Scottish Court of Session Decisions

OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2011] CSOH 27
AD2/10	OPINION OF LORD PENTLAND in the Petition of INVERCLYDE COUNCIL Petitioners; against MT First Respondent; and MS Second Respondent: in An Application for a Permanence Order under section 80 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 in relation to the child SMS ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­________________

Petitioners: Sharpe; Simpson & Marwick

First Respondent: A McKay; Drummond Miller LLP

Second Respondent: Leighton; Balfour + Manson LLP

8 February 2011

Introduction

[1] In these petition proceedings (and in two related petitions) Inverclyde Council seek inter alia permanence orders under section 80 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 ("the 2007 Act") in respect of three young girls, to whom I shall refer as SMS, ELS and BMS. The first respondent is the girls' mother. The second respondent is their father. The respondents are not married to one another. SMS was born on 13 January 2005; ELS was born on 6 February 2007; and BMS was born on 14 January 2009. Since March 2010 the children have lived with a prospective adoptive family in the south of England. The family are committed to making an adoption application for the children in the event that permanence orders are granted. The respondents oppose the making of permanence orders and the adoption of their children.

[2] I heard a proof at which the petitioners led evidence from a number of witnesses: Hugh O'Connell, a senior social worker with the petitioners, Joy Ross, Christine McKay and Lynne Anderson, all social workers involved with the family at different times, Isabell McFarlane, a family support worker and Stewart MacDonald, a community psychiatric nurse. Affidavits were lodged from each of these witnesses; they were cross-examined on behalf of the respondents in detail. In the case of Mr. O'Connell a supplementary affidavit and a statement were also lodged. Each of the respondents also gave evidence.

[3] The grounds on which the petitioners seek permanence orders (and the various ancillary orders) were set out in detail in reports prepared for the court by Lynne Anderson, one of the social workers; since July 2009 she has been allocated to the case. The reports were lodged at the time when the proceedings began. In summary, the petitioners consider that it would be seriously detrimental to the welfare of the children for them to live with the respondents because the respondents are both drug addicts with mental health difficulties, who have demonstrated that they are incapable of looking after the children properly. There would be a high risk of harm to the children's welfare, according to the petitioners, if they were allowed to live with either of the respondents.

[4] The history of the respondents' substantial involvement with the petitioners' Social Work department and other agencies over a number of years was explained in evidence at the proof. I shall now set out a summary of the history relevant to the present applications.

Relevant History

[5] The first respondent (the children's mother) initially came to the attention of the petitioners' Social Work department in 1993. This followed the birth of her son, who is a half-brother to the children. The boy was born with congenital bowel abnormality requiring him to have surgery at birth and to spend the first two and a half years of his life in hospital. Social work records state that the first respondent was leading an unsettled lifestyle at the time. She admitted in evidence at the proof that she had become addicted to heroin around this time. The Social Work department had concerns regarding her drug use, her inconsistent visiting of her son in hospital and her apparent inability to meet his needs. The boy was discharged to the care of his maternal grandparents, who were subsequently granted a residence order and parental rights and responsibilities under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act") at Greenock Sheriff Court. The boy continues to live with his maternal grandmother.

[6] The first and second respondents began a relationship in 2004 when they were each undergoing rehabilitation for their drug addictions. At that time, they were both living in homeless accommodation in Greenock and were known to have a history of substance misuse.

[7] The first respondent then came to the attention of the Special Needs in Pregnancy Team (SNIPS) in 2004 during her pregnancy with SMS. SNIPS is a multi-disciplinary team who provide support, antenatal care and assessment during vulnerable pregnancies. At this time, the first respondent was on a methadone programme. On 26 November 2004, a pre-birth child protection case discussion was held by the respondents' Social Work Services department. Risks identified at that time included the couple's lack of parenting skills, their tendency to minimise the first respondent's inability to care for her first child, the fact that they perceived no difficulty in caring for their new baby, their history of substance misuse and the second respondent's alleged involvement in offending behaviour.

[8] Despite these concerns, social work records indicate that all the agencies involved felt that the couple had made appropriate preparations for the arrival of the baby and that they were keen to provide appropriate levels of care. Support was provided for them on a voluntary basis. While the respondents co-operated well with Social Work Services, they questioned the need for intervention and did not seem fully to understand how their lifestyles could affect a newly born child.

[9] After her birth on 13 January 2005, SMS was admitted to the Special Care Baby Unit at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley for treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome. According to the first respondent's evidence, this was due to the fact that she reduced her intake of methadone during her pregnancy. Records show that initially the respondents often visited SMS in hospital, but that their visits diminished as time passed. As a consequence, hospital staff found it difficult to assess the respondents' parenting skills. It was noted that feeding and bathing was appropriate, but hospital staff felt that more contact between the child and the first respondent was needed in order fully to promote bonding. Both the respondents dispute this. In their view, they visited the hospital regularly, but due to a fire in their home they had to move house and this affected their ability to visit the baby.

[10] At the time of SMS's birth, both respondents were stable on methadone programmes. The second respondent was also stable on benzodiazepines, which were being prescribed to him at that time.

[11] On 29 January 2005, the respondents lost all their belongings when their home in Drumfrochar Road, Greenock was destroyed in a fire. An investigation attributed this to an electrical fault. The couple were re-housed in temporary accommodation in Teviot Place, Greenock on 15 February 2005. Teviot Place was an area badly affected by drug-related problems. Social Work records state that the second respondent told staff that his reaction to the fire was to threaten suicide by taking a paracetamol overdose and by jumping into the River Clyde. This raised concerns regarding his reaction in times of crisis, particularly given that, as a parent, he would have to cope with stressful situations. In a letter to Social Work Services dated 7 January 2009, Dr Jennifer Dooley, a general practitioner, confirmed that the second respondent presented at the Accident and Emergency department on 29 January 2005, but that there was no record of an attempt to jump into the River Clyde. In evidence, the second respondent denied that he had threatened to commit suicide, but like much of his evidence I found this to be unbelievable, particularly in view of the contemporary documentary evidence to contrary effect.

[12] On 10 February 2005, a SNIPS discharge planning meeting was held. The respondents were noted to be engaging with all relevant agencies at that time. SMS was, therefore, discharged to the care of the respondents, with support being provided to the family on a voluntary basis.

[13] On 26 September 2005, Social Work Services received an anonymous call alleging that SMS was being kept in a darkened room. Contact with the health visitor, Patricia Ferrier, confirmed that there were no concerns in relation to the care of SMS. Both respondents advised that a neighbour held a grudge against them and they felt that the call had been malicious.

[14] On 6 October 2005, a further anonymous call was received, alleging that the respondents were using crack cocaine, affecting their care of SMS. The respondents denied this and the child was noted to be well.

[15] On 22 October 2005, the second respondent was charged with breach of the peace. He stated that he was walking past a Post Office in Greenock and had in his possession a plastic "BB" gun, still in its wrapper. He said that he had bought the gun as a gift for the first respondent's son and had been showing it to someone in the street. He claimed that a member of the public reported that he was going to hold up the Post Office and that the Armed Response Unit attended, as a result of which he was arrested. On 6 August 2006, the second respondent received a three month custodial sentence for this offence.

[16] On 31 December 2005, the respondents left their home in Teviot Place, Greenock due to violence involving neighbours; they were placed temporarily in a hostel in Glasgow. This incident resulted in the second respondent being charged with possession of an offensive weapon and three charges of assault, including one against a 14 year old boy. The incident involved a number of adults and children and appeared to have resulted from a continuing feud between the respective families. The second respondent appeared in court on 15 November 2006. He was found not guilty of possession of an offensive weapon and of two of the charges of assault (including the assault against the child). The third charge of assault was found not proven.

[17] The second respondent contacted Social Work Services on 4 January 2006 in relation to the incident on 31 December 2005 and requested support. Isabell McFarlane, a family support worker, was allocated to support the family on a voluntary basis. A placement at Glenbrae Children's Centre (a local nursery school) was subsequently obtained for SMS.

