IMPORTANT NOTICE
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child and members of her family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: LJ13C00313

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LEEDS

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 & THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF A (A CHILD)

Leeds Civil Hearing Centre
Coverdale House
13-15 East Parade
Leeds
LS1 2BH

Date: 23/09/2014

Before :

HHJ LYNCH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	Leeds City Council	Applicant	
	- and -		
	B (the mother)	1st Respondent	
	- and -		
	C (the father)	2nd Respondent	
	- and -		
	A (the child)
(through her Children’s Guardian)	3rd Respondent	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hearing dates: 10-23 September 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Phil Booth for the Applicant
Francesca Gardner for the 1st Respondent
Nigel Bowman for the 2nd Respondent
Clare Garnham for the 3rd Respondent

JUDGMENT

Background
1.	In these proceedings I am concerned for A, aged one year and two months old. She is the only child of B and C, who share parental responsibility for her.  The parents met in 2008 and were living together until October 2013.  A is subject to an interim care order and lives with foster carers, although in the early stages of these proceedings she was subject to an interim supervision order and lived with her mother. I shall come back later to how that changed. A has contact with her parents, her mother for two hours on a Monday, three hours on Tuesday and two hours on a Friday, and with her father for one hour each Monday and Friday. 
2.	Leeds City Council issued an application for an interim care order in respect of A on 12 December 2013.  The local authority had concerns about the possibility of sexual and physical harm to A from her mother, as well as concerns about her parenting ability.  There were also concerns about anger management on the part of the father.   Concerns have subsequently arisen during the course of the case as to A having developmental delay as a result of the care she received from her mother in the first few months of this year.  
3.	The family became known to the local authority after hospital staff made a referral when A was born, B having told staff she had mental health difficulties and could not manage unless C stayed with her all the time on the ward.  The local authority carried out a core assessment which identified that the risk to A at that time was seen as low and there was no ongoing role for the local authority.  The family were re-referred by a GP at the end of October after B told the GP that C had got angry with A and been rough in changing her nappy, also that he had squeezed her once and she screamed.  An agreement was put in place that B and A would move into her grandfather’s home and C would only have supervised contact. 
4.	An assessment carried out thereafter identified that B had been placed on the Sex Offenders Register in 2006 due to a caution for physical and sexual assaults on young children and other matters of concern had come to light from social work files.  The mother’s very poor upbringing, having been removed from her mother’s care aged about four due to abuse and neglect, had also become known.  The local authority then felt further assessment was required and around this time proceedings were issued.  
5.	The local authority’s plan initially was for B and A to move to a mother and baby foster placement whilst assessments were carried out, as it was keen to keep them together whilst also helping B to develop her parenting skills.  B however was clear that due to her anxieties she would not be able to move into such a placement so the plan became one of a day assessment at the foster placement, with A and her mother continuing to live with the maternal great-grandfather. This took place under the auspices of an interim supervision order.  The goal had been for daily attendance at the foster carer’s but B found it extremely hard to engage with the placement and it was only in March that she finally began attending there daily. 
6.	The case was allocated to District Judge Kitson initially and he case managed the matter, including making decisions regarding expert assessments in respect of the mother.  The district judge at that time felt the risk was low level, noting B’s cautions with regards to physical and sexual abuse of children, a matter to which I shall return.  However, the district judge also noted there was some dispute as to whether or not she genuinely had committed these assaults or just believed she had due to her mental health anxieties.  The district judge’s view was that the clinical psychologist being proposed, Helen Roberts, was experienced to deal with the sexual element of the assessment.  That position was not agreed by the guardian who would have wished a forensic psychologist to be instructed.  The Local Authority offered in addition an in-house assessment regarding matters of sexual risk using the spiral model assessment.  The district judge determined that Helen Roberts would carry out the psychological assessment and he approved the instruction of the in-house assessor. 
7.	Then, on 30 April there was a contested interim care hearing before His Honour Judge Hunt, the case having come to this court due to the unavailability of District Judge Kitson.  There was a contested hearing that day, which focused on the issues around sexual harm, the hearing having followed the filing of the spiral assessment.  Although issues of concern regarding A’s lack of development were live at this time, particularly for the guardian, the risk of sexual harm and the mother’s dishonesty in the evidence she gave were the significant matters which led to the making of an interim care order and A’s removal from her mother’s care. He also made findings about the evidence he heard, noting differences between the mother and social worker’s evidence in respect of what had been said by B during assessment sessions and found that where they conflicted he preferred Ms Williams’ evidence.
8.	The matter was then listed before me for the issues resolution hearing prior to the final hearing.  An application was made at that stage by the mother for a specialist risk assessment by Ray Wyre Associates, a body that specialises in assessments of risk, particularly in matters of sexual harm, that application being supported by the guardian but opposed by the local authority.  Having heard that application I decided that I would be assisted by a further specialist risk assessment but queried if it was necessarily the right agency as opposed to a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist.  What followed was an order for a two stage assessment, first one from a forensic psychiatrist, Dr Gairin, and then the possibility of one from Derek Green of Ray Wyre Associates depending on the outcome of Dr Gairin’s assessment.  That meant the adjournment of the final hearing to now.  Once Dr Gairin’s report was received, however, Mr Green felt all he could add was comments on therapeutic work rather than any further risk assessment and that was the focus of his report, the final piece of expert evidence.  
9.	The case now comes before me for final hearing. The case is being fully contested by the parents, who oppose the plan of all the professionals for A to be placed for adoption.  The parents’ concessions in respect of threshold mean that the focus for me in this hearing has been what plan for her future would be in A’s welfare. The local authority contends that at the time of initiation of protective measures A was likely to suffer significant harm in the care of her parents in the form of emotional harm, developmental delay and sexual abuse.  The findings sought are as follows : 
a.	There have been arguments and physical aggression between the parents.
b.	C has anger management issues.
c.	B was cautioned in 2005 for common assault and battery of a child. B has admitted getting pleasure from hitting him and has admitted acts of masturbation while caring for him.
d.	B was cautioned in 2006 for sexual assault of a male under thirteen (touching a child aged 3).
e.	B’s anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorder prevented her from meeting the emotional and physical needs of A and has caused A developmental harm.
10.	B has been able to make concessions in respect of threshold, accepting the first four of these points, and C accepts the first two, those which relate to him.  In respect of the final point, B accepts that she suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder and associated anxiety but denies that this has caused any harm to A or prevented B meeting A’s emotional and physical needs, and I shall come back to this point later in my judgment. 
The Position of the Parties
11.	In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter and in addition considered two certificates from a parenting course attended by the mother which were given to me during the hearing. I also read very poignant letters, personally directed to me by the parents and handed in by their advocates just prior to submissions.  Those letters, whilst not formal statements, record the strong feelings each parent has for A, the mother expressing how A “is my life”, a sentiment I am sure her father would echo.  I have heard evidence in court from Helen Roberts, psychologist; Dr Gairin, consultant forensic psychiatrist; the assessing foster carer; Roshan Pitteea, the specialist social worker who carried out the Spiral Model Assessment;  Donna Williams, the child’s social worker; B; C; and the guardian, Dan Hope.  
