England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY

		Birmingham Civil Justice Centre 33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 6DS
		13 June 2014

MRS JUSTICE HOGG :

1. In May 2013 I gave judgment in this matter after a lengthy fact-finding hearing.
2. In that judgment I made serious findings of violent and physically abusive behaviour against MI in respect of his daughter E and in respect of A, and to a lesser extent L. I also made findings against him of historical sexually abusive behaviour towards another child B. I was critical of the mother and found she had not protected her children against MI. I also said that DH posed a risk of sexual abuse, although I could not quantify that risk.
3. MI did not accept my findings against him in respect of his abusive behaviour towards B and sought to appeal that part of my judgment. On 29 July 2013 the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal.
4. This welfare hearing was originally fixed to commence on 11 November 2013 with a time estimate of 10 days, but was adjourned to 17 February 2014 after it had become apparent further work and assessments were required.
5. This hearing commenced on 17 February 2014 and I heard evidence up until 28 February when it was adjourned part heard. The hearing was resumed on 27 March when I heard the mother give evidence over 2 days, after which it was again adjourned part heard. It was resumed again on 9 June when I heard the Guardian give evidence, read the additional reports and heard submissions.
6. I have to say that although I attempted to finish this case in February I was unable to do so. Some time was taken up with submissions concerning disclosure of information relating to the Local Authority's original social worker, MP, and a delay caused by the mother's Queens Counsel attending the Court of Appeal in respect of my decision on that aspect.
7. In addition progress has been slower than normal as through no fault of her own the mother required regular breaks during the hearing and early afternoon adjournments. Counsel have all been very mindful of this, and have endeavoured to work with the mother's requirements with courtesy and respect. I am grateful for their forbearance and consideration to her.
8. It is only right that I provide some explanation for the extended period over which this hearing has taken. It has involved considerable delay from the children's point of view as throughout they have remained "in limbo" with no final decision as to their long-term futures being taken. This delay is a matter of considerable regret for me, and one which I would not have wished. My view being that whatever the final outcome the children, their parents and grandparents in this case need to know as soon as possible, and to keep children in limbo without a final decision is not conducive to their well-being, particularly so when a move of carer and home is being considered, which in E's case will happen whatever I decide.
9. From the elder children's point of view it has also been very confusing and distressing for them. They have been aware of these proceedings for now nearly 2 years, during which time they have lived in a state of transition, and not known where and with whom they will eventually live, and whether or not E will be with them, elsewhere within the family or adopted. And, this is in addition to the harm they suffered at the hands of MI, as I have held, and the consequential emotional harm caused by his behaviour and their mother's failure to protect.

Events post Judgment

10. On 28 May 2013 Mrs I returned A and L to their mother after Mr I became ill. The return was not a carefully planned one; the girls have remained in their mother's care under the auspices of Interim Care Orders.
11. The mother and MI separated during the latter part of the fact-finding hearing and have not resumed cohabitation. MI currently resides in Hartlepool. It is now accepted that they have not met each other or resumed their relationship, although initially there were doubts as to the reality of the separation.
12. The girls have no contact with Mr and Mrs I but for a time visited their paternal grandparents for the weekend every fortnight. Since April they have stayed every weekend with Mr and Mrs B, seeing their father, and they have enjoyed their time in the B household.
13. E has continued in the care of her foster carer with regular contact, originally 3 times a week to her mother. She also sees A and L weekly and her maternal grandmother once a week. Currently she sees Mr and Mrs I fortnightly, and her father with supervision. The arrangements have recently been reviewed and contact reduced as it was adversely impacting upon E.

The Parties' Positions

14. The Local Authority is no longer seeking Care Orders in respect of A and L. Instead it recommends that I should make Special Guardianship Orders in respect of the girls to their paternal Grandmother Mrs B and her husband Mr B, whom the Local Authority have approved for this purpose. Mr H supports this plan. The Guardian is in agreement that the girls should be transferred from their mother's care to that of Mr and Mrs B. Until very recently she has been hesitant about making a Special Guardianship Order at this stage. With her assistance the Support Plan for the B's has been amended, and she now agrees with it. The removal of the girls from her care is opposed by the mother.
15. In respect of E the Local Authority has recently issued an application for a Placement Order. A Care Order with a view to adoption and a Placement Order are sought. Mr and Mrs I seek the long-term care of E under a Special Guardianship or Residence Order. In that they are supported by their son MI in the event that E is not returned to her mother's care.
16. The Guardian supports the Local Authority's plan for adoption. The mother also opposes E being placed with Mr and Mrs I.
17. The mother is seeking to retain the care of A and L, and to recover the care of E. She is very clear that she opposes all other plans and placements.
18. MI supports the mother in this regard in preference to his parents taking over E's care. Primarily he wants her to grow up with the mother and her sisters and only if that is not possible with his parents. He believes she should grow up within her family, and that he should have contact with her.
19. DH wants A and L to grow up within their family. Initially he wanted them to be in the care of their mother. However, having recently read the recent assessments of the mother by Helen Johnson and Dr Pope he has altered his view fearing that the mother will not be able to manage the girls on her own nor provide sufficient emotional support to them or be able to protect them. Consequently he supports his own mother and stepfather having the care of the girls under a Special Guardianship Order with the girls having contact with their mother. He also wants contact to his daughters, and accepts it will still have to be supervised.
20. Neither MI nor DH put himself forward to care for his respective daughter or daughters.

The Law

21. Under the Children Act 1989 Section 1 when the Court considers the future upbringing of a child that child's welfare is the paramount consideration. Often explained as "What is in the child's best interests" having regard to Section 1(2) and (3), the welfare checklist.
22. It is each child's best interests that I have to consider, not a parent's or grandparents' best interests.
23. The Local Authority made its applications under Section 31 of the Act. I can only make a care or supervision order if I am satisfied under Section 31(2) that the child or children is/are suffering or is/are likely to suffer significant harm and that harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child, or children, or likely to be given to her/them if the order were not made, and not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to her/them. In my earlier Judgment I made findings that all the girls suffered significant harm at the hands of MI, that he posed a sexual risk to them by reason of my finding in respect of B and that the mother had failed to protect her daughters from the physical harm they suffered.
24. In making those findings the criteria set by Section 31(2) had been met. I am thus entitled to make a care or supervision order in respect of each child if I thought it were to be in her individual best interests, and the care plan was appropriate for that child.
25. At the conclusion of this hearing if I considered it to be in the best interests of a particular child I am empowered to make a Residence Order under Section 8 or a Specified Guardianship Order under Section 14 of the Act in respect of that child to a specified person.
26. In respect of E the Local Authority also seeks a Placement Order under Section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
27. A Placement Order in respect of a child enables a Local Authority to seek out prospective adopters for that child, and to place that child with the proposed adopters.
28. By Section 21(2) of the 2002 Act before I may make a Placement Order in respect of E I must first have made a Care Order having approved the care plan for adoption.
29. Further, I cannot make a Placement Order unless each parent has consented to my doing so, or I am satisfied that their consents should be dispensed with: Section 21(3). Under Section 52 I may only dispense with a parent's consent if I am satisfied (a) (not relevant) or (b) the welfare of the child requires it.
30. In my deliberations concerning this application I must bear in mind the provision of Section 1 of the 2002 Act. In particular Section 1(2) "the paramount consideration of the court must be the child's welfare throughout her life". I must also have regard to Section 1(3)(4)(5) being the checklist and matters to be specifically considered. Section 1(6) further requires me "to consider the whole range of powers available to the court in the child's case under the Children Act or the 2002 Act" and the court "must not make any order under the 2002 Act unless it considers that making the Order would be better for the child than not doing so".
31. Adoption has been described as one of the most Draconian orders a Court may make. I do not disagree with this. Adoption extinguishes a child's rights to belong to his/her natural family; it extinguishes the parent's parental rights and responsibilities toward the child. It is an order that changes a child's legal status and whole lifestyle. The child no longer belongs to the natural family, is no longer a member of that family. The child becomes a legal member of another family, and acquires the right to be a full member of that family, and the adopters acquire the parental rights and responsibilities for that child. The child is absorbed into the new family, acquires its culture and lifestyle. It is an order that survives into adulthood and throughout the child's life.
32. From the natural parents' point of view it is the end of the parental relationship; it is unlikely there will be extensive if any direct contact during the child's minority. In many cases it is a devastating loss to the parents.
33. It is a loss to any child to be removed from his/her natural family. It is a loss not to have the chance to be brought up by a natural parent, or other family member.
34. If the child in question has siblings the child often loses touch with his/her siblings, and the chance to grow up with someone who shares the same gene pool and background. Again, it is a loss to both sides.
35. Recently, the Family Courts have been reminded that adoption should be allowed where there is "no other option" available to it. It is "the last resort". This is enshrined in Section 1(6) of the 2002 Act.
36. Against the losses of not being brought up in the natural family there are gains and benefits to be had and have been had by many, many children who for one reason or another have not been brought up in their own families. Adoption has brought and continues to bring much happiness and joy to children who have suffered greatly or would otherwise suffer greatly if not removed from their families. Adoption can bring safety, stability, security, love and affection to children which would otherwise be missing.
37. However, adoption is a Draconian measure and should only be utilised where "nothing else will do".
38. Before I consider the Local Authority's application for a Placement Order I must consider each child's best interests under the Children Act.
39. Although this is not a fact finding hearing where I have to consider whether or not something happened, or was said or otherwise, I have to apply the civil test of the balance of probabilities where there is a dispute of facts.