[18] On 6 January 2006, the family moved into a scatter flat in Melrose Court, Greenock. It will be noted that this was SMS's third address in less than a year. In about February of that year they were re-housed in a ground floor flat at 49 Finnieston Street, Greenock where the respondents continue to live.

[19] On 3 March 2006, Social Work Services received an anonymous call alleging that the respondents were supplying drugs. Social Work records indicate that the matter was to be passed to the allocated worker at that time. There is, however, no recorded outcome of this referral.

[20] On 27 October 2006, the first respondent presented as very sleepy during a home visit undertaken by Isabell McFarlane and Tracy Herschel, a social worker. Social Work staff were concerned that the first respondent might be under the influence of substances at a time when SMS was asleep in the bedroom. The first respondent denied any illicit drug use. The second respondent was present and was deemed to be fit to care for the child. In the circumstances, no further action was taken at this time.

[21] On 17 January 2007, a referral was received from the NSPCC detailing an anonymous call alleging that the respondents were misusing drugs and raising concerns regarding their care of SMS. Their house was reported to be dirty with no food. Cocaine and other drugs were said to be present in the home. It was further alleged that the respondents were shouting at SMS. Both respondents denied this allegation. They stated that they were now experiencing difficulty with another family, expressing the view that the call was malicious. No further action was taken.

[22] On 18 January 2007, a pre-birth child protection report was completed by Anne Glendinning, senior social worker, in respect of the unborn second child of the respondents. This noted that the referrals which had been received were unsubstantiated. The respondents were felt to be providing appropriate care to SMS, who was presenting as a happy and healthy child. A decision was made that no further child protection measures were required at this time. A package of family support was being provided, including weekly visits from Social Work Services; SMS was continuing to attend nursery and there was support from health visiting services and the Inverclyde Drugs Team.

[23] ELS was born at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley on 6 February 2007. Support continued to be offered to the family on a voluntary basis. The first respondent was still on a methadone programme.

[24] On 16 May 2007, a further anonymous call was received, stating that a number of neighbours were concerned that the respondents were often shouting at the children, who would be crying. It was further alleged that a visitor to the home had observed the first respondent slam a bedroom door shut, ignoring SMS who was crying in her cot. The respondents again maintained that this referral was malicious and explained that SMS had been crying due to being unwell.

[25] On 1 June 2007, Strathclyde Police received an anonymous referral alleging that ELS was being left to cry for excessive periods. Due to this being the second referral in a matter of weeks, it was agreed that weekly visits, both announced and unannounced, would be undertaken by Health and Social Work Services. It was agreed also that a core group meeting would be convened.

[26] On 3 August 2007, a case discussion was held to discuss and agree an inter-agency plan in respect of SMS and ELS. Concerns were raised in relation to missed health appointments and immunisations. Ann Marie Jack, the health visitor, noted that ELS, who was six months old at the time, gave little eye contact and did not regularly engage with adults. She further noted that ELS's speech was delayed and she appeared over-familiar with people visiting the home. Miss Jack reported that both respondents were sleepy and drowsy when she saw them.

[27] Concern was raised regarding the number of anonymous referrals which had been received. Both social work and health visiting staff expressed concerns that SMS and ELS appeared to spend much of their time indoors in a smoky atmosphere. A further concern was that both respondents now appeared resistant to the support of Isabell McFarlane. Nursery staff reported that SMS's attendance was sporadic; she was not a happy child and had poor speech. An intensive support plan was agreed at this time to monitor the family's progress and to support both parents with the care of their children in order to promote their safety and wellbeing.

[28] Stewart MacDonald, the community psychiatric nurse from Inverclyde Drugs Team, reported that the respondents had struggled with routines since the birth of ELS. They had missed a number of appointments at the drugs team, resulting in their methadone prescriptions being reduced.

[29] SMS and ELS attended a comprehensive medical assessment on 17 August 2007 due to the concerns about their welfare. Isabell McFarlane attended with them. The assessment was carried out by Dr Hamoudi, community paediatrician, who noted no evidence of infection, neglect or injury. There was some dispute in the evidence about the thoroughness of this examination, but in my view nothing ultimately turns on this. Insofar as there was a difference in the recollections of the respondents on the one hand and Isabell McFarlane on the other about what happened at the examination, I have no difficulty in preferring the evidence of Mrs McFarlane.

[30] On 27 August 2007, both respondents were referred to parenting classes, at an agency known as Mellow Parenting. The second respondent did not attend and the first respondent failed to complete the course. The second respondent's explanation was that the paternal grandfather of the children had suffered from a brain haemorrhage and two strokes and that he felt it was important to support his mother. Dr Mutch, the paternal grandfather's general practitioner, advised that the brain haemorrhage had occurred in June 2004, a year before SMS was born. No strokes were documented.

[31] In October 2007, SMS was noted to have an unsteady gait and was referred for physiotherapy. Julie Kane, senior paediatric physiotherapist, made a home visit on 10 December 2007. The family were not at home and failed to contact the team to arrange a further appointment.

[32] On 25 October 2007, Ann Marie Jack noted that ELS had a cough and looked unwell. The respondents failed to attend a general practitioner's appointment with ELS, stating that this was because they had no clothes for the child to wear.

[33] On 5 November 2007, Greenock Police Office contacted Social Work Services to advise that they had been contacted by the second respondent the previous day. He had claimed that there were people coming into the family home and that strange things were happening, with written messages being left on pieces of paper, which only he and the first respondent could read, by scribbling over them. Both respondents were collecting hair follicles to try to determine who these individuals were. The police visited the home and advised that both respondents presented well and were not under the influence of any substance. The police had no concerns for the children, who appeared to be well cared-for.

[34] On 5 November 2007, Joan Wilson of Glenbrae Children's Centre advised that the attendance of SMS and ELS was continuing to be of concern.

[35] On 6 November 2007, Dorothy Watkins, a nurse at Port Glasgow Health Centre, advised that both parents had attended Dr Smith, a general practitioner, the previous day, reporting an ongoing issue of an infestation by beetles. SMS did have a small spot between her fingers, which Dr Smith thought could be scabies; this was treated. Dorothy Watkins advised that Dr Smith had been concerned about the presentation of both respondents; she felt that they presented as being under the influence and that there was a smell of alcohol from the second respondent.

[36] On 7 November 2007, the first respondent attended an appointment with Dr Charles McMahon, consultant psychiatrist at Inverclyde Drugs Team. The first respondent advised Dr McMahon that someone had been coming into her home, interfering with her clothes and post and leaving marks on the wall, which were difficult to see. Dr McMahon described the first respondent as being grossly distressed and preoccupied with the idea that she was under threat. He advised that the first respondent had not requested her prescription of Prozac for several weeks.

[37] On 8 November 2007, Detective Sergeant Mark Stewart of Strathclyde Police contacted Social Work Services to advise of the police visit to the family home on 4 November 2007. He reiterated the concerns, noting that both respondents stated that when they went out, people came into their home and left secret messages. He advised that the second respondent had also informed the police that he had recently been abducted and drugged by unknown persons, who shaved his leg and wrote secret messages on it, using ash and baby milk. DS Stewart advised that officers had felt both SMS and ELS were being cared for appropriately, although they were concerned about the mental health of both respondents.

[38] A follow-up visit was undertaken on 9 November 2007 by Christine McKay, social worker and Joyce Harrison, a family support worker. Neither parent appeared to be under the influence of any substances. The second respondent had attended an appointment to see his psychiatrist. During the visit, he told Christine McKay and Joyce Harrison that he believed a "golden biting spider" had bitten him and laid eggs in his body, resulting in his using a knife to try and get them out. His face, arms and neck were noted to be covered in sores. Concerns were also raised in relation to the children's hygiene, their attendance at nursery, the parents' presentation and their engagement with the various services involved.

[39] On 19 November 2007, Stewart MacDonald advised Social Work Services that he had not seen the first respondent for a number of weeks due to her not making herself available for appointments.