12.	The local authority, supported by the guardian, says that the risks in returning A to the care of her parents, either separately or together, are too high.  The professionals say A has suffered harm in the form of developmental delay whilst in the care of her mother, due to her inability to give good enough parenting.  They rely on the evidence of the health visitor, the assessing foster carer and Donna Williams as to parenting capacity, also of the guardian and of doctors in terms of A’s developmental delay.  The professionals say there is a risk of future physical and sexual harm to A from her mother, relying on the evidence of Helen Roberts, Roshan Pitteea, Dr Gairin, Derek Green, and other documentary evidence in the court bundle including a historic assessment from the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, as well as the mother’s criminal record.  They say A is at risk of harm, certainly emotional harm, due to the aggression and potential for violence within the parents’ relationship historically, C’s inability to manage his anger, and the ongoing links between the parents.  The professionals are of the view that C could not be a protective factor in care arrangements for A due to his inability to perceive risks from B or to challenge her if there were concerns, and it says due to the parents’ isolation there is no one else in their immediate circle who could act as protection for A, there being issues of abuse within the maternal family which would preclude them being seen as such and the father being estranged from his family. 
13.	Against this background, and given that there are no positive assessments of family members, the Local Authority’s case, again supported by the guardian, is that the only appropriate outcome for A is for her to be placed for adoption.  
14.	The parents oppose this approach, saying that neither of them poses a risk to A.  B does not accept that A experienced developmental delay in her care.  She is clear that she poses no risk to A by way of physical or sexual harm.  She acknowledges cautions she received for physical and sexual assault but contends that in fact there was no basis for those relating to sexual assault, her admissions she says being an element of her obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), a matter to which I shall return later in this judgment.  B acknowledges that she experienced sexual abuse as a child but does not agree with professionals in terms of how she views this.  She accepts the physical assault by her of a child in her extended family but does not see this as a reason to think A would be at risk.  She acknowledges she has mental health issues in the form of OCD; she does not see this as having a significant impact upon A although she accepts that her anxieties are heightened.  B is clear she is no longer in a relationship with C but sees him as a significant support to her.  
15.	C very much supports B in her desire to care for A.  In his final statement he offers a series of alternatives in order of preference for the care of A, namely for her mother to care for her; next a shared care arrangement whereby she would live separately with each of them for part of each week and they would co-parent her; and if not, for her to live with him full time. He is clear though that he would like the possibility of him and B being in a relationship and being able to care together for A at some point in the future, it being for B to say when this might happen. 
16.	In terms of B, C is quite clear that she poses no risk to A in any way.  He says he knows B better than anyone and knows she would never hurt his daughter.  He talks in his final statement of B having reflected on her past and having changed.  C has had no concerns in relation to A’s development whilst in her mother’s care although he felt when both of them had care of A they could have given her more floor space to explore and move about.  
17.	C is aware the professionals have concerns about his ability to manage his anger.  He says he is under pressure and stress at this time but is dealing with it as well as he can.  He acknowledges he struggles with not being allowed to care for A but in respect of issues between him and the local authority he says he is dealing with these by way of the complaints procedure. He acknowledges at times having been inappropriate with professionals and apologises for this in his final statement. He believes anger management work he has done has been of assistance and is keen to take this further when he can. 
The Law 
18.	There are many matters in this case which are disputed between the parties. In respect of threshold in relation to the final finding sought I have to determine if the local authority can prove its case.  In such a scenario the burden of proof lies with the local authority. It is the local authority that brings these proceedings and the burden of proving the allegations rests with them. The standard of proof is of course the balance of probabilities. 
19.	In considering the credibility of the parents when considering such matters, I am conscious that it is not uncommon for witnesses to tell lies in the course of court proceedings. I remind myself there are multiplicity of reasons why a witness may lie and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything. 
20.	In reaching my decision about what orders if any are in the best interests of A, I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family.  The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare.  In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders are “very extreme”, and should only be made when “necessary” for the protection of the child’s interests, “when nothing else will do”.  The court “must never lose sight of the fact that (the child’s) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at least one of them” and adoption “should only be contemplated as a last resort”.  
21.	I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (supra) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the options for this child, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer. I have to ask myself the central question in this case, whether A should be rehabilitated to the care of one or other of her parents, or indeed to both of them, of whether she should be adopted.  I have to balance the pros and cons of each of the options being presented to me. McFarlane LJ in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 said “What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.” 
22.	In reaching my decision I have taken into account that A’s welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I have to consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and of A as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. I am very conscious that any orders I go on to make must be in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of A’s rights and be proportionate. 
23.	A placement order is sought by the local authority in respect of A.  The court cannot make a placement order unless the parents have consented or the court is satisfied that the parents’ consent should be dispensed with.  A court cannot dispense with a parent’s consent unless either the parent cannot be found, or lacks capacity to give consent, or the welfare of the child “requires” consent to be dispensed with. In that context I am conscious that “requires” means what is demanded rather than what is merely optional.  
Analysis of the evidence
24.	In addressing the task before me I have considered all the points in the welfare checklists contained in both the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and I propose to consider the evidence in the light of those factors. 
A’s needs and her age/sex/background
25.	Under both checklists, I have to look at A’s particular needs, physical, emotional and educational.  Her needs are exactly the same as any other child of her age.  She needs to be in a safe stable placement where her practical needs are met on a day to day basis.  She needs to be stimulated and stretched to ensure her development.  She needs to have opportunities to experience the world around her, to attend education, to interact with others fully.  It also goes without saying she needs to be loved and to belong to a family which is hers.
26.	A has no specific needs over and above those. Her language development is slightly behind but professionals are of the view she will quickly catch up. 
A’s wishes and feelings
27.	A is clearly too young for her to have any expressed wishes.  The guardian summarises this in his report thus : “A is too young to voice her own views but it can be assumed her first priority is to feel safe and loved. Her preference would be to experience this with her parents or extended family. However if this is not safe she would want an alternative arrangement that provides her a place she can feel a belonging and attachment to.” [C335]
The capacity of the parents and of any other relevant person to meet A’s needs/Any harm which she has suffered or would be at risk of suffering in her parents’ care  
28.	This factor is central to my decision regarding A’s future.  I propose to look at issues around A’s development and the cause of that, questions of risk of physical and sexual harm, the parents’ relationship, C’s ability to manage his anger, and C’s ability to protect A from potential harm. 
A. A’s development
29.	It is common ground between the parties that there were no concerns regarding A’s development at the time these proceedings were issued, up to which point she had been in the care of both parents up to October, then just in her mother’s care.  It is the local authority’s case however that as time progressed delay was noted, I think particularly from February to May.  The assessing foster carer, had concerns regarding A’s delayed development and these were borne out in subsequent medical examinations.  Dr M saw A on 2 April and in his report of 7 April he records that “A exhibits a delay in all the areas of her development” [late insert AB].  Looking at the detail of that report there is mention that she does not roll over, sit unsupported or more around a lot and that she coos but there is no babbling.  He says she needs to be under a CDC paediatrician who can assess her development regularly and look for causes of the delay.  He noted : “It may well be due to lack of stimulation, which hopefully would improve with time.” [AB]
30.	Others were expressing concerns regarding A around this time. The guardian in his report filed for the 30 April hearing said : “In my observations A’s development is of a significant concern.  In the three visits I have completed A has not displayed any significant developmental progress.” [C246]  The assessing foster carer, was expressing her concerns about A’s development.  She said in her assessment dated 23 April : “A has the capacity for development and she is ready to talk, move, exercise, explore, interact, reach her milestones and her potential but she needs eye contact, praise, interaction, talking to, joining in play from her primary carer.  This has not been made available by [B] at a high enough level to stop her falling behind developmentally.” [C222]  Donna Williams in her statement of 28 April spoke of the “noticeable decline in her development and presentation in the past four months”. [B57]  
31.	I am conscious that the parents do not accept that A was delayed in her development at this stage but that does not fit with this objective evidence from several sources including a paediatrician. I appreciate children develop at different speeds but for a number of professional witnesses to comment upon this in respect of A it must have been very noticeable.  I remind myself at this time it had been the mother who was parenting A, living in the home of her own grandfather, with the father having contact.  It seems the amount of time that the mother was spending in the assessing foster placement was not as high as had been hoped, certainly until March, but even when there it was clear she was A’s primary carer.  
