Case No. AI10C00927
IN THE BARNET COUNTY COURT
Regents Park Road
London, N3 1BQ
Date: Thursday, 8th March 2012

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE MAYER
(In private)

_________
B E T W E E N :

LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET	Applicant

- and -

M1 (aka M2)	Respondent

_________

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO
Official Shorthand Writers and Tape Transcribers
Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP
Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737
info@beverleynunnery.com

_________

MS. ECOB (instructed by Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

THE RESPONDENT appeared in Person.

MR. BENNETT (of counsel) appeared on behalf of the Guardian.

_________

J U D G M E N T
(As approved by the Judge)

JUDGE MAYER:

1.	C is four and a half years old.  He was born in Ireland on 29th August 2007.  His mother is a woman who now calls herself M2.  She was formerly known as M1.  As far as I am aware she has had at least two other alias, M3 and M4.  

2.	Before I explain the background to these proceedings and the somewhat unusual issue which has arisen, I state that I am entirely satisfied that the woman who appeared before me on Monday 5th March 2012 is the same woman who appeared before me on 25th January 2011 and 23rd March 2011.  At that time she was known as M1.  

3.	This is an application by the London Borough of Barnet for a full care order and a placement order in respect of C.  The application is supported by his Guardian, Christine Payne.  As will become apparent from the background, the woman who I find to have held the identity of M1 (and I will refer to her throughout this judgment as “the mother”) denies she is subject to these proceedings and denies that C is subject to these proceedings.  She does not deny that the child I deal with is her son.  I shall assume for the sake of this judgment that, if she were to be truthful about her identity, she would be opposing both applications.  

4.	The mother was born on 1st November 1969; she is therefore forty-two years old.  Although throughout the proceedings she claimed to have been Irish and brought up on a farm in Ireland, it is now formally confirmed through the American Embassy that she (by the name of M2, to which she now answers) was born in the USA and is therefore an American citizen.  This has been confirmed recently by her half-brother, Mr A.  The name and identity of M1 came from stolen documents of a lady by that name.  

5.	C was apparently conceived by IVF from an anonymous donor (although the mother gave some other versions of his conception, this one seems to be the most consistent one).  It is now clear that he was born in Ireland in County Mayo and named on his birth certificate as C.  The birth certificate states that the father was unknown.  

6.	The mother claims that her son’s name (the child who is now in foster care in the UK) is C2.  When she was found in Spain, she claimed that her name was M4.  This last identity also came from stolen documents (from the real M4).  The mother seems now to have abandoned that identity. 

7.	As will become apparent the mother has been diagnosed by an eminent liaison psychiatrist to be a fantasist and a pathological liar with severe personality disorder.  It has been very difficult to construct a history of the mother.  In my view, it matters little for the decision I have to make, although it might matter to C for his life story.  I deal with the psychiatric evidence later; suffice it to say that the mother has a medical history which indicates some mental health problems going back a number of years.  

8.	The mother and C had become known to the Local Authority on 11th December 2008 due to a referral from Jewish Women’s Aid.  A further referral on 21st January 2009 indicated that C (then aged seventeen months) was undernourished, had unexplained bruising and his presentation raised various other concerns including lack of affection and neglect.  An initial assessment by the Local Authority was carried out.  

9.	Sporadic concerns continued during 2009, these included concerns about the mother’s presentation and her confirmation that she smacks C and locks him unattended in a room.  

10.	On 3rd April 2009, the family moved to the London Borough of Enfield, who carried out a core assessment.  No action was taken at that stage.  

11.	At some stage the mother moved back to Barnet.  

12.	On 21st January 2010  police reported to the Local Authority that C had a visible dog bite.  The mother later said that it was C’s fault, he tried to retrieve a ball from an area where the dogs were sitting and that there was a competition between him and the dog in trying to retrieve the ball.  

13.	It is perhaps a good time to mention that the mother’s preoccupation with dogs is quite extraordinary.  It features prominently throughout the papers and the assessments.  Although the mother was prohibited from keeping pets in 2005 (of which there is more below), she clearly had dogs when the Local Authority were involved with her.  Invariably there were Great Danes, a Labrador and in due course a smaller dog, possibly a terrier.  When she was found in Spain, she had with her two large dogs and four puppies.  (When I say “with her”, they were in the caravan to which I make reference below.)  

14.	An initial assessment was completed by the London Borough of Barnet on 25th January 2010.  It was not until C’s childminder notified Social Services that C only ate pureed food, and the mother told her to hit him if he did not speak, that this Local Authority carried out a core assessment. 