[40] Given the increasing concerns, a child protection case discussion was convened on 29 November 2007. It was noted that all agencies continued to have concerns in relation to the wellbeing of both SMS and ELS and the parenting capacity of the respondents. Ann Marie Jack noted that the second respondent had told her that he had gouged "black things" from his arm with a large knife. He advised that he had been working under the floorboards fitting a shower and believed that he had an infestation under his skin due to this. Stewart MacDonald expressed the view that the respondents' psychological issues were impacting on their parenting capacity and noted that the second respondent was continuing to misuse heroin. It was agreed that a referral should be made to the Scottish Children's Reporter's Administration.

[41] On 10 December 2007, Social Work Services referred SMS and ELS to the Reporter expressing the view that the children may require to be subject to a supervision requirement. Specific concerns noted were:-

·       Bizarre accounts by the respondents of intruders coming into their home and leaving secret messages.

·       The second respondent had sent a threatening text message to Isabell McFarlane (believed to be sent by mistake) in which he spoke of being given the job of slashing someone. The second respondent denied this, stating that he had never assaulted anyone.

·       Infestation of insects within the home associated with poor hygiene. Both respondents said that they had sought the advice of the Environmental Services department and were advised that the infestation was Australian spider beetles, apparently a common problem at the time in Inverclyde.

·       Poor management of ELS's skin, requiring referral to dermatology services.

·       Failure to ensure that SMS and ELS attended their general practitioner when required and failing to follow up with appropriate treatment.

·       Poor attendance by the children at Glenbrae Children's Centre.

·       Concern from Inverclyde Drugs Team regarding the deep psychological/personality difficulties experienced by the respondents and the second respondent's continued illicit drug use.

·       Lack of consistent engagement with the family support worker and health visitor.

·       The developmental delays in both children.

·       The children appearing constantly to be hungry with ELS, in particular, showing poor weight gain.

·       The home was reported to be smoky with windows and curtains constantly closed.

[42] On 21 December 2007, SMS attended a further comprehensive medical assessment undertaken by Dr Hamoudi. It was noted that the child was attending speech and language therapy services and was awaiting contact from physiotherapy due to an unsteady gait. Other than this, no concerns were noted.

[43] On 4 January 2008, a child protection investigation was initiated. This followed the first respondent contacting Strathclyde Police on 3 January 2008 stating that she had a video on her mobile phone showing a man's hand penetrating SMS. Police attended the home and found the first respondent to be presenting as being under the influence of drugs. The police reported that the second respondent admitted to injecting heroin earlier in the evening and that the first respondent had taken something. Uncovered syringes were found on the living room table. Both SMS and ELS were present. Both respondents were charged under section 12 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1937. SMS and ELS were removed from the home by police officers, using their own emergency child protection powers.

[44] Christine McKay and Rosemary Vinson then met the respondents at Greenock Police Station on 4 January 2008. The respondents agreed to the children being accommodated on a voluntary basis in accordance with section 25 of the 1995 Act. Contact was arranged to take place three times per week, supervised by Social Work Services.

[45] At this time, the second respondent denied that he had been injecting heroin and claimed that the needles belonged to a friend who had left prior to the police attending. He admitted that he had been drinking alcohol since the New Year and that his recollections of the evening of 3 January 2008 were very vague. The respondents stated that SMS had been in bed and that ELS was in her basket in the sitting room. The social workers were concerned that the respondents were condoning drug-taking behaviour and felt that this was another example of their inability to provide a safe environment for their children.

[46] Neither the second respondent nor the police could find any evidence of the video which the first respondent claimed she had seen. To date, no evidence relating to this has been found. The first respondent believes that her phone was stolen by a former associate.

[47] A social background report was completed by Christine McKay and submitted to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration on 18 January 2008. This related to the referral submitted on 10 December 2007 and the incident which occurred on 3 January 2008.

[48] On being accommodated, the foster carers expressed concerns regarding the development of SMS. She would only walk a few steps without crying to be picked up. Her hair was thin and sparse and would come out in lumps when being combed or brushed. She had dry patches of skin on her waist and back; she was always using a dummy, which had made her teeth smaller than they should have been; and her speech was indefinable. The foster parents noted that SMS would search the rubbish bins for food within their home and would also steal food from her peers while at nursery school. ELS was noted to be lacking in social interactions and would not move her arms or legs. Her skin was reported to be dry, with open sores on her buttocks; and her feet were patchy and wrinkly. In later contact with Joy Ross, one of the social workers, the respondents expressed concern that both children were suffering from "Prader-Willi Syndrome", a rare genetic disorder which can cause the sufferer to have weak muscle tone, floppiness at birth and an insatiable appetite. There was no information recorded in any of the medical or nursing notes to substantiate this claim. Both children seemed initially to suffer quite badly from thrush and both had extremely disturbed sleep patterns, according to the foster parents.

[49] Within six weeks of being accommodated, the foster carers noted significant improvements in both children. SMS was able to walk confidently and her speech was improving. ELS was able to sit unaided, would reach out to grab things and became more vocal. The children developed normal eating habits and were able to leave food when they were full. This would suggest that the children were not being fed properly while in the care of the respondents and also raised concerns regarding their emotional development.

[50] Concerns that the children's developmental delay could have been the result of a lack of stimulation were expressed by a number of professionals, including Isabell McFarlane, Ann Marie Jack and Joan Wilson at Glenbrae Children's Centre. The respondents stated that the children were just late developers. The respondents were unable to appreciate the reasons for concerns about the children.

[51] Arrangements were made for contact to take place with the respondents for one hour three times per week. The attendance of both respondents at contact was reported to have been good and interaction was said to be positive. However, Isabell McFarlane reported that, on occasion, she had to encourage the second respondent to be more interactive with the children and remind him to encourage SMS to walk instead of carrying her.

[52] An initial Looked After and Accommodated Review took place on 12 February 2008. Concerns were expressed by Ann Marie Jack in relation to the health and development of SMS prior to her being accommodated. In particular, this related to her poor speech, poor skin condition and her walking ability. Joan Wilson reported that, prior to being accommodated, SMS had been an unsettled and unhappy child. It was noted that, in the short period during which SMS had been accommodated, she had made vast improvements in that she now presented as a much happier and cleaner child, who was better able to interact with her peers. Staff also noted that SMS was no longer as focused on food, an issue which had been a particular concern prior to her being accommodated.

[53] It was noted that the second respondent had declined the offer of Mellow Parenting classes on two separate occasions and that he accepted that his lifestyle had been "chaotic".

[54] Kenneth Martin, addictions nurse and Stewart MacDonald from the drugs team noted that the parent's engagement with the service was poor. Mr MacDonald expressed the view that the couple's tense relationship and previous history limited them as parents.

[55] It was considered that significant physical and emotional improvements had been observed in both children in the short time since their being accommodated and that a full assessment should be carried out of the parents' capacity to care for their children.

[56] On 25 February 2008, Clare Fitzsimmons, who had been treating SMS and ELS for poor skin conditions, noted that "since going into foster care both children's skin problems have virtually completely resolved with the use of Diprobase and Fucidin H". This raised concern that the children's skin condition may have been exacerbated by being poorly managed by the respondents.

[57] On 26 February 2008, there was a Children's Hearing, at which a decision was made to refer the case for proof. The grounds of referral, namely lack of parental care and that SMS was a child against whom a Schedule One offence had been committed, were found to be established at Greenock Sheriff Court on 18 April 2008.

[58] On 12 March 2008, SMS attended a Looked After and Accommodated medical examination undertaken by Dr Roy. Dr Roy noted that SMS had improved significantly in all areas since being accommodated. Her speech and language skills had improved and her communication was progressing well and was appropriate for her age. Her motor skills were also noted to be age-appropriate and there was considered to be a huge improvement in her ability to get up from the floor, walk up stairs and move around since being accommodated. Dr Roy stated that the developmental delay previously noted could be indicative of neglect; however, she was keen to stress the difficulty of giving a definitive view on this.

[59] The respondents failed to attend contact on 21 April 2008. A home visit was undertaken by Luisa Adams, social worker, on 22 April 2008. The respondents advised that they had been unable to attend as they had been trying to improve security in the home. They advised that someone had entered their home via trap doors in the floor and had written things on the wall and on the children's clothes. They proceeded to show Luisa Adams the messages they believed had been left. Luisa Adams could see no visible messages.