32.	A was next seen by Dr S, a community paediatrician, on 12 May, by which time she had been in foster care for about two weeks.  Dr S noted for ongoing delay which she suspected was environmental in origin.  I accept she records improvements already over the situation as in early April, noting for example A had excellent eye contact, but there were still concerns.  The parents say that the improvement cannot be attributed entirely to removal, given that it had only been two weeks since she was removed, but the guardian spoke of the rapid improvement he too noted when he saw A at a LAC review in May and also during a contact session with her father.  
33.	And improvements continued. A was seen again by Dr S on 31 July and improvements were noted, including her sitting and starting to crawl.  Dr S said : “As A is now making good progress….I will discharge her from the Community Children’s Physiotherapy Service.” [C312] Finally Dr Q, a member of Dr S’s team, saw A on 28 August.  He reported back : “Her development is now age appropriate.  I have therefore now discharged her from this clinic.” [C327]
34.	In light of this evidence, I am satisfied that A suffered developmental delay in the early part of this year when she was in her mother’s care. I then have to consider if that is attributable to B’s parenting of her.  My understanding of the situation just after A’s birth is that C gave up work to care for B and to take an active role in caring for A.  B breastfed A but it seems much of the other care was shared and that C played a significant parenting role.  That of course ended when the couple had to separate in October after the GP’s referral and thereafter A’s care came from her mother until removal at the end of April.  
35.	B has a diagnosis of obsessive compulsive disorder and anxiety and this aspect of her mental health seems to have impacted on her ability to meet A’s needs from the evidence I have read and heard.  I note the significant concerns of The assessing foster carer, an experienced foster carer, regarding the issues she saw in B’s care of A, such as the lack of stimulation, over-protectiveness, lack of eye contact, as well as issues around feeding and other wider parenting issues. The foster carer’s evidence as to significant concerns regarding B’s parenting was reinforced by other professionals including the social worker, guardian, and a family support worker who was brought in in December 2013 to help the parents to improve their parenting ability.  The foster carer noted that B gave A loving care but that it was for a much younger child. She did not see any consistent improvement in the mother’s care over the assessment period, although significantly she noted changes made in response to what she called “crisis situations”, such as an impending visit by the guardian or after a visit to the paediatrician, which does not to me fit entirely with the problems just being a result of B’s OCD.  The foster carer was clear that generally B was not receptive to advice and did not see any reason at all for her to be attending at the foster carer’s home, B’s care being entirely acceptable in her own eyes, a perception borne out in her evidence before me.  I recalled the observations of the Lucy Faithfull assessor that B needed to have the last word and I suspect that part of personality is also part of why A’s development stalled.  It also fits with the recent improvements in B’s care in contact; I am left with the suspicion she can deliver when she wishes although her OCD does seem to play a role. 
36.	A’s health visitor spoke in her statement of the multiple calls she and colleagues received from B. She said : “Aside from home visits and clinic appointments, [B] has been in regular contact by telephone, often up to 2-3 times a day, seeking advice in regards to various aspects of [B] offering advice, assistance and support around weaning, meal plans, development and general care of A….. I have become increasingly concerned about [B’s] ability to take on board and follow through information given to her and the fact that she appears to have formed a reliance on us.  [B] appears to find it difficult to act on and retain the advice given.” [B183]  She also noted that as late as 17 April in a discussion with B after the paediatrician had assessed A as having global developmental delay, B had no idea how to stimulate A despite all the time she had spent in the foster placement up to that point.  In conclusion in her statement the health visitor felt that B lacked the ability to anticipate and react to A’s needs, both at that time and in the future, and felt her anxieties affected her ability to care for her daughter. 
37.	Ms Gardner on B’s behalf argues that if A did exhibit developmental delay between February and April 2014, this was because this was for the mother a very stressful period when she was not given adequate support.  Ms Gardner makes the point that during this period B was living at home but attending the foster placement, was undergoing a social work assessment and the spiral model assessment, and was assessed by Helen Roberts.  She was known by the local authority to be a person with mental health issues and yet it is argued did not receive adequate support during this period, indeed Ms Gardner described it as a worryingly low level of support.
38.	Everyone accepts that care proceedings are immensely stressful for all parents, who fear the loss of their children and have to engage nonetheless with a number of professionals.  In B’s case, there were two social work based assessments ongoing over the early part of this year.  I do not accept the role of Helen Roberts could have had any influence as she met B just once to prepare her first report, on 29 January, so before people started to have concerns about A’s development, and observed a contact on 20 May, after A had been removed.  The parenting/risk assessment and the spiral model assessment sessions totalled six between 27th February and 13th March, none longer than two hours, and over that period the plan was for B to attend the foster placement initially three times a week for about three hours a time, with a goal to that increasing which in fact only happened at some point after a meeting on 11 March which received advice from the mother’s therapist, KS. So, in February and at least the first half of March B was living at home, attending the foster carers as I understand it at most three times a week (rather like the amount of contact a parent without care might be having), and in addition had to attend six assessment sessions.  This does not to me seem an unreasonable requirement, even allowing for B’s mental health issues.  
39.	I am conscious that the foster carer had no qualifications in assessing a mother with mental health difficulties, but one would not expect a foster carer to have such qualifications.  She had previously had mothers with mental health difficulties whom she had assessed.  I had a strong sense that she had gone the extra mile in accommodating B’s difficulties, for example her great efforts to reassure B at the outset, meeting her away from the foster home, etc.  She also talked to B about any difficulties she was having, in effect as she put it using the mother as the expert to guide her.  I agree with the foster carer that B is a woman well able to express herself and I am sure she would have said if she was having problems.  
40.	In addition the local authority did make efforts to accommodate the mother’s difficulties. An advocate was arranged to be at all assessment sessions with B, specifically to ensure she understood what was being asked and to give her support, including the opportunity to review sessions afterwards.  The social worker was aware B was seeing her therapist fortnightly to address her OCD and Ms Williams it seems to me took great pains to liaise with the therapist and involve her in advising B and the local authority as to how to engage B.  Indeed, the therapist’s advice was to increase the frequency of B attending the foster placement, so that she addressed her fears and did not have time to ruminate in between, and the local authority acted on that advice.  
41.	Acknowledging therefore the mother’s apparent mental health difficulties and the fact that it was during these proceedings that B learned of the extent of the abuse she experienced as a child, I am satisfied the local authority did not put undue pressure on B over the period when A’s development stalled.  I am further satisfied that the harm to A’s development was the result of her mother’s parenting.  I am not sure that this can entirely be attributed to B’s anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorder. I therefore find that her diagnosed OCD interlinked with aspects of her personality  prevented her from meeting the emotional and physical needs of A and has caused A developmental harm.
