This judgment was delivered in private. The anonymity of the children and members of their 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: BT14C00029
IN THE FAMILY COURT

THE WEST LONDON FAMILY CENTRE

SITTING AT THE CENTRAL LONDON CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE, THOMAS MORE BUILDING, THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE

Date: 22nd December 2014 

Before :

HIS HONOUR JUDGE JOHN MITCHELL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY	Applicant	
	- and -		
	L M
-and-
E F
-and-
GM and
B M (by their Guardian)
	First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third and Fourth Respondents	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nicholas O’Brien (instructed by      ) for the Applicant
William Metaxa (instructed by      ) for the First Respondent
Pauline Troy (instructed by      ) for the Second Respondent
Emma Taylor (instructed by Sweetman Burke and Sinker ) for the Third and Fourth Respondents

Hearing dates: 20th -23rd October, 12th November. 3rd December, 6th December 2014     
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
INDEX
Threshold	4	
The Issues	6	
The History	8	
The Law	25	
Assessments		
Ms Tracey Boylan	30	
Dr Duncan McLean and Ms Minna Daum	33	
The Witnesses	37	
Ms M	38	
Mr F	39	
The Allegations		
Allegation 1	41	
Allegation 2	42	
Allegation 3	42	
Allegation 4	43	
Allegation 7	45	
Allegations 6, 8 and 9	46	
The Effect on the Children of Their Life Experiences	48	
G	49	
B	52	
The Welfare Test		
Children’s Wishes and Feelings		
G	53	
B	54	
The Children’s Needs	55	
Should the Children be Separated?	56	
G	58	
B	59	
The Parents’ Ability to Meet the Children’s Needs	59	
Ms M	61	
Mr F	64	
The Local Authority’s Ability to Meet the Children’s Needs 	67	
Risks	70	
Recommendations of the Experts and the Guardian	73	
Discussion	75	
Dispensing With Parental Consent	77	
Contact	77	
Conclusion	78	

His Honour Judge John Mitchell :
1.	By an application dated the 14th March 2014 the London Borough of Haringey seeks care orders in relation to Ms M and Mr F’s two children, G who was born on the xx  2008 and who is nearly seven years old and B, born on the xx 2011 who is three and a half. By further applications dated the 26th August 2014 the local authority seeks orders under section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 which allows them to place the children for adoption.
2.	G and B came into the care of the local authority on the 12th March 2014 having been removed from their parents by the police under section46 of the Children Act 1989. Since then they have been living with short term foster carers. They have been having regular supervised contact with each parent on separate occasions once a week.
THE THRESHOLD
3.	The threshold for making care orders under section 31 of the 1989 Act has been agreed. The parties agree that when the proceedings started each child had suffered and were likely to suffer significant harm because the care they had and were likely to receive from both parents was below the standard to be expected of a parent. The parents had often allowed them to see and hear violent rows. They witnessed shouting, their parents threatening violence or harm and actual violence between the parents. This had distressed the children and made them anxious. G had intervened to separate her parents during these arguments and was thereby placed at risk of physical harm.
4.	Each parent blamed the other save for Ms M admitted that she had scratched the father on the 9th March 2014. At the Issue Resolution Hearing on the 15th August 2014 it was decided that because of the threshold was agreed the Court at the final hearing would not need to investigate the mutual allegations made by the parents. The Court had however ordered a DVIP risk assessment to be carried out on Mr F and an assessment of how vulnerable Ms M was to being abused. The assessor, Tracey Boylan, reported on the 20th June 2014, having based her assessment on the assumption that Mr F had been responsible for the violence. The final hearing had been listed for the 1st September but had to be adjourned because no judge was available. After further difficulties in finding a judge it was listed before me for the first time on the 20th October. At that hearing it quickly became clear when Ms Boylan gave evidence that her assumption had potentially flawed her findings. Therefore before the parents gave evidence I decided that it was necessary to investigate a limited number of allegations. For reasons given in my judgment on the 24th October the hearing was adjourned part heard for a schedule of allegations and statements supporting or denying the allegations to be filed. The time required for these to be prepared and unavoidable prior commitments of the parties’ advocates meant that Ms M could not give evidence until the 12th November and Mr F on the 3rd December. There are nine allegations, which are representative of all the allegations, ones where the parents can remember details such as approximate dates or which are particularly serious.
5.	Allegation 1	In May 2007 during an argument Mr F removed and     threw away a SIM card from Ms M’s mobile phone;
Allegation 2 	In October/November 2007 Mr F hit Ms M who was pregnant, causing her lose her balance, fall on stairs and hit her stomach.
Allegation 3		In October/November 2007 Mr F pulled Ms M’s arm, spinning her round and hitting her in the face causing a broken blood vessel to/in her eye.
Allegation 4		In about October 2008	Mr F pulled Ms M ‘s hair causing her to fall from bed. Her cousin tried to stop him and called the police .
Allegation 5	In 2010 Mr F broke the television  screen .
Allegation 6	In May/June 2013 Mr F raped Ms M for the first time.
Allegation 7	 In October 2013 the parents	argued about a phone. Mr F  pushed Ms M on her chest causing her to fall backwards against a sink and the window, causing a bruise. 
Allegation 8	In the Autumn of 2013 Mr F raped Ms M, either vaginally, anally or orally, on more than one occasion.
Allegation 9	In September 2013 Mr F grabbed Ms M by her wrist, pushed her onto a couch and vaginally raped her .
THE ISSUES
6.	There are 6 issues.
1	Should the children return to the care of their Mother as she wishes, either now or after a period of six months during which time she intends to receive counselling? Mr F supports him if the children are not to live with him.
2	Should they live with their father as he wishes, after a period of six months during which time he intends to receive counselling, attend a DVIP if this is ordered and receive training in parenting.? Ms M supports him if the children are not to live with her. Mr F proposes that the children should remain in interim care living with their current sort term carers until he can be assed following this work. Alternatively he agrees to full care orders being made provided the local authority amend the care plans to provide his ability to look after the children  being reassessed at the end of six months
3	Should they be placed in the care of the local authority as recommended by the local authority, supported by the children’s guardian, Jeff Klein?
4	If they are placed in the care of the local authority, should orders be made under s22 of the 2002 Act which would allow them to be placed for adoption. This is recommended by the local authority and is supported by the children’s guardian. Their parents oppose it even if the children are not to return to their care
5	If it is necessary in the interests of the children to make placement orders , can and should the Court dispense with the consent of each parent under s 52(1)  of the 2002 Acton the ground that the particular child’s welfare requires it?