[60] A Comprehensive Risk Assessment was completed by Luisa Adams on 27 May 2008. This raised significant concerns regarding the capacity of the respondents to care for the children effectively. It was recommended that a Permanency Planning Meeting should take place to consider the best means by which to safeguard the welfare of the children in the longer term.

[61] On 4 June 2008, a further Looked After and Accommodated Review took place. The recommendation from the Comprehensive Risk Assessment was ratified.

[62] A Children's Hearing on 20 June 2008 decided that SMS and ELS should be subject to a Supervision Requirement, in accordance with section 70(3)(a) of the 1995 Act. This included a condition that SMS and ELS should reside in foster care and that they be afforded contact with both respondents for a minimum of one hour per week, supervised by Social Work Services. Contact continued to be provided three times per week.

[63] A Permanency Planning Meeting, chaired by Roberta MacInnes, service manager, was held on 27 June 2008. The meeting concluded that there was evidence of a persistent failure by the respondents to provide appropriate care for their children. It was recommended that the children's long term interests would be best met by a permanent substitute family.

[64] Following the Permanency Planning Meeting, both respondents sought "Handling Children's Behaviour" classes of their own accord. These commenced in August 2008 and were facilitated by Gina Millar, Community Drug Team and Diane Monk, health visiting assistant. The respondents attended four of a possible seven sessions. Gina Millar advised that, whilst both respondents attended the group, they presented as though they "knew it all". She expressed the view that the respondents were insincere in their attendance and failed to take on board advice. Gina Millar noted that she felt that both respondents attended the group in an effort to prove that they were capable parents, as opposed to increasing their parenting skills. Furthermore, Gina Millar noted that the respondents showed a lack of understanding as to the reasons why the children were being accommodated and felt that they were consistently attempting to justify their behaviour and circumstances. The second respondent, in particular, stated that he did not understand why his children had been accommodated and spoke inappropriately of the child protection concerns that had been raised, for example by openly discussing the allegation that the first respondent had seen a picture of a hand penetrating SMS. In addition, he spoke of the children over-eating and taking food from the fridge and the bins, which he attributed to a medical illness.

[65] Despite these reports, in subsequent discussions with Joy Ross, both respondents expressed the view that they had received positive input and advice from the group. They noted that they had used some of these strategies during contact sessions, such as coming down to a child's level to talk when the child's behaviour was inappropriate.

[66] At a further Looked After and Accommodated Review on 2 September 2008, a recommendation was made that the children's contact with the respondents should be reduced to once per month due to lack of progress in the respondents' engagement with relevant services and the view that they did not have the capacity to look after their children effectively. Whilst the children did not show any distress, the quality of contact was noted to be basic. Veronica Paul, supervising worker, noted that the respondents would often attempt to use contact as an opportunity to chat with the worker. Whilst each contact was for one hour's duration, both respondents were reported to take ten minute cigarette breaks. These reports are denied by the respondents, who stated that Veronica Paul would initiate discussions and that they did not have extensive cigarette breaks. I did not believe the respondents' denials. Again, I prefer the contemporary records.

[67] A Children's Hearing was subsequently requested. This took place on 19 August 2008. A decision was made to appoint a Safeguarder. A Safeguarder's Report was completed by Iain McLean. He concluded that rehabilitation was not appropriate due to the mental health issues of both respondents, which appeared to be lifelong, and the extreme nature of the difficulties experienced by the children whilst in their parents' care. He reported that he felt it would be in the children's best interests for permanency planning to be advanced.

[68] At a further Children's Hearing on 6 February 2009, the Safeguarder's recommendation was accepted. A decision was made that contact should be reduced to a minimum of two hours per month, supervised by Social Work Services. Social Work records indicate that SMS coped well with the reduction in contact, showing no adverse reaction to this.

[69] On 13 October 2008, information was received from SNIPS, that the first respondent was expecting her fourth child.

[70] A Child Protection Pre-Birth Case Discussion was held on 17 December 2008 due to the level of concern regarding the respondents' ability to care for SMS and ELS, and their ability to care for a new baby. Both parents initially agreed that, following the birth, BMS could be accommodated by the Local Authority on a voluntary basis under section 25 of the 1995 Act. This consent was later retracted, with the respondents expressing the view that their child would not be at risk in their care.

[71] BMS was born on 14 January 2009 at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley. Due to the level of concern still felt to be present, a Child Protection Order was sought and granted at Paisley Sheriff Court on 21 January 2009. BMS was placed in a foster placement on 23 January 2009. Unfortunately, it was not possible for her to be placed with SMS and ELS.

[72] On 24 March 2009, a Looked After and Accommodated Review was held in respect of BMS. Due to the lack of progress demonstrated by the respondents in relation to care of SMS and ELS, a decision was made that Permanency Plans should be pursued in respect of BMS.

[73] At this review, Stewart MacDonald expressed the view that both respondents had presented as less stressed and erratic since the children had been accommodated. He advised that, in his opinion, the couple had significant historical emotional "baggage", and that their pre-existing problems remained with them as individuals and as a couple. He advised that he was unsure how well the couple would cope, should the children be returned to their care.

[74] In March 2009, the second respondent advised that the couple were engaging with the Community Drugs Team. Social Work contact with the team confirmed that the couple were not an open case to the team and had had no meaningful contact within the previous six months.

[75] On 20 April 2009, Sandra Millar, family support organiser, raised concern that the respondents were using contact with the children as an opportunity to discuss issues with supervising workers. Both respondents often stated that they required to end contact early due to the ill health of the first respondent.

[76] On 5 May 2009, the respondents advised that they required to cancel contact that day due to the first respondent receiving surgery, which had left her in pain. It was noted that they had also cancelled contact on 1 May 2009 due to the first respondent being in pain, despite the fact that they had both been seen in a Tesco supermarket buying mobile phones on that date.

[77] A Permanency Planning Meeting was held on 22 May 2009 in respect of BMS, chaired by Roberta MacInnes. A decision was made that permanency plans should be pursued for the child. It was recommended that adoption would be the best means of safeguarding the long-term welfare of the child.

[78] On 3 July 2009, Joy Ross contacted Dr McMahon at Inverclyde Drugs Team to confirm the nature of the respondents' mental health difficulties. Dr McMahon advised that both the first respondent and the second respondent had "deeply ingrained maladaptive patterns of behaviour". He further advised that this prevented either parent from having the ability to put the needs of others first or to cope with stress and change. Dr McMahon advised that both parents experienced unstable moods, reacting impulsively or negatively. He expressed the view that, whilst the parents seemed to be presenting better at the present time, this was due to their not having the care of the children.

[79] SMS and ELS were discussed at the Inverclyde Adoption and Permanence Panel on 3 July 2009. A recommendation was made that a permanent substitute family should be sought for both children. At this time, it was recognised that permanence plans were also being pursued in respect of BMS and that consideration should be given to a placement for all three siblings. The respondents attended this meeting.

[80] The case was allocated to Lynne Anderson in July 2009. She replaced Joy Ross, who had left the petitioners' employment. During Lynne Anderson's first meeting with the respondents, concerns were raised regarding their continued failure to acknowledge any responsibility for the children's situations. They expressed the view that they had never led a "chaotic lifestyle", stating that they only spent their time collecting their methadone and in the home with the children. In addition, they claimed that positive drug samples were inaccurate and that they intended to take legal action against drug services. They went on to allege that they had been informed by Kenneth Martin at Inverclyde Drugs Team, that the samples could be easily mixed up and that he would be "ripped to shreds" in court. The first respondent advised Lynne Anderson that she had looked after SMS and ELS "perfectly". She expressed the view that, if the children were experiencing developmental delays, this should have been addressed prior to their being accommodated.

[81] Concerns were raised regarding the behaviour of the second respondent on 21 July 2009. At this time, the paternal grandmother contacted Lynne Anderson in a distressed state. She advised that the second respondent had been contacting family members over the weekend, requesting money. This was not provided as it was believed to be for drugs. The paternal grandmother alleged that the second respondent threatened to have her contact with the youngest child withdrawn if she did not comply with his requests. This raised further concerns regarding his ability to prioritise the needs of his children over his own needs.