In respect of A and L

40. The mother seeks to retain the care of A and L and recover the care of E. She wishes to bring her daughters up together.
41. In my previous Judgment I recognised that the mother is a loving, caring mother. She loves her children. No one in Court has said anything different.
42. She provided and provides good basic day to day care. The children are fed, they are clean, their clothes are clean, the house is clean; the girls attend school regularly and on time, and when they required medical treatment such as for A's club foot or L's clicky hips the mother ensured they attended appointments and for treatment. In that sense there is no criticism of the mother.
43. However, both the Local Authority and Guardian raise serious concerns about the mother's capacity to protect the children from harm, following my findings last year, and about her ability to provide emotional care support for them particularly as they grow up and enter their adolescence. They raise doubts about her ability to provide appropriate guidance and boundaries for them.
44. In my previous Judgment I referred to the mother's own vulnerabilities. I must look at her as she is. Her vulnerabilities are serious, and it is the Local Authority's and Guardian's view that the vulnerabilities impact adversely upon her ability to protect and emotionally provide for her daughters.
45. The mother has very severe learning difficulties. As in the previous hearing she has had the benefit of the same special advocate or intermediary who has helped her throughout this hearing, and no doubt in consultation with her legal team, and I am very grateful to her for helping and supporting the mother throughout both these long and difficult hearings. Although there has been a change of Leading Counsel, and just recently a new Junior through ill health, she has had the benefit of the same very experienced Junior for most of the proceedings, and Solicitor.
46. The Court proceedings both in May 2013 and now must have been very gruelling and anxious for her. Throughout she has conducted herself in a measured, quiet and dignified manner.
47. I have already said I have to consider the mother's vulnerabilities and difficulties and the impact they may have on her ability to parent her daughters and perhaps whether she can parent all three together.

The Girl's Perspective

48. A and L have had a difficult childhood. Their mother has her learning difficulties.
49. Their parent's marriage had its ups and downs until the final separation. The process of disintegration must have been upsetting and confusing for them. Thereafter they were able to have contact with their father and members of his family. Although at times it may have been difficult to arrange contact their continued relationship with their father and paternal family has stood them in good stead.
50. Following their parents' separation their mother formed a relationship with MI, and within months he was a full-time member of the household. What they felt about a new man coming into the home and taking their father's place in their mother's affections I do not know. It has not been explored. To some extent it is disturbing for any child and I am sure it affected these girls: they may have been confused, distressed, and indignant on their father's behalf. Whatever their feelings the changes would have had an impact on them. They would at least have had to become accustomed to the new regime.
51. During the time MI was in the home it seems that there were difficulties with their behaviour, particularly so in the case of A. She could be difficult to manage; the mother found it difficult to cope, and on occasions MI mistreated her, and to a lesser extent L. His behaviour to them caused physical and emotional harm. On top of that he physically abused E: that in itself is emotionally harmful even if they did not witness the incidents which caused the injuries.
52. To know that their baby sister was injured by their mother's lover, and to know he had abused them and their mother failed to protect E or themselves from such abuse would be emotionally damaging and distressing for them.
53. Recently, since the last hearing in March, it has become apparent from the professionals who have worked with the older girls that A blames herself for not doing something to protect E from MI. How, aged 6, she could have protected E is difficult to imagine. He is a big, strong man who abused her, and of whom she is now able to say she is scared. She should not feel guilty in any way but it is a mark and a constituent of the emotional damage that she has suffered.
54. It has also emerged during the recent work with her that A is very angry. This may help to explain her increasingly difficult and challenging behaviour, at times physically aggressive to her own mother, and very recently to her maternal grandmother, but not to her paternal grandmother or father.
55. Her behaviour at school has also deteriorated. In the past she has had difficulties with maintaining friendships with her peer group at school. This difficulty has further increased with the school noting she can be aggressive to other pupils, and the word "bullying" has been used about her behaviour.
56. Her anger centres around the physical abuse perpetrated upon her by MI, the injuries he caused to E and her mother's failure to protect them from him. She has her own feelings of guilt, and no doubt feels anxious, distressed and confused about the events and disruptions to her life since her parents separated.
57. The past disruptions cannot be ignored. Since July 2012 they have been aware that E had been injured, admitted to hospital and placed with foster carers. Although they have been and are permitted contact to her it is restrictive, somewhat artificial and not in the easy way of all three sisters living together at home.
58. A and L were placed together with Mr and Mrs I. It was and had to be a period of adjustment. Mrs I insisted on "boundaries" which the girls were not used to. They saw their parents under the auspices of the Local Authority. They had to cope with professionals wanting to talk to them about life at home, their sister and their feelings. There were long days travelling to and from school. There were threats (from their perspective) by the Local Authority of being removed from the I's to the B's, and throughout they were aware of the concerns for E, and discussions involving their long-term placement.
59. Then without much planning they were transferred back to their mother. She was without MI, having recently separated, and no doubt to some extent distressed. There was little or no support or help from the Local Authority despite the Guardian's expressed anxieties and the mother's wish for help and support.
60. In that I am critical of the Local Authority. It is more than obvious that this was a time when the girls and their mother, given their experiences and vulnerabilities, needed help, guidance and support.
61. I am not saying that the initial lack of support and help would have altered the current situation or my final decision, but it would have assisted the mother and children in coming to terms with the events since MI came into the mother's life. Instead of which initially there was no such support, and still the cloud of uncertainty hung over the household. The welfare hearing was fixed for November and then adjourned to February, and up to now.
62. The last year, particularly the last few months, must have been gruelling to the mother and children alike. The mother is vulnerable, and she has emotions. She has been fully aware that she was at risk of losing the care of her children. She must have been incredibly anxious and unsure of herself and the outcome.
63. More recently there has been involvement with various organisations to assist and report on her, professionals work and assessments of her and the girls. All well intentioned, helping her, or considering her abilities to care long-term for her daughters. She has been under enormous pressure, which would have daunted anyone, let alone one with her vulnerabilities.
64. The girls also have been under pressure and anxiety. No doubt they would have picked up on the mother's anxieties and would have been aware that their long-term future had not been determined. Their behaviour has been challenging and increasingly so; an element of that must be put down to their anxiety about their future, particularly A who is older and more aware.
65. The delay in the decision making process would not have helped, and no doubt would have added to the anxieties in the home.
66. However, I cannot explain the increasingly challenging behaviour of the girls, A in particular, at home and school, to the anxieties and delay created by the proceedings.
67. This case is much deeper than that.
68. A is angry because of what happened in the home, and that her mother failed her. She has reacted.
69. The mother is vulnerable, and has her own difficulties. She is not bad or wicked. She dearly loves all her girls. She wants to care for them all.
70. The issue is whether she can manage to care for and parent the elder two, and E.
71. The return home at the end of May 2013 of A and L was not planned and managed as well as it should have been. It would have been difficult in any event given the past history and continuing anxieties. Initially it was not supported or aided by the Local Authority: too little help was given. That failure exacerbated an already difficult situation.
72. It is important to recognise that while MI was in the house A exhibited challenging behaviour at home, and difficulties in her relationships at school.
73. Her return home, given the harm she had already experienced at home, the hurried removal from the I's and general anxieties about her future required that she needed help. Her sister also needed help. Her mother needed help. They were left to cope.

The Issues

74. Mr Feehan on behalf of the mother put it to the Guardian that the case really centred on the question of the risk of emotional harm to the girls arising from their continuing relationship with the mother, with the questions of protection from future physical and sexual harm being so low as not to require thought of removal for those reasons alone. The Guardian did not demur from that proposition.
75. The Guardian agreed, and has always accepted from a day to day point of view the mother provided good physical care. The children were clean, their clothes and home were clean; they attended school regularly and on time. She provided a daily routine of meals, bath and bedtime. From that point of view she had minimal, if any, criticism.
76. She accepted that since MI and she separated the mother had not sought another adult relationship and was concentrating on caring for the girls.
77. She accepted that currently the risks of physical or sexual abuse from another adult were low, and would not justify removal of the girls from their mother as of now, although she recognised that the level of risk may change should the mother commence a new relationship.
78. The issue before me now is given the mother's own vulnerabilities and the girls own emotional difficulties and experiences can she provide an emotionally secure, stable home environment for the elder girls and/or E.
79. The mother herself accepts that the girls are challenging. In the past she has asked for help with managing A. She is finding it increasingly difficult to cope with and manage their behaviour. In the last few weeks she has repeatedly asked for help and advice in managing A in particular. She accepts she has raised her voice and slapped them. A refers to her shouting and smacking.
80. The professionals and Guardian accepts the girls are like "closed books". They are guarded and will not easily speak of "life at home with Mum".
81. A number of assessments of the girls, their experiences and relationship with their mother and of their mother have been carried out in the last nine months. It is important to consider them. They provide a picture of the difficulties which the family have encountered over a long period, and thoughts about the future.