15.	On 26th April 2010, C was made subject to a child protection plan under the category of neglect.  

16.	On 13th August 2010 the Local Authority issued an application for s.31 orders.  I have read the social worker’s statement in support of the application and indeed all the social work evidence in these proceedings.  I do not deal with the detail.  I will deal with the question of harm shortly.  

17.	On 19th August 2010 the matter was heard at the North London Family Proceedings Court.  Section 38 threshold was agreed and an interim supervision order was made by consent.  

18.	On 3rd November 2010, at the child protection conference, the mother agreed to take C to speech therapy.

19.	A contested ICO hearing was listed for 7th December 2010.  The Local Authority decided not to pursue an application for an interim care order and a removal of C in the light of some limited improvements.  The case was transferred to the County Court.  Dr. Bass, a consultant psychiatrist, was instructed to assess the mother’s mental health.  

20.	An assessment of the mother’s parenting was to be carried out by Carol Edwards, a psychotherapist and independent social worker.  Her report, which was very cautiously optimistic in respect of changes the mother might make, was filed and served on 23rd December 2010.  

21.	On 9th January 2011 the police and ambulance service were called to the mother’s home.  The mother was badly bitten by one of her two Great Danes.  The mother was requested to rehome the dog, which she said she would.  

22.	By 20th January 2011 the Local Authority discovered that the dog was back in the family home.  

23.	The mother who promised - not only to the child protection conference, but also to Carol Edwards - to attend speech therapy, attended one session, in which she behaved in an odd manner.  She was appearing to mock C in his efforts to imitate the therapist.  The mother did not attend any further appointments.  

24.	On 25th January 2011 the case came before me for the first time.  The mother gave an undertaking to remove the dog who bit her.  Although she removed him, it transpired that she and C went to visit him daily. On 14th February 2011 she was seen by the nursery staff sitting in a car with C and a dog for some two and a half hours.  

25.	The report of Dr. Bass was filed on 8th February 2011.  It dealt with the mother’s diagnosis and prognosis.  It made concerning reading.

26.	On 15th March 2011 there was a review at the child protection conference.  A high level of concern was expressed.  

27.	On 21st March 2011 Carol Edwards filed her final report.  She recommended that C was removed into care and in due course adopted.  

28.	On 23rd March 2011 the case was listed before me for an issues resolution hearing.  The Local Authority applied for a listing for a contested interim care order.  Due partly to lack of court time for contested ICO hearing, I decided to bring the final hearing forward and found five days for a hearing at the Principal Registry commencing on 16th May 2011.  I left C with his mother.  

29.	On 16th May 2011 the mother did not attend the final hearing.  It later transpired that she and C left the country on that day.  An interim care order was made by His Honour Judge Compston (sitting as a High Court Judge).  

30.	A number of orders followed later by, mostly, Mrs. Justice Hogg, to try and locate the mother in Europe.  Her location was ultimately ascertained through tracing her credit card. 

31.	In mid-September the Local Authority obtained a European Arrest Warrant.  

32.	On 12th December the Local Authority were informed that a child matching C’s description was in a hospital in Alicante.  The child was known as C2 and the woman who presented herself as his mother called herself M4.  

33.	On 14th December 2011 SOCA informed the Local Authority that the mother had been arrested by the Spanish police and C had been taken into care by Spanish Social Services, pursuant to an interim care order by the Spanish authorities.  They were found to be living in an isolated spot some 15km west of Alicante in a caravan, which was attached to a car.  There was a tent outside the caravan and there might or might not have been running water and electricity.  I will come to the description of the inside of the caravan later.  

34.	Three social workers from the Local Authority flew to Alicante on 15th December 2011 to collect C.  He was placed in foster care on 17th December 2011 and has remained in the same placement since.  

35.	The mother was extradited to the United Kingdom on 29th December 2011. She has been, and still is, in custody since the time of her arrest. She has been charged with offences of child abduction, and I understand will stand trial in the criminal courts in April.  

36.	It was on 4th January 2012 that the American Embassy contacted the Local Authority confirming that M1 has been positively identified as M2.  

37.	The matter came before me for a hearing on 19th January 2012 for listing and I listed it for a hearing to commence on 5th March 2012 with a time estimate of four days.  

38.	On 30th January 2012 the Local Authority notified the mother that the case has been listed for a final hearing on 5th March 2012.  

39.	On 7th February 2012 SW1 and SW2, social workers from Barnet, visited the mother at Her Majesty’s Prison Holloway.  She denied any connection with M1 and said that her arrest was a misunderstanding and that her son was not C, but C2, and therefore unlawfully in foster care.  Neither social worker has met her before the abduction.