[82] An Adoption and Permanence Panel was held on 28 July 2009 in respect of BMS. The Panel agreed that the child should not be returned to her parents' care and that a permanent substitute family should be pursued, again highlighting the need to consider a placement which would allow all three siblings to be placed together. The respondents failed to attend this panel, claiming that they were not made aware of Social Work Services' plans for the children until later, when a letter was received advising them that adoption was being pursued for the three children. This was despite their having been in attendance at the Adoption and Permanence Panel on 3 July 2009 when SMS and ELS were discussed. Lynne Anderson had also left telephone messages and hand-delivered a letter to advise them of the Panel on 28 July 2009. The second respondent later claimed that his telephone had been stolen during a burglary and that people had been hiding correspondence from Social Work Services under the floorboards. Despite these claims, the second respondent has since returned to using the mobile telephone he claimed had been stolen.

[83] On 31 July 2009, a Children's Hearing was held in respect of BMS. A decision was made to reduce the child's contact with the respondents to a minimum of two hours per month, to be supervised by Social Work Services.

[84] Following this Children's Hearing, significant concerns were again raised regarding the respondents' capacity to cope in times of stress or change. On 3 August 2009, the respondents both called into the Social Work office in Greenock, stating that they were fearful for their lives and unable to return home. The respondents contacted Lynne Anderson by telephone from the office. They both presented as very agitated and distracted, passing the telephone between one another, contradicting themselves and speaking over each other.

[85] During this call they made a number of allegations. These included that they had returned home the previous day to find an individual at their kitchen window who subsequently assaulted the second respondent by cutting his wrists 20 to 30 times. They claimed that he had also threatened to put the first respondent in a bath and cut her up. In addition, they said that they noted the carpets in the house to have been pulled back, discovering that people had been hiding under the floorboards. This was said to have included a seven year old child, whom they both claimed to have seen, allowing her to use their bathroom and giving her a drink of water. They claimed also that the second respondent had been warned that he had "24 hours to get on the boat to America" or they would have "a bullet in the back of the head". They claimed that the house had been ransacked and that the police were treating the incident as attempted murder. Prior to being given advice, the respondents left the Social Work office without informing staff.

[86] The presentation of the respondents at this time was of extreme concern. This concern was shared by administration staff at the Greenock office, who observed the couple. They advised that at one point they were speaking on the telephone, believing they were speaking to homeless services. They were, in fact, speaking to the dialling tone. The first respondent was also observed taking photographs of the second respondent's face and head, stating that this was for evidential purposes. Workers could note no visible injuries to these areas. The second respondent was, however, noted to have cuts on his arms. Contact was made with Strathclyde Police, who confirmed that they had been called to the respondents' home, but had noted no disturbance and no evidence of any injuries.

[87] On 4 August 2009, Marie Gunnis, Community Drug Team, advised that the respondents had presented to the service detailing the information provided to Lynne Anderson. Marie Gunnis expressed concern for their mental health at this time.

[88] On 4 August 2009, Kenneth Martin, Inverclyde Drug Team, visited the respondents at home. He noted the home to be chaotic with the television smashed. He expressed the view that the respondents were intoxicated, describing them as being unable to sit still and difficult to follow. He advised that the second respondent did have cuts to his arms, but expressed the view that these resembled self-harm cuts as opposed to the second respondent being assaulted. Kenneth Martin expressed the opinion that this was the worst the parents had presented in some time, further expressing the view that their presentation was likely to be drug-induced, as opposed to requiring psychiatric input. Both respondents denied illicit drug use at this time.

[89] On 5 August 2009, an anonymous referral was received from a worker within the local Tesco store where the couple collected their methadone. He advised that on 1 August 2009 the respondents were shouting at each other and became abusive to staff, leading to them only being allowed in the store one at a time. He also believed that the respondents had left their prescription lying in a shopping trolley.

[90] Stewart MacDonald undertook a further home visit on 14 August 2009. At this time he noted both respondents to be pre-occupied and disturbed. They alleged that someone had taken pictures of the second respondent having sex with another individual and that those pictures were somehow flashing on their television. They also alleged that notes were being left under their floorboards. Stewart MacDonald supported the view of Kenneth Martin that the presentation of the respondents was likely to be drug-induced.

[91] Concerns regarding the presentation of the second respondent continued. During an appointment with Dr McMahon and Kenneth Martin on 2 September 2009, he continued to express bizarre thoughts. These included that a pornographic video of him with three females was flashing on his television screen. It was the opinion of both Dr McMahon and Kenneth Martin that his paranoia was likely to be drug-induced. At this time the second respondent did admit to using amphetamines, although he claimed that this was due to his drink being spiked. A urine sample was provided, showing positive for methadone, cannabis, opiates (this was unspecified, although he was not prescribed any medication which could account for this) and benzodiazepines (prescribed).

[92] On 9 September 2009, Strathclyde Police contacted West of Scotland Social Work Standby Services to advise of contact by the second respondent. They advised that he had contacted them asking advice as he had been arguing with the first respondent. Police attended the home. The respondents admitted to a minor argument and advice was given.

[93] Lynne Anderson had telephone contact with the second respondent on 14 September 2009. At this time, the second respondent commented that he believed that the children had a vitamin deficiency, which had led to their delayed development.

[94] During further telephone contact with Lynne Anderson on 16 September 2009, the second respondent advised her that people had been taking their mail and hiding it under the floorboards of the home. This was said to include letters and reports provided by Social Work Services.

[95] In September 2009 the respondents were expressing the view that they required a Social Work assessment in their own right. They were advised by Lynne Anderson, both by telephone and in writing, that this could be provided via the Community Drug Team. To date this has not been followed up by the respondents.

[96] A Children's Hearing was held on 23 October 2009 in respect of SMS and ELS. A decision was made that the children should continue to be subject to a Supervision Requirement, with contact remaining at a minimum of two hours per month.

[97] During a telephone call with Lynne Anderson on 7 December 2009, further concerns were reported, highlighting the inability of the respondents to accept any responsibility in relation to the events leading to the children being accommodated. In particular, they denied any responsibility for the delayed development in the children. They claimed that the concerns regarding SMS's unsteady gait had resulted from her poor eyesight, stating that both SMS and ELS had attended a medical examination prior to being accommodated, at which they were noted to be healthy. The first respondent expressed the view that her lawyer would "rip Social Work to shreds" and seemed genuinely unable to recognise her and the second respondent's own rôles in the accommodation of their children.

[98] On 13 January 2010, the second respondent was seen by Kenneth Martin and Dr McMahon, Inverclyde Drug Team. Kenneth Martin advised that the second respondent's benzodiazepine prescription was increased at this time. He advised that samples provided on 2 September 2009, 28 September 2009 and 13 January 2010 showed positive for opiates. These were not specified, other than in respect of the sample provided on 28 September 2009, which was confirmed to be heroin.

[99] On 18 January 2010, contact was made with Marie Gunnis, Community Drug Team. She advised that the respondents had failed to engage with the service in any meaningful manner, choosing to access the service on an ad hoc basis. As a result, the case was closed to the team.

[100] A Linking Meeting was held on 12 February 2010 due to a potential adoptive family being identified for the children. It was agreed to progress the permanency plans with a view to placing the children with prospective adopters.

[101] Following this, a Matching Panel was held by Inverclyde Adoption and Permanence Panel on 26 February 2010, at which it was agreed that adoption should be pursued in respect of SMS, ELS and BMS. It was agreed that a placement with the prospective adopters should be pursued for all three children.

[102] A Looked After and Accommodated Review was then held on 4 March 2010, chaired by Liz Edwards, independent review co-ordinator. The Review endorsed the decision of the Matching Panel that a placement with the prospective adopters should be pursued for SMS, ELS and BMS. A further decision was taken that a recommendation should be made to the subsequent Children's Hearing that the condition of contact with the respondents be removed.