6	Regardless of which orders are made, what contact should the children have with any parent with whom they are not to reside? The Local Authority, supported by the Guardian, submit that direct contact should gradually be reduced from its present level to once a month and then, if the children are placed for adoption, cease altogether. There is no need for the court to make an order. The Mother invites the Court to order contact once a month and Mr F, not less than once a fortnight during the next six months. 
7.	When deciding which orders I should make the interests of each child must be considered separately. However all parties agree that the children should not be separated. Although no condition can be placed on placement orders requiring that they be placed together the local authority is willing for a preamble to the Order to recite that ‘Upon the local authority confirming in evidence that its intention and care plan is that both children remain placed together and this will be in an adoptive placement or long term foster placement if an adoptive placement cannot be found for them together’. 
THE HISTORY
8.	Ms M was born in a country in Eastern Europe in 1982 and is an only child. Professionals such as Dr McLean have found her accounts of her life with her parents, spent in part in that country and in part in Germany, unconvincing. She described her mother in what Dr McLean thought were idealising and unreal terms as a very kind and calm person. In comparison her father was very authoritarian and strict. She described a very restrictive adolescence, he always checking her school results and insisting she did well and not allowing her to have boyfriends.  Her mother died in 2012 but her father is still alive and she has spoken about how he could come to England to allow her to look after her children were  to return to live with her. Ms M says she attended university in her country for three years of the five-year course. In 2006 she came to England to learn English as an au pair intending to return after a year to complete her studies. However she never returned except for holidays.
9.	Mr F was born in 1976, in the same country as Ms M. He has described spending the first six years of his life living with his paternal grandparents, his parents having separated.  He then lived with his father and stepmother who beat him regularly and severely. He became extremely anxious, biting his nails and trying to find his mother in the hope that she and his father would reconcile. At the age of fourteen he was taken into care and lived in a boarding school. In his late teens he had a number of casual relationships before meeting a young woman. They married and in 2002 a son,was born. When talking to Dr McLean about his relationship with his wife Mr F was ‘extremely’ positive but he admitted there were arguments. They separated and then divorced when she told him that she had been unfaithful- but he is now unsure whether she was telling the truth. He continued to have some contact with his son and says that he now sees him about once a year. After the separation Mr F had a relationship with a young woman who was some years younger than him. The relationship ended in 2007 when he moved to England and London. When he arrived he lived for a short time with a woman who then transferred her affections to his friend. He told Dr McLean that various men were either ‘superior’ to him or were preferred by women because of their muscles. 
10.	Ms M and Mr F met in 2007. At this time Mr F had been working for some time as a male prostitute for men. He asserts that he is in fact heterosexual, is ashamed about what he did and ceased working as a prostitute in 2008. Ms M quickly became pregnant and the couple lived together in a hostel until G was born on the [date] 2008.
11.	According to Ms M, Mr F was violent almost from the start of their relationship. She alleges that during her pregnancy in May 2007 Mr F removed and   threw away a SIM card from her mobile phone during an argument (Allegation 1); in October or November he hit her causing her lose her balance, fall on stairs and hit her stomach (allegation 2) and around the same time he pulled her, spinning her round and hitting her in the face causing a broken blood vessel to or in her eye (Allegation 3). He denies these allegations but accepts that he would spit at her in retaliation for her spitting at him but denies calling her ugly and like a cow. 
12.	After G was born Ms M was asked to leave her hostel because it was not suitable for a baby. She moved to privately rented accommodation and after a while Mr F joined her and G. On the 10th October that year Ms M made the first of what was to be at least eight calls to the police in the next five years. She wanted their help in removing him from the home saying that he had been violent in the past and was afraid he might be violent again.  Mr F left. On the 9th November Ms M or her nanny on her behalf again called the police for the same reason, saying that she had recently contacted him in order to tell him where she lived so that he could see G.
13.	Matters seemed to have calmed in 2009 and by the 13th November 2009 Mr F was again living with his family.  However difficulties re-emerged in 2011. Mr F accepts that in May he broke the couple’s television set by throwing a control at it (Allegation 5). ‘We had been arguing and I was very stressed’.
14.	 The London Borough of Haringey called an Initial Child Protection Case Conference (ICPCC) on the 25th May 2010 because of concerns expressed by professional workers. G’s health visitor had reported that when she saw Mr F and G on the 1st March G appeared afraid of her father. In April Ms M had gone to a project that helped victims of violence alleging that she had been subjected to violence for four years. . It seems that Ms M was referred to the local Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (‘MARAC’). What action that took is unclear.
15.	 According to the local authority, by the time of the ICPCC Aneta Wasilwska, the family’s social worker and other workers believed from what Mr M had told them that she and Mr F were living apart. A Child Protection Plan was produced and on the 24th June Ms M and Ms Wasilwska agreed in writing how contact between G and her father was to be arranged.  What Ms M had told professionals was, I am satisfied, probably untrue. She told a Review Conference on the 23rd August that they were not in a relationship or living together. However whether or not they were in fact living together, unknown to social services they married in about September. By December she was pregnant. Ms M agrees that on the 8th January 2011 she lied to a Child Protection Review meeting when she said that that the pregnancy as a result of a ‘one off’ meeting with him. However she says that her new social worker, knew the true situation but had joined with her in misleading her managers and the conference because she believed she had changed. I have not heard evidence from that social worker but without hesitation I reject what Ms M says. It is almost inconceivable that a social worker would behave in this way and, even if she did, this was not excuse for Ms M misleading the Conference. In May Ms M told a Review Conference, truthfully or otherwise, that Mr F was working in Holland.
16.	 B was born on the [date] 2011. The family moved to the London Borough of Enfield and the case was briefly transferred to that authority but when the family returned to Haringey in the spring of 2012 the case was re-transferred. By this time Mr F had called the police on the 22nd January 2012 alleging that Ms M had spiked his drink. When they attended the home he showed them what appeared to be small blue particles in his mug. This was ascertained to be tea leaves. On the 9th April Ms M telephoned the police because she and her husband had been arguing about the state of their property and his not earning sufficient money. She did not allege that he had been violent although in her statement of the 3rd November 2014 she alleges that incidents were happening all the time.
