England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions

IN THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

		42-49 High Holborn First Avenue House London WC1V 6NP
		14th April 2014

HHJ LAURA HARRIS:

1. This is an application by the Local Authority for care and placement orders in respect of three children, TV born on 11.05.09 aged 4 years 11 months, JV born on 19.11.10 aged 3 years and 4 months and EV born on 06.04.12 aged 2. The mother is JB born on 02.04.91 aged 23. The father is EV born on 10.12.87 aged 26. The paternal grandmother is JM born on 26.11.67 aged 46. The Mother's background is white UK. The Father and his family originate from Jamaica and therefore these children are children of dual heritage. The representation of the parties during these proceedings has been as follows: Miss Hefford of counsel has represented the Local Authority, Miss Kelly of counsel has represented the grandmother, Miss Posner of counsel has represented the Father, Miss Huda of counsel has represented the Mother and Miss Adams of counsel has represented the guardian and the children, the guardian being Dionne Roberts. Unfortunately the Mother has not been present throughout this final hearing, save for a period of about an hour and a half on the second day, and that is very disappointing because I would have very much wished her to be part of this process.
2. The Position of the Parties

Neither the Mother nor the Father put themselves forward as carers for any of the children, and I have to say that that is a wholly realistic decision on the part of both of them. The Local Authority, as I have said, seek care and placement orders with a plan for adoption with the children being placed together, if at all possible. The grandmother seeks the return of the children to the family, namely herself, under the auspices of a Special Guardianship Order. She also has no objection, and indeed I think would probably support, a supervision order in favour of the Local Authority. All the other parties support that plan for the children. The placement with the grandmother was also supported by the expert witnesses in this case, that is Eric Dooley, an independent social worker, and Dr Joanna Sales, a child and adolescent psychiatrist.

3. I have already referred to the Mother's position so far as attendance at the hearing is concerned. Unfortunately she has also not filed any evidence or engaged in any assessments, albeit that she did attend earlier hearings, with the exception of a hearing in January this year, and she has attended contact, albeit not consistently. All the other parties have been present throughout the hearing, although I released the guardian from attendance today.
4. I have read two substantial lever arch files, together with a smaller file of contact notes, and I have heard oral evidence from the following witnesses: Laura Evans, the allocated social worker; Eric Dooley, the independent social worker; Dr Joanna Sales, consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist, the grandmother, JM; the Father, EV; and the guardian, Dionne Roberts.
5. The threshold conditions in this case are conceded by the Father. The Mother never put in a response to threshold. Although he has not conceded every incident relied upon, I consider that it is neither necessary nor proportionate to determine each incident, particularly as there is no evidence available from the Mother or, indeed, the other victim of violence, the Father's then partner, C W. Therefore I decline the invitation by Miss Hefford to conduct that exercise, which would be imperfect in any event in the absence of all the witnesses. The threshold asserts that the children were as of August 2013, when protective measures were taken, suffering and at risk of suffering significant harm. The nature of that harm is set out at paragraph eight of the threshold and reads:

'The parents have provided inconsistent care and parenting to EV, JV and TV. This inconsistency, poor parenting, being exposed to domestic violence, lack of boundaries within the home, has exposed the children to neglect, physical and emotional abuse.'

6. The principal concern relates to the serious domestic violence inflicted on the Mother, often in the presence of the children, and including in public places, which has involved the police, from 2009. The Father was also responsible for domestic violence against his partner, CW, and it is said his previous partner or partners. The Father's involvement with CW when the Mother plainly still had feelings for him fuelled the volatility of the parents' relationship and clearly caused the Mother pain, distress and anger.
7. Dr Sales in her report said, and I concur:

'It is my clear opinion that all three children have been subjected to an exceptionally damaging level of violence perpetrated by the Father against their Mother. It is clear that some of the violence has been directly witnessed by the children. Some of these episodes have been in public, which indicates Mr V's lack of regard for normal behavioural parameters and a distorted view of what is normal within intimate relationships. It is my opinion that it is likely that this has impacted directly on the children's emotional presentation at this point in time, specifically the difficulties shown by TV and JV and would have undoubtedly had a massive impact on their development in the future if it had not stopped. It is my opinion that through his, the Father's, excessive violence against their Mother and others he has been responsible for emotional harm. He seems to have been oblivious to how abnormal his violence was and also at the time was oblivious to the effects upon the children. All three children have been exposed to extreme levels of domestic violence within the family home. They are vulnerable to the development of various emotional difficulties as a result of the exposure.'