B. B’s mental health/physical and sexual risk posed by B
42.	Since I took over responsibility for this case it has been clear that for the local authority issues of risk of physical and sexual harm to A from her mother have been at the forefront of its thinking.  When I first read this case it seemed to me there were many other significant issues which could have been seen as sufficient as the basis for its actions, but the local authority wished issues of sexual harm in particular to be addressed, and it is to this I now turn my mind.
43.	B has three cautions which are of relevance. One dates from 15 June 2005 for common assault and battery. The notes show that this was because she admitted that whilst babysitting a child she hit in several times in the face and torso and took his pants down to hit his bottom. She then has two cautions from 1 March 2006 for sexual assault, one on a male under 13 and one on a female under 13. Again the record shows that she admitted intentionally touching children in the crotch in a sexual manner. The information the local authority gained from the police was that when B was interviewed on 21 June 2006 she admitted to deliberately touching a fully clothed two or three year old child on his crotch when she sat him down in the nursery. It is recorded she said she often thinks about sexually touching children and children touching her in a sexual way. She said she also thinks about hurting children. She also admitted to hitting her father’s partner son, when babysitting him two or three years before. She spoke also of looking after two other children and hitting them for doing little things wrong.  Those admissions by B are at the core of the issues I am now asked to address.
44.	B’s case is in essence that she was misled when she made these admissions. She does not deny making them that says in fact she had done nothing and that the report she made came from her OCD.  The police accepted what she said and cautioned her which resulted in her name being placed on the Sexual Offenders Register for two years. During that time an assessment took place at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, commissioned by Probation, and a report was prepared dated 10 July 2007. This is the first document I have in time which addresses the potential of risk from B.  When the Foundation released it to Social Services in February, it was very clear that conclusions could not be drawn now on the basis of that report and that an up-to-date assessment should be obtained. I accept that but have used the reports to have a better understanding of the situation back in 2007.
45.	I am conscious that the Lucy Faithfull assessor had little background paperwork other than B’s antecedent history, a set of MAPPA minutes, a letter from Dr H, a consultant psychiatrist, and a referral form. I have not seen a letter from the psychiatrist but as I understand it from Dr Gairin he had made a diagnosis of atypical obsessive compulsive disorder. Much of the information the assessor gained therefore came from B herself and it seems to me she was very open in this assessment.
46.	B spoke of how she has a child had had what would objectively be seen as wholly inappropriate sexual experiences. She spoke of her first boyfriend being a youth she met when she was nine years old and he was a teenager, their sexual contact including full intercourse. It is recorded that B could not see that sexual contact with this manner could have been harmful for her and took the view it had not been. She spoke of her second sexual experience being with a boyfriend when she was about ten years old and he was a year older and that too included full sexual intercourse. Significantly, when asked to identify an appropriate age for children to engage in sexual activity she identified eight or nine years of age, the age at which she was introduced into sexual activity. This is something I shall come back to later.
47.	In terms of her own behaviour, she acknowledged sexual thoughts about touching children and also of children touching her in a sexual way. She said in retrospect she was often unclear as to whether she had actually done anything abusive but found that disclosing was a form of self soothing which would return her to calm. She acknowledged that sometimes her thinking about sexual touching and children could result in a sensation in her groin area similar to sexual arousal but was unclear as to whether this was arousal or anxiety. The assessor went on to say that B was not completely sure she would not touch a child sexually if the opportunity arose.
48.	The assessor said : “It is clear that there are links between [B’s] own experiences and her perceptions of appropriate and inappropriate sexual behaviour between children and adults. It is also apparent that there are issues of arousal associated with the ruminations about sexual abuse which even if it is not sexual arousal need to be addressed….” (Late insert P.)
49.	B also spoke of the pleasure she experienced from slapping children and seeing them cry, which be assessed for indicated could be an element of her having power and control which was lacking in other aspects of her existence and made to have roots in her past.
50.	The assessor does not seem to have attempted to resolve whether B’s denial of having acted in a sexual way was true. Rather the focus seems to have been on identifying a treatment plan by looking at what would need to be addressed to reduce risk. Recommendations included a full psychological assessment and CBT, also the need for her to explore her attitudes to children and sexual behaviour and to address her isolation.
51.	Within these proceedings, and without the benefit of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation report, the assessments initially commissioned were a psychological assessment by Helen Roberts and a sexual risk assessment using the Spiral Model.  Ms Roberts prepared her first report without anything like the amount of historic information now available to the court, but it seems to me it operated very much on the basis of what B was saying without a robust analysis of that.  In fairness to her, now reading the Lucy Faithfull report neither did that assessment. 
52.	B continued to say to Ms Roberts that she had not done the acts for which she had been cautioned but had said she had because of her OCD.  B said over time she had become increasingly worried that when someone touched her this was sexually motivated and inappropriate.  She described the focus of that anxiety changing to one where she feared others touching A, that she felt these touches were sexually motivated. She told Ms Roberts she was prescribed beta-blockers for her anxiety but had not been taking them regularly, and she was also seeing an occupational therapist, KS, to address her anxieties.  B also told Helen Roberts what she knew of her early childhood, having been removed from her mother’s care aged four having been abused, and going to live with her grandparents.  
53.	Ms Roberts seems to have started her analysis in respect of B from the standpoint that B’s denials of having acted in an inappropriate way to children were true, which seems somewhat surprising to me given her apparent experience in this field.  She says : “In this case, [B’s] conviction that she abused children may be understood as a manifestation of her OCD given the context of her psychopathology.  Because B is very proper and perfectionistic, in common with many obsessional individuals, she acted appropriately on her belief and reported herself to the authorities.” [C54]  She went on to focus on the impact that B’s OCD would have on A, not I feel entirely addressing the question of why she did not seem to identify a risk of sexual harm posed by B, one of the questions she had been asked in the letter of instruction. Her answer to this question was : “[B] denies that she has ever behaved in a sexually abusive manner.  However, she has received Police cautions for inappropriately touching children in her care.  If [B] is providing an accurate account, and given her difficulties with obsessions and compulsions, it seems likely that her previous confessions were a symptom of OCD.  Given her difficulties with obsessional thinking [B’s] account is feasible and consistent with the disorder.” [C58] The alternative possibility, if B was not providing an accurate account, does not seem to have been addressed.  
54.	The other report commissioned at the same time as Ms Roberts’ report was a risk assessment carried out by one of the local authority’s social workers, Roshan Pitteea, alongside A’s worker, Donna Williams.  One matter which has been a continual theme since I took over this case was the appropriateness of this model and the ability of these workers to carry out this assessment so I am going to address this first.  It cannot be denied that Mr Pitteea is relatively newly qualified and only finished his qualification in carrying out these assessments earlier this year.  He acknowledged this was the first assessment he carried out and that he had no specific qualification in relation to mental health work.  The latter point does not trouble me particularly, given the breadth of disciplines which have had input into the assessments of B.  I have addressed my mind though to Mr Pitteea’s inexperience.  One has to say that everyone has to start somewhere, but a good worker’s first assessment could be more reliable than the assessment of an experienced but less impressive social worker.  I considered this carefully as I heard Mr Pitteea’s evidence.  I found him a gently spoken witness, probably not a forceful character, but that does not mean I cannot rely on his analysis.  He was clear in the information he had gathered, the model he had applied, and how he had come to his conclusions.  I found him a credible witness as I did Donna Williams and where the mother’s evidence and their disagreed on factual matters I preferred that of the social workers, as indeed HHJ Hunt did in April.  