[103] Throughout the duration of the period during which permanency plans were being progressed, concerns were consistently raised regarding the respondents' commitment to and the quality of their contact with the children. Prior to July 2009 contact with BMS took place five times per week, including contact at home and at the contact centre. It was noted that the respondents often cancelled contact at the contact centre. At various stages, concerns were raised that the second respondent may be presenting as being under the influence of drink or drugs during contact, with supervising workers noting him to be drowsy and unsteady on his feet. In June 2009, this concern was raised a total of four times. Concerns were also raised that the respondents were often distracted by their disagreement with Social Work Services, rather than using the time to focus upon the children. The interaction was, therefore, often reported to be poor, with the supervising workers requiring to direct the respondents to the needs of the children. This was evident during contact on 22 June 2009 when SMS was reported to have a cough and to be unwell. The supervising worker required to bring this to the attention of the respondents and direct them to comfort the child. The child was subsequently comforted by the supervising worker.

[104] Throughout the autumn of 2009 and early 2010, there continued to be concerns regarding the respondents' commitment to contact. In October 2009, it was noted that there was little interaction between BMS and her parents. In November 2009, the respondents cancelled contact, stating that they were unwell. The respondents only contacted Social Work Services half an hour prior to contact commencing; therefore, the children were already en route to the venue, expecting to see the respondents. The respondents again cancelled contact in January 2010, stating that they were not informed about this contact. This was despite contact taking place at the same time and venue every four weeks. They then stated that neither of the respondents could attend contact due to Gas Services attending at their home. Given the permanence plans and the poor quality and inconsistent experience of contact for the children, it was felt that continued contact would not be in the best interests of the children.

[105] A Children's Hearing was held on 5 March 2010 in respect of all three children. The Hearing agreed with the recommendation of Social Work Services. A decision was made that the children should continue to be subject to a Supervision Requirement in accordance with section 70(3)(a) of the 1995 Act. This Requirement was varied, with a condition that the children reside with the prospective adopters and that the children should not be afforded contact with the respondents after the week commencing 8 March 2010. This decision was subject to appeal by the respondents. An appeal was scheduled to take place at Greenock Sheriff Court on 7 May 2010. This was abandoned on that date, with the respondents stating that they would prefer to raise their concerns at the Advice Hearing on 14 May 2010.

[106] The children subsequently had their final contact with the respondents on 8 March 2010. Contact had not been a consistently positive experience for SMS, ELS and BMS. It was felt that, in order to allow SMS the opportunity to develop within an alternative family, direct contact with the respondents would not be in her best interests. At that time it was felt that letterbox contact, mediated by Social Work Services, would enable SMS to maintain a connection with her roots, supporting her developing sense of identity as she grew older.

[107] A Looked After and Accommodated Review was held on 8 April 2010, chaired by Liz Edwards, at which SMS, ELS and BMS were noted to be making good progress within their placement.

[108] Since then, the three children have continued to live with the prospective adoptive family. There has been no further contact between the children and the respondents.

Evidence at the Proof

[109] At the proof, the witnesses led by the petitioners (both in their affidavits and under cross-examination) gave detailed and wholly convincing evidence to support the many serious concerns recorded by the Social Work department over the years about the respondents' inability to look after their children properly. None of the petitioners' witnesses wavered to any extent in cross-examination, as counsel for the first respondent ultimately had to accept in his closing submissions. I was impressed by all the petitioners' witnesses; they were professional and obviously dedicated. Collectively, it was clear that they had given the case detailed and careful consideration and were all convinced that it would be seriously detrimental to the children's best interests for them to be looked after by the respondents. The result was that I was left with a formidable body of detailed evidence from qualified and experienced persons pointing strongly to the conclusion that the respondents were not capable of looking after the children adequately. For example, Elizabeth Ross spoke of the department's early concerns about SMS's motor functions and of the fact that SMS's and ELS's hair was sparse. She explained that the first respondent's urine samples had tested positive for cocaine, although she denied taking the drug. Like other witnesses, she described seeing SMS going into bins in the house, looking for food. The child seemed always to be hungry. The Health Visitor had concerns about the children before they were taken into care. Contact visits with the respondents had not been successful. She thought that the respondents had deeply entrenched mental health problems.

[110] The Senior Social Worker responsible for the case, Hugh O'Connell, strongly supported the need for permanence orders with authority for adoption. He considered that it would be highly detrimental to their welfare for the children to be returned to the respondents. There were serious concerns about the respondents' continuing use of drugs and about their mental stability. The respondents refused to accept that they had been unable to look after the children adequately; they lacked any insight into their difficulties. He confirmed that the contact visits had been problematic due to the respondents' lack of commitment and irregular attendance. Mr O'Connell also gave evidence about the current placement with the prospective adoptive parents. I shall return to this later.

[111] Important evidence was given by Stewart MacDonald, a community psychiatric nurse with the local drugs team. He knew both respondents well. In his affidavit, he described the first respondent's history of heroin addiction and the substantial support provided to her over the years to try to address this. Inevitably, her addiction had made looking after the children difficult. Mr MacDonald said that in March 2010 the first respondent had provided a urine sample, which tested positive for unprescribed opiates; and in August 2010 she had provided a urine sample that was adulterated with Methadone. He thought that she had poured Methadone into her sample; amongst drug users, there was a belief that this would neutralise other substances. Mr MacDonald considered that both the respondents had unstable personalities. They had a history of failing to attend appointments. He was concerned about their ability to look after the children properly.

[112] Isabell McFarlane was the Family Support Worker, who became involved with the respondents in 2006. She was an impressive witness, who clearly had a great deal of experience of working with vulnerable families. She struck me as a caring and sympathetic person with no axe to grind. She frequently visited the respondents at home. She noticed that the first respondent seemed, at times, to be under the influence of drugs; she was drowsy and her speech was slurred. From about April 2007, the respondents were struggling to look after SMS and ELS. Neighbours were calling the Social Work department to express concerns about the respondents' care of the children. The respondents had shown a lack of commitment to the Mellow Parenting classes. SMS was always looking for food. The house was smoky and dark. Attendance at nursery school was erratic. The respondents were reluctant to accept advice about how to look after the children. They rarely took the children out. Mrs McFarlane thought that Dr Hamoudi had not obtained a complete picture of the day to day difficulties the respondents were having in looking after the children. By 2007, reports were being received of bizarre behaviour on the part of the respondents; the second respondent contacted the police complaining of people coming into the house and leaving secret messages. He claimed that he had been abducted and drugged and that messages had been written on his leg in ash and baby milk. He said that "golden biting spiders" had burrowed beneath his skin and hatched eggs. As time went on, Mrs McFarlane had difficulty in gaining access to the house for visits. She knew that things were not right. She spoke to receiving an abusive and threatening text message from the second respondent's mobile phone; she thought that this was sent to her by mistake. By the time she was nearly three, SMS was still in nappies. After SMS and ELS were placed with foster parents, Mrs McFarlane noticed a great improvement in them in a short period of time. The foster father told Mrs McFarlane that he was appalled at the state of the children when they came to live with them and that SMS and ELS were the worst neglected children he had ever encountered. The foster parents were experienced and well-regarded.

[113] Mrs McFarlane's evidence about the period up to about February 2008 was confirmed by Christine McKay, a Social Worker employed by the petitioners. She described persistent difficulties with neighbours, poor parenting skills, poor attendance at nursery school, the house being dark and smoky and SMS always seeming to be hungry.

[114] The Social Worker responsible for the case since July 2009 has been Lynne Anderson. She strongly supported the need for the children to be adopted and for permanence orders to be made. The respondents each had a clear history of drug abuse and of mental health difficulties. There were major continuing concerns about their inability to look after the children and about continuing drug abuse by them both. In March 2010, the second respondent admitted to drugs workers that he was taking heroin twice a week. On 25 August 2010, he produced a urine sample which was adulterated with Methadone. The respondents were overly dependent on one another and refused to accept that they had continuing issues with drug abuse. In 2009 there had been serious concerns about the respondents' respective mental stability. They claimed that an intruder had entered their home; that he had assaulted the second respondent by cutting his arms 20 to 30 times; and that he had put the first respondent in the bath and threatened to chop her up. In a telephone call to Miss Anderson, the respondents were very confused and making no sense. They claimed that people were living beneath their floorboards; one was a seven year old girl, to whom the respondents had given a drink of water. In the following weeks, the respondents presented at the Drugs Service in a similarly confused state. They gave bizarre accounts of intruders entering their house. Drug workers thought that the respondents were suffering from drug-induced paranoia.