8. In 2012, the Father was convicted of assaulting the Mother and three police officers involved in his arrest. As part of his sentence he undertook an IDAP course, but seemingly to little avail as the violence continued. These incidents continued despite the children being subject to a Child Protection Plan from December 2012. Miss Evans states that there were a further six police Merlin reports involving the Father and his partners between February and July 2013.
9. The precipitating event appears to have been on the 28^th July 2013 when a fight occurred outside the home of the grandmother involving the Mother and her family on one side and the Father and Miss CW on the other. The children witnessed some of this episode and according to the grandmother were extremely distressed. Both parents minimised the domestic violence and the impact of it on the children.
10. There was also neglect and failure to meet the children's needs, including attending medical appointments and nursery. The children's safety, social development and in the case of JV and EV speech and language development were compromised as a result. EV presented with bruises to her face on four occasions, including one when she was not yet mobile. This was suggestive of a lack of supervision. She was not vocal in terms of babbling or making age-appropriate noises.
11. JV was extremely aggressive and the nursery reported that he pinned children against the wall to strangle them. There was significant delay in his speech and a referral was made by the nursery for speech and language therapy. TV on the other hand was overly compliant and did not react to being harmed. When his Father ceased to have consistent contact in July to August 2013 his behaviour significantly deteriorated and he was slamming doors, standing on the other side of the door to prevent adults getting in. I should say that TV had spent a large part of the Mother's pregnancy with JV with his Father and therefore they had developed a particular bond. TV was also seen in hospital for stomach pains, which may have been psychosomatic in origin as they ceased once he was placed in foster care.
12. The proceedings commenced on the 7^th August 2013 and the children were made subject to interim care orders on the 16^th August 2013. They have remained together ever since in the same foster placement out of the Borough. The children's presentation and behaviour was seen to improve radically once they were placed away from home. There have been a number of assessments of family members on both sides and all were negative. In particular there was a negative viability assessment of the grandmother conducted by the social worker Laura Evans. This consisted of one interview, although Miss Evans had met the grandmother previously as she was the children's social worker before they were received into care. She did not observe contact between the children and the grandmother because it took place on a Saturday, although I note that the guardian was in fact able to view such a contact.
13. The grandmother was born and brought up in Jamaica and describes an uneventful and loving childhood. She came to the UK in 2000 on a visitor's visa. She had four children, three born out of her relationship with EV, including the Father in these proceedings, and the fourth from what appears to have been a casual relationship. Once she came to England, there were a number of moves. She was introduced to a man called DM in Scotland by Mr OW, also known as TH, whom she knew from Jamaica. Mr OW was married to a lady in Scotland. The grandmother married DM in November 2001 and moved to Scotland in 2002. The grandmother eventually conceded that this was a marriage of convenience to legitimise her immigration status in this country. I will return to this issue when I set out the Local Authority concerns about the grandmother.
14. Whilst living in Scotland the grandmother was then returning to London fortnightly to see her children, whom she had left in the care of KA her oldest, then aged about 17, and an unspecified friend. A, the youngest, was then about only two. The grandmother then returned to London after a year and lived at a number of different addresses. She then formed a relationship with Mr OW from, according to her, 2003 to 2012, although she did not live with him consistently during that period. Again she persisted to Miss Evans and to Mr Dooley in denying the relationship, although she eventually conceded its existence to Mr Dooley after pressing by him.
15. There were two incidents of domestic violence in that relationship which involved the police in either 2003 or 2005 – the grandmother's dating of that incident has varied – and 2010. There was also a history of domestic violence between Mr OW and his wife. Despite this the grandmother continued with the relationship for another two years. I have to say that Mr OW sounds like a thoroughly unsavoury character. His assumed name, TH, was that of a dead friend and he served a prison sentence for entering the country illegally using this identity. According to the social work evidence he has also served one or more other prison sentences. According to the police he lived with the grandmother at her various addresses in London, although she referred to him to the police as a partner, but later denied this stating that he was just a cousin.
16. The concerns set out by Miss Evans in her viability assessment of the grandmother can be summarised as follows:

1) A lack of openness about the relationship with both Mr DM and Mr OW both to Miss Evans and to Eric Dooley, although the latter was eventually able to wrest the truth out of the grandmother.