17.	In September 2012 G started to attend a Primary School. In her first year her teachers were concerned about her attendance. She attended only 78.05% of sessions. Their concerned continued in 2013/14 when in the Autumn term G attended only 81.88 %t of the time.  Ms M explained her absences by saying G had a stomach ache or headache. 
18.	On the 17th December 2012 Ms M again telephoned the police, again explaining that she and her husband were arguing a great deal about money. She aid that there was never any violence but she was tired of his spending money unnecessarily. On the whole he was a good father but he spoiled the children. She wanted their relationship to end but he did not.
19.	The family’s difficulties continued into 2013. According to Ms M Mr F started to rape her in about May or June (Allegation 6) but she made no complaint abut this on the 29th May when she again phoned the police alleging further arguments about finances and complained that Mr F treated the home as an hotel. By this time the couple had installed CCTV cameras in the home accessible from their mobile phones in order to monitor how the children’s nanny treated the children. Ms M said that G had told them that she had been assaulted by one of the former nannies.
20.	By September for whatever reason- Ms M says that Mr F wrongly suspected her of infidelity, he alleges that she was in fact unfaithfully- the couple’s relationship became increasingly volatile. In the words of Mr Metaxa on behalf of the mother, ‘It is evident that the parents; lives and those of their children were sliding into crisis’. The exact sequence of events is unclear but at the end of August Ms M did not accompany Mr F, the then nanny, Z, and the children on a holiday for one night in Bournemouth. She says that she had found a gay magazine in the club where she worked as a security guard, which included her husband advertising himself as a male prostitute. She had also discovered condoms in the car Mr F used for his job as a mini-can driver and she suspected he as being unfaithful. He denies both working as a prostitute after 2008 and being unfaithful. The condoms had been left in his taxi by a passenger. When the family returned from their short holiday she discovered that Mr F, Z and the children had shared the same bed. She accused him of being unfaithful and sacked the nanny. He says that they all shared the same bed because he had booked only a double room to save money and nothing improper had occurred. Whether or not Ms M discovered the magazine in 2013- and it has not been produced- she agrees that it was dated 2008. Although I accept that at times Ms M has believed that Mr M was unfaithfully both homosexually and heterosexually there is nothing other than her suspicions to prove this. I am not satisfied either that he worked as a prostitute after 2008 or that he was unfaithful. 
21.	Just as Ms M suspected Mr F of infidelity, he too suspected her. According to her he would repeatedly interrogate her. He would go to the club where she worked as a member of the security staff and would embarrass her by kissing her in front of her co-workers. He would check her phone and use his mobile phone when away from home to monitor her activities through the CCTV cameras. He accepts that he would access the cameras but only to ensure that the children were safe. On the 10th February 2014 the family’s social worker, Danielle Carter, witnesses the practical manifestation of this during a home visit. Mr F twice phoned Ms M because, according to her, he was angry because he was unable to see the two of them on the camera. After Ms M lost her temper and ripped the phone cable from the wall Mr F came home within five minutes. Matters were not improved when in December Ms M told her husband she was in fact having an affair. She says that this was because she was tired of being questioned. I am satisfied that Mr F genuinely believed that his wife was being unfaithful but that this lacked any evidential base until the ‘confession’ in December. I am satisfied that he tried to obtain this evidence by using the CCTV cameras to monitor his wife in an instrusive and unjustified way. Whether or not she would have willing to having an affair at this time is uncertain.  In May 2014 Ms Tracey Moylan, a risk assessor at the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, asked Ms M about the possibility that she might one day have another relationship. ‘She not only rejected the idea…but she appeared incredulous at the possibility and unable to contemplate any new relationship.’ However she now admits that by August she had a formed a new relationship with a another man and by the beginning of October the relationship as so far advanced that she went on holiday with him to the country of her birth to visit her family. I will discuss my assessment of Ms M’s reliability as a witness later. However there is insufficient reliable evidence on which to base a finding that she was in fact being unfaithful in the last part of 2013. 
22.	Mr F’s suspicions of infidelity however are a fact and form part of the background to his wife’s allegations that from the late Spring of 2014 he began to rape her, vaginally, anally and orally, dragging her by her wrists and holding her down with his hand or forearm. Allegations 6 and 8 are general allegations but in Allegation 9 she gives details of a specific occasion of vaginal rape in September. On the 2nd September she told staff at the domestic violence support group that she was being sexually abused. On the same day she complained to the police about rape but said she did not want him to be arrested because she did not want to deprive her children of their father. He had not been violent towards them, only her. A few days later on the 9th September when she called the police after an argument in the course of which she alleges that he pushed her in the chest causing her to fall backwards against a sink and window frame as a result of which she was bruised (Allegation7) she again said that she had been raped, the last occasion being about a week previously. Although Mr F was arrested for common assault Mrs M did not seek to have the matter taken further telling the police on the following day that they had decided amicably to separate.
23.	 In September Ms M talked to staff at the children’s school in an inappropriate way about their separating and told them that she had been raped. They were embarrassed.  On the 10th of October she told Ms Carter that she still wanted a divorce. On the 29th November she told her that she would not reconcile with her husband because he was engaged in male prostitution. In November Mr F sent an embarrassing and completely inappropriate email to Ms M’s employee and twenty-three of her co-workers explaining that they were experiencing domestic difficulties and seeking their prayers.  During this period the couple discussed the arrangements, which should be made for the children. According to Ms M Mr F wanted one child to live with him and had asked them whom they wished to live with. According to G’s Deputy Head teacher it was clear to staff that G had too much information about the problems in her parents’ relationship. It is also clear that during this period from early September onwards, there continued to be incidents between the parents, which were witnessed by the children. On the 27th September G told Ms Carter that the previous day she had taken B downstairs to a neighbour’s flat to escape the arguments.