40.	SW2, on 15th February 2012, contacted M2’s half-brother – M2 having given him the name to search for an alternative carer for C.  Mr. A lives in the United States. He confirmed to SW2 that his sister, who contacted him some two to three weeks earlier, had a child named C.  

41.	By 22nd February 2012 Mr. A and his partner, Ms. B, confirmed to SW2 that they could not care for C in the short or the long term.  

42.	On 28th February 2012, the mother was served with the updating papers for these proceedings, having had the full bundles in April of last year as evident by the statement she filed on 11th May 2011, pending the commencement of the proceedings on 16th May 2011.  

43.	Since the mother was in custody pending criminal proceedings, her former family solicitor attempted to see her.  She refused to see her and insisted she never had a solicitor in this country.  

44.	On 5th March 2012 the case started before me.  The mother clearly had notice of the hearing; she was brought here from Holloway prison.  She told me in court that she was not M1, she was M2 and she had nothing to do with these proceedings.  I explained that there are people in this court who will identify her, having worked with her before.  I told her that the Guardian would do so today and Carol Edwards and Dr. Bass would do so tomorrow.  I also told her that, if she disagreed with their identification, she might be required to have an x-ray to see whether she has aging fractures which would match fractures I noted in her medical notes.  

45.	The Guardian identified her positively from the witness box. The Guardian also told me in her presence that the child she saw for the purposes of preparing her final analysis was the same child she saw when she was preparing her evidence for the hearing of 16th May 2011.  

46.	On Tuesday 4th March 2012 the mother did not arrive at court.  She apparently refused to board the transport.  

47.	I heard evidence from SW1, a manager who collected C from Spain; from Carol Edwards; from Dr. Bass; and the Guardian, Christine Payne.  I give judgment today, 8th March 2012.  The mother has arrived for the judgment.    

The Law
48.	These proceedings are brought pursuant to s.31 of the Children Act.  The Local Authority have to prove that the threshold of significant harm has been traversed in order for them to be able to intervene in this family’s life.  If I find that the threshold for significant harm has been traversed, I then have to deal with the welfare test which is to be found in s.1(3) of the same Act.  I remind myself of the convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.  I am particularly concerned with Article 6 to make sure that this mother and C receive a fair trial.  I am also concerned, of course, with Article 8 and remind myself that each child is entitled to live within his family unless living with his family is not consistent with his welfare.  

49.	In terms of proving allegations, the person who makes an allegation has to prove it.  It has to be proved on the balance of probabilities.  

The Evidence
50.	I deal, firstly, with the mother’s identity.  Since her return to this country the mother denied that she was or ever has been M1.  I already said that she said her name is M2 and her son (to whom we refer as C) was C2.  She refused to see her former solicitor; she would have been able to identify her.  SW1 and the newly allocated social worker, SW2, went to visit her in HMP Holloway on 7th February 2012, neither of whom have seen her before, were seen by her. She told them that her name had been linked with M1 because she bought a car from that woman in Spain.  She confirmed that C was called C2.  She said she had lived in Spain since 2008 with the exception of a few days in London.  She disclosed the name of her brother, Mr A.  She said he could look after C.  

51.	Mr. A was contacted by the social worker on 15th February 2012.  He was able to say that his sister, M2, contacted him some two to three weeks earlier.  If I understand correctly, he has not heard from her for some twenty years beforehand, and last saw her in 1992/1993 in the USA.  She told him in the recent telephone call that she had a son called C.  He gave the social worker additional information to be found at C246 in the bundle.  The information would be important for C’s life story book, but does not need to be detailed by me. 

52.	I should add that the mother refused to see anybody who was involved with her in the previous round of these proceedings. This included the Guardian, who was therefore unable to meet with her before the hearing. 

53.	When spoken to again, Mr. A and Ms. B said they could not care for C.  

54.	The Guardian (as I said) went in to the witness box and was sworn.  The mother turned away from her and covered her face with her hair.  I suggested that she revealed her face to the Guardian and she did so reluctantly.  The Guardian identified her without any hesitation.  

55.	Even more importantly, in my view, was the identification of C.  The Guardian saw him in December 2010 prior to the May 2011 hearing.  She saw him again on 13th January 2012.  She had no problem identifying the child she saw recently as the C she saw last year.  

56.	For the avoidance of doubt, I have asked Ms. Carol Edwards to go to the school which C attends and meet up with him at the conclusion of her evidence so as to tell me whether she had any doubt about his identity.  Carol Edwards saw him five times in the course of her preparation of the two reports for the 2011 hearing; the last time being in March 2011.  I had an email from her later that afternoon confirming the Guardian’s evidence, namely that the child she saw at school was the same child she saw here in 2010/2011.  