2) A lack of stability of her lifestyle, employment and accommodation.

3) Leaving the children whilst living in Scotland.

4) The limited insight displayed by the grandmother into the harm caused to her grandchildren by exposure to domestic violence, in particular emotional harm. The grandmother saw the children as normal and unaffected by their experiences.

5) Linked to this concern, an inability to acknowledge the extent of risk posed by her son and her expression of belief that he was now in control of his anger.

6) An alleged collusion with the Father by failing to share information with Social Care about the Father's relationship with CW, thereby placing CW's child and the Mother's children at risk; also collusion in failing to adhere to a written agreement dated the 18^th June 2013 between the Mother and the social worker stipulating that the children should be at their grandmother's every weekend. The social worker maintained that the children would often be taken away by the Father during these periods and spend considerable periods with him and CW.

7) Domestic violence in the relationship with Mr DM, the relationship having continued after the second involvement of the police.

8) A lack of well thought out plans for managing her work together with care of the children, as well as how she would financially maintain the children.

9) A lack of a solid support network.

10) The violence exhibited by her son A

11) A lack of understanding of the needs of the children.

12) Potential difficulties in managing contact; and,

13) Representing a poor role model for the children.

17. As against this plethora of negatives, the Local Authority identified as positive the love that the grandmother had for her grandchildren, the fact that they shared the same cultural heritage and the fact that she appeared to have had a significant relationship with them prior to the children being received into care. There was also the obvious advantage of the children remaining in their birth family. Those, however, were the only positives identified.
18. I observe that the Local Authority felt so strongly about the unsuitability of the grandmother that they opposed any further assessment of her following the negative viability assessment and then went to the extent of making a further application in January to discharge the direction I had made for a full assessment, relying on certain further information concerning Mr OW and A which came to light subsequently. Moreover, they have maintained their position in the face of the contrary view put forward by all the other professionals.
19. Eric Dooley

I will turn now to consider the report and oral evidence of Eric Dooley. He is an experienced independent social worker. He saw the grandmother on four occasions and observed contact between the children, herself and the Father. Mr Dooley is himself Jamaican by origin and told me that he worked there as a teacher for some years. Not surprisingly he had a good understanding of Jamaican culture. He put a different gloss or perspective on many of the concerns raised by the Local Authority.