HJ

82. Following my Judgment and the return of the girls to their mother an independent risk assessment of the mother was carried out by HJ, an independent social worker, who reported on 30 August 2013 and gave evidence to me in February.
83. Following the making of her report she had no further involvement with the family. Her evidence related to her work with the mother during August 2013 whom she interviewed on two occasions.
84. Ms J had read the reports from Dr Bellamy, Dr Gillett and Communicourt in respect of the mother and her disabilities and sought to tailor her questions and discussions in such a way as to ensure the mother could understand and respond to her adequately.
85. Ms J was careful to say that the mother cooperated fully with her during the interview and that she was in no doubt the mother cares deeply for her children.
86. She noted that until the mother separated from MI in May 2013 she had not lived alone. Previously she had lived with her parents, Mr H or MI, and that it was a new and untried, untested situation. She also felt that at that time the mother was struggling emotionally following the separation from MI.
87. She referred to the mother relying on "borrowed perspectives" to assist her understanding in certain areas, explaining that she relied on the opinions of others whilst not understanding them or fully integrating them into her own belief system. Ms J felt that this and the mother's low self esteem sometimes made it difficult for her to form clear opinions of her own, especially so if their was competing information and views from others. As a result Ms J felt she is:

"rendered more vulnerable to outside influence, and likely to be vulnerable to individuals who appear to provide her with positive attention and regard"

88. This vulnerability was an important aspect to the mother's deference to MI's views and inability to stand up to him and protect the children.
89. She noted that while talking about her relationship with MI the mother spoke of the positive aspects, the support and comfort he gave her in the early days, but was unable to discuss spontaneously the negative aspects of his temper and his violence. She reported the mother found it difficult "to integrate these two very different aspects of the relationship".
90. Ms J was concerned by this inability as the mother had attended the fact-finding hearing and there were clear findings against MI.
91. She was also concerned by some of the mother's comments appearing to exonerate MI's behaviour towards M; by explaining he acted in response to the child's own wrongdoing. She felt that this showed the mother's own lack of insight, and indicated the potential lack of ability to protect in the future.
92. She noted however that when the mother was asked she was able to talk about L as an individual and what she liked and disliked, but she noted the mother struggled to answer questions relating to the children's emotions and feelings. In so doing revealing a lack of deep insight.
93. The mother was asked about the findings of sexual abuse against MI and whilst commenting that she felt sick when she discovered the nature of the offence she was unable to associate the finding with the possibility that he may have been "grooming" A or L during the relationship.
94. In her conclusion Ms J said that the mother had some understanding and acceptance of my findings, but

"the understanding was not as complete or as robust as it might be; that she continued to rely on borrowed perspectives with regard to the findings and had not sufficiently developed her own independent understanding or insight into their detrimental consequences. "

As a result she questioned the mother's ability at that time to be able to protect the children.

95. She concluded that there were risks in the mother caring for the children then and in the future. They related to the mother's difficulties with integrating competing information, her use of borrowed perspective, lack of ability to think independently and personal vulnerability. She considered that work with the mother may reduce the risks in the short term but:

"it would not fundamentally change the mother's functioning, make her less vulnerable or reduce the risks involved in the longer term"

96. She was unable to recommend further assistance or intervention that would adequately address that concern.
97. She also added that given her presentation of the mother during her assessment she would then have difficulty in reliably and consistently prioritising her children in future relationships and she would struggle to assess those risks.
98. In other words should she enter into a new relationship there was a risk that she could in some way be manipulated or persuaded to act in a way or accept behaviour contrary to the welfare of her children.
99. In evidence to me she was clear that she conducted a risk assessment of the mother in August and that she had not been instructed to consider the mother's capacity to parent the children or to consider the individual needs of the children.
100. In that sense her evidence is limited but has a value, and sign posts difficulties which have been considered by other experts.

Dr Sharon Pope

101. Dr Sharon Pope, Clinical Psychologist with specialist experience of parents with learning disability, was instructed to provide psychological assessments of the mother and A and L. She provided her report on 16 December 2013, and gave evidence to me.
102. Dr Pope interviewed the mother on two occasions, 25 and 26 November, in her solicitors' offices with her then advocate being present for part of the first interview.
103. She also met the girls at home on 11 December, observed contact with E on 26 November, and spoke with the Head Teacher at the girls' school on 10 December.
104. Dr Pope assessed the mother's cognitive functioning:

"She has a low IQ within the "borderline" range, but she manages the demands of daily living relatively well, but her cognitive functioning suggests 'global impairment across all key areas of cognitive functioning' and has played a significant part in her difficulties in parenting and safeguarding the children."

"She has difficulties with verbal comprehension and abstract reasoning, which means she is less able to understand or identify concerns regarding the children. She is also less able to consider and weigh a range of options in decision making and consequently but inadvertently relies on others whom she trusts."

"She is not confident nor assertive and in this respect is "suggestible" and vulnerable to being coerced, manipulated and dominated by others. These factors affected the mother's capacity to protect the children. Moreover her reduced intellectual capacity "prevents her from fully monitoring and understanding the children's individual emotional states". Her overall psychological profile did not equip her with the skills to fully identify the risks and harm to the children, nor was she able to critically evaluate and deal with others such as MI."

105. Dr Pope was again careful and clear that the mother loves her children, wants to care and protect them, and by the time of the interviews had "an overarching understanding" of the care proceedings and findings, and realised that she did not protect her children and could have acted differently.
106. Dr Pope considered the mother was of low mood, had difficulty in expressing her feelings and lacked self-esteem and confidence. She thought that when the mother felt emotionally unsupported she would rely on the children directly or indirectly for emotional support. This resulted in a "dysfunctional dynamic in which A assumes too much responsibility for her mother and has become embroiled in adult issues".
107. In talking to Dr Pope the mother had indicated that A can be difficult to manage, could be cheeky and defiant, and this had escalated while MI was living in the household. She thought she had a close relationship with A but added she can compete for attention and be demanding of such. That she had difficulty in sharing.
108. The mother described L in greater detail. She indicated that L was prone to tantrums over the past year, screaming, crying, hitting her mother, kicking and even biting. The mother seemed to have no particular strategy for managing the tantrums other than leaving the child to calm down.
109. The mother did not consider that MI's involvement in the family had a continuing negative impact on the family.
110. The Head Teacher gave an account of the girls. Both had shown significant difficulties while MI was living with the family, but were at the time of the report enjoying a more settled period. While he was in the household A showed challenging behaviour, defiance and opposition to adults and an increase in already existing difficulties with relationships and friendships with other children. Those difficulties were continuing: she could be overly sensitive, perceive criticism and fell out with others. She lacked the insight or skill to make amends. She "lacked empathy and understanding of the feelings of others, and lacked awareness of when she made upsetting comments". She was helpful to adults and often preferred the company of adults. She had a Learning Mentor at school which gives her support, and had disclosed that at times she emotionally supported her mother, seemingly to be her confidant. The Head Teacher thought A "had considerable insight into her situation and a degree of awareness of the mother's limitations".
111. The Head Teacher described L. She had settled well into the Reception Class and was more able to make and retain friendships; she can be sulky and stubborn, but did not seem to show the level of tantrums as the mother had described.
112. Overall both the girls were well presented, were able to concentrate, work well and were reaching their expected targets. They each enjoy being praised.
113. Dr Pope carried out a psychometric assessment of the children with the assistance of the mother.
114. The results reveal that both were showing signs of significant behavioural and emotional disturbance with A having difficulties with her relationships with other children.
115. The mother identified that both could be cheeky and disrespectful, lying and interrupting. She also said A had a short attention span and could provoke and tease others. She had already revealed that if the children misbehaved, not doing as she asked she could be "triggered" to anger.
116. Dr Pope met with A and L at home. She noted A was guarded in her responses, found it difficult to express her feelings, but revealed considerable pent up emotion, anger, fear and in respect of her own relating to her mother.
117. Dr Pope described A as "a delightful engaging funny little girl who presents as somewhat 'weighed-down'. She has no intellectual difficulties and her cognitive development is within typical limits but she has experienced considerable disruption in her life. In evidence she thought that A would and could already 'out wit' her mother, and seek to control the situation at home.
118. She has psychological difficulties, feels rejected, isolated and frequently "falls out" with others at school. She lacks the social and interpersonal skills to negotiate friendships.
119. She behaves in a pseudo-adult fashion, seeking to control and manage adults to whom she is overly helpful and accommodating, which in turn may render her at risk from predatory or abusive adults.
120. Dr Pope felt she has an insecure/anxious attachment style which produces her need to control others and situations, and leads to the difficulties at school. She is highly sensitive to emotional issues and works to suppress them; her most prominent feelings she seeks to avoid are anger and fear.
121. She has an important and meaningful relationship with her mother but the underlying attachment is insecure, showing anxious and avoidant features which is likely to involve not being able to trust the parent to look after her, contain her emotions and keep her safe.
122. Dr Pope was of the opinion there was difficulties in the parent/child relationship.
123. L was described as a delightful, polite, amusing little girl whom Dr Pope thought was less troubled than A. She is more able to make and form relationships, but the assessment indicated she was also experiencing emotional difficulties, being anxious, clingy with many fears.
124. Her attachment style is also insecure, but less avoidant than A. Her tantrums were a method of expressing her emotions: the tantrums were not simply an extension of toddlerhood but are a manifestation of emotional disturbance.
125. She also has an important and meaningful relationship with her mother which was less complex than that of A. Her tantrums at home required better management. She needs firm boundaries and management, and parenting which takes account of the experiences that have resulted in emotional instability.
126. Overall Dr Pope felt the mother has difficulty with being an assertive proactive parent.
127. Recognising the significant and meaningful relationship each had with their mother Dr Pope said that a further move from their mother's care would have a significant impact on each girl and will further compound their difficulties.
128. They each require certainty and security which the mother has been unable to ensure. Both are experiencing emotional difficulties. Dr Pope felt L's difficulties could be managed by sensitive, warm, responsive child centred parenting, with firm boundaries in place. A's difficulties are more profound; in addition to sensitive child centred parenting Dr Pope considers she required therapeutic help, where she is able to express her complex and unpleasant emotions and to gain an understanding of her life experiences. Dr Pope told me that if L did not receive the sensitive and emotionally insightful parenting she requires L's difficulties could escalate to match those of A.
129. In Dr Pope's view the mother does not have an adequate understanding or insight into the impact their experiences have had on the children, and her own behaviour has contributed to their difficulties, particularly for A. Dr Pope said that the mother's cognitive difficulties and psychological situation effectively precluded her from caring and supporting A in her therapy and recovery, but she said the mother could and should be actively involved in the therapy to repair her relationship with A.
130. Dr Pope in her evidence was very clear that A needs therapy; but that it would not be possible or advisable for A to engage in therapy while living with her mother. The mother would not have the emotional capacity to understand and support A through that therapy. A would require sensitive and consistent parenting during that process which the mother could not provide.
131. The mother herself requires help: educative learning and therapy to assist her parenting and ability to understand both her daughters' emotional needs and feelings. Currently she lacks deep insight and is unable to parent them emotionally. Given her cognitive functioning Dr Pope was not overly hopeful that the mother's therapy would be successful "the prognosis is not particularly good". In any event it would take not less than 6 months work. She said that the mother's cognitive profile was "fixed and was not going to make a significant change", that this in turn would limit the extent to which the mother could benefit from therapeutic or educational input.
132. Dr Pope advocated a placement for both girls away from their mother, but a placement if possible within the family. Such a placement would lessen further psychological difficulties and distress caused by the move, and would facilitate some contact with their mother.
133. Since the mother gave evidence in March 2014 further work has been done with her and A and L. The mother had told me that during the Autumn, and since, she has attended the Malachi Project and Freedom Project. At Malachi she received support in her parenting and at The Freedom Project help with issues relating to domestic violence.