55.	Looking at the spiral risk model itself, the appropriateness of it being used at all was raised by the guardian back in June of this year when he was seeking further assessment of B, it not being a model with which he was familiar.  Mr Pitteea explained in his evidence that the model, whilst not familiar to all working in this field, stemmed from more commonly known models and certainly to me the “spiral” set out at C143 seemed logical. The description of the model given in the report read thus : “The Spiral Model suggests that those who have a sexual interest in children use cognitive distortions and abuse-supportive thinking to overcome a psychological ‘wall’ of guilt and/or fear. Sexual fantasies about children begin to develop and are reinforced by masturbation and orgasm. Such fantasies may be supported by indecent images of children. Repeated patterns of masturbation and orgasm to such fantasies gradually diminish internal inhibitors. As internal inhibitors diminish, grooming and victim selection begins and the risk of a child sexual offence being committed heightens.” [C143]  Having read this and considered it against the backdrop of other methods of assessing sexual risk, certainly nothing about the model itself as explained has made me think it was inappropriate as a model.  Ms Gardner reminded me that in 2007 the Lucy Faithfull Foundation report recorded that there was no appropriate model to assess females but Derek Green, who works entirely in this field, had no concern about the model, nor had Dr Gairin, who I remind myself is a specialist in women’s mental health and offending. 
56.	Turning then to the assessment itself, Mr Pitteea in his evidence spoke of the level of engagement B offered and said he was quite surprised at how openly she engaged.  He said he had expected quite a lot of denial, particularly in respect of current risk, but in fact she gave them a lot of information.  He spoke of how when looking at a person’s motivation to offend, their own experiences as a child, particularly sexual, were significant.  He noted B had experienced abuse in her mother’s care including sexual abuse, and then had the sexual experiences I have described above when she was at primary school.  Although B denies saying this, Mr Pitteea records : “[B] was reminded of her statement to her Lucy Faithfull Therapist in 2007 that she did not view this sexual contact as harmful and that she believed that age eight was appropriate for children to begin engaging in sexual activity. When asked to confirm whether she still held this view, [B] advised that she did.”  It is of note that in this assessment B was able to admit for the first time to other sexual experiences when a child, talking of having sexual intercourse with her cousin when he was three years younger than her and at primary school, it being of note that she initiated the intercourse following her masturbating in front of him. Ms Gardner spoke of B feeling pressure to give answers to questions in this assessment, hence being misunderstood, but I have no sense of that, given the detail she provided and my assessment of her in the witness box.  
57.	Mr Pitteea went on to explain that this kind of distorted thinking can overcome the natural inhibitors of guilt and fear. The model also talks of masturbation and orgasm to fantasies also diminishing internal inhibitors, and much has been made in this hearing as to whether the thoughts B acknowledged having experienced are fantasies in the sense of being pleasurable to her or are intrusive thoughts, something I shall return to shortly. 
58.	B also talked of other sexual thoughts in other contexts, for example when changing A’s nappy.  She acknowledged such thoughts and certainly the bundle is littered with references to her raising concerns about whether A had been abused, wanting professionals to check her at times when as far as I can see her mother was her carer and when no one other than family could have cared for her.  
59.	B was able to express to Mr Pitteea and Ms Williams that her sexual thoughts and feelings were wrong on some level, but they remained concerned about her approach to her past.  She was strong in her view that her sexual experience when aged nine was not harmful, she could recall positives from her encounters but struggled more to acknowledge pain or harm (for herself or for others), her ongoing thoughts of sexual matters in the context of giving care, all combined to raise concerns about her sexually deviant thinking.
60.	The next stage of the Spiral Model suggests that once an adult has overcome their natural resistance, they will start to fantasise about abusing children, which will lead to sexual arousal and masturbation/orgasm.  It is for this reason that much was made in court about whether B had experienced her thoughts as welcome or intrusive.  Mr Pitteea and Ms Williams were clear in their assessment that “[B] has historically written down her fantasies about sexually touching children and engaging in full sexual intercourse with them. Within these written disclosures, she has admitted to touching children and becoming sexually aroused. During the assessment, [B] admitted to masturbating to these fantasies. She has also admitted to masturbating with a child in her presence. She denied the use of sexual images of children (or attempts to acquire such material) but admitted that she used adult pornography to augment her masturbatory fantasies of children.” [C150]  B in her evidence denies having said this to the social workers but I am afraid I believe that this, like her other denials, comes from her realising after the event what she has said and seeking to retreat from that.  Mr Pitteea and Ms Williams are clear in their report what B did not admit to, such as fantasies about hitting or killing children being thoughts she had but to which she did not masturbate. At no time does B seem to have said to them that she found these thoughts to be unwelcome or intrusive, her case now, and given how open she was being that puzzles me.  I have looked at the detail the authors give as to what was said to them and I cannot see any reason why they would have misunderstood B in this regard, given how much of what they record is similar to what was said to others historically.  
61.	B was clear in her final evidence that these thoughts of harm to children have come into her mind during masturbation but were unwanted intrusive thoughts.  She explained in her final evidence for the first time that they had come into her mind at times when she was masturbating and thinking about adult males.  She said upon them coming into her mind she was distressed and ceased to be aroused.  That explanation was not something she had offered to any of those who have assessed her.  I find her offering of that explanation now unconvincing and I am satisfied that what she said to the Spiral Model assessors was true, that she currently has sexual thoughts about children and masturbates to them.  Ms Gardner criticises the assessors for failing to address in their assessment whether those thoughts were unwelcome intrusive thoughts rather than fantasies but it does not seem B mentioned this at the time.  I accept this could be seen as a reflection of the workers’ lack of understanding of OCD and a limitation on their conclusions, but I have the benefit of looking at their report alongside Dr Gairin’s report from the perspective of a mental health specialist and I shall return to that.
62.	Mr Pitteea and Ms Williams looked in their assessment at B’s thoughts in the context of behaviours to which she admitted.  B spoke of three children she had physically harmed, one being her grandfather’s partner’s child for which assaults she was cautioned.  She in fact described much more significant physical abuse than that for which she seems to have been cautioned, describing something which took place in various settings including on the bus, and which took place over a considerable period of time.  She also admitted to sexual abuse of her grandfather’s partner’s, which I cannot see had ever been acknowledged before.  Not all of this was addressed in oral evidence, but I am left with a strong sense that B’s case that she was “misunderstood” by the assessors was disingenuous, unbelievable given the detail given.  Again, her openness to the assessors I found striking and I can see why they at the end of their report felt there was maybe something to work with, whether or not that was in A’s timescales. 
63.	The assessment concludes : “Based on the information that has been gathered for this assessment, it is reasonable to conclude that [B] is sexually aroused by infants and young children. There is an element of sadism to this arousal. The fact that [B] has masturbated on a daily basis to sexual thoughts about children and continues to do so (albeit less frequently, by her own admission) significantly heightens the risk that that she may perpetrate sexual harm against children. The fact that [B] admits to having sexual fantasies about A and that she has masturbated to these fantasies would suggest that there is an elevated risk of sexual harm to A. The fact that there is a sadistic element to [B’s] arousal and enjoyment heightens the risk of physical harm to A.” [C158]  Mr Pitteea and Ms Williams note B has not engaged in any psychological work to address her attitudes and physical responses to children and that she is unlikely to be able to address her distorted views, abuse-supportive thinking and deviant arousals without such work.  