20. He referred to the grandmother's difficulties in communication and her use of patois, although I did not have any particular difficulty in understanding her when she gave evidence. He advised that the grandmother sought to mislead him about the origins and nature of the relationship with Mr DM, but eventually came clean when he pressed her that it was indeed a marriage to advance her immigration status. Similarly with Mr OW, Mr Dooley felt the grandmother felt obliged to repeat the lie that she had told the police and the immigration authorities about their relationship. His experience was that many immigrants are very wary about sharing information for fear of it being disclosed to the authorities and jeopardising their position and he felt that this was such a case.
21. He said the grandmother was very unsophisticated in her thinking. She had no experience of the care system, for which there was no parallel in her country of origin, and she would not be able to differentiate between the Local Authority and the government generally. Whilst he understood the Local Authority's concerns about the grandmother's honesty and openness, he felt they had to be looked at in this context. He felt there was now less need for her to dissemble as everything was out in the open, as the grandmother herself conceded. Nevertheless, he considered that there was a risk that she might yet conceal something which she felt it was not to her advantage to divulge.
22. He was, however, impressed that the grandmother had succeeded relatively early in having her children brought to the UK to join her. The grandmother also maintained the same story she had given to the police about Mr OW being her cousin and again only revealed the truth when pressed. Mr Dooley was concerned that she had remained in that relationship after domestic violence. Given her lack of openness, he was concerned about accepting her assertion that the relationship was indeed at an end.
23. On a positive note he considered that the grandmother had a good work ethic. He was concerned about the cramped nature of her accommodation were the three children to join her and her youngest child, A. The grandmother described to him a positive relationship with her son, EV, who had never shown disrespect to her, and also with the Mother, although she had not seen her since the beginning of this year. She said that before the children went into care she had wanted to give them a home, to which the Father agreed, but this was blocked by the Mother. She felt the Father would respect any boundaries she set and that the risk he presented was in the context of his relationships and not when he was on his own. She felt sure he would do nothing to jeopardise the children's placement with her.
24. The Father agreed with all of this and seeing them both together confirmed the picture to Mr Dooley. He met the Mother, who equally confirmed her support for the placement and her positive relationship with the grandmother. Mr Dooley felt that the grandmother's empathy with both the Father and the Mother might create difficulties in enforcing boundaries around contact, particularly over the passage of time. He saw this as the biggest risk. He saw safeguarding work with the grandmother as being essential.
25. The Positives: he considered that the grandmother had grown up in a loving family with appropriate boundaries and where children were valued. He noted, however, that she had had little preparation for pregnancy and child-rearing, having become pregnant with her first child at age 17. Nevertheless, she had brought up four children as a single Mother. He observed what he characterised as a secure attachment between the grandmother and her grandchildren and a very warm and positive contact session. From his own observations of the children and relying upon the assessment of Dr Sales, he did not consider that the care of the children should be beyond the capacity of someone able to offer good enough care. He felt the grandmother's parenting was not going to be, as he put it, 'sophisticated and scientific' but that it would meet the requirement for good enough parenting.
26. He accepted that at the beginning of the proceedings the grandmother had limited insight into the impact of domestic violence on the children. He explained that in her culture where she was growing up there would be little understanding of the impact of domestic violence unless a child was physically hurt and, indeed, he observed that the understanding of the effect on the children of domestic violence has only become more evolved in this country gin recent years. He considered that her insight had grown over time and as a result of her exposure to these proceedings, but that her appreciation of domestic violence issues needed to be raised substantially and he advocated work which could be done by a skilled social worker. He also thought that it was necessary for the grandmother to look to update her parenting skills.
27. He was not able to make a recommendation in his report and suggested holding a professionals' meeting to discuss the issues, in particular the issue of trust, and to weigh the pros and cons. This took place belatedly on the 4^th April. I have the transcript of the meeting, and during the meeting both Mr Dooley and Dr Sales felt able to make a positive recommendation that the children should be placed with the grandmother. Mr Dooley considered that a placement with the grandmother was the best way of ensuring that these three young children stay together. He said the alternative might be a childless couple, themselves with limited experience of caring for children. It was a big task to keep children of this age together.
28. Further, there was an ingrained relationship with all family members, in particular the grandmother, who had played a significant role in the children's life before they went into care. There were cousins and two paternal aunts. TV, aged five, would have a working memory of his family, which would not be erased. He spoke of the effect on a child's development caused by a change of placement being able to slip by one to two years and he felt this could be mitigated if they moved to the grandmother, which was a known placement. The recent report from Triangle about the Father's progress in dealing with his anger issues also lessened his anxiety about the Father being a disruptive element.
29. Dr Sales

She had not assessed the grandmother as part of her remit. She had assessed the children and the parents' ability to meet the children's needs. She provided a great deal of information about the children's current presentation, which she essentially described as normal with no significant behavioural or emotional problems. However, in oral evidence she stressed that, even though the children were currently not showing overt signs of disturbance, the degree of difficulty they had been exposed to, coupled with the several moves they had experienced, meant that it was probable that there would be some difficulties as the children got older wherever they were placed. In other words these were vulnerable children.