24.	  This situation in the home is graphically illustrated by a video recording lasting about two and a half minutes, which was made by Mr F of an argument at some time during October. The argument was in the parents’ first language but a translation has been prepared. It appears that Mr F had just returned from shopping and had bought Ms M a box of chocolates, perhaps as a peace offering for something that had happened earlier that day. Before the recording started she had thrown the chocolates onto the floor. At its start both children are present. At the start of the recording Ms M threw an object at Mr F. Ms M said that she had thrown the gift onto the floor. Because he wanted to rape her. ‘I will [defend/protect] myself with the knife.’ Mr F said that he did not touch her forcibly and asked her to calm down. She replied she would not speak to him nicely because ‘the woman is not forcibly raped’. She then repeats this. She was swearing which the interpreter noted as ‘swearing really, really bad’. Mr F then accused her of threatening to hit him, adding ‘the woman told us not to argue in front of the children’. At this point in the recording G was trying to distract her mother’s attention. B was apparently engrossed in playing with a toy. Despite Mr F reminding Ms M of what they had been told, ostensibly the less confrontational of the two, he in fact did nothing to calm matters and continued filming which must have angered Ms M more. She then started to peel a potato using a knife, only seconds after her threat in front of G that she would protect herself with a knife. She then threw the potato at Mr F causing G to scream. Although G looked scared neither parent did anything to help h. G then said ‘Mummy, can you call Y’. Y is a neighbour who lived downstairs and is presumably the lady that G took B to on the 27th September.
25.	The recording is both disturbing and very instructive. It shows that Mr F deliberately aggravates matters. There was no justification for filming the incident especially as the children desperately needed attention. It demonstrates that at times at least Ms M is not frightened of Mr F and is more than willing to attack him both verbally and physically. It shows that during incidents she either cannot moderate what she says or does in front of the children or is heedless of the fact that swearing in front of them, talking of rape and using a knife is completely inappropriate. It is painfully apparent how badly the children were affected by what they were witnessing, B by unnaturally paying no attention and G trying at five years old to act as a peacemaker. There is a sense that for them, such incidents were a regular part of their lives.
26.	Someone- and it can only have been one of the parents- posted the video on You Tube. Both deny being responsible and there is no evidence showing which one did it. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion on the totality of the evidence that both of them are capable of doing this. 
27.	The parents did not in fact separate in December. Instead Mr F went to the country of his birth for two weeks where he visited a monastery, he says to pray for the family’s welfare and for God’s help in repairing his relationship with his wife. According to Ms M his behaviour was ‘great’ when he returned but then matters deteriorated. He continued to insist that she was pregnant by another man and by February 2014 would repeatedly phone her during the day. She alleges that in January he tried to take an overdose of tablets. This has not been investigated during the hearing in part through lack of time. The allegation is yet another disputed matter of fact impossible to resolve in the absence of independent evidence. Not everything can be blamed on Mr F. On the 10th January Ms Carter was present when Ms M taunted Mr F, saying ‘I don’t love you’ although as Ms Carter noted she still allowed him to share her bed. The arguments in front of the children continued. They organised a sixth birthday party for G and her friends]. On the following day G told Ms Carter that her father had been angry with her mother at the party because she gave away all his chicken. That morning her father had taken all the phone numbers from her and her mother’s phones- presumably he removed the SIM cards- but she did not know why. Ms Carter noted that G seemed very confuse by her father’s behaviour. She told Ms Carter that she was happy until her parents argued. Everything was fine when he was not at home but when he returned from other countries they argued badly. Based on the beliefs of the parents I am satisfied that the arguments was based at least in part on both parents believing the other had been unfaithful during Mr F’s absence.
28.	Ms Carter was concerned when she visited the home about Ms M’s lack of attention to B. On many occasions she seemed ‘manic and hysterical’ and during a visit on the 20th January she was so engrossed on telling Ms Carter about her relationship problems that she failed to notice that B, aged two and a half had picked up two knives in the kitchen. Nor did she respond when B as clearly seeking her attention Ms Carter gave evidence which I accept that she had been told both by L and by the family’s health visitor that they had seen B climbing into danger, by an open window and on a washing machine.  Ms M had injured her knee in January 2013. It was very painful and during the year her GP prescribed a variety of painkillers of increasing strength. In December or January he prescribed a morphine-based drug. Both the health visitor and Ms Carter were concerned that despite taking the drug Ms M allowed B to suckle. She says that he had been weaned and therefore she was no longer producing milk. There has been some discussion about whether Ms  M’s use of a morphine based drug was appropriate. I have not heard evidence from her GP who prescribed the medication and make no finding on the matter. 
29.	Alongside these incidents, the parents at time behaved in an affectionate way towards each other. On the 20th September 2013, only eleven days after Mr F had allegedly assaulted Ms M (Allegation 7) the couple went to a restaurant with the children and Gina. Photographs show Ms M behaving affectionately towards each other. On the 9th March 2014, according to Ms M, Mr F again accused her of being pregnant by another man. She scratched his face. G was present. She also alleges that he hit himself in the face and told G her mother had done it. Yet later that day both parents took the children to a park. A photograph shows Ms M smiling, happy, relaxed and apparently affectionate. This must all have been very confusing for the children.
30.	By the 10th March 2014 the parents were again considering separation and during the next two days both consulted solicitors. On the 11th March Ms M attended a Child Protection Review. Mr F looked after B. After the meeting Ms M told Ms Carter that she thought her husband as dangerous and that she did not want him in her life any more. After the meeting she went to collect G from school and found Mr F and B there. The family drove away together and visited MacDonald’s. According to Ms M she was scared because she had wanted Mr F to drive her and the children home but they were now ten miles away and she did not know where. She phoned Ms Carter to tell her what was happening. When asked whether she wanted her to contact the police she said that she did. According to her, Mr F threatened to crash the car if she continued the phone all.     Mr F drive them home, leaving Ms M with B before driving G away. According to Ms M G told her she was treating her father like a dog. Ms M again phoned Ms Carter.
31.	 Later that evening Mr F and Gwent to Ms Carter’s office. He said that Ms M was unstable. She often hit him and G. He thought that part of the problem was that she was pregnant. There is no evidence that she was. Ms Carter spoke to G alone. G said she did not like her parents arguing which upset her. She tried to stop it but could not. She was the ‘piggy in the middle’. Her mother hit her with a shoe, and she showed Ms Carter a bruise on her ankle and two on her knees. She had seen her mother scratch her father’s face and ha seen him hit his face with plastic. She wanted to stay with her father and did not want to return to her mother. It was decided to allow Mr F to leave with G and after a home visit to Ms M to leave B with her until the morning. According to Ms M Mr Babul phoned her twice at home in the early hours before she unplugged it.
32.	On the early evening of the 12th March the applicants decided that police using their powers under section 46 of the Children Act should remove the children from their parents care. They were taken to short-term foster carers where they have remained. On the 13th March the applicants we granted emergency protection orders and the following day care proceedings were commenced and, later, interim care orders were granted. Also on the 14th March Ms M was granted a non-molestation order against Mr F, which continues in force.