64.	That then was the conclusion of the Spiral Model Assessment.  That assessment was sent to Helen Roberts, along with a significant amount of other evidence which had been filed including the Lucy Faithfull report, and she was asked to revisit her assessment of B. She was clear that it was still possible to see B’s obsessional thoughts regarding sexual abuse could be understood as a feature of OCD, she noted there seemed to be an element of sexual fantasy reinforced by masturbation.  She said : “If the spiral assessment report is accurate, ongoing sexual fantasy about children, including A, reinforced by behaviour (masturbation) is of considerable concern.  If the assessment is accurate reflection of [B’s] communication, I am of the view that [B] will require specialist treatment for sexual deviancy and that again this treatment is unlikely to produce significant change within an appropriate timescale for A.” [C262]  
65.	As I have already explained, I took the view when this case first came before me that there would be value in a further risk assessment of B.  The proposal was to approach Derek Green, of RWA Child Protection Services, but I queried whether, going back to the guardian’s original approach, what we needed was a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist.  The consensus ultimately was to approach Dr Gairin first, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, to inform any assessment by Mr Green.  My understanding at the time was that Mr Green wanted some psychiatric input as a preliminary matter, in fact addressing the issue which Ms Gardner raises in respect of the limitation of the Spiral Model assessors.  Dr Gairin is extremely well equipped to carry out an assessment such as this, working with women in a medium secure setting and well used to the kind of issues this case raises.  The problem Dr Gairin encountered was that B resiled from much she had said to Mr Pitteea and Ms Williams, saying she had been misunderstood.  When Dr Gairin asked what she meant by that she said : “I answered questions but I did not know the answers, but they kept asking me the same question all the time and I should have said I don’t know.” [C280]  
66.	Dr Gairin said B seemed reluctant to speak about herself, that she regularly claimed that she could not recall the details of previous events or found talking about her past too distressing.  Ms Gardner in closing submissions suggested that this was understandably given that B felt she had been misunderstood by the Spiral Model assessors but I struggle with this given that it was B’s application for further assessment that I granted. Even after all the other assessments, she was keen to be further assessed, indeed two consecutive assessments were proposed, which does not fit with her being reluctant to be assessed.  Dr Gairin obtained a certain amount of information from B, including again a denial that she had been a victim of abuse when having sex as a young child.  She was able to elicit that B admitted getting pleasure from hitting her grandfather’s partner’s child but again only a denial in relation to any sexual harm, even to that child despite what had been said in the Spiral Model assessment. 
67.	Dr Gairin had the advantage of having access to B’s mental health records and she has quoted from these extensively in the absence of openness from B.  She records the diagnosis of OCD by Dr H who felt, like Ms Roberts, her thoughts were a manifestation of her illness and said she did not pose a risk to children as a result of her mental health issues.  However he recorded that her physical harm of her grandfather’s partner’s child was not related to her OCD and he could not comment on risk in relation to that, nor could he say with confidence that no inappropriate sexual contact had taken place between her and the children. 
68.	Dr Gairin in her conclusions brought out many of the matters which the Spiral Model assessors drew out, B’s own experience of grossly inadequate parenting including physical and sexual abuse and her “profoundly dysfunctional and distorted views about what is normal and what should be expected in the context of intimate relationships” [C294].  In respect of B’s diagnosis of OCD, she noted that at the time of diagnosis her presentation was not deemed to be typical of this disorder.  Dr Gairin felt unable to endorse this diagnosis given the lack of engagement from B in their meeting. 
69.	In terms of risk, Dr Gairin said : “Numerous incidents of self-disclosure indicate that [B] has engaged in sexual activity with a child.   She has volunteered information supporting this and has continued to describe a paedophilic arousal pattern and has admitted to acting on these fantasies or urges for self-gratification. This pattern of behaviour has been compounded by admissions of behaviours indicative of sadistic tendencies such as violence being effected against extremely vulnerable individuals leading to a sense of enjoyment and excitement.  The combination of these two behaviours is extremely concerning and would be a significant risk factor associated with future risk of violence and sexually inappropriate behaviours.” [C295]  She noted a number of other risk factors relevant to B which gave her real concern.  This view I accept relies on the information provided by B to the Spiral Model assessors but as I have said already I believe them over B in regard to what was said in their sessions. 
70.	In terms of treatment, Dr Gairin was clear that B’s lack of honesty when being assessed meant it was not possible to formulate a credible risk management plan. She said work with B would in any event need to be approached with caution as it would be likely to trigger further emotional crises and may well not be appropriate for B at this time.  Regarding the possibility of B caring for A now or in the foreseeable future, she did not think this was feasible.  She said : “She is an extremely psychologically damaged individual who continues to hold profoundly dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes and is unable to engage with remedial actions consistently in order to begin to effect change.   She presents with multiple risk factors  associated with offences against the person.  If placed under the care of her mother, A would be at a very high risk of harm.  [B’s] precarious mental health, her psychological profile, attitudes and beliefs will continue to affect her ability to make decisions based on rational assessments in order to protect her daughter and identify, acknowledge and prioritise her needs.” [C297] 
71.	The focus of Derek Green’s report changed after he had seen Dr Gairin’s report.  He felt the court had sufficient evidence before it in relation to risk but felt he could offer a view on treatment and prognosis, which I was satisfied would be of value if B were in a position for work to be done.  This was not to be the case though.  Mr Green met B hopeful that the openness she had demonstrated particularly in the Spiral Assessment would be a good basis for work to be identified, but he said despite meeting with her on two occasions she was consistent in her denial of the detail of the Spiral Assessment. The very limited concessions she would make to him left him unable to offer any way forward in terms of treatment. 
72.	So where does that leave me?  The inconsistencies in what B has told people, which I find are real inconsistencies as I believe those who heard her at the time, leave me unable to believe the picture she now places before me.  I am satisfied that she sees the danger in the disclosures she has made and now seeks to go back on them.  When I made it clear I could not go behind the findings of HHJ Hunt in terms of what was said by her to the Spiral Model assessors, it was made clear B’s position now is that she was misunderstood.  As I listened to her evidence what struck me was how she could talk clearly and lucidly until a question came which might be described as difficult.  She then paused for long periods of time and the clear impression I had was that she was working out the right answer to give.  My view of B is that far from being intellectually disadvantaged is that she is probably quite bright.  She has a detailed knowledge of the evidence in this case and has clearly given very active instructions to those representing her, in addition to changing representation shortly before the final hearing.  She has edited what she says, changed it, whatever she needs to do to present what she thinks is consistent evidence in line with her case, as I believe she did in the past after making her initial admissions. That however has not helped me when deciding her daughter’s future.
73.	Looking back at all the evidence under this heading, I am satisfied that B has ongoing thoughts of a sexual nature in respect of children and that she has masturbated to them, as she told the Spiral Model assessors. I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that she poses a risk of sexual harm to children.  She also accepts she has caused physical harm to a child and got pleasure from doing so, and that is relevant to the issues I am having to grapple with now.  I cannot say whether her current sexual thoughts in relation to children are in any way a manifestation of OCD, which diagnosis may be right although Dr Gairin seemed unconvinced, but I am satisfied the thoughts are there and there is a real likelihood of B acting on them.  No expert has told me that if the thoughts are a manifestation of OCD then I can be confident B would not act on them.  She would need to be able to manage them as she should her other OCD thoughts and to achieve that work would need to be done with her.  Given her denials of these thoughts as a current problem I can have no confidence that this would be successful, as Derek Green identifies.  Were B to have been open and honest with all the experts in this case I might have a much clearer sense of the level of risk and how it might be ameliorated but that simply is not possible here.  I am left therefore with a real but unquantifiable risk of sexual and physical harm to A from her mother and no understanding of anything that could be done to reduce that risk. Ms Gardner invites me to adjourn these proceedings further to allow B to have the chance to parent A without the pressure of assessments but there is no way I can put A at risk of abuse while I try that out.  