30. She said it was important to complete life story work for them to make sense of their life history so far and for carers to have access to professionals to discuss any concerns which arose. I note that Mr Dooley may have taken from her report that the absence of current difficulties meant that the children's needs could be met by good enough parenting, but in fact Dr Sales said that the carer needed to be someone with the potential to offer better than average parenting. As she put it, 'someone who could rise to the occasion.' She felt the grandmother would need to take her parenting to another level, but that there was no reason to think that she would not be able to do that.
31. She described the pros and cons in a similar way to Mr Dooley. She was impressed with the Father's contact with his children, which she described as 'up there with the best.' She considered that the sibling relationship should be maintained and she referred to all the advantages which stem from a family placement in terms of knowing one's origins. The grandmother had been a source of stability. She was concerned, however, about the grandmother's ability to manage her relationship with the parents, particularly the Mother, who had shown herself as unpredictable and less in tune with the children's needs than the Father during the proceedings.
32. Dr Sales felt that the breakdown of an adoptive placement would be, as she put it, absolutely catastrophic. She said the children would have been removed from their birth family and would have been told that this was their forever family. The children would ask themselves, 'What is it about me that I cannot survive in any family?' She said this would be even worse than a breakdown in a family placement. In the latter case the children would have the knowledge that every effort had been made to place them with their family of birth. She felt that if there was a breakdown either in a family or an adoptive placement this would be more likely to be in the medium to long term when the children became more challenging.
33. On reflection, I agree with that analysis about the potential effect of a breakdown of a family as opposed to an adoptive placement. She felt that it was a finely balanced decision as to whether the children should go to their grandmother or be adopted, as Mr Dooley had done, as neither option, as she put it, was 'an outright winner.' She felt that there was a general issue about families not being aware of the implications of not being wholly honest in proceedings such as these and she spoke of the very difficult situation for families when they face the sort of scrutiny that they do face in such proceedings.
34. My Impression of the Witnesses

Laura Evans

Laura Evans is a conscientious and intelligent social worker. However, I agree with the submissions of Miss Kelly that the balancing exercise she conducted was flawed. In my judgment I agree that she placed too much weight on the negatives and insufficient weight on the positives. Some of the concerns, for example, about how the grandmother would manage a work/home balance and how she would support the children financially, were relatively minor and were concerns which might apply to many families of limited means. Her concerns about A when unpicked were exaggerated.

35. She was undermining of the Mother's referee by saying the Mother had met her in McDonald's, and this in my judgment was a small, telling point in throwing light on her approach. That is not to say that many of her concerns were not legitimate, in particular the lack of openness and honesty and the limited understanding of the grandmother of domestic violence issues, but the lies that the grandmother told need to be seen in context, as Mr Dooley said.
36. I have to ask myself are these lies so grave and do they go so centrally to child-safeguarding issues that they effectively remove the grandmother from consideration as a carer? My answer to both these questions is no, and I prefer the approach that Mr Dooley took to the issue of lying about these relationships. I agree with the guardian that there is no real evidence of collusion. There is no evidence that the grandmother was aware of the written agreement, which appears to have been between the Mother and the social worker, and I cannot see that the grandmother failed to protect her grandchildren and Miss CW's child by failing to disclose the existence of the relationship.
37. As to the positives, I consider that the nature of the pre-existing relationship between the grandmother and the grandchildren and the relationships within the extended family, as well as the relationships between the children and the parents, were understated in terms of their significance. I do not consider that Miss Evans balanced properly against the family placement the unlikelihood of finding a placement to take on three children of this age with a dual heritage background. Susan Glogg, the team manager from the adoption team, said when she made a statement at the end of last year there were no families in Greenwich or on the National Register willing to consider adoption of three siblings of dual heritage.
38. Miss Evans said that the limited advertising that I had authorised had in fact been promising and that one family had emerged willing, on the face of it, to consider three children and that they represented a good cultural match. However, that is all that is known. If for some reason that family was not seen to be appropriate I ask myself what are the chances thereafter of securing a further such placement? Miss Evans told me that if a family was not found no decision had been made about a contingency plan as to whether that should be long-term fostering or a separate adoption of the children. That is a significant lacuna in my view in the Local Authority's evidence. Further, she did not consider how an adoptive family, potentially with no parenting experience, would fare in caring for three children of the ages of these children.
39. I also accept the submission that she has had relatively limited involvement with the grandmother. Although she had met her in the past, she met her only once for the purpose of the viability assessment and had not seen her together with her grandchildren. I consider that there was something of a standoff after the viability assessment was completed.
40. Eric Dooley

As I have already said, he is an experienced social worker and I found him to be a pragmatic and worldly witness. I found his description of the grandmother to be a very good fit with the lady whom I saw give evidence. What was particularly significant for me about his assessment was that he in no way understated the difficulties and yet still felt able to recommend a placement with her. I found his observations on Jamaican culture to be illuminating also.