[115] Miss Anderson explained that the respondents had not attended contact sessions regularly and such sessions as they did attend had often not been successful for the children. She herself had only attended two contact meetings; these had been positive, but the records showed that the overall picture was that contact had been unsuccessful. The respondents were pre-occupied with their grievances against the Social Work department, rather than focussing on the children at the meetings. At some contacts the second respondent appeared to be under the influence of drugs. Miss Anderson and Mr O'Connell were involved in finding a suitable adoptive family for all three children. They had explored whether there was any possibility of the children being brought up by relatives, but there was no one available or in a position to take on the responsibility of looking after the three girls. Miss Anderson described the process of introducing the children to the new family and the gradual reduction of contact with the respondents. Since the children had been placed with the prospective adoptive parents, the respondents had shown a lack of interest in them. They had not once made contact with the Social Work department to inquire about their progress. They had not been at home when Miss Anderson attended for pre-arranged visits.

[116] Each of the respondents gave evidence. I regret to say that I was not at all impressed by either of them. The manner in which they gave evidence was defensive and showed little insight into the children's welfare. It appeared to me that the respondents were preoccupied with their sense of grievance directed against the Social Work department. In their evidence, the respondents attempted to explain away some of the concerns about their care of the children raised in the evidence led for the petitioners. I did not find these explanations convincing or credible. Wherever there was a factual dispute between their evidence and that given by the petitioners' witnesses, I had no difficulty in preferring the latter.

[117] Some particular points in the evidence of the first respondent are worth mentioning. She accepted that after the birth of her son in 1993, she had become addicted to heroin. She explained that she has been on a Methadone programme since about 2003. She accepted that there had been problems with neighbours at previous addresses, but claimed that (with the exception of one neighbour) there were no such difficulties at the respondents' present address. The first respondent acknowledged that there had been times when she had been unable to get SMS to attend nursery school. After ELS was born, the first respondent experienced post-natal depression. With regard to the incident on 3 January 2008, the first respondent said that she telephoned the police because she saw an indecent photograph of SMS on her mobile phone. When the police came to the flat, they found a syringe, but this was intended to be used to give Calpol to ELS and had been legitimately obtained from the respondents' General Practitioner. This seemed to me to be an implausible account. It is also inconsistent with the explanation given by the second respondent to social workers on 4 January 2008 when he maintained that the needles belonged to a friend. The police thought that the respondents were under the influence of drugs and removed SMS and ELS from their care. Since then, they had not had care of the children. Any difficulties with contact over the years had not been the respondents' fault to any degree. The first respondent maintained that she had been able to look after SMS and ELS properly and that adoption of them and BMS was not necessary or justified.

[118] I did not accept the first respondent's evidence that she had been able to look after SMS and ELS properly. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is to contrary effect. In my opinion, the concerns expressed over the years by many social work staff and other agencies are far too numerous and specific to be rejected.

[119] The second respondent gave evidence broadly in support of that given by the first respondent. The second respondent seemed to me to be a belligerent witness, who was very ready to make excuses for himself and the first respondent and to blame the authorities for his misfortunes. He too accepted that there had been some difficulties with SMS's attendance at nursery school. He described an incident when a new shower was being installed and the floorboards had been taken up; he had seen insects crawling beneath the floor at that time. He had taken one of these to the Environmental Health Department; they identified it as an Australian Spider Beetle. The second respondent explained that as a result of this, he had become a "wee bit paranoid". He had become anxious and had been scratching himself so badly that he had broken the skin. The second respondent accepted that he had made a report to the police about being abducted, but he attributed this to an incident when he had been drugged by a man with whom he had had a cup of coffee. As to the events of 3 January 2008, the first respondent explained that after the couple had visited a friend's house, the first respondent's mobile phone had not been working. The second respondent went back to the friend's house and found that the first respondent's SIM card was in the friend's phone. The indecent photograph of SMS on the first respondent's phone must have come, in some way that the first respondent was unable to explain clearly, from the friend. He accepted that he had been drinking when the police attended and that he had been "cheeky" to them. The second respondent went on to deny that there had been any problems with the care of SMS or ELS.

[120] I found the second respondent to be a wholly unreliable, unconvincing and incredible witness. I have serious concerns about the children being left in his care without supervision.

The placement with the prospective adoptive parents

[121] The prospective adoptive family was identified in about February 2010. They were visited by the Social Work department to assess their suitability. The family have four older boys whom they have brought up successfully. The whole family supports the proposal for adoption of the children. In the time since SMS, ELS and BMS have been placed with the family, Lynne Anderson and Hugh O'Connell have visited them to monitor progress at regular intervals. In his evidence, Mr O'Connell described certain difficulties which had arisen with SMS since she was placed with the prospective adopters. It was felt that the adoptive mother had been unduly strict with SMS on some occasions. She had been sent back to bed one morning and told to get undressed when she was not ready for school. On another occasion, SMS had not been given her evening meal because she had been slow in coming to the table. She had been made to wash her underwear on an occasion after she had soiled herself. There were also reports that SMS had been sleeping poorly, waking early, banging her head off the floor, slapping her face and behaving aggressively towards other children at school. An investigation into bruising on SMS was undertaken by the local police and paediatricians. The prospective adoptive mother admitted that she had grabbed SMS by the arms and might have caused the bruises, but she had done this with the intention of preventing SMS from hurting herself. The local social services department concluded, with the support of the police, that it was quite safe for SMS to remain in the custody of the pre-adoptive parents and that they should be supported.

[122] In view of the difficulties being experienced with SMS, Mr O'Connell paid a visit to the family on 10 November 2010. He was satisfied that SMS was not at any risk of harm, but it was considered that the adoptive family should be given further support to assist them to deal with SMS. Mr O'Connell visited again on 10 December 2010. He described what he found in a supplementary affidavit. He saw no evidence of unduly strict parenting. All three girls seemed happy and well looked after. Mr O'Connell made a further trip to see the children on 6 January 2011. He saw all three girls and found them to be happy and relating well to the adoptive parents. The parents were positive about accepting additional support and had not become defensive. They allowed Mr O'Connell to observe their family life in a day-to-day setting. He said that he was "absolutely reassured" following his visits in December 2010 and January 2011 that the children were placed with the correct family. They were clearly thriving in the care of their prospective adoptive parents; they were well presented, confident and assertive in a manner in keeping with their ages and stages of development.

[123] In my view, it is unsurprising that there have been some initial difficulties in relation to SMS following her moving to live with the prospective adopters. In view of the child's unsettled background, it is likely to take some time for her to adjust to the proposed new family and indeed to living with her sister BMS for the first time. Mr O'Connell and Miss Anderson were confident that the prospective adopters had a good understanding of the difficulties experienced so far and were committed to working towards resolving them, in the best interests of the child. There have been no significant difficulties with ELS and BMS. The family has considerable support available to it. In the circumstances, I consider that it would be highly desirable for the current placement to be allowed to continue. One of its chief advantages is that the three children are, for the first time, living together. In my opinion, it would be highly detrimental to the children's best interests for the placement to be terminated.

The applicable law

[124] This is to be found mainly in Part 2 of the 2007 Act. Section 80 permits the court, on the application of a local authority, to make a permanence order in respect of a child. By sub-section (2), a permanence order is defined to be an order consisting of (a) the mandatory provision, (b) such of the ancillary provisions as the court thinks fit, and (c) if the conditions in section 83 are met, provision granting authority for the child to be adopted. The meanings of the mandatory and the ancillary provisions are explained in sections 81 and 82 respectively. Section 83 sets out the conditions which must be satisfied before authority may be granted for a child to be adopted. These are, in summary, as follows. The local authority must request that the permanence order include provision granting authority for the child to be adopted; the court must be satisfied that the child has been, or is likely to be, placed for adoption; and, in a case such as the present, the court must be satisfied that the parent's consent to the making of such an order should be dispensed with on one of the specified grounds. Finally, the court must consider that it would be better for the child if it were to grant authority for the child to be adopted than if it were not to grant such authority.