57.	Despite the mother’s protestation, I find as a fact that regardless of names and true identity the woman who sat in court on Monday was the same woman who was subject to the proceedings in 2010/2011.  I make a similar finding in respect of her son.

58.	I went on to consider, having found the mother’s identity (as I have said), the issue of capacity - capacity to conduct legal proceedings.  I intended for M1 to give evidence on Tuesday to deal with her understanding of these proceedings.  I wanted this to take place when Dr. Bass was attending court, so as to consider whether she lacked capacity to conduct litigation.  She chose not to attend.  

59.	Dr. Bass gave evidence on the issue of capacity.  I deal with his written report later, but, even though his oral evidence was short, I was impressed with its cogency and indeed with its breadth.  He told me that he recorded the interview with the mother, due to realising (having read her medical notes) that she was litigious and misrepresented aspects of conversations and/or advice of doctors who treated her in the past.  He told me that there was nothing in his conversation with her to indicate that she did not understand the nature of the proceedings.  He considered her behaviour now to be symptomatic of her dishonesty and pathological lying.  He considered her to be very manipulative; her capacity to deceive had been used by her throughout her life and she had probably developed the skill and new mechanisms over the years.  She demonstrated, in his view, some features of factitious illness.  He thought that from time to time she adopted new identity (he could think of at least five he said) in order to evade reality.  

60.	For my part, I took the view on Monday, when the mother attended the hearing, that she was reluctant to be identified at court by the guardian.  I was not altogether surprised when she did not arrive on Tuesday, knowing, as she did, that Carol Edwards and Dr Bass would be giving evidence.

61.	Having heard Dr. Bass and having formed an impression of the mother’s behaviour at court, coupled with her non-attendance on a day two other witnesses were going to give evidence of her identity, I have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence before me to rebut the presumption of capacity.  I considered her non-attendance yesterday.  The mother, in my experience, was not the first parent not to attend a final hearing about their child.  As I was satisfied that she did not attend of her freewill, I decided to continue the case in her absence.  I am satisfied that her rights to a fair trial have been observed.  I decided that C (of whom more below) has waited for far too long, in my view, for the conclusion of these proceedings and his welfare demanded expeditious conclusion of this case.   I have seen nothing in the mother’s conduct on Monday, and indeed today, which would indicate to me that there was any merit in adjourning this hearing. 

The Threshold
62.	The Local Authority provided a long and detailed chronology, which is to be found at A1-A6(g).  I have read the chronology and incorporate it into this judgment for its full terms and effect.  

63.	The threshold document is to be found in the bundle at A7.  The threshold has not been contested by the mother, when she agreed the interim supervision order.  The threshold for s.31 of course is higher.  Nevertheless, I am satisfied that it has been easily traversed.  The Local Authority claimed that the mother had mental health problems in para.2(ii) and, consequently, could not meet C’s needs.  This has been confirmed, firstly, by Dr. Bass’ diagnosis and, secondly, by the delay to C’s development and strong evidence of emotional neglect.  There was evidence of neglect of the home environment.  Although the mother denied it in her response, having heard evidence from SW1 about the state of the caravan where she and C lived in Spain, I find that it is likely that the family home with three large dogs and some cats was at least at times equally dirty and untidy.  

64.	The mother did not accept that C had severe language delay (as he still does).  She claimed that he spoke four languages at the age of two.  In fact, he did not speak any.  Having promised to attend speech therapy, she failed to do so after one session.  I am therefore satisfied that at the time the Local Authority intervened in C’s life he had suffered, was suffering and was likely to continue suffering, significant harm due to the misguided and neglectful actions of his mother.  

65.	Since then, of course, I have had additional information about the likelihood of C’s suffering significant harm were he to return to his mother.  His abduction, his change of identity, his living in an isolated spot in a filthy and smelly caravan (SW1 positively retched in the witness box when he recollected the smell of that place two days after C was removed from there) and his delayed development (see below) are all testimony to the emotional harm and physical neglect he has been subjected to by his mother.  The future harm is relevant, not only to s.31, but also to considerations of C’s welfare under s.1(3).  

The Assessments in this Case
66.	Carol Edwards, who is an experienced Guardian, psychotherapist and independent social worker, was appointed by this court in October 2010 to provide an assessment of the mother’s parenting abilities, her ability to understand C’s needs, her ability to work in partnership, attachment and good enough parenting.  The letter of instruction is to be found at E10.  Her first report is dated 23rd December 2010 and the second 21st March 2011.  As I have said, she met the mother and C on four occasions for her first report; each occasion was for two and a half hours.  