Dr Rosie Gray

134. After the hearing in March it was agreed that Dr Rosie Gray, Forensic Psychologist, should be instructed to carry out protective work with the mother.
135. Dr Gray had previously been instructed to work with Mrs B to assist her to understand the risk of sexual abuse, recognise any possible indicators, and to protect her granddaughters from any such abuse, in particular from her son their father.
136. As a result of the work Dr Gray was able to say that Mrs B had responded well to their sessions and had benefitted from them.
137. It was felt that given Dr Gray's involvement in the case and the time available it was appropriate for Dr Gray to be further instructed but to work with the mother.
138. Dr Gray reported on 30 May 2014. She had been instructed to undertake safeguarding work with the mother focusing on the risk of sexual abuse, physical harm and exposure to domestic abuse.
139. Dr Gray was able to discuss with the mother on five occasions (the sixth was due after the report) issues of sexual harm and domestic abuse, her understanding of such abuse, the risks particularly with regard to safeguarding herself and her children.
140. She reported that the mother attended all appointments and engaged well. She clearly loves her children and wishes for them to reside with her. She had made significant progress in developing greater knowledge/understanding of grooming strategies, abusive relationship behaviour and warning signs of abuse. However, the doctor found her integration or application of her knowledge to the experiences of herself and her children had been inconsistent. She was concerned that the mother currently lacks the internal mechanism and external support network "to translate her knowledge into action". She thought the mother will require longer term directed therapeutic work targeting self-esteem, assertiveness and determination to address rather than shy away from challenges in her life. This was required to ensure that she consistently took responsibility to safeguard her children.
141. The doctor added that whatever the outcome of these proceedings, the mother will require further support of a therapeutic and practical nature.
142. I did not hear from Dr Gray in respect of this report.

The S Project

143. The Local Authority also instructed the S Project to work with the girls and their mother. The workers met with the girls on two occasions at home and four times with L and three times with A at their school, where direct work was done with the children independently.
144. With regard to L no concerns were raised by her, but she spoke positively about her mother, and her home, and other close relatives. It was noticed that of the two A was the dominant sister whose directions and demands L followed.
145. A was less at ease than L in her discussions. At times she engaged to an extent, at others she was reluctant to do so. She appeared closed and unwilling to talk about home life and what she enjoyed doing. They thought she may be apprehensive about the involvement of social workers and discussing home life. She did not refer to any upsetting or distressing incidents at home, of which her current social worker has recently become aware. To the workers she appeared closed and very guarded about what she says and discusses, and felt further work with her, or L was not appropriate.
146. In respect of the mother the S report was much more detailed. They had six sessions with the mother at home. They had been instructed to support the mother's parenting, and safeguarding of herself and the children.
147. During the first visit on 14 April they noted the house was clean and tidy but the children were very hyperactive, demanding of attention and L reluctant to heed her mother. They also noted a mark on her nose which the mother said had been caused by A who had thrown a remote control at her. She admitted that sometimes fighting between the girls can be an issue.
148. They met again on 23 April when the mother gave her account of E being taken to hospital and the difficulty she had in accepting she had been injured, and by MI. She now believes the girls, particularly A, to be scared of him: "They used to listen to MI when he was part of the household and did not misbehave regularly as they do now". She admitted he used to smack them. The mother admitted she needed help with guidance and boundaries with the girls and at times struggled to manage their behaviour. She admitted that on occasions they hit and kicked her and swore at her. She thought their behaviour was worse following the weekends with Mrs B and telephone calls from their father.
149. There was another home visit on 28 April when the mother told the workers that A had nightmares and on occasions became angry and frustrated after her weekend visits to her grandparents.
150. She also referred again to the children being aggressive towards her.
151. There were discussions relating to sexual abuse during both the visits on 28 April and 7 May during which the mother actively engaged.
152. The following visit on 12 May the workers again referred to the risks of sexual, physical and emotional abuse, grooming and risky adults. The mother struggled to recall the information she had received during the previous sessions. She required considerable prompting and was able to show she had retained some information, although she still seemed to be unable to acknowledge or understand that she herself could be vulnerable. She admitted that MI smacked the girls during their relationship. Again she referred to struggling to manage the children's behaviour and smacking them leaving "a little red mark"; that she does not know what else to do when the difficult behaviour escalates. She also disclosed an incident when she sent A to her room and she was kicking the walls and screaming loud enough for the neighbour to visit, asking if she was locked in her bedroom, which the mother said was not the case; they threatened to call the police.
153. The final home visit reported upon was on 19 May. There were several areas of discussion during which she displayed basic health care knowledge and encouragement for the girls to help within the home. Again she expressed her difficulties and need for help in managing the girls' behaviour. She believed that the paternal grandparents and their father were unsupportive of her and egged on (my words) the girls to misbehave and swear at her.
154. Overall the workers felt that the mother had retained very little information over the sessions and wondered whether further work would benefit her learning. I did not hear from any of the workers involved.