33.	Bearing in mind the other evidence about how the parents behaved I am satisfied that the events of the 11th March were not atypical. The parents switched from behaving, as they should in front of the children to having a heated argument. Ms M became over excited and irrational. She sought to bring others- Ms Carter and the police into the conflict- and whether or not Mr F had threatened to crash the car she repeated these words in the hearing of G. I am satisfied that she did not believe that there was a real risk that Mr F whom she accepts deeply loves his children would behave in this way. The children were exposed to rapidly changing emotional events, and exposed to talk, which would have scared G if not B. They were separated from each other and the other parent and in G’s case spent the night away from home. Although the evidence is insufficient to show what active part Mr F played I am satisfied on what I saw on the video that he would have done nothing which could have reduced the tension, and in all likelihood engaged in behaviour which provoked Ms M to more excessive behaviour. This assessment of the events of 11th March applies equally to the children’s daily life between the end of August 2013 and the middle of March 2013. 
34.	I bear in mind the difficult position of a woman who is being subjected to physical, sexual and psychological violence particular when she has dependent children. Ms M argues that she stayed so long in this abusive relationship because of her cultural and religious norms and to keep her family intact. I have no evidence other than what she says about her cultural and religious norms but am prepared to accept that this in part explains the matter. In addition someone who is abused may genuinely love the perpetrator. This can lead her to try in every way possible to create a ‘normal’ family life in order to protect herself and her children and in the hope that matters will improve. Ms M explains going to a restaurant and the park with her husband and children in this. On a number of occasions during her oral evidence it was obvious that in the past at least she deeply loved her husband. I am satisfied that their relationship was marked by frequent and sudden swings from a loving ‘normality’ to furious mutual recriminations and that in a strange way both were excited by this. I view the trips to the park and the restaurant in this way. I am satisfied that regardless of the findings I shall later make about the allegations, both parents bear equal responsibility for the state of affairs described in the preceding paragraph. 
35.	Regardless of the findings I make in relation to the Allegations the children have been exposed to frightening arguments between their parents and to confusing fluctuations in their parents’ relationship throughout their lives. This has significantly harmed their emotional development, as I shall describe later. 
36.	The parents have had supervised weekly contact with G and B on separate occasions. As far as is known they had little contact with ach other but on the 2nd August, coincidentally or otherwise just after Ms M commenced her new relationship Mr F saw her in Trafalgar Square and, according to her said that they should reconcile. If he saw her with another man he would kill him and throw acid in her face. Although he admits meeting her he denies threatening her. Ms M complained to the police on the 4th August and on the 14th August Mr F said that he wanted the children returned to his care. Mr F was arrested for breaching the non-molestation order and on the 17th September Marylebone Magistrates Court having found or Mr F having admitted some breach of the order made an order restraining him until the 16/17th September 2015 from any further contact with Ms M save through solicitors in relation to family and child care proceedings. Ms M alleges that in breach of this order Mr F made an on line request to her Face book page on the 27th September asking to be her friend. He says that this was a keyboard error. However in order to make the request he must have been viewing that page. Ms M has again complained to the police who are investigating the alleged breach.  Between the 17th and 19th October Mr F made various postings- usually in the early hours of the morning- on his Face book of a sentimental nature relating to restoring relationships between couples. Despite Mr F’s oral evidence that he is happy that Ms M is in a new relationship and that he is not seeking or hoping for reconciliation. I am satisfied that he still loves, wants to be reconciled and believes that this will happen. In July Dr McLean and Ms Daum depressed their opinion that ‘although currently separated they remain preoccupied with each other’. Having heard their evidence, I am satisfied that this remains the position notwithstanding their both stating that the relationship is finished and, Ms M, that she is in a new relationship.
37.	Throughout the proceedings, Ms M has wanted the children to return to her. Although Mr F had told Dr McLean in July that he could not contemplate looking after the children by himself, on the 14th August he said that he wanted the children returned to his care and this position has been maintained. 

THE LAW
38.	The relationship between parents and their children is crucially important for children throughout all their lives.  The State can never, and should never, interfere with that relationship unless the welfare of the child requires it. The fact that someone else can do a better job is not enough.  Separation is necessary only if that the parents cannot meet their child’s needs and the child’s welfare requires that they be separated. This is why the State, through Parliament, has built a structure in which the Court has to approach these decisions.  First, the Section 31 Children Act 1989 threshold has to be satisfied.  Second, if the threshold is satisfied, when the Court considers what orders to make, it has to regard the child’s welfare as being paramount.
39.	A similar test applies when the Court is considering making a placement order, but there the paramount consideration is the child’s welfare throughout his life and not just his childhood, because the impact of being adopted is likely, and is intended, to effect the child throughout his life.  All of the relevant circumstances have to be considered. These  include the likely effect on the child throughout his life of ceasing to be a member of her birth family and becoming an adopted person, the relationship she has with relatives , the likelihood of such a relationship continuing, the value to her of that relationship continuing.  Regard must also be had to the wishes and feelings of the child’s relatives.  
40.	The Court can make a placement order, only if the each of the child’s parent’s consent or the Court decides that it can dispense with their consent.  In the case of Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ.1146, the Court of Appeal, basing its judgment in part on the decision of the Supreme Court in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 gave guidance as to how these decisions should be approached.  Making an adoption order without the parents’ consent is an extreme thing. It is a matter of last resort which should be made only where nothing else will do and where no other course is possible in the child’s interests.  When the Court considers the options, it has to adopt the least interventionist approach which meets the child’s needs. I add that I have also read the recent guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625.
41.	There are three other matters which have to be born in mind.  First, sight must never be lost of the fact that the child’s interests include being brought up by his natural family, ideally by his parents, unless his welfare overridingly requires something different. Ms Troy summarises this be citing the decision of the European Court of Human rights in YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 ECHRR 967,[2012] 2 FLR 332 at [134].