67.	Carol Edwards expressed concerns about the mother’s history as recounted to her by the mother, but she clearly believed that a lot of the mother’s habits (including the untidiness and her attitude to animals and to food) came from the mother growing up on a farm in Ireland.  This has now been proved to be wrong, since she apparently lived in the US until 1993 when she was twenty-four.  

68.	In her evidence before me, Carol Edwards told me that she tried (in the course of her first visit) to consolidate the positives.  There was a promise of C going to nursery, which he attended for some time; there was a family support worker in place; the mother promised to go speech therapy.  Ms. Edwards told me that she wanted to be clear that she created every opportunity for the mother to show that she will be able to change.  She described some positives in the interaction between the mother and C.  She was concerned about the consistency of parenting, but she was less intimidated by the mother’s style than others.  She described in her report the mother’s childhood (as described to her by the mother in length), including the murder of the mother’s mother by the stepfather which she apparently witnessed at the age of three.  She told Ms. Edwards that she was an only child and that her mother was dead.  I now know she has three half-siblings and that her mother (aged sixty-seven) is alive, living in the USA.  

69.	Every other bit of information she gave Ms. Edwards in paras.85 onwards, which Ms. Edwards accepted in good faith and considered to be a proper context to examine the mother’s ability to build upon her experiences to parent C, seem now to be false or at least questionable.  

70.	Ms. Edwards concluded that C would appear to have an insecure pattern of attachment to his mother.  She identified that C needed a settled and stable home life and the opportunity to develop peer relationships and to socialise appropriately.  She noted that the mother treated her differently from the way she treated the social workers.  Ms. Edwards did not see the aggression, hostility and lack of co-operation described by others.  Ms. Edwards thought that there was some scope for the mother to effect change to her patterns of behaviour.  She concluded this at para.106 (E83):  

“In my view, M1’s parenting is at the lower edge of good enough.  There is no room for deterioration, but substantial room to move things forward in a positive direction.  I think M1 does have the capacity to change and has made some limited progress already.  For example if, as she has claimed, she has listened to the advice of professionals and is acting against her own experience in relation to smacking and has abandoned this as a means of discipline, this is a significant step forward.  

In other areas change has waxed and waned, but she now needs to show better consistency.  She also needs to be less provoking in the statement she is reported to have made, for example, about reading books upside down to C, because these raise anxieties for professionals and do not facilitate a good enough relationship.  

I have recommended non-statutory resources of parenting support is more likely to be effective for M1.  She has a role in locating a source or sources to support herself.  Regular involvement over the next year to help, problem solve, difficulties in parenting as these arise could greatly assist to make change secure.  One committed worker who aimed to build a trusting relationship with M1 would be ideal.  The continuity of one person assisting would also ensure that problems were not concealed or minimised, but instead each could be dealt with immediately.”

FSW1, a family support worker, was appointed subsequently to help the mother.  

71.	Ms. Edwards’ second report, dated 21st March 2011, abandoned the cautiously optimistic tone of the first.  She met the mother again on 17th March 2011 for two and a half hours.  By then she had read the report of Dr. Bass.  She also knew that in 2005 the mother was convicted of causing injuries to animals in Ireland, whereby (as I understand it) the mother and another man owned ten Great Danes who were kept in unacceptable conditions and seven of them had bite marks.  The mother was prohibited from having pets for five years.  It was clear to Ms. Edwards, and to everybody else, that she breached this prohibition.  

72.	Ms. Edwards has, by then, realised that much of what the mother has told her was simply untrue.  She took the view that the mother’s obstructive behaviour in not accepting advice in respect of C’s needs and her constant lying would be an obstacle to C’s development.  She would distort experiences of the world around him.  Ms. Edwards gave an example:  The mother encouraging C to say he had a tummy ache (because she herself said he was suffering from tummy aches) when C’s behaviour indicated to Ms. Edwards, who was present at the time, that there was nothing wrong with him.  

73.	The mother’s peripatetic existence would prevent C from forming friendships and having a stable existence with consistency outside the home.  Ms. Edwards thought that the mother could not accommodate his developing needs since she was unable to accept advice about existing concerns.  Although this was most evident in respect of the mother’s behaviour with the dogs in respect of whom she declared that that she loved them and her son equally, it was also evident in respect of her not encouraging C to have friends, not allowing him to have a photo up at the nursery (which was not a Jewish Orthodox nursery, but the mother cited orthodox principles to support her refusal), not allowing him to eat food at the nursery, not taking him to speech therapy and not considering the impact on him of losing the only friend the mother had to whom C referred as “Auntie Hannah”.  Her actions were in total contradiction to her promises.  I digress to say that it would appear that the mother, whilst living with him in an isolated spot in Spain, limited his access to other children; this would confirm every concern Ms. Edwards raised about her in her last report.  