Ms T M – Social Worker

155. I also received two further statements from the children's social worker, TM, dated 27 May and 5 June. I had previously heard from Ms M. She had been allocated in November but when I heard her in evidence in February she had little to say having only recently been allocated, and was still working her way into the case.
156. She reported that since 9 April A had attended five counselling sessions with VT, Psychotherapist. During those sessions MI was discussed and it emerged A was scared of him, and her biggest worry is that he "will come back". When she was living with Mr and Mrs I she was constantly worried about him returning. She is still worried about him returning even though she is living with her mother. She is very upset about what happened to E, and that she could not protect her from MI.
157. She also exhibited to her statement and referred to the report in respect of the mother from Dr Gray, and the two reports from the S Project in respect of the mother and girls.
158. In her final statement dated 5 June, Ms M referred to a referral from the Guardian who had visited the children on 17 May following a telephone call from A. She again referred to the S Project reports and the concerns raised.
159. On 21 May as a result of the Guardian's referral she visited the paternal grandmother who had collected the girls by bus on Saturday 17 May from their mother. Mrs B told the social worker that both girls were very distressed. A had said that their mother had been shouting at them and smacked them. L said her mother smacked her on her scar (on her thigh) and it hurt, and that A had called her mother 'a whore'.
160. Mrs B told the social worker that the girls were always excited and pleased to come for contact, they did not misbehave and maintained the boundaries required of them. She said she had no problems in managing their behaviour, and A loves helping her in the kitchen. She said the girls are petrified of MI and are fearful he will return. She accepted that both girls had had nightmares while staying with her about ghosts, foxes and badgers.
161. She reported that the girls appeared reluctant to return to the mother, clinging to her (Mrs B) and saying their mother would not let them go anywhere, or seldom let them play outside.
162. On 22 May Ms M visited the school and spoke with the Deputy Head Teacher and Learning Mentor. They reported that the school is concerned that A is bullying other children, and this seems to be on the increase. She falls out with other children and can be very controlling and domineering. It was noted that since A reported being locked out of the house and the mother had found out neither child had disclosed any information about home life to the school.
163. They described A "as a very worried child, at times seemed confused and emotionally needy. She controls other children, pushes and hits them, but in class she is well behaved and wants to learn. She is academically average and requires reassurance".
164. The Learning Mentor said A continues to have weekly sessions with her, and can come and talk to her at any time. In one session A had said she was torn between her mother and grandmother, and had been told by someone, whom she did not identify, that if she went to live with her grandmother E would be adopted and she would not see her. She is troubled and very anxious by this. A speaks to her Mentor but does not say anything about life at home. She is very reserved in what she says.
165. Ms M spoke to A and while chatty about school and her activities there and expressing her love for grandmother and father and enjoyment at seeing them, became reticent about life at home with her mother and at her grandmother's, and said that nothing worried her and she did not want to talk to the social worker about anything.
166. The social worker spoke to the mother who admitted she smacked the children when they did not do as asked and were physically abusive to her. She reported A was rude, swore at her and hit her. She did not seem to understand why A needed therapy. Again she blamed the paternal grandparents and father for the girls' misbehaviour.
167. As a result of these enquiries and emerging difficulties the Local Authority bolstered the support and help for the girls in school and at home rather than remove the girls from their mother's care pending the outcome of these proceedings. This is not to say they did not consider removing them.
168. The social worker also referred to E. It seemed that E's routine and well-being had become compromised by the frequency of contact to her mother and sisters. In addition she had fortnightly contact with her own paternal grandparents. Changes were put into place on 14 April so that she continued to see her mother twice weekly, but her sisters once a week.
169. I did not hear from the social worker, or any member of the school staff. However, the comments have not been challenged by the mother who through Counsel acknowledges she has found the girls difficult to manage on occasion, that they can be aggressive to her and rude and on occasions she has "slapped" them leaving a red mark.
170. The situation as disclosed by the social worker and the S workers is concerning, and indicates that matters in the home have not improved over the year since the children returned to their mother's care, but rather have deteriorated.

The Guardian

171. The Guardian provided her final report on 9 June and gave evidence to me.
172. The Guardian pointed out that following my Judgment last year and after the mother and MI had separated the parents, MI and his parents supported the return of A and L to their mother's care. This was not in fact supported by the Independent Reviewing Officer, the then allocated social worker Miss P, or Team Manager. A further assessment was proposed before the return. There was no Court time to consider the matter. The Guardian was anxious and urged the Local Authority to put considerable support in place, educative work, out of school activities, robust monitoring and increased contact with Mr and Mrs B.
173. The children were returned without an assessment. No support was put into place by the Local Authority despite the Guardian's urging and mother's requests.
174. I have already referred to the various assessments by Helen Johnson, Dr Pope, work with the Freedom Programme and Malachi Project, and the more recent work by the S Project and Dr Grey.
175. The Guardian confirmed she made a referral to the Local Authority on 17 May 2014 after she visited the girls at their paternal grandparents home. A was distressed saying her mother had been shouting in her face, smacking her and telling she hates her. L said her mother had slapped her "bad leg" and had been shouting at her. She said they were "not to tell any one" and A was worried about speaking to the Guardian about her allegations against her mother.
176. The Guardian accepts the complaints about the mother from the girls, as the mother has admitted to S Project that she smacked the girls leaving a red mark and shouted at them. She also bears in mind the comments from the school about A's difficulties with friendships and the mother's accounts that she has difficulty in controlling the girls at home.
177. She refers to and accepts the adverse effect the delay in bringing these proceedings to a conclusion, which in itself has led to further uncertainty, anxiety and mistreatment if the girls' accounts are to be believed.
178. The Guardian is unable to recommend that the girls should remain in the mother's care, but accepts and supports the placement with Mr and Mrs B as being in their best interests.
179. She is concerned by the mother's own admitted reaction to the girls' poor behaviour and her inability to control them. She accepts the expert evidence of Ms Johnson, Dr Pope and Dr Grey that the mother has significant difficulties which prevent her from meeting A and L's emotional needs, and the girls own difficulties will increase if their welfare and emotional and psychological needs remain unmet. She has very grave fears for A if she cannot receive appropriate therapy and parenting, suggesting without the appropriate work and parenting A could suffer mental health issues or even end up in the criminal courts.
180. She acknowledges that Dr Pope said that A should receive urgent therapy, and the mother educative therapeutic work, and accepts neither can properly engage in her respective therapy if living together: separation is essential.
181. She gave evidence to me and was very clear in her recommendation to remove the girls from their mother's care on the basis that there were still protective issues, but the significant current issue was the mother's inability to provide emotional parenting and support for the girls.
182. She had considered a form of shared care between the mother and paternal grandmother, but given the differences in parenting styles, the girls' different reactions to mother and grandparents, and the difficulties inherent in shared care she thought it would not be viable or conducive to their best interests. Indeed, since April when weekend contact was extended no improvement in the situation had occurred, and the children's reactions and behaviour far from improving had deteriorated, with the mother seemingly blaming their grandmother and father for the girls increasingly poor behaviour.
183. She could not recommend a placement in foster care for the girls while A and the mother under went the respective therapeutic work. The mother's therapy may be delayed, it may not be funded, and Dr Pope's prognosis was not encouraging. She could not say how long it would take but it would be lengthy, nor whether it would be successful. The girls could not be subjected to a "wait and see" situation (my words). They needed stability and security now and their grandparents were ready, willing and approved to care for them. The girls at different times had also expressed a wish to live with them.
184. She also had considered the possibility of placing A, L and E together in a long-term foster placement. This would have the advantage of all three siblings growing up together. This would not be in the older girls best interests given their attachment to their paternal grandparents, and each had shown an inclination to live there, and the grandparents being available. She was not certain how A or L would react to living with E. Each child had their own individual needs and demands for attention from the carer, and the older girls may react adversely towards E, who in turn would be exposed to the difficulties and behaviour of her older sisters who currently do not make good role models, and may not benefit in the long-run from living in the same home as her sisters. Added to this E is only 2, and long-term foster care does not provide the security and stability she requires.
185. The Guardian was clear in her recommendation: A and L should be removed from the mother's care and placed with the paternal grandparents.
186. The Local Authority is seeking Special Guardianship Orders to the grandparents in respect of the girls. Prior to this hearing and before she gave evidence the Guardian had been concerned by the proposed Support Plan, and wanted amendments before she could herself support that Order. Since giving evidence, and with my assistance, the Guardian and Local Authority have had discussions. The Support Plan has been amended and other than the situation relating to the proposed therapy for DH the Guardian now agrees to it and supports the making of the Special Guardianship Orders.

The B/H Family

Dr Tanya Garret

187. Following my comments in my previous Judgment about the value of the risk assessment of DH, Dr Garrett was instructed to carry out a further risk assessment of him. She interviewed him on 24 and 31 July and reported on 12 August 2013.
188. It is a lengthy and careful report which has assisted me. DH is of average intelligence. He was able to discuss his past sexual offending and to express his extremely negative view of it. He seems to want to make a fresh start and rebuild his life in a more positive way.
189. Overall she considered that he poses a low risk of sexual re-offending. She acknowledged that he continues to be troubled with issues arising from his past experiences and struggles with self awareness and relationship functioning.
190. Because of his difficulties, and the concerns of the possibility he may reoffend she recommended that he receive psychological therapy, which would need to be conducted by an experienced highly skilled professional "such as a clinical psychologist with significant experience of treating victims of sexual abuse".
191. She suggested he should address his victim experiences first and then work on his abuse of other children so that a relapse prevention plan can be developed. He requires some educational input regarding sexual abuse to assist with safety. DH seemed to her to be receptive to this although had reservations. Subsequently he has sought a referral for therapy from his GP.
192. She said in the absence of any intervention she did not feel he would pose a significant risk of sexual abuse to his daughters. If he were able to receive the therapy it would enhance on his ability to focus on and maintain positive relationship with his daughters and in general if the treatment was successful it would additionally reduce the risk factors.
193. Dr Garrett was also instructed to assess Mrs B. Her report is dated 12 August 2013, particularly as to the level of risk DH may pose to his daughters and whether she would be able to protect them.
194. Mrs B was keen to care for her granddaughters, and felt she would be able to do so. She is of well below average intellectual functioning. She is aware of her son's sexual offending, although not to its full extent, and tries "to forget about it". Dr Garrett considered whether Mrs B could be able to provide safe and protective care for the girls. In this she had considerable concerns and recommended that before consideration could be given to the girls being placed with her there should be some professional intervention to improve her ability to protect children in her care, particularly to understand the risks posed by sexual offenders.
195. Following her report Dr Gray was instructed to work with Mrs B as suggested. In due course Dr Gray reported that she had carried out that work, and enhanced Mrs B's protective abilities.
196. I heard from Dr Garrett in respect of both her reports and she was satisfied that the work she had recommended for Mrs B had been put into effect and she was satisfied with Dr Gray's report.