‘[In] cases concerning the placing of a child for adoption, which entails the permanent severance of family ties, the best interests of the child are paramount (see Johansen v Norway (Application No 17383/90) (1996) 23 EHRR 33, 7 August 1996, para 78; Kearns v France (Application No 35991/04) [2008] 1 FLR 888, para 79, 10 January 2008; and Rand H v United Kingdom, cited above, paras 73 and 81). In identifying the child's best interests in a particular case, two considerations must be borne in mind: first, it is in the child's best interests that his ties with his family be maintained except in cases where the family has proved particularly unfit; and secondly, it is in the child's best interests to ensure his development in a safe and secure environment (see Neulinger and Shuruk v Switzerland, cited above, para 136; and Rand H v United Kingdom, cited above, paras 73–74). It is clear from the foregoing that family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild' the family (see Neulinger and Shuruk v Switzerland, cited above, para 136; and Rand H v United Kingdom, cited above, para 73). It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing (see K and T v Finland, cited above, para 173; and TS and DS v United Kingdom, cited above). However, where the maintenance of family ties would harm the child's health and development, a parent is not entitled under Art 8 to insist that such ties be maintained .’
42.	 Second, all alternative realistic options must be explored before adopting the one proposed by the local authority.  Third, account has to be taken of the assistance and support which the local authority would offer the parents if their child were to return to live with them.
43.	   In CM v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1479 Lord Justice Ryder said at  [33]:
‘A court making a placement order decision must conduct a five part exercise. It must undertake a welfare analysis of each of the realistic options for the child having regard among any other relevant issues to the matters set out in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act (the 'welfare checklist'). That involves looking at a balance sheet of benefits and detriments in relation to each option. It must then compare the analysis of each option against the others. It must decide whether an option and if so which option safeguards the child's welfare throughout her life: that is the court's welfare evaluation or value judgment that is mandated by section 1(2) of the Act. It will usually be a choice between one or more long term placement options. That decision then feeds into the statutory test in sections 21(3)(b) and 52 of the 2002 Act, namely whether in the context of what is in the best interests of the child throughout his life the consent of the parent or guardian should be dispensed with. The statutory test as set out above has to be based in the court's welfare analysis which leads to its value judgment. In considering whether the welfare of the child requires consent to be dispensed with, the court must look at its welfare evaluation and ask itself the question whether that is a proportionate interference in the family life of the child. That is the proportionality evaluation that is an inherent component of the domestic statutory test and a requirement of Strasbourg jurisprudence.
‘[34] That is what 'nothing else will do' means. It involves a process of deductive reasoning. It does not require there to be no other realistic option on the table, even less so no other option or that there is only one possible course for the child. It is not a standard of proof. It is a description of the conclusion of a process of deductive reasoning within which there has been a careful consideration of each of the realistic options that are available on the facts so that there is no other comparable option that will meet the best interests of the child. The words of Lord Nicholls in In re B (A Minor) (Adoption: Natural Parent) [2001] UKHL 70, [20012] 1 WLR 258 cited with approval in the Supreme Court in Re B remain apposite:
 "[16] … There is no objectively certain answer on which two or more possible courses is in the best interests of a child. In all save the most straightforward cases, there are competing factors, some pointing one way and some another. There is no means of demonstrating that one answer is clearly right and another clearly wrong. There are too many uncertainties involved in what, after all, is an attempt to peer into the future and assess the advantages and disadvantages which this or that course will or may have for the child."
‘[35] This court has on two recent occasions highlighted the way in which the proportionality evaluation is being misconstrued by practitioners. In each case practitioners were reminded to use the concept that was described by the Supreme Court in Re B. In M-H (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1396 Macur LJ at [8] said:
"…I note that the terminology frequently deployed in arguments to this court and, no doubt to those at first instance, omit a significant element of the test as framed by both the Supreme Court and this court, which qualifies the literal interpretation of "nothing else will do". That is, the orders are to be made "only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by the overriding requirements pertaining to the child's best interests." (See In Re B, paragraph 215)…."
In Re M (A Child) (Long Term Foster Care) [2014] EWCA Civ 1406 Black LJ said:" What is necessary is a complex question requiring an evaluation of all of the circumstances. As Lord Neuberger said at [77] of Re B, speaking of a care order which in that case would be very likely to result in the child being adopted: "It seems to me inherent in section 1(1) [Children Act 1989] that a care order should be the last resort, because the interests of the child would self- evidently require her relationship with her natural parents to be maintained unless no other course was possible in her interests. " (my emphasis) I emphasise the last phrase of that passage ("in her interests") because it is an important reminder that what has to be determined is not simply whether any other course is possible but whether there is another course which is possible and in the child's interests."
With respect, I agree. 
‘[36] It is in the very nature of placement proceedings that in many of them there will be alternative options that are at least hypothetically feasible and which may have some merit. The fact that, after consideration of the evidence, the court on an analysis of the options chooses adoption over another option does not mean that such a choice is tainted because something else may have been reasonable and available. The whole purpose of a proportionality evaluation is to respect the rights that are engaged and cross check the welfare evaluation i.e. the decision is not just whether A is better than B, it is also whether A can be justified as an interference with the rights of those involved. That is of critical importance to the way in which evidence is collated and presented and the way in which the court analyses and evaluates it.’
ASSESSMENTS
Ms Tracey Boylan
44.	In May 2014 Ms Tracey Boylan, a risk assessor at the Domestic Violence Intervention Project carried out a three part assessment, first of the risk that Nr F would behave violently to Ms M in the future, second whether Ms M recognised the extent to which she had suffered physical and emotional abuse from Mr F and its impact on the children and whether she can develop protective strategies for herself and the children and third, whether the parents reconciling would create a risk of the children suffering emotional harm.
45.	 In her report dated the 20th June 2014 Ms Boylan concluded that there were a number of long standing indicators and dynamic risk factors which lead her to believe that if no risk management measures were in place Mr F represented a substantial risk of substantial physical harm to Ms M and a high risk of substantial emotional harm to her and the children. Because he did not acknowledge that he was a perpetrator of domestic violence he was not suitable to undertake a domestic violence perpetrator programme.
46.	Ms Boylan’s assessment of Ms M found some significant indicators of her vulnerability and she was of the opinion that at the time of the assessment she remained vulnerable to domestic violence. ‘There remains a substantial risk of emotional arm to the children if they remain with their mother without any risk management measures in place’.  Ms Boylan recommended that if the children were to live with their mother the risks could be ameliorated if Mr F accepted the end of his relationship with Ms M, she acknowledged the severity and extent of the violence and spoke honestly about it as well as participating in a treatment programme, the non-molestation order granted on the 14th March 2014 were continued, Ms M were rehoused in an area unknown to Mr F (presumably, at a secret address) and the children would be seen regularly by an adult outside the family whom they trusted. However the level of risk would be raised if the couple had illicit contact, failed to comply with written agreements and to engage with social workers, there was a (presumably adverse) change in the children’s behaviour and there were unexplained injuries to them or their mother, the children reported witnessing domestic violence and police notified incidents of domestic violence and harassment to social services.