74.	The mother, who was co-operative with Ms. Edwards at the first interviews, told her that C’s behaviour deteriorated since Ms. Edwards visited in December 2010, thereby suggesting a direct causal relationship between Ms. Edwards’ involvement and C’s behaviour.  She also suggested that his tantrums and screaming were due to her stopping smacking him.  The discussion about C’s abilities, which Ms. Edwards had with the mother at the previous round of meetings and which the mother accepted may have been somewhat exaggerated, repeated itself in Dr. Bass’ interview with her.  Ms. Edwards thought that C’s ordinary ability would be compromised by the mother’s unrealistic perception and expectation.    

75.	Ms. Edwards said that she still saw some positive interaction between the mother and C.  There was some, but insufficient, improvement with the speech.  C was going to nursery and was a bit cleaner on her visit.  Nevertheless, she said that in the last three months the mother had not demonstrated that she was able to change.  On the contrary, the information which emerged caused deep concerns about her ability and willingness to accept advice and implement it.  She said that time was running out for C, small changes would make big impact.  She recommended that he is removed and adopted.  

76.	In the witness box, Ms. Edwards told me that she had grave concerns about any contact between C and the mother.  So long as she was denying her identity, it was impossible to predict what she would be saying to C.  Not even a properly supervised contact would be in his interest.  She suggested that the mother prepare a video for her son explaining to him that she cannot see him and saying goodbye to him.  She said that after adoption there should be indirect contact (subject to very strict perimeters) possibly twice per annum, but subject to all communication being carefully surveyed before passed to C.  

77.	Dr. Bass is a liaison psychiatrist with experiences of many years.  His CV, which spreads over twenty-six pages, indicates that he was eminently suitable to carry out an assessment of the mother in this case.  His meticulous analysis of the mother’s medical notes managed to shed light on many discrepancies in previous accounts she gave to different people at different times.  I do not go into detail.  I would not do justice to Dr. Bass and to his report if I quoted selected parts.  I am satisfied that Dr. Bass’ work was properly executed with great care and accuracy.  He read the papers and had lengthy discussion with SW3, who was the allocated social worker at the time.  This, together with his interview with the mother, put him in an excellent position, in my judgment, to proffer a diagnosis of her.  

78.	I turn to part 8 of his report (E114).  There he deals with her peripatetic lifestyle, the inconsistencies in her descriptions of her childhood experiences (especially the murder of her mother), inconsistencies about her schooling and educational background, qualifications, training; and the reports of child sexual abuse and fostering.   He found that she had extremely unrealistic expectations of her own abilities, for example, that she wanted to train as a veterinary surgeon in Edinburgh without the minimum of requisite qualifications.  In para.8(3), he says this: 

“It is also worth pointing out that she has behaved in an extremely abnormal manner in relation to her three year old son, C.  She has unrealistic expectations of his behaviour, for example: 

•	expects him to be able to feed himself, dress himself, give himself medication and nebulisers which are not prescribed;
•	behave in an age inappropriate fashion, for example, four different languages before the age of three.

She also has unrealistic expectation of his intellectual capacities, despite the fact that he is barely able to speak.  There is also evidence of intergrational transmission of abnormal health beliefs, i.e. her own beliefs about fruit and vegetable phobia have been translated into a belief that C cannot cope with solids.  As a result, he is on a semi-liquid diet.”  

79.	I move on to deal with Dr. Bass’ diagnosis of the mother.  She has no formal mental illness, but has major disturbances with her personality that appear to be longstanding and enduring.  These include the following features and behaviours:  

•	Abnormal personality characteristics.
•	Gross inconsistencies in her account of her developmental and medical history, i.e. her description of her autobiography.
•	Peripatetic existence with frequent changes of hospital and addresses.  
•	Repeated attempts to have her shoulder and legs operated on, despite evidence that there is no serious underlying disease process.  When her wishes are opposed, she resorts to extreme solutions (for example, she says that she will cut off her arm with a chainsaw).  
•	Demands radical interventions including amputation for her legs and shoulder which are unnecessary.  She becomes abusive when her demands are not met.
•	Inconsistent account of her history with evidence of publications and untruths saying, for example, that she had previously worked as a nurse in Romford and the Royal Free Hospital. 
•	Gross exaggerations of aspects of her history, which on occasions amounts to psuedologia fantastica (i.e. pathological lying).  For example, saying that she has nursing qualifications, A-Levels, etc.  She also said that she returned to the US to study a degree in business in the letter dated 3rd June and (another example) she also said that, in 2007, she needed twelve sessions in theatre for her legs that were broken in numerous places.  