Mr DH

197. I did not hear from DH during this hearing, but he supports his daughters being placed with his mother and stepfather under a Special Guardianship Order.
198. Currently he has contact supervised by his mother. He accepts it will remain supervised until such time as he has undergone and successfully completed the work recommended by Dr Garrett.
199. He has recently referred himself for such treatment through his GP. He has yet to hear the outcome of that referral, and has no information he can pass on.

Mr and Mrs B

200. Mr and Mrs B gave evidence to me.
201. She is ready and willing to take on the long-term care of A and L. She recognised that they can be difficult on occasions, but by and large they are manageable. She recognises that the transition may not be easy and the girls may test her out, but she believes she can manage them. Overall, they do not seem to appear or present her with such challenging behaviour as they show towards their mother.
202. Since April she and Mr B have had the girls to stay with them each weekend in their home. There they have enjoyed family life, seeing relatives and their father, but under supervision.
203. She is prepared to give up work initially on the girls being placed with her, and for the Local Authority to remain involved for the time being.
204. She gave evidence, as did Mr B briefly. They both are prepared to take on the girls.
205. I understand that Mrs B is about 60, with some health issues which are managed, and is still in employment. Mr B told me he was 50 and in employment. He has some previous convictions, but they are old and do not seemingly impact upon his ability to provide a safe home for the girls. Mrs B has no convictions.
206. They have been assessed and approved. The Local Authority and Guardian recommend the girls be placed with them.
207. Having heard them and read about them I have no reason to oppose the assessments and recommendations.

My Conclusions

208. I have reviewed with some care the evidence, particularly that of the experts instructed since May 2013, the project reports, current social worker and Guardian. I recognise that the very recent reports of Dr Gray, the SWEET Project, school and social worker have not been tested. However, the Guardian has given evidence and been challenged. The mother has not challenged her reported accounts of the girls' behaviour, finding the management of such difficult. It is to her credit she has been open about these difficulties.
209. The girls have been with her for a year since their return. The length of time was not intended. Admittedly the return was not planned as it should have been, and no support provided for the first few months. However, the harsh reality is that the mother has struggled to provide appropriate emotional support for them.
210. The girls had already suffered significant physical harm in A's case, and emotional harm given their experiences. They were in need of sensitive insightful emotional care. The mother, sadly, given her own disabilities does not have the inherent insight and understanding of their emotional needs. She has been assessed in August and November by HJ and Dr Pope, who both indicated that they had severe doubts about her ability to learn and retain information and then to apply it. They each also express concerns as to the mother's protective abilities particularly should she enter into a new relationship.
211. Professionals have been instructed to provide her with help to understand the safeguarding and protective issues, to help her parent the children from an emotional point of view. Sadly, while she has co-operated and worked with the various project workers and assessors she has not been able to move forward. Her own inherent difficulties make it very difficult for her.
212. In the meanwhile given the girls own poor experiences, anxieties and needs for sensitive insightful parenting and the absence of such emotional care in the last year, their situation has deteriorated as evidenced by their increasingly difficult and challenging behaviour.
213. A is now in need of urgent therapeutic work, which can not be made available to her until her future placement has been identified.
214. L needs consistent, careful parenting, and the mother herself needs educative therapy about which Dr Pope had reservations as to a successful outcome.
215. I have come to the conclusion that the girls can no longer live with their mother. She is unable to care for them and provide for their emotional well-being. She has her own very profound difficulties. She is well intentioned, loves her children dearly but at the end of the day cannot provide for them.
216. The delay of a year, while not intended, has proved to underline and emphasise the very real difficulties that the mother has in parenting, providing a safe, secure, consistent and emotionally insightful and understanding of the emotional needs and feelings of her children.
217. To leave them where they are is not in the best interests of either A or L.
218. Their paternal grandparents are willing to take on their care. The girls' placement in their care is recommended by the Local Authority and the Guardian. No other recommendation has been made. The Guardian has considered alternative placements but cannot justify them or recommend an alternative.
219. The girls know and love their grandparents. The transition to their care may be difficult, but no doubt it will be supported by the social worker and Local Authority.
220. They know the paternal family, the home and environment. It is not a strange environment for them.
221. I have come to the view that they should be removed from their mother's care and placed long-term with their paternal grandparents.
222. The Guardian now accepts the Support Plan, and recommends to me that I make Special Guardianship Orders in respect of the girls to Mr and Mrs B.
223. Having considered the Amended Support Plans I endorse it, and feel very clearly that the order should be made without delay, and I make those orders in respect of A and L.
224. The only matter I need to consider is the proposed therapy for DH. The Local Authority would for good financial reasons prefer the NHS to provide that therapy. That course is full of unknowns. To whom and when would the referral be made? Would it be accepted? When would the work take place, if accepted? Would it be provided by a Specialist Therapist as recommended by Dr Garrett.
225. Clearly specialist therapy is needed and successfully completed. Only then could the Local Authority consider lifting the requirement for supervision of DH's contact. There is a sense of urgency if it is possible to lift the supervision, or at least loosen it significantly, it would help the grandparents and girls. It would remove the artificiality presently imposed, it would ease Mrs B's burdens, give her respite from constantly being there. It would help. It is urgent. It is necessary; it needs a specialist.
226. In my view the girls and Mrs B should not be asked to wait. The work should be done. The NHS cannot be relied upon. These are children in need, and frankly, although I know the Local Authority is short of funds, it would be of value and justified for the Local Authority to fund that piece of work. In the very course of things the funding is relatively little. I can only urge the Local Authority to agree to fund DH's therapy and make the urgent and necessary arrangements.

E

227. I turn now to E.
228. The mother wishes very much to care for her daughter. She has always wanted to care for all three daughters.
229. Much of what has been said about her abilities to provide a consistent secure, stable home for the older girls applies to E.
230. Admittedly E does not come with so much emotional history as her sisters, but she too has suffered significant physical and emotional harm at the hands of her father, and the failure of her mother to protect her. As a result of the injuries she has had inflicted upon her she has lived away from her family since August 2012, most of her life. She has not lived with her parents or sisters. That is a loss in itself.
231. She has not formed a significant attachment to her mother, although she has an awareness of her, she is a significant person to her, as may be her sisters through regular contact. Her prime attachment is to her carers, they are her family; their home is her home.
232. The carers are unable to care for her long-term: they are approaching retirement age. She will have to move from them and transfer her primary attachment and bonds to other carers. In that she will need help and support, consistent and sensitive care in that process.
233. I have to ask myself can she safely return to her mother's care? Can her mother provide that sensitive consistent care she requires? It is not merely the basic day to day care of good routines, good diet, cleanliness that is required. That the mother can provide and she can provide her with a mother's love.
234. It is the emotional, insightful care that is required, an understanding of her emotional needs, a sensitivity for her feelings, and the insight into her emotional needs and well-being. And, there are the safe guarding, protective issues to ensure her physical safety.
235. I ask myself what is in E's best interests knowing she has to move, and knowing the mother's own inherent difficulties.
236. E has been given good care and parenting. She needs to move on, and be placed in a home with similar good quality care. She requires more than 'good enough' parenting. To date she has received good parenting, something in excess of 'good enough'. If on moving she was offered less than that which she is currently receiving it will be potentially harmful to her. Thus, if she moved to her mother any deficiency in the mother's parenting could lead to damage and significant harm.
237. The history of this long case is important. A has suffered emotionally, not merely as a result of MI's presence and behaviour while in the household. She has lost the advantages of being with her mother and sisters.
238. The mother's own ability to emotionally support and nurture her children has been called into question. Help has been offered and given, but she has shown an inability to understand and retain information, and to apply it to herself, or her care of the daughters. This problem has not been resolved. She requires educative therapeutic work, which if given would be lengthy, and a successful outcome is in some doubt.
239. There are real difficulties in the relationship A has with her mother. She requires urgent therapy. Dr Pope was concerned also for L, and hoped with good, consistent care she would recover, not require therapy. Without such care away from her mother Dr Pope was fearful that L's situation and emotional well-being would deteriorate. There was a potential for her current difficulties to escalate to those of A. The difficulties of the older girls are in part derived from the mother's own deep difficulties. There is a risk if the older girls remain with their mother of "history repeating itself" in respect of L. A similar situation could arise if E were to be placed with her mother with/without her sisters. The mother's difficulties are profound and inherent. Dr Pope said in evidence that the mother's "cognitive profile was fixed and was not going to make a significant change, and this would limit the extent to which the mother could benefit from therapeutic or educational input".
240. Although the mother can manage the basic day to day care and provide love her difficulties are such that she has not been able to protect her daughters. She is suggestible, vulnerable and can be coerced, manipulated and dominated by others, and although not in a relationship as of now she has her own needs and in time may want to enter a new relationship. The risks physical and sexual, or emotional abuse may then re-arise.
241. She has not been able to manage to emotionally parent A or L as evidenced by their insecure attachments with their mother, and difficult challenging behaviour which has become more apparent during the last few months if not actually escalated. The mother's difficulties in this respect are unlikely to improve in the short term; and in the long term an unknown. The prognosis of therapy for her succeeding is not good.
242. Time is not on E's side. She has an urgent need to find a secure and settled home. She cannot afford to wait while the mother obtains and undergoes such therapy. The therapy may be successful, but E cannot "wait and see". It may not be successful. The mother may not be able to make the necessary progress and advances in her understanding and ability to provide emotional care in which case E would have waited in foster care and perhaps lost the opportunity of finding a permanent secure home.
243. Given these difficulties and what I have already said about the mother's inability to provide consistent, insightful, emotional care, and the Local Authority's and Guardian's recommendations I cannot consider placing E in the mother's care. The risks to her emotional well-being are too high. It would not be in her best interests to do so.
244. The recommendation is that she should be placed outside the family in any adoptive placement.
245. When the Guardian gave evidence I asked if it were possible for E to move to Mr and Mrs B if she were to have the older girls. I was told that this was something that they had considered, even though E is not their natural grandchild. Sadly they felt that they could not offer her a long-term home. Given their ages they do not feel they have the energy to meet E's changing and long-term needs. She is two, and they are both in their 50s or more. The consequence is that E and her older sisters will not be able to live together. However, Mr and Mrs B are willing to facilitate sibling contact if direct contact between the girls was thought to be in their best interests and adopters/carers for E agreed to it. The same goes for any indirect contact which may be arranged.