47.	Ms Boylan is very experienced in the field of domestic violence. Her twenty-one years experience in the criminal justice system includes being a probationer officer, a trainer of professionals who work with difficult and abusive offenders including men convicted of violent offences against their partners and as a university lecturer in criminology. Her experience was reflected in the way in which she both presented her report and in her oral evidence. The assessment needs to be read in the light of the findings, which I will make. If I find that Mr F was not a perpetrator much but not all of the report will be invalidated. For example, it is undisputed that throughout their lives the children had been exposed to explosive arguments between their parents and that at least G has suffered emotional harm as a result. Ms Boylan’s advice concerned the parents permanently ending their relationship, engaging in an honest way being with professionals and complying with agreements would remain apposite.
Dr Duncan McLean and Minna Daum
48.	Dr Duncan McLean is a psychiatrist of many years experience and is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Maudesley Hospital treating adults with chronic neurotic and personality disorders. Minna Daum is a Family Therapist with twenty years experience and has been employed at the Anna Freud Centre since 1998 specialising in the assessment and treatment of complex families. Through the Anna Freud Centre they were instructed to assess the family. Some twenty questions were posed which can be summarised as Dr McLean and Ms Daum being asked to report on 
i)	Each parent’s ability to meet their children’s needs;
ii)	The parents’ ability to refrain from domestic violence and to maintain appropriate boundaries;
iii)	The needs of each child;
iv)	Any treatment the children may need;
v)	The nature of the attachment between each child and each parent and between the children themselves;
vi)	The possible alternative arrangements for where the children should live and, if they are not living with a particular parent, what contact they should have with that parent
49.	Their main report is dated the 16th July 2014 with short addenda on the 27th August 2014 and the 10th October 2014 and a longer addendum dated the 21st November 2014, which considered whether their earlier assessment required to be changed in the light of Mr F now stating that he wanted to look after both children by himself.
50.	Both experts gave oral evidence and impressed me by their experience of complex families and their insight into the personalities of the parents and children in this family and its dynamics.
51.	In summary they thought that Ms M had difficulty in managing the practical tasks of life and was pre-occupied with her own needs, finding it difficult to appreciate the needs of others. She was over-dramatic and, Dr McLean thought had a Histrionic Personality Disorder fulfilling most of the following, admittedly subjective, criteria:
i)	Self-dramatizing, theatrically or exaggerated expression of emotions;
ii)	Suggestibility, easily influenced by others or by circumstances;
iii)	Shallow and labile activity;
iv)	Continually seeking excitement and activities in which the subject is the centre of attention;
v)	Inappropriately seductive in appearance or behaviour;
vi)	Overly concerned with physical attractiveness.
52.	 Dr McLean also thought that Ms M may suffer from a somatisation disorder. To make an accurate diagnosis would require a detailed investigation of her medical history. Given the wealth of other information I am satisfied that such an investigation is not necessary and the delay to the final resolution of the proceedings would be unjustified. I do not base any of my conclusions on Dr McLean’s hypothesis.
53.	With support Ms M might be able to meet the practical needs of the children ‘but she is quite unable to function as a parental figure nor respond to [their] emotional states in a measured and contained fashion.’ There is no known treatment for histrionic personality disorder. ‘Ms M has no insight into her condition and it is not possible to see the basis for any treatment intervention. Ms M has in fact been receiving therapy from Wise Dolls, which provides creative arts therapies for women survivors of domestic violence and abuse. I shall discuss this later when considering Ms M’s ability to meet the needs of her children.
54.	Mr F did not have a personality disorder but had strongly dependent traits and an excessive need for love and affection from Ms M and the children. His insecure relationship with Ms M lead him to feel angry with her but the assessors found little evidence that he had any strong violent tendencies. His dependent traits could be amenable to treatment in individual or group psychotherapy. At the time he was not interested in receiving therapy save insofar it might help him resume his relationship with Ms M. I note that he has since aid he is willing to receive it. As regards his ability to look after the children by himself the experts have carried out a further assessment. They concluded that he could potentially care for the children but has not fully demonstrated his capacity to do so. They recommended that he should urgently begin weekly individual therapy and take part in a parenting programme. After a period of six months, an assessment of his progress should be made
55.	Dr McLean and Ms Daum agree with Ms Boylan that the parents are unable to associate with each other without conflict whether in an intimate relationship or not. ‘Although currently separated they remain preoccupied with each other and it is apparent that many issues between them are entirely unresolved and could well lead to confrontations. It is not our view that this can be ameliorated by engaging with DVIP’. 
56.	Dr McLean and the guardian were cross-examined about the way in which the parents responded to the children during contact. Both the local authority and the parents have drawn on recordings of contact visits to demonstrate either that Ms M and Mr F were unable to respond sensitively to the children’s needs or alternatively that they showed themselves to be committed and loving parents. I have taken account of all of the visits, which have been discussed. As is usual in these cases I have not heard oral evidence from those who supervised contact. I bear in mind Dr McLean’s comment that the observers are not there to assess the nature of the relationships and the functioning of those present, even if they were trained to do so, but to produce a factual record of what took place. I also bear in mind that supervised contact visits are somewhat unnatural events and that both parents and children in the excitement of a weekly visit may not behave as they do in more ordinary settings. It would be unfair and potentially misleading for an assessment of Ms M and Mr F to be based on what happened in contact. The intensive first hand assessments of them by Dr Mclean, Ms Daum and Ms Boylan all of whom are highly trained and experienced were fairer and more reliable.
57.	 The local authority can legitimately point to some incidents during contact as similar to what the evidence prior to the 13th March 2014 shows and which reflect what the experts have found. Likewise Mr Metaxa and Ms Troy for the parents can legitimately point to episodes, which indicate the love between the families. The only other comments I make are that while I accept that Ms M should have been more sensitive when telling G on the 30th September that she would miss the next contact because she would be away she was motivated by wanting to explain her absence to G to lessen her disappointment. Likewise when Mr F gave G money to buy her mother flowers he did so not in an attempt to win his wife back but because he had brought flowers for his daughter who had then mentioned her mother. It had the potential to give G the message that he loved her mother but it as done for the best of reasons. 
