of age HB is reaching the stage where any further delay in finding an adoptive placement will mean that he would pass the optimum age for permanency to be achieved.
114. It is within the context of those conclusions that I have to consider what order to make in respect of HB. Since the care plan is one of permanence through adoption and the local authority is seeking a placement order in the event of a care order being granted on that premise, I am bound to have regard to the welfare checklist as set out in section 1 (4) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 as referred to above at paragraph [28] when considering whether to grant the care order which the local authority seeks.
115. This means that in addition to the 'welfare checklist' issues considered above I also have to consider the likely effect on HB of having ceased to be a member of his original family and becoming an adopted person. This is difficult to predict and as the guardian observed in her analysis largely depends on the approach of the adopters and the feelings of the adopted person. It is likely that the principal effect is that HB will have a stable secure and settled upbringing free from the risks identified above were he to be placed with the mother, father or LJ. I accept that adoption is a draconian outcome for any child, ending his legal and practical relationship with his mother, father and any other family members. HB has good quality contact with his mother which will cease if he is adopted. The contact he has with his father and his paternal grandmother and also AK will also cease. Although all would wish to have continuing involvement with HB's upbringing, my findings on the evidence before me clearly indicate that this is not appropriate. As is recorded above the mother, father, and LJ all dearly love HB and would wish to care for him if they could. It is, as the social worker and the guardian have observed, an extremely sad situation for them all. However, in order to ensure that HB has an awareness of his history and birth family as time goes on the local authority and the guardian consider that if a placement order is made there should only be indirect contact with the mother, father and grandparents as set out in the SWET. The only difference between the local authority and the guardian is in relation to the frequency of that contact. The guardian has not provided any rationale for differing from the local authority in suggesting twice yearly contact. I cannot see any real benefit to HB in what the guardian has proposed and accordingly, make it clear that I approve the local authority proposal That, in my judgement, appears to me to be the right approach to adopt if a placement order is made.

Conclusion & Orders

116. When I come to balance the realistic options for HB, I find it is not difficult in light of the findings I have made and conclusions I have reached on the capacity of the mother and her partner, AK, and the father and his mother to care for him. No one doubts the love and affection which they have for HB. It has been commented on positively by the professionals. They would all wish to provide and care for HB. Unfortunately, none of them truly recognise their own limitations and vulnerability or the risks to which they would expose HB. The evidence of the professionals is overwhelmingly against placement of HB within his family. It is clear from what I have already said that in light of all the evidence before me I can only concur with that conclusion.
117. There is no other extended family placement option available. HB needs a permanent placement. Given HB's age, I entirely accept that long term fostering is not an appropriate option given the lack of security and certainty which that would carry with it and the continuation of his looked After Child status until adulthood. This leaves as the only option that he should be placed for adoption in accordance with the local authority's plan. If HB is placed for adoption I know that with my knowledge and experience of this local authority I can be confident that a placement will be found for him which will meet his needs and in which he will be safe and secure within a permanent family throughout his life with all the advantages that brings. I accept that there may in future potentially be issues around HB's identity as an adopted person but life story work and adopters who are open to discussing his origins will lessen the harm which could come from this.
118. I am satisfied that the local authority and the children's guardian have addressed the issues in a proper manner giving due weight to the relative pros and cons of the realistically available options in accordance with the requirements of Re B-S.
119. In the circumstances, bearing in mind that I have to treat HB's welfare as paramount I have no hesitation in saying that I approve the local authority's plan for him to achieve permanency through adoption. I have considered that local authority's proposals for contact which in all the circumstances are entirely appropriate. Accordingly, I will grant the care order to the local authority. The making of the care order is, in my judgement, given the circumstances of HB as set out above necessary to protect and safeguard his interests and is a proportionate response to his circumstances. That then requires me to pass on to deal with the placement application.

Placement application

120. I repeat that I have read and considered the relevant documents in respect of the application for a placement order. I asked to see a copy of the Child Permanency Report and was assured by Ms Houghton that this was identical to the Annex B report dated the 27^th October 2017 which I have read. I have also seen the Adoption Agency Decision Sheet dated the 26^th October 2017 which I asked to see. The children's guardian supports the application for a placement order. I have of course given specific consideration to the welfare checklist as it applies to the Children Act 1989 in approving the local authority's care plan for adoption for HB. I have in addition, as is clear from what is said above, also already had regard to the checklist in respect of section 1 (4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the issues which are relevant. I do not intend to repeat myself.
121. I am satisfied that, on all the evidence before me, adoption is in best interests of HB. There is no other realistic available option and the reality is that nothing else will do so far as HB is concerned. His mother and father understandably, in the circumstances, do not agree to him being placed for adoption. I must therefore consider whether their agreement can be dispensed with on the basis that HB's welfare requires it. Having reached the conclusion that adoption is in his best interests then, in my judgement, it follows that I must dispense with the agreement of both the mother and the father to adoption in accordance with section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 because HB's welfare requires it. I, accordingly, dispense with their agreement to adoption. I make the placement order in respect of HB.
122. I am conscious that it might be said that the making of a care or placement order may be a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of both the child and his parents. I have borne this in mind in my consideration of the issues before me since the making of a care order and a placement for adoption order is unquestionably a substantial interference with a parent's right to respect for family life. In my judgement, such a step could only be regarded as interference in the child's right to respect for family life if there was a real prospect of him being successfully rehabilitated to the care of his mother or placed with his father or any other family member within an acceptably short timescale. That is not the position for HB and consideration of his Article 8 rights leads to the conclusion which will override the rights of his mother, father and other family members which I regard as a necessary and proportionate response to the circumstances in which HB now is.

Orders

Care Order

123. The orders which I make and in relation to the local authority application under section 31 in respect of HB are –

(a) A care order to the local authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

(b) The local authority may disclose copies of relevant documents in the proceedings to any prospective adopters with whom it is proposed to match the child, HB, for adoption.

(c) The local authority solicitor shall provide a copy of this judgment to the Independent Reviewing Officer for HB.

(d) There be no order for costs save for detailed assessment of the Public Funding Certificate costs of each of the assisted parties.

Placement order

124. In respect of the placement application in respect of HB, I will make the following orders –

(a) I dispense with the consent of the mother and the father to adoption on the ground that HB's welfare requires it.

(b) The local authority may place the child, HB, for adoption.

(c) The local authority solicitor shall make a copy of this judgment available to HB's adopters.

(d) There be no order for costs save for detailed assessment of the Public Funding Certificate costs of each of the assisted parties.

125. This judgment is one which in accordance with the President's Guidance on Publication of Judgments would normally fall to be published. I will listen to any representations in respect of the publication of this judgment and, if it is to be published, whether any further anonymisation of this transcript would be required for that purpose.
126. This concludes the judgment.