[125] The grounds on which the parent's consent to the making of an order granting authority to adopt may be dispensed with include the court being of the opinion that the parent is unable satisfactorily to discharge parental responsibilities or exercise parental rights and is likely to continue to be unable to do so. In the event that the court is not of that opinion, authority to adopt may still be granted if the welfare of the child otherwise requires parental consent to be dispensed with.

[126] Section 84(1) provides inter alia that a permanence order may not be made in respect of a child who is aged 12 or over unless the child consents. Then sub-section (3) makes it clear that the court may not make a permanence order in respect of a child unless it considers that it would be better for the child that the order be made than that it should not be made. By sub-section (4) it is provided that, in considering whether to make a permanence order and its terms, the court is to regard the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout childhood as the paramount consideration.

[127] Section 84(5) provides as follows:

"Before making a permanence order, the court must-

(a) after taking account of the child's age and maturity, so far as is reasonably practicable-

(i) give the child the opportunity to indicate whether the child wishes to express any views, and

(ii) if the child does so wish, give the child the opportunity to express them,

(b) have regard to-

(i) any such views the child may express,

(ii) the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background, and

(iii) the likely effect on the child of the making of the order, and

(c) be satisfied that-

(i) there is no person who has the right mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of section 2 of the 1995 Act to have the child living with the person or otherwise to regulate the child's residence, or

(ii) where there is such a person, the child's residence with the person is, or is likely to be, seriously detrimental to the welfare of the child."

[128] I should mention also section 14 of the 2007. This is to be found in Part 1 which is concerned with adoption. Section 14 deals with considerations applying to the exercise of powers. So far as material for present purposes, it provides as follows.

"(1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply where a court ... is coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child.

(2) The court ... must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.

(3) The court ... is to regard the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout the child's life as the paramount consideration.

(4) The court ... must, so far as is reasonably practicable, have regard in particular to-

(a) the value of a stable family unit in the child's development,

(b) the child's ascertainable views regarding the decision (taking account of the child's age and maturity),

(c) the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background, and

(d) the likely effect on the child, throughout the child's life, of the making of an adoption order."

The present case clearly involves the court coming to a decision relating to the adoption of children; accordingly I must have regard to the considerations referred to in sub-sections (2) to (4) of section 14.

Conclusions

[129] In my opinion, there is, on the evidence, no doubt that permanence orders should be made in respect of all three children and that the orders should make provision for authority for the children to be adopted. The evidence in the case showed, to my mind overwhelmingly, that the respondents are not (and are not likely ever to be) capable of looking after the children adequately. I find that the respondents each have a history of abusing drugs and of mental instability. They each continue to have these difficulties and there is nothing to suggest that they will ever be capable of overcoming them in the future. I consider that the petitioners' Social Work department has done everything that could reasonably be expected of it to support and assist the respondents in relation to their children, but has correctly concluded that it would now be best for the children to be adopted. The welfare of each of the children throughout their lives would, I am in no doubt, be safeguarded and promoted by the making of the orders sought by the petitioners. Under section 14(3) that is the paramount consideration. In my opinion, the making of permanence orders with authority to adopt would certainly not be premature, as was argued on behalf of the first respondent. I consider that it would be very much in the children's best interests for permanent arrangements now to be put in place for their future lives. Nothing would be gained by deferring such decisions since I am satisfied that the respondents will never be able to look after the children properly. As to the considerations referred to in section 14(4), I consider that there is no doubt that the children are far more likely to grow up in a stable family unit if they are adopted than if they live with the respondents. Unfortunately, the respondents are not stable individuals and have shown that they cannot look after the children adequately; in my judgement, they will never be able to do so. The children are too young for their own views to be taken into account; this was accepted by parties at the proof. So far as their religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic backgrounds are concerned, there was no evidence that any of these considerations was material in the circumstances of the present case. I note, however, that the prospective adoptive father is Scottish and is keen for the children to retain an awareness of their Scottish origins and heritage. As to the likely effect on the children, throughout their lives, of the making of adoption orders, I consider that the evidence demonstrates clearly that the effect would be greatly to the children's benefit. I am entirely satisfied also that the welfare of each of the children requires that the consent of the respondents to the making of an order for authority to adopt should be dispensed with. The evidence conclusively shows that the respondents are unable satisfactorily to discharge their parental responsibilities and to exercise their parental rights and that they are likely to be unable to continue to do so (section 83(c)). Further and in any event, having regard to the criterion referred to in section 83(1)(d), I am convinced that it would be better for the children for authority to adopt to be granted than for it not to be granted. Finally, I have no doubt that if the children were to reside with the respondents, this would be seriously detrimental to their welfare (section 84(5)(c)(ii)).

[130] In the circumstances, I propose to make permanence orders in respect of each of the children, together with a number of ancillary provisions. The ancillary provisions will vest in the petitioners, for the appropriate periods, the parental responsibilities to safeguard and promote the children's health, development and welfare, to provide direction and guidance to the children in a manner appropriate to their stage of development and to act as their legal representatives. The ancillary provisions will also vest in the petitioners, for the appropriate periods, the parental rights to control, direct and guide the children's upbringing in a manner appropriate to their stage of development and to act as their legal representatives. The permanence orders will further provide that the parental responsibilities referred to in section 82(1)(c) of the 2007 Act and the parental rights referred to in section 82(1)(d) thereof shall be extinguished. The permanence orders shall include orders granting authority for adoption of each of the children. In the case of SMS, I am satisfied that the consent of the first respondent should be dispensed with (the second respondent has no parental rights or responsibilities in relation to SMS). In the cases of ELS and BMS, I shall order that the consent of each of the respondents be dispensed with. The ground for dispensing with consent in each case is that the respondents are, in my opinion, unable satisfactorily to discharge the parental responsibilities referred to or to exercise the parental rights mentioned and that they are likely to continue to be unable to do so. I shall also, in terms of section 89(2) of the 2007 Act, make an order providing that the supervision requirement imposed on 20 June 2008 (as varied on 5 March 2010) should cease to have effect.

Contact

[131] That leaves only the question of whether there should be any continuing contact between the respondents and the children. Section 82(1)(e) allows ancillary provisions to be made specifying such arrangements for contact between the child and any other person as the court considers appropriate and to be in the best interests of the child. In my opinion, face to face contact between the respondents and the children would be completely inappropriate. The respondents are strongly opposed to adoption in principle. They also expressed, in evidence, a distrust of the prospective adoptive mother because of what they saw (wrongly in my view) as her mistreatment of SMS. In these circumstances, I would have grave concerns that the respondents would seek to undermine the proposed new family arrangements in a way that would be disturbing and unsettling for the children. In addition, there have been considerable problems with contact between the respondents and the children in the past. What the children need more than anything now is a sustained period of stability. This would not be promoted, in my view, by face to face contact with the respondents.

[132] There was some discussion at the proof about so-called letterbox contact. The petitioners proposed that this should be allowed, but only to the extent of requiring the prospective adoptive parents to write twice a year to the respondents about the children. I am prepared to make orders to that effect, but in my view, this does not go far enough. I see no good reason why the respondents should not be allowed to write to the children twice a year and to send them photographs. Such correspondence should be sent by the respondents to the Social Work department, who would then pass it to the prospective adoptive parents. It should be left to the prospective adoptive parents to decide when and how to pass on the letters to the children, but they would be expected to do so at some appropriate stage, so long as the correspondence contained nothing unsuitable. The purpose of these arrangements would be to allow the children to retain some level of awareness of the respondents. This would, I think, be in the children's best interests. Part of the idea behind letterbox contact, as I understand it, is to allow adopted children to be given some basis for possible re-establishment of a relationship with their natural parents later in life, should the children wish to do so. It appears to me that this would be promoted by allowing the respondents to write to the children twice a year, through the medium of the Social Work department and with the co-operation of the prospective adoptive parents.

By Order

[133] I shall arrange for the petitions to be put out By Order so that parties can make submissions on the exact terms of the interlocutors which should be pronounced to give effect to the decisions I have reached. The Clerk of Court will provide draft interlocutors to parties before the By Order hearing.