Mr MI

246. MI is not putting himself forward as a carer for E.
247. However, given that adoption is the recommended plan for E nevertheless I should consider the possibility of a placement with her father.
248. I made very serious findings against MI as to the extent and manner of the injuries he caused E. He failed to admit what he had done until the last possible moment: even then he did not provide a fully explanation. He was emotionally and physically abusive to A and L, and despite his solid denial I found he had sexually abused B. He has shown he can behave in an unsafe, unkind and dangerous manner towards children, his own daughter included.

Dr Parsons in respect of MI

249. Dr Parsons, Consultant Forensic Psychologist, was instructed to carry out a psychological assessment on MI following the fact-finding Judgment. He reported on 7 August 2013. He subsequently gave evidence to me.
250. In his report he said that MI's acceptance of my findings against him of violence "is at a very minimal level" and professed to have no memory of the event, or how he caused the injuries to E. Dr Parsons felt that he presented

"with a very high level of denial and minimisation and at a fundamental emotional level does not accept responsibility for his actions in causing the injuries."

251. The Doctor added that:

"he is at a very high risk of engaging in further violent behaviour. He has very poor anger management strategies and is highly likely to show anger outwards as both verbal and physical aggression. He also copes with stressful situations in a very maladaptive way by becoming extremely emotional and in "acting out" behaviours."

252. He reported that:

"he would be highly likely to use violence during periods of emotional stress or anxiety and that this violence would be impulsive and unpredictable in nature. He would be highly unlikely to be able to restrain himself during periods of frustration and anxiety."

253. The doctor concluded that

"he is at a very high risk of causing emotional and physical harm to a child in his care."

254. The doctor considered with MI my findings of sexual abuse against him. He denied ever engaging in any form of sexual activity with a child, and could not accept my findings in any way. The doctor considered MI to pose a risk of sexual abuse to a child, and given his denials was not susceptible of any treatment.
255. I may add that I was deeply concerned at MI's involvement with A and L, in taking A out alone on his motorcycle and on bathing them. I wonder whether this was a "grooming process". I can make no finding, but it was in my mind.
256. For this reason I cannot consider placing E in his care. It also makes me concerned for her should there ever be any unsupervised contact with her in the future. This, of course, is a matter which is relevant when considering placing her with his parents, her paternal grandparents.

Mr and Mrs In

257. Mr and Mrs I, E's grandparents, have put themselves forward as her long-term carers. Notwithstanding the Local Authority's view and the Guardian's recommendation against that suggestion I must consider their application. They are supported by MI.
258. Mr and Mrs I have been involved with these proceedings and all the children. They are not represented, and have represented themselves.
259. Mrs I did not give evidence to me in this hearing. It was her choice not to do so. Mr I started to give evidence but became unwell while being cross-examined by the Local Authority and has since declined to complete his evidence and be further cross-examined.
260. They have provided a further recent document in which they state how hurt and aggrieved they feel, unappreciated may also be an appropriate word.
261. For nearly a year they cared for A and L until the girls returned to their mother. The girls are not their natural grandchildren but they took their care on rather than permit the girls to go to foster care. It must have been a considerable burden to them particularly since the girls remained at their school in the Birmingham area, and the Is live in Staffordshire. It involved two daily trips to and from school, an hour or so each way. Mrs I drove. She also had to manage the home and is the 'carer' for Mr I who suffers from epilepsy, and has previously had a stroke.
262. It is to their credit, particularly that of Mrs I, that they took on and cared for the girls. The mother I know was very grateful to them.
263. From their perspective they feel unappreciated and aggrieved that neither the Local Authority nor the Guardian can recommend E being placed with them. They seek to say they were given a 'bad' name by the original social worker, Miss P; that her influence has been pernicious and infectious, influencing the current social worker and the Local Authority's current view if not that of the Guardian and other professionals involved.
264. I can assure Mr and Mrs I that I have not permitted Miss P's view or evidence to influence me.
265. My views are based on other material. I have had the advantage of their written statements and their own evidence, and the reports and evidence of Dr Parsons who was instructed to assess them following my fact-finding Judgment.
266. I should also record my gratitude to Ms Foulkes who acting on behalf of MI once more made herself available to discuss matters with Mr and Mrs I, putting questions in cross-examination on their behalf in the knowledge that their son fully supported their request to have E placed with them. I was more than content to accept this arrangement, even if it was unorthodox.
267. Mrs I seems to be the more vocal and articulate of the two.
268. She is now about 51 who generally is in good health. She has known Mr I since she was about 16 and he about 19. They entered a relationship as teenagers, in due course married and had MI and their daughter CI.
269. Mr I is now about 54. Unfortunately in his late 20s, early 30s, he was diagnosed with epilepsy for which he takes medication and says the epilepsy is controlled. More recently he had a stroke which he says "affected my reading and has memory problems". He is not in employment, and has not been so for about 10 years as a result of his ill health. Prior to that he was a fork lift truck driver, and then warehouse worker. He is registered disabled, and Mrs I is his carer.

Dr Parsons in respect of Mr and Mrs I

270. Dr Parsons was instructed in November 2013 to assess Mr and Mrs I in connection with their wish to care for E. He provided two reports, dated 20 December 2013 and 9 January 2014.
271. Following his interim report Mrs I was psychometrically tested. It revealed that her IQ was in the region of 77, which placed her in the borderline range of intellectual ability. From my experience it does not prevent her reading and writing, or understanding and discussing issues.
272. Mr I was also psychometrically tested. It revealed a somewhat confusing situation. His full scale IQ was 69 or less, which is in the extremely low range of intellectual ability, but Dr Parsons having interviewed Mr I wondered whether there had been a reduction in his functioning as a result of his stroke.
273. The important issue is not so much their respective intellectual functionings but the content of their respective interviews with Dr Parsons and their views relating to these proceedings, my fact-finding Judgment.
274. As for Mrs I he was clear that from a psychological perspective that she was highly unlikely to pose any risk to a child in her care, nor was there any psychological reason why she could not offer a 'good enough' standard of care to a child in her care.
275. In her interview she described her son as "a rough heavy handed person but not violent". He could become angry when frustrated. She told Dr Parsons that at first they thought E's injuries were organic in origin, but she had come to accept that MI had hurt E, but he said "he hasn't done it deliberately".
276. According to Dr Parsons she seemed to accept the possibility that MI had been physically violent and caused the injuries to E, but found it difficult to entirely accept my findings in respect of physical harm.
277. However, she could not accept my findings that MI had sexually abused his cousin but said she wanted more evidence; she was 50/50 on the subject. She went on to say that she would not let MI "anywhere near a child in her care" or to have unsupervised contact to "protect from further allegations".
278. By the time she and Mr I submitted their documents in February 2014 she was clear :

"we agree the fact that E's injuries were inflicted upon her. However, we do not agree with the findings regarding the sexual abuse"

"we have always struggled seeing MI as a sexual predator…".

"we will do whatever is in our power to keep her safe and give her a sound upbringing …… we will be strongly lead by the Judge and social services with what can and can't happen with regards to contact with MI …"

279. Following his interview with Mr I the Doctor expressed concerns. Initially it seemed that Mr I seemed able to accept the possibility of MI causing the injuries to E: if he did it then

"he's covering; he, the mother or her mother knows more."