74.	I should also say for completeness that issues of sexual abuse in B’s immediate wider family and C’s approach to this matter also leave me with a clear understanding that there is no “protective circle” around A such that others could be sufficiently alert to issues of sexual risk were A to be in her mother’s care.  I also suspect professionals would be drawn into B’s view that matters of concern are simply a manifestation of her OCD and that they too might be less protective than one would ordinarily expect. 
C. C’s anger
75.	The local authority became involved again with A and her parents in October 2013 when her GP contacted the local authority after an argument between the parents.  What is accepted is that they had an argument about C not being willing to sell some of his possessions to raise money for the family.  B’s brother was present during this argument, as was A.  The GP had been told by B, in C’s presence, he had been very angry with A on one occasion and had been overly rough when changing her nappy.  She also said there had been an occasion when C had picked A up and squeezed her really hard and that A was screaming.  C told the GP he wanted help with anger management.  The parents now say that C did not squeeze A, this having come from the maternal uncle, but they accept they had a verbal argument and B went up to the attic and started throwing C’s possessions down the stairs, A being distressed by the arguing.  
76.	C does not seek to deny that he has an issue generally with managing his anger.  If I look at his criminal record, he was cautioned for battery in May 2010 and was convicted of battery in January 2011, both relating to people other than B.  The couple accept that in the past there has been some violence between them although they say this has not been a problem for some time, the issue more recently having been arguments.  
77.	Helen Roberts assessed C and I note to his credit what he told her by way of accepting his issues with anger.  In her first report she said : “C is also cognisant of the impact of aggression on A.  He said that he does not want his daughter to grow up in an angry and unstable environment.  C expressed remorse and shame that A had been present during his last serious argument with [B].  He recalled that she was screaming and with hindsight realises that she would have been frightened and distressed by the loud argument.” [C28]  He was able to acknowledge that generally his anger is expressed when people push his buttons and that he had the capacity to lose his temper explosively.  He told her he had previously had help from a group called X in 2012 and had re-referred himself again during these proceedings, where he continued to attend until they lost their funding.  In court C said that he went to X because he felt with his anger he was in danger as were others around him. 
78.	Ms Roberts concluded in respect of C that his experiences as a child and adolescent had had a significant impact on his development, impacting on his confidence and self-esteem.  She said : “Throughout his life, C appears to have had difficulties in asserting himself.  It is my view that his anger and frustration has been expressed inappropriately because C does not find it easy to assert his needs, wishes and feelings.  Consequently, his anger and frustration builds over time and is either expressed explosively or via vengeful behaviour, such as spreading rumours about others.” [C52]  She saw his difficulties less as traditional domestic abuse than a more general problem in managing his anger.
79.	Ms Roberts’ view of C certainly fits with his behaviour to those involved with A during these proceedings.  The foster carer gave evidence of occasions after A had been removed when C had come to her property and been aggressive. To give one example, she talks of a phone call she received from C on 4 May, when he told her he intended to be direct but was then aggressive and angry over a disagreement over the milk the foster was giving to A.  She says he simply would not listen to her and “then threatened me indicating he was going to get in touch with the authorities and make sure that everyone knew and that I would never work again” [B134].  She gave other examples when C had been aggressive or shouting and frightened the two year old child in her placement.  C’s perception is that the foster carer over-reacted, that he was not aggressive and that she was wrong to hear any change in his tone, that she misunderstood or misread him, but I prefer her evidence to his when I look at it in the light of what others have said about C’s behaviour.  I am satisfied he was aggressive to the foster carer and caused her and the child in placement to be frightened.
80.	There is also his aggression to the social workers and guardian in this case, far in excess of what one might see with other parents in an equally stressful situation.  Whilst I entirely accept the pressure on C following A’s removal and anticipating the final hearing, he does not seek to deny being threatening and aggressive to Ms Williams and her manager in a meeting on 6 August and leaving a threatening message on the guardian’s mobile phone.  I asked the guardian to describe that message and I found his answer illuminating.  Mr Hope described the message as being abusive in language with threats to cause Mr Hope physical harm.  He said there were threats, then a pause, threats again, a very long pause, a short period of aggressive comments, a pause, and then an apology, an apology repeated when the men met shortly after.  That phone call to me encapsulates C’s problem, that his anger is quick to flare up, quick to be expressed in the strongest of terms, but then he quickly realises he should not have done what he has.  Two periods of attendance at X have not changed that and whilst C intends to attend another course to try to address this issue I cannot be confident it will work given that nothing has to date.  
81.	I am satisfied if A were in her father’s care, whether or not her mother was also part of her care, she would continue to be affected by her father’s anger.  If he comes up against anyone who disagrees with him, who challenges him, particularly where his daughter is concerned, I think he will react in the same way.  And you cannot expect to go through life without people ever disagreeing with you.  Whether with a health professional, a teacher, a neighbour, a taxi driver, disagreements will arise and C will I am satisfied continue to react in the way he does now.  
D. The parents’ relationship and C’s ability to protect A
82.	The relationship between the parents has been an issue during this hearing.  They separated in October after the GP’s referral and there is no evidence they have lived together as a couple since.  B and C however do still spend time together and they both accept this, saying that only the other knows what they are going through and so they support each other.  They are isolated individuals it seems without other friends apart from the maternal uncle.  They certainly arrive at meetings and at court together and have been seen out and about together on a number of occasions by professionals, in town, out shopping, at a bus stop.  C also collects reimbursed bus fares on behalf of B. 
83.	Ms Williams in her final statement said she believed the couple are in a relationship and maintaining a position of separation because of the care proceedings. She notes that the parents have a history of not being honest and they are failing to present a true representation of the true nature of their relationship.
84.	Having heard the parents give evidence, I am unable to find that they are in an intimate relationship, which is what I think the social worker is implying in her comments, but I think their relationship is more significant than the parents concede.  Their whole world at the moment is bound up in their daughter and in this case and it is not unreasonable for each to say that the other is the only person who understands what they are going through.  C very openly holds out a hope of the relationship resuming and I think he fights B’s corner because of that hope.  A’s parents’ lives are enmeshed and they are a long way from making an emotional separation from each other.  I am satisfied if I were to place A in the care of either that the other would still be a significant player in A’s life, with the attendant risks that would bring.