I do not continue detailing that paragraph of Dr. Bass’ report.  It is to be found in para.8.9 (E116).  

80.	I do mention that the mother sees herself as disabled and seeks disability allowance (DLA) when there is no evidence that this is the case.  Indeed, she is apparently capable of riding a horse.  

81.	Finally, I turn to the mother’s personality characteristics which Dr. Bass defined using DSM4. She displays the following characteristics:  narcissistic, histrionic, psychopathic, schizofiable and paranoid.  The details and examples of each are in para.8.10 (and I do not repeat them in the body of this judgment).  

82.	Dr. Bass came to the conclusion that the mother suffers from severe personality disorder, which has a major impact on her capacity to parent her son.  Her personality difficulties impact on her capacity to empathise with her son and to respond to his needs and wants.  She appears to be more interested in the needs of her dogs than of her own child.  He said that this was confirmed in his conversation with SW3, the social worker.  

83.	Dr. Bass was present at court on 17th May 2011 when the mother was on her way to Spain.  He said then that he was concerned about C.  He said that the mother could not meet his needs in the UK, let alone abroad.  She would neglect his emotional and developmental needs, his school and his stability.  There would be no exposure to peers and there will be exposure to pathological lying and abnormal beliefs.  He was right in all of these.  He also said that, if the mother found herself in a corner, she could be very impulsive.   

84.	In the witness box, Dr. Bass told me that nothing he has heard or read since would cause him to change any part of his reports or his diagnosis.  He told me that he would be very concerned about contact.  On balance of probabilities, he would not trust the mother to co-operate with any of the agencies.  He did say in his report that the likelihood of her changing in the light of her diagnosis and in the light of her behaviour was very slim and certainly, even if it were to happen, it would not happen within C’s timescale.   

The Guardian
85.	For the purposes of her final analysis of May 2011, the Guardian visited the mother on 7th December 2010.  As I have said, she tried to visit her again on two occasions at HMP Holloway - once on 15th February 2012 and once on 28th February 2012.  On the first occasion, the mother made herself unavailable by going to the library.  On the second occasions, the mother refused to meet her.  The Guardian was, of course, one of the people likely to identify her.  

86.	The Guardian’s two reports are dated 16th May 2011 and 2nd March 2012.  I have already dealt with the fact that she identified the mother.  In her first analysis, the Guardian made her own enquiries in to the mother’s and C’s history.  Although the report of Dr. Bass was already in existence, she discovered further discrepancies and lies on the part of the mother.  Again, I do not repeat them in detail.  Nonetheless, it appears that one of the reasons of the mother’s departure from Ireland was that she was convicted of making false housing benefit claims, parts of which she was ordered to pay back.  

87.	The Guardian dealt in some detail with the discrepant information about C’s paternity; names of BJ and BL have been mentioned by the mother as former partners.  This information appears at paras.15 to 18 inclusive of the Guardian’s first report.  Whether BL and BJ are one and the same person and whether he/they have any connection with C is not known, and, unless the mother provides some information about this, is likely to remain a mystery.  

88.	The Guardian reminded me that there have been different levels of physical care reported in the past, and although the accommodation was described at times as unacceptably dirty and untidy, C was mostly described as clean and appropriately dressed.  The childminder, however, in 2009, described him arriving in dirty clothes too small for his size.  There was also a different description of his behaviour and even speech.  Some considered him to be very active, some said that he sat in the pram worryingly quietly.  Some said his speech was improving after a while at the Jewish Women’s Aid or at nursery and some said it was stagnant (the visiting social workers, for example).

89.	I am satisfied, having heard evidence from Ms. Payne on Tuesday, that C’s speech is very delayed and has odd features about it, including repetition of questions and formation of sentences.  I am satisfied that C’s standard of care was inconsistent. 

90.	Whereas at times the mother indicated co-operation and positive wishes to work with professionals (such as in July 2010), the Guardian told me that nothing came of it.  She changed her GP for no apparent reason, she moved house at least twice and no speech therapy was introduced.  There were concerns raised by the nursery because he was not allowed to eat there, although he was allowed to cook, and they were concerned that C was feeling different from the other children at the nursery.  The mother had arguments about this with the nursery staff.  

91.	Having read the experts’ reports and relying on her own observations, Ms. Payne came to the conclusion in 2011 that she must support the Local Authority in their application.  It was not for her a finely balanced case.  