41. Dr Sales

Again Dr Sales is an extremely experienced child and adolescent psychiatrist. I found her to be equally pragmatic and with a common sense approach. Whilst she had not herself assessed the grandmother, I have formed the view that she could bring her expertise to bear on what she had read and heard from others. She felt that on balance a family placement was the best placement for the children, and generally, although she came from a different discipline, I consider that her thinking was very similar to that of Mr Dooley.

42. JM - The Grandmother

Miss JM is a very pleasant woman who is both well presented and polite. I found her to be very much as Mr Dooley had depicted her. It is clear that she had played a significant role in her grandchildren's lives, with them spending weekends and some of their holidays with her. Even before the proceedings started, she wanted to assume care of the children. This was supported by the Father, but blocked by the Mother. She is plainly wholly committed to the children and to doing the best by them to the best of her ability.

43. I felt that she would work with the Authority and that she was genuinely prepared to take steps to improve her understanding of domestic violence, as well as her parenting skills. As against this, she was not, however, in my judgment still wholly open. Initially she said that she had not disclosed and she could not disclose the relationship with Mr OW because he was married to someone else. She had to be pushed in cross-examination before she conceded that she did not disclose it because it would look bad for her case. Also she said that the children had indeed witnessed the fight between the Mother and Miss CW when she had previously told the guardian that they had not.
44. I find there is still a real risk that she will not disclose something to the Local Authority if she perceives it to be against her interests to do so. I also find that there is a risk, especially in the longer term, that she may allow contact outside what is permitted, not least because her understanding of the risks associated with the Father is not currently well developed.
45. EV - The Father

He gave his evidence quietly and politely. He gave a convincing description as to how the Triangle course, in comparison to the previous IDAP course, was helping him, and he spoke in particular about re-enacting a scene where children in a darkened room are hearing an aggressive argument elsewhere and he spoke about the impact this had on him, and I consider that he was quite genuine when he spoke about that impact. I consider that he does seem to be benefiting from this course and that he is committed to it. I also consider that there is some genuine remorse for his past actions. He has a warm relationship with his children and a good understanding of their emotional needs.

46. The Guardian - Miss Dionne Roberts

The guardian is a conscientious guardian and she worked hard on this case. Her final analysis was a very helpful document. In her oral evidence I felt that she was less worldly than Eric Dooley in her assessment of the grandmother and on occasions I felt she was making too many allowances for her. It felt to me as if her position had become more polarised in reaction to the rigid stance taken by the Local Authority. For example, when she was asked about the grandmother's changed account of the fight outside her house she said it was the grandmother simply providing more information, when the grandmother had plainly changed her account.

47. She said that the case was finely balanced only around the issue of the grandmother's trust and the disclosure of her previous personal relationships. I do not agree. There are important issues of setting boundaries with the parents and of understanding of the impact of domestic violence on the children. She was also prepared to take the grandmother at her word about Mr OW because the grandmother had become a Christian. She said that there could be feelings of friendship and love in a marriage of convenience. This seems to fly in the face of the evidence that the grandmother only stayed with Mr DM for a year for the purpose of establishing her case with the authorities.
48. Whilst I consider the approach of the guardian in her assessment of the grandmother was perhaps less rigorous and worldly than I would have expected it to be, nevertheless I consider that her conclusions based on the balancing exercise that she conducted were well founded.
49. The Legal Principles

As the care plan is one for adoption, I must have the children's welfare throughout their lives as my paramount consideration and apply the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I must also have regard to the issue of proportionality. Any intervention must be in proportion to the harm it seeks to guard against and no more. As was put in the case of Re B [2013] UKSC 33, adoption is the last resort and is only permissible if nothing else will do. The judicial task of weighing up the options was described in the recent case of Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, and I refer to paragraphs 43 and 44:

'In relation to the nature of the judicial task we draw attention to what McFarlane LJ said in Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, paras
49-50:

"In most child care cases a choice will fall to be made between two or more options. The judicial exercise should not be a linear process whereby each option, other than the most draconian, is looked at in isolation and then rejected because of internal deficits that may be identified, with the result that, at the end of the line, the only option left standing is the most draconian and that is therefore chosen without any particular consideration of whether there are internal deficits within that option.

The linear approach … is not apt where the judicial task is to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child's future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child's welfare."'