85.	As to whether C could protect A from her mother, I am afraid he told me the answer very clearly in his own evidence.  He is very clear that if he saw any risk of harm to A he would act on it.  Equally he is utterly clear that B poses no risk whatsoever. In his final statement he said : “I have considered the report of Dr Gairin, Helen Roberts, Roshan Pitteea and Donna Williams and now Mr Green.  I am aware of HHJ Hunt’s judgement earlier this year.  I would like the Court to know that I know [B] better than anyone.  I was in a relationship with her for 6 years and we planned a beautiful daughter together.  We are still good friends.  I know that she would never hurt my daughter.  In the past [B] was mentally unwell.  She was a victim of abuse herself.  Her upbringing was dysfunctional.   All of these things caused her to act as she did.  She has reflected on her past and she will not do that again.  She has changed.  When we were talking about the case this weekend she told me that she does not have any current thoughts of sexually harming, or indeed harming at all, any child or children.” [B223]  
86.	In his oral evidence C said if I were to find that B was a risk to A then he would have to accept that but I found that very unconvincing, as I did his protestations that he could stand up to B.  I note he at one point offered his family as potential carers for A but then retracted that when she objected.  C has been able to identify very clearly risks he might pose to A due to his anger and also risks that could come from B’s family, but where B is concerned I am afraid he has a very big blind spot.  Donna Williams was clear that if he could not accept the possibility of risk he would not be alert to any signs of harm and I agree with her.  His view was that there was no possibility of sexual harm as there were no physical signs of such abuse, but of course the matters for which B were cautioned were not such that there would have been any signs.  Given my view of the nature of the friendship between the parents whether or not there is an intimate relationship, were A to be in her father’s care I am satisfied B would be a part of her daughter’s life and C would be blind to any harm that might be caused to A by her mother. 
87.	I have considered whether I should adjourn for work to be done with C to enable him to protect A if he had care of her.  However this would require him to work appropriately with professionals, something I cannot be convinced would happen given his unabated aggression to date and his ongoing links with B.  C has had nine months to come to terms with the risks she poses and he has not made any movement in that directions whatsoever, if anything becoming more entrenched.  Work with him would have far too uncertain an outcome and would be outside A’s timescales. 
E. Harm to A if not returned to the care of one of her parents
88.	I obviously have to acknowledge that the local authority’s plan, of A being placed for adoption, has some risk.  One cannot ever give a cast iron guarantee that an adoptive placement will not break down.  A has not had consistent care to date, having moved through a number of care arrangements, and this has the potential to affect her.  However people who are approved as adopters have undergone rigorous assessment and training before being approved and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that adoptive parents identified by the local authority would be able to meet A’s needs.  I accept she will grow up knowing she is adopted, that she could not remain with her parents, and this could have an emotional effect on her but I am satisfied her adopters will be able to work through this with her, so the risk of any emotional harm to her will be minimised.  When considering the likely effect on A throughout her life of her becoming an adopted person, and the same considerations come to mind when addressing that.  
The likely effect on A of any change in her circumstances
89.	It is inevitable for A that there will be a change in her circumstances whatever I decide today.  She is in a short term foster placement and will move either back to the care of one of her parents or to an adoptive placement.  We know that change in care arrangements is not what one wants for a child but here it is inevitable.  I am also very conscious that in A’s case she has already lived with both parents, then with her mother, then with the assessing foster carer and now with a further foster carer.  Another change is far from ideal and it is therefore crucial that that move is her last, that whatever family she is with one can be confident will be her family forever.  
A’s relationship with her parents
90.	One of the inevitable consequences of adoption is a child losing any real relationship with birth parents.  Post-adoption contact is very rare and would only normally be endorsed with the consent of adopters.  In A’s case the professionals are very clear that there should not be any contact post-adoption.  These parents I have found pose significant risks to A.  Their characters are not such that they would leave adopters to get on with bringing up A, if I consider the extensive complaints they have made about the care given by the two sets of foster carers A has had to date.  If I determine that adoption is in A’s best interests therefore this means her having no more than indirect contact with her parents.  Whilst the quality of contact has improved in the last couple of months, the relationship between A and her parents is not such that it would prevent me approving a plan for adoption if that were otherwise in her best interests.
91.	I am more troubled though by the local authority’s plan to end contact more quickly than would ordinarily happen prior to an adoptive placement being found.  I appreciate the difficulties these parents have caused to the local authority so far but my view is that A should if at all possible go on having contact up to the point of a placement being identified.  Whilst I imagine she would not be a difficult child to place, one cannot ever rule out the possibility of something intervening which delays placement and she should have someone in the role of parent up to that point.  If the parents cannot work with the local authority during that period it would be in the local authority’s power to suspend or end such contact sooner.  Ms Williams in response to questions from me did concede that the local authority would amend its care plan to allow for such contact if I felt it should happen.  
The balancing exercise : my decision
92.	The only two options put before me, for obvious reasons given A’s age, are adoption or a placement with one or both of her parents.  Given her age I would not consider long-term foster care to be an option and I therefore propose just to look at these two possibilities.
93.	I am very conscious of the parents’ desire to keep A with one of them, and arguably they would be very committed to making such a placement work.  Remaining with one of her parents would be the simplest and best option in terms of A’s identity; she would be within her birth family as most other children are and that would have to be the ideal.  She would grow up with links with her maternal family at least and would have a sense of who she was and where she came from. 
94.	However, looking back to my analysis of risk above, it is clear that there are significant risks to A if she is placed with either of her parents.  B poses a direct risk of physical and sexual harm and I am not satisfied A would develop to her full potential in her mother’s care.  B is a long way from facing up to her issues and addressing them. Although there seems to have been glimmers of potential for that in the spiral model assessment, her subsequent unwillingness to engage with Dr Gairin and her denials to Derek Green mean there is no prospect for work to start now and the timescales for such work I am sure would be lengthy.  There is also the potential for emotional harm, and possibly of physical harm, due to C’s anger management issues and the ongoing links between the parents. Whilst detailed specialist anger management work might go some way to dealing with this, very importantly C is entirely unable to protect A from her mother given his unrealistic view of his former partner and his desire to resume their relationship.  There is no support, no work that can be done to deal with the risks I have identified in timescales appropriate for A if at all, and as such I cannot countenance A’s return to the care of either of her parents. 
95.	In this case, having carried out the balancing exercise that I must, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of A being returned safely to the care of either of her parents, and that her needs for stability and permanence can only be met in an adoptive placement. I am satisfied that the local authority’s final care plan for A is proportionate and (in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002) in her best welfare interests, although I ask the local authority to amend its care plan as Ms Williams agreed they would to allow for the possibility of limited ongoing contact between A and her parents up to the point of an adoptive placement for her being identified. I therefore make a care order and, having concluded that A’s welfare requires me to dispense with the parents’ consent to placing her for adoption, the word “require” here having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, “the connotation of the imperative”, I therefore also make a placement order authorising the local authority to place A for adoption. 
96.	There is one further direction I wish to make.  I think it is hugely important for children who are adopted that they have information available to them, through their adoptive parents, so they can make sense of their early life.  This judgment, in setting out what I have read and heard in court, gives at least a summary of that start. Whilst it will be placed in an anonymised form in the public domain it is important that it is easily available to those who will be bringing A up.  I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment must be released by the Local Authority to A’s adopters so that it is available to her in future life.  
97.	Finally I also make an order for public funding assessment for all the respondents in this matter.  I hope that my reasons as given are sufficient and address all relevant but if the advocates require any further detail to be given I would ask them to let me know.  

Threshold as found
23.9.14

A, at the time of initiation of protective measures, was likely to suffer significant harm in the care of her mother and her father in the form of emotional harm, developmental delay and sexual abuse.

The court finds : 
1.	There have been arguments and physical aggression between the parents.
2.	C has anger management issues.
3.	B was cautioned in 2005 for common assault and battery of a child. B has admitted getting pleasure from hitting him and has admitted acts of masturbation while caring for him.
4.	B was cautioned in 2006 for sexual assault of a male under thirteen (touching a child aged 3).
5.	B’s diagnosed OCD interlinked with aspects of her personality  prevented her from meeting the emotional and physical needs of A and has caused A developmental harm.