92.	Since the mother returned to the UK, the Guardian saw C again.  She described this in her second report and told me about it in the witness box.  Her description of C caused me concern and sadness.  He was very slight, wore glasses, he was pale, he was very quietly spoken, he had very limited ability to play with others and he had hardly any imaginative play.  He functioned at a level much lower than his chronological age.  She thought that he was in an excellent placement and agreed with suspending the consideration as to whether he should be moved to an adoptive placement for at least six months.  She was not sure he was adoptable.  She considered him to be a very emotionally damaged little boy, cut off from his emotions or being able to function on a day to day basis.  The current social worker, SW2, said in his statement:  “C rarely exhibits any emotion”.  I have little doubt that he was baffled by being removed from the only person he new consistently throughout his life.

93.	The mother finally agreed to send him a card and a page of communication, which was not comprehensible to the social worker.  It was, nevertheless, given to C in the event that it made sense to him.  C showed no response.  However, when the foster carer moved the card and the page off the floor, he became upset and cried.  The card was addressed to “Little C2”.  C explained that these were his friends.  He has apparently  not asked for his mother since in placement, although he occasionally says “My mummy does that” when something happens.  

Discussion
94.	As I said, I am satisfied that the threshold for the purposes of s.31 is crossed.  I now turn to dealing with s.1(3) and I have it in the forefront of my mind, even though I do not deal with each and every subparagraph.  I also remind myself (as I said at the beginning) of Article 8 and C’s right to family life so long as it does not conflict with his welfare.  I am satisfied that it is highly likely that at the hearing in May 2011 the Judge would have followed the Local Authority’s and the Guardian’s advice and made a care order.  This is something I do not take into account in itself for I am the first Judge dealing with the Local Authority’s applications at a final hearing.  

95.	I find that C has suffered very serious emotional harm through the conduct of his mother in the past six months.  I am satisfied, on balance, that he lived in isolation with his mother and at least four dogs.  Although some educational books were found at the caravan (judging by the photographs I have seen) when he started attending school upon his return to the UK, he was assessed as being well below the national average.  He will be assessed again for additional support over the next six months.  Consideration is also being given to him having help at CAMHS, as well as speech therapy.  The latter should have been attended by him eighteen months ago with his mother.  

96.	I am equally satisfied that before C left the UK in May of last year, he had suffered and was likely to suffer significant harm.  I accept the written evidence of the social workers, the assessment of Carol Edwards and Dr. Bass and I find that the mother’s psychiatric condition is responsible for the past harm and is also an indicator of future emotional harm.  

97.	I am afraid I discount the mother’s factual evidence in her statements in as much as it conflicts with the evidence of professionals including the social workers.  Having been told by Dr. Bass about the mother being a pathological liar and having regard to the analysis of her history of lying, I do not find it difficult to do so on the balance of probabilities.  In her last statement the mother suggested that she and C suffer from Asperger’s Syndrome.  Whether C suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome will be something that may be looked at in due course.  I have a diagnosis of an eminent psychiatrist of the mother, which does not suggest anything of the sort.  

98.	I am entirely satisfied that the mother denying her identity and denying his identity, lying about it and continuing to lie about it, continues to cause this little boy immense emotional harm.  Although I am satisfied I have given this mother an opportunity this Monday to go and reconsider (after she was positively identified by the Guardian) her position in respect to these proceedings, she has not done so.  In my judgment, C’s return to his mother cannot be contemplated.  Having heard Dr. Bass’ prognosis about the likelihood of her changing at all, let alone in time for C, it is my view that his welfare would best be met away from the mother.  

99.	I take the view that the only order I can make in this case is a care order.  

100.	The Local Authority have served a short addendum to their care plan in respect of contact.  The contact now proposed is indirect contact only to be scrutinised very carefully by the social workers who deal with C, so that no inappropriate information is passed to him by the mother.  I have dealt with the views of Carol Edwards and Dr. Bass in respect of contact.  As I say, the mother’s continued denial of her identity causes me enormous concern.  I therefore make an order, pursuant to s.34(4) of the Children Act permitting the Local Authority to suspend contact with C, which leaves it to their discretion as to whether to order any direct contact in due course.  

101.	I turn to deal with the question of the placement order.  This case was before the Local Authority’s permanency panel on 9th May of last year.  C has been approved by the panel for adoption, which means that the panel recommend that he is placed for adoption.  That, of course, was ten months ago.  Firstly, I deal with the application itself.  In my judgment, it has been served on this mother very late.  It would be wrong, pursuant to Article 6, to deprive her of the opportunity to consider it.  I am satisfied that since she told me today yet again that she is not who I say she is, she is very unlikely to participate as the person I say she is in any future proceedings.  

102.	Nevertheless, I have decided to adjourn the question of a placement order for seven days to give her an opportunity to consider my judgment and to consider her response to a placement order.  I will list it, subject to looking at the court’s diary and tell you shortly which day and what time, so that the mother can be produced, should she wish to come.  
__________________