50. Paragraph 44:

'We emphasise the words "global, holistic evaluation". This point is crucial. The judicial task is to evaluate all the options, undertaking a global, holistic and multifaceted evaluation of the child's welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each option. To quote McFarlane LJ again (para 54):

"What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options."'

51. The Pros of Placement with the Grandmother and the Cons of Adoption

1) A placement with the grandmother would be a family placement with all the positive consequences that flow from that in terms of the enhanced commitment a blood relative may have and the importance in terms of a child's identity and self-esteem.

2) The children have a warm and affectionate pre-existing relationship with their grandmother, which is likely to make the transition easier, with less risk of disruption to their social and emotional development.

3) Their grandmother loves them very much and is committed to them and in particular she is willing to undertake work to increase her understanding of the risks and to develop her parenting skills.

4) The children have a pre-existing relationship with the paternal, and indeed to some extent the maternal, extended family.

5) The children also have a warm and mutually-satisfying relationship with their Father, which can be preserved.

6) The Mother is also able to offer elements of positive contact for the children, provided that she is consistent.

7) A placement with the grandmother is in my judgment the best way of ensuring the important sibling relationship is preserved.

8) Adoption represents a step into the unknown and a severance of all direct contact with the birth family.

9) The prospects of securing an adoptive placement for three children of this age with dual heritage are in my view limited, particularly if the family referred to by Miss Evans is not suitable.

10) There is no clear contingency plan if an adoptive family is not identified, whether this would be separate adoptive placements or long-term fostering, both of which would carry significant disadvantages.

52. The Cons of Placement with the Grandmother and the Pros of Adoption

1) The grandmother has a limited understanding of the impact on the children of domestic violence, which will need to be developed.

2) The grandmother's current parenting skills will need to be built on to meet the potential challenges arising from the vulnerability of the children, as described by Dr Sales.

3) The grandmother does not see her son as a risk outside of his relationships with the Mother and Miss CW.

4) The grandmother has not been open and honest in the past and there must be a risk that she will not disclose things in the future if she sees it as not being in her interest to do so.

5) The grandmother has a history of a lack of stability in relationships, including domestic violence.

6) The grandmother may not adhere to the boundaries in relation to parental contact.