280. Mr I was clear that he did not believe MI was a risk to the children in the future either from violence or any sexual abuse.
281. Mr I could not accept that MI sexually abused B his cousin, "It's totally impossible", and said he had gone to a local music shop and experimented with a guitar to see if it was possible to do what the cousin had alleged. In his view it was impossible. He was adamant that my findings were wrong.
282. During the course of the interview it seemed to Dr Parsons that Mr I's view about MI hurting E changed from "he could not rule it out as a possibility" to that he believed the injuries "were caused by mother or her mother".
283. Mr I indicated that he felt he could get on with professionals but not social workers. He did not trust them but throughout he revealed a certain antagonism and mistrust of professionals in general.
284. Dr Parsons considered whether Mrs I could protect E from MI if she were in her care. He reported she was uncertain whether MI had caused the injuries, and was even more uncertain he sexually abused his cousin. As a result he felt she would be unlikely to protect E from her father in a proactive way: meaning she will not emotionally be expecting anything to occur and therefore may not identify subtle early warning signs or inappropriate behaviour, and thus would only react when a risk became clear and apparent, by then it may be too late and the child be harmed.
285. The Doctor said as Mr I does not accept my findings in respect of MI causing the physical injuries and rejects my findings as to sexual abuse and the possibility of MI being a sexual abuser he (Mr I) would not anticipate any harm being caused, and therefore there is a significant risk he would allow unsupervised contact.
286. Dr Parsons reported he found Mr I a 'very rigid individual' and once he had formed an opinion he holds it firmly and is not amenable to argument or debate. He also thought his rigidity and inflexibility could cause difficulties if E was in his care in terms of an ability to appropriately and consistently deal with her changing needs.
287. Both Mr and Mrs I expressed distrust and resentment of social workers which would make working with the Local Authority, and possibly other professionals in an open, honest and constructive manner difficult.
288. Dr Parsons gave evidence to me in which he expressed his concern about Mr I's influence on Mrs I. Mr I held firm views, rejecting the findings, whereas Mrs I's views were more open to consider the possibility of MI posing some form of risk. Taken with MI's denial he was concerned that Mr I would be able to 'chip away' at Mrs I, and she would end up letting her guard down. He thought it a medium to long-term risk, perhaps by six months she would come to think more in line with Mr I. If that be the case the greater the risk of harm would be posed to E. She would potentially be influenced and persuaded to allow MI unsupervised contact

"On her own Mrs I is able to make progress, but add his intransigence and rigidity she can slip back a lot with him"

289. Given the father and Mr I's denial of any risk of sexual abuse Dr Parsons said neither was open to any protective work being done with them.
290. In that sense he was predicting a change in Mrs I's views some months hence. He saw them in December. Mr and Mrs I wrote and submitted their document shortly before the February hearing in which they jointly rejected my findings about the sexual abuse and merely "agree the fact E's injuries were inflicted upon her", not identifying by whom, or accepting the possibility by MI.
291. That statement indicated a shift by Mrs I away from accepting my findings and towards Mr I's views.
292. Dr Parsons said that given the position of Mr I and MI, that any work to assist Mrs I to accept the findings would be futile: and any work would have to be undertaken by M and Mr I as well, but given the level of denial there was no prospect of success.
293. Dr Parsons thought that if either grandparent actually saw MI behaving in an abusive manner they would try to stop it, but he questioned whether Mr I would report it, and he felt over time with the "chipping away" Mrs I's level of protection would be eroded.
294. He also said that given Mr I's view of the findings any child in their care would be exposed to emotional harm, his statement and beliefs, influence and consequential confusion as to the truth.

Mr I

295. Mr I started to give evidence in February then felt unwell. Mrs I who was waiting to give her own evidence wanted to take him home, which I permitted. Since then they both have declined to give evidence. Thus I only have limited live evidence from Mr I and none from Mrs I.
296. During his evidence Mr I was clear, adamant that my findings were wrong in respect of the sexual abuse. He told me about his visit to the guitar shop which convinced him the girl's allegation was a physical impossibility, and he said "MI is the most wonderful bloke anyone could ever meet. There is no way he could do it".
297. In respect of E's physical injuries he accepted they were inflicted: that he would love to know who did it. He did not know. He knew MI had said he had done it, and he (Mr I) had to believe it. MI said it was accidental. "I believe it was accidental".

My Conclusions

298. Without further evidence from Mr and Mrs I I have to rely on their written word, and Dr Parsons.
299. Dr Parsons has considerable concerns about Mr I's rigidity and inflexibility, and the persuasive influence he, and MI, would have on Mrs I. Indeed, by February that influence had shown its effect. Her expressed view had moved towards that of Mr I.
300. The implication of this is concerning as it renders her even less likely to protect in a proactive way. If one is not expecting, believing or on the alert it is more difficult to perceive and protect, by taking preventative measures. If one does not believe something happened then it is even harder, and more unlikely to be aware of or on the alert for any subtle inappropriate behaviour.
301. The consequence being that any child in the care of Mr and Mrs I is potentially at risk of harm from MI. Dr Parsons was concerned that Mr I could be persuaded to allow MI to see E in an unsupervised way; that Mrs I could cease to be able to withstand that persuasive view and be drawn into believing that MI had not done harm, drop her guard, and allow contact in any unsupervised and unauthorised manner.
302. Given their resentment and distrust of the social workers it is most unlikely they would be open and frank or report any inappropriate behaviour by MI, or any breach of a written agreement concerning contact.
303. The Local Authority and Guardian say it would not be safe to place E in the care of Mr and Mrs I as they do not accept the risk posed by their son to his daughter, and as such would be unlikely to protect her from any harm as they do not perceive it exists. This is unlikely to change given the rigid attitudes of Mr I.
304. I accept Dr Parson's evidence, and sadly accept the recommendations of the Local Authority and in particular the Guardian, who is independent, and acts on the child's behalf.
305. That being the case I have to consider E's placement. She cannot return to the care of either parent, she cannot be cared for by her own grandparents, and Mr and Mrs B have ruled themselves out.
306. There is no one else within the family circle who has come forward. She therefore must be placed long-term and permanently outside the family.
307. I have already, while considering placing all three sisters together in a long-term foster placement, ruled that possibility out. In respect of the older girls they are able to be placed with their own paternal grandparents which has enormous advantages and benefits for them. In respect of E at her age long-term foster care is not appropriate, although it would enable her to retain direct contact with her sisters, mother and grandparents.
308. E needs better than "good enough" parenting and she needs stability, security, consistency. She needs to be loved and valued, and feel loved and valued, and part of a family. Long-term foster care does not and cannot provide that. She is only 2, and to inflict upon her the status of a foster child in care for the rest of her childhood is not conducive to her welfare. There would be regular visitations of social workers and medicals. Her freedom to stay over with friends and go on holiday would be restricted, and involve social work consideration. The same foster carer can not be guaranteed for the years involved. She could face being moved around. In any view long-term foster care for E at her age is not appropriate.
309. Adoption is a draconian order; to be considered as "a last resort" and only "when essential" and "nothing else will do". Any order I make under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 must satisfy the test under Section 1(2) namely "The paramount consideration of the Court must be the child's welfare throughout her life".
310. There is no prospect that she can be with her family. She needs a 'family of her own' where she can settle, grow and belong. In my view Adoption is the only solution for E. It is in her best interest.
311. I approve the plan, and make a Care Order in respect of her. She will lose contact with the significant members of her natural family. That is a loss for her. However, the benefits of a settled safe home far outweigh that loss.
312. However, the Guardian is of the view that the mother if she were permitted occasional regulated contact to E would not misuse it, or be disruptive or threaten the placement. I agree with that. If it were possible the Guardian thinks it would be beneficial to E to be allowed limited direct contact with her mother, say once a year, to know who her mother is, to give E a sense of identity.
313. I share that view, and the proposal that the Local Authority when seeking out prospective adopters for E should ask whether they could consider limited direct contact. It should not be a prerequisite or requirement. E's future secure placement must be ensured, and as quickly as possible.
314. I cannot make a Placement Order under Section 21 of the Act unless the parents have consented, or that I have dispensed with the parents' consent.
315. Under S52(1)(b) of the Act I am entitled to dispense with the parents' consent if I am satisfied "the welfare of the child requires the consents be dispensed with".
316. I have already said that Adoption for E is the only course open to this Court, and given my reasons. I need say no more than I am wholly satisfied that E's welfare requires me to dispense with her parents' consent, and I do so.
317. I therefore make the Placement Order in respect of E and hope very much that an adoptive home can be found for her urgently.
318. I want the mother to know that I have the deepest sympathy for her. She has lost her two eldest daughters all be it to their paternal grandparents, but she will be able to retain contact. She has lost E, through no intended fault of her own. She is a woman who has her own deep and profound difficulties that have made the task of parenting her children very difficult for her, and sadly harmful to her children. I know she loves them dearly, and wants to care for them very much. I know she will miss them enormously.
319. I know that E will also be missed by the other members of the family and to them I also express sympathy.

Miss P

320. Much has been said about Miss P, the Local Authority's allocated social worker until November 2013; her behaviour, views and evidence during the course of her involvement. Much of her involvement is historic. As time has marched on, and the expert assessments made, her evidence lost its immediacy. It is now in the background described by the Guardian's Counsel in submission as no longer relevant. With that I agree. The major issue before me is not what was said or not said on a particular date by or to Miss P. In the end the information relating to the mother's own parenting and protective capacity was the important evidence and thereafter the expert assessments of both fathers and grandparents. Miss P's evidence is no longer of consequence.
321. I emphasise in reaching my conclusions I put Miss P's involvement and evidence to one side: she did not impact upon my deliberations.

The Delay

322. As it was a significant amount of time was lost in February discussing the issue of discovery relating to her involvement with another case. Without that discussion, while I do not believe I could have concluded this case then, it may well have been possible to have done so in March. As it is the delay till now fortuitously provided time for the difficulties within the relationship between the mother and A and L to become more apparent, rather than something festering beneath the surface to be dug down to. In this case, as it happens, the delay only made the issues clearer.