53. The additional pros of adoption are, firstly, that the family would be subject to a rigorous selection process and may have more developed parenting skills than the grandmother. Further, there are unlikely to be issues of trust and honesty. Secondly, such a placement would offer the greatest security and stability if a family placement is not possible. Thirdly, there would be intensive post-adoption support.
54. I must, however, also consider the supports available to the grandmother which could mitigate the risk, and I consider that there are supports which would mitigate the risks, primarily a robust supervision order with teeth, clear guidelines and structure for contact, work on domestic violence, work on parenting skills, access to the Under Fives service in Greenwich, life story work with the children and referral to CAMHS if necessary. What is particularly significant is my finding that I consider the grandmother is ready and willing to undertake the work offered.
55. I turn now to consider the checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act. The children's wishes: the children are too young to express informed wishes and feelings, but in my view if they could express their wishes they would wish to remain within their birth family. Indeed, TV has asked his Father if he could go home.
56. The children's needs: This is a sibling group and their relationship is likely to have consolidated further since their removal from their family. They are not rivalrous. They are not displaying any particularly challenging behaviour which might indicate a need for them to be separated. In those circumstances it is strongly in their interests to stay together as this represents a lifelong relationship for them. They need stability, to be protected from domestic violence or, indeed, volatile relationships by the adults who care for them. They need a permanent placement as a matter of urgency and for that placement to be their final placement.
57. The likely effect on the children of having ceased to be members of their original family: I consider that the effect is likely to be substantial, especially for TV, who has a clear memory and knowledge of his birth family, which is unlikely to be erased. As Mr Dooley said, this is likely to lead to many questions being asked in an adoptive placement, for which it would be difficult to give age-appropriate, meaningful answers. This could lead to unsettlement and, indeed, a sense of rejection by the birth family.
58. The child's age, sex, background and any relevant characteristics: I have already commented on the ages of the children, especially that of TV. These children are described as likable children who are currently not presenting any particular challenges. They relate well together as a sibling group. However, the evidence of Dr Sales as to their innate vulnerability, which is likely to produce challenges further down the road, is an extremely important matter for any carer to be aware about and to be proactive in seeking out appropriate services.
59. Any harm the children have suffered or at risk of suffering: their past harm is in accordance with the findings about the threshold that I have made. Any future harm they are at risk of suffering: if the grandmother is not true to her word and exposes the children to domestic violence or volatility in adult relationships, either the Father's or her own; if the grandmother is not able to raise her parenting standards to the next level, with the possibility of being unable to deal with any difficulties which may arise further down the line; if the grandmother is not able to adhere to clear boundaries in contact this could place the children at risk. The Mother is unpredictable currently and has limited understanding in my judgment of her children's emotional needs. The Father has a better understanding and my view is that if the course upon which he is engaged is successful the risk from him will diminish.
60. The relationship the children have with relatives, including the ability and willingness of the relatives to provide the children with a secure environment and the wishes and feelings of those relatives: I have really covered these points under other headings. In my judgment the grandmother does have the potential to provide the children with a secure environment and I am satisfied that she is committed to doing whatever she can to produce that situation.
61. This has been conceded by everyone to be a finely balanced case. As Dr Sales put it, there is no outright winner, but in the end, balancing the pros and cons and applying the checklist, considering the paramountcy of the children's welfare throughout their lives, I have come to a clear conclusion that placement with the grandmother under a special guardianship order best meets the welfare of these children throughout their lives and their welfare.
62. I had considered throughout the hearing whether a placement with her should be tested out under the auspices of an interim care order. However, I have concluded that that is not the right approach. Any problems are unlikely to arise within the next three months or so and it is inappropriate for the court to hold on to the case much beyond that. There will be a robust supervision order and if, and I hope above all this will not be the case, there was a breakdown the Local Authority would immediately return the matter to court.
63. The support package was only in draft form and I note that it is being reconsidered with input from the grandmother and the guardian and needs to be more robust. I have set out in the course of the judgment the matters which I consider need to be part of that support package.
64. Contact

I agree with Dr Sales and the guardian about the need for clear boundaries and structure and for the children to understand that the grandmother is and will be their primary carer. There needs to be some distancing from the parents, particularly in the settling in period. I agree with the proposals for frequency made by Dr Sales, and ultimately accepted by the guardian, that initially contact to the Father should be once a month and once every two months for the Mother. The Mother will need to prove that she can be consistent. This needs to be supervised at the beginning, both for the Father and Mother. I envisage the grandmother will take over supervision of the Father, but I do not want to be prescriptive as to when that will be. Supervision of the Father could be at the grandmother's home.

65. So far as the Mother is concerned, I agree with Dr Sales that because it is an unknown quantity how she will react, it should not be the grandmother's responsibility to supervise and I agree with her that the Local Authority should be looking to supervise the Mother's contact throughout the life of the supervision order. As I have said, the Father may well be able to move on to a situation with the grandmother supervising and his continued progress on the Triangle course would be an important indicator.
66. I do not want to be prescriptive as to when contact could increase for either parent as there are a number of unknowns: how the children will settle, the impact of contact, whether it is destabilising or beneficial, and how the parents progress and react. I will leave the question of when the contact could move to more frequent contact to the grandmother in consultation with the Local Authority under the supervision order. Finally, I would like to offer my thanks to the advocates for the moderate and proportionate way in which they have all conducted this hearing.
67. I just turn to say a few words to the grandmother. I am sure this will be a very, very happy decision for you and a decision that you were hoping for against hope. I am entrusting the children to your care. I have accepted the promises that you have made to the court in terms of what you will do. I have spelled out the risks as well because it would be unrealistic to think that there are not risks, but I have come to the clear conclusion that this is the best thing for your grandchildren.
68. I sincerely hope that they will have happy and settled lives with you and will be able to enjoy a relationship with both their Mother and their Father, but you are the boss. You make the decisions. They cannot put pressure on you, and I hope they will not do so, to alter your decisions, and they and you need to understand that given what the children have been through, everyone owes it to them to stick to the rules and to do their best by the children. That is my decision. I am very happy to be able to make this decision for a family placement and I wish you all luck and success in bringing up the children.

End of Judgment.