58.	I shall discuss the experts’ assessments of G and B and their recommendations as to their future later in this judgment.
THE WITNESSES
59.	When assessing the parents’ reliability as witnesses I bear in mind that they under strain because they were giving evidence in proceedings of vital importance to both them and their children, about intimate matters which strongly engage their emotions, in a language which is not their first language and at times with the questions and/or their answers being communicated through an interpreter. I make allowance for this. I also have to remember that when arguments and violence occur frequently it may be difficult to remember details about each separate incident. I remind myself that it may be inappropriate to base any assessment in whole or in part on matters other than reliability on how a witness behaves in the witness box and that when this is unavoidable, very great care must be taken. I do however have the benefit of the assessments of the experts, which took place in more appropriate circumstances. The parents had the help of interpreters during their assessment interviews. Both speak and seem to understand English very well but I bear in mind that they may not have fully understood the nuances of the questions or be able fully to express the subtleties of  their answers
Ms M
60.	Ms M is an intelligent and well educate woman who is apparently able to manage the practical aspects of her life when living by herself. I have no doubt she loves both children deeply. She works in the security industry on the front line in clubs apparently without any difficulty. There is no evidence that she has ever lost a job for reasons of misconduct or been in trouble with the police. Other than her taking prescription drugs for her knee pains (and stopped taking morphine in March 2014) there is no history of drug or alcohol abuse or self-harming.
61.	 Ms M gave her evidence in a calm and courteous manner. At times, for example describing one of the alleged rapes (Allegation 8) she showed appropriate emotion. In her own words however people from her culture (and she included herself in this group) are ‘loud passionate expressive people and are not afraid to show emotion.’ ‘I am expressive and use more hand gestures than people from the UK.’ Without making any generalised assessment of her countrymen and women  as a group, I am satisfied that Ms M is excitable and her emotions are often strongly engaged. This carries a risk that her recollection of incidents, which took place when she is aroused, may be impaired. I cannot ignore the evidence that her fluctuating opinions about Mr F can lead her to misrepresent the truth. She was able to do this with some success in 2011 when she lied about the family situation and Mr F’s presence in the home. Furthermore I am satisfied that when she wants to believe that something is true she will select facts to support her wish. But what she is presenting may be no more than her present perception of the situation and not a reasonable objective account of reality. For example she may currently believe and have convinced herself that she was raped in 2011. Her account may not accurately contain all the facts she is capable of remembering. She lacks insight into these matters and therefore her ability to regulate the accounts she gives may be impaired. I have concluded very great care needs to be taken when relying on Ms M’s uncorroborated evidence about matters, which engage her emotions.
Mr F
62.	Mr F is not as well educated as Ms M but appears to be of average intelligence. He is a hard worker. In the past he has been employed as a rickshaw driver and currently as a minicab driver. This gives him time to brood about his family and Ms M. Save in relation to incidents between him and Ms M he has not been involved with the police. There is no evidence of misuse of alcohol or drugs. Like her he gave his evidence calmly, courteously and with patience. I noted, as did Dr McLean when he re-interviewed Mr F in November that when he spoke of his relationships with his wife and the children he kept breathing heavily and was clearly emotional moved His deep love of his children was almost tangible. He states willing to do anything to ensure that they will live with him including attending therapy, using all his savings of £2,000 to pay for it and    attending parenting classes. He has already started reading online advice on looking after children and the effect on them of witnessing domestic violence and shows a good memory of what he has read.
63.	Mr F presents himself as someone who is the passive victim of Ms M’s volatile behaviour. However this contrasts with his involvement in what has been called the video incident. He states that he recognises that his childhood experiences make him overly emotionally dependent but I doubt whether this recognition has much depth. He showed unwillingness when giving evidence to recognise that his suspicions of Ms M’s infidelity might be based not on objective evidence but on his sensitivity to the prospect of being rejected. Likewise his assertion that he no longer seeks a relationship with her lacks conviction especially when his Face book postings for mid October 2014 are considered. I doubt he can emotionally consider a future without Ms M and this makes him guarded about saying anything, which may prejudice this occurring. This together with his lack of insight means that his uncorroborated evidence must be treated with caution
THE ALLEGATIONS
64.	There is little or no independent evidence available which corroborate the evidence of either parent save for contemporaneous police reports. The lack of such evidence does not of course make their accounts of the incidents, which form part of the schedule of allegations untrue. I have been assisted when considering their accounts by the other evidence of how they have behaved including the video (which includes Ms M twice throwing objects at Mr F) and the events of the 11th October 2013. I also have the admission by Mr M that he broke the television screen  (Allegation 5) and spat at her in late 2007 and Ms M’s admission that she scratched his face on the 9th March 2014.
Allegation 1
65.	It is alleged that in May 2007 Mr F became upset when in the street because Ms M’s phone kept ringing. He removed the SIM card from her mobile phone and threw it away. ‘At the time I didn’t think anything about it. I thought he was very passionate about me and didn’t want anything disturbing the time we spent together. It is only know many years later that with hindsight I can see that this as the start of his controlling behaviour.’ Mr F denies behaving in this way. 
66.	Given the length of time which has elapsed and the risk that Ms M may have confused it with similar incidents later I am not satisfied that this allegation has been proved. It is not alleged that at this time he was as jealous as he later became. I any event, even if proved the allegation adds nothing to his later behaviour.
Allegation 2
67.	Ms M alleges that in October/November 2007 Mr F hit her when she was pregnant, causing her loses her balance, fall on stairs and hit her stomach. Ms M gives details about where they were and the time and the setting. ‘I recall a lady in the communal area [of the hostel where we lived] calling Mr F’s name. I wanted to know who was calling him. Mr F blocked me from entering’. They began to argue. As they were walking upstairs he suddenly hit her on the head. Afterwards he apologised and said he did not mean to do it or hurt the baby.’ Given that she was five months pregnant I am surprised she did not seek medical advice. Ms M admits that she did not refer to this when interviewed by Ms Boylan. ‘It’s not easy to look back. Sometimes I remember, sometimes I do not’. Mr F denies that such an argument occurred and denies ever hitting his wife. He does however admit (see Allegation 3) that they did argue during the pregnancy.
68.	 Notwithstanding the need to take care that Ms M is not inviting details to lend credibility to what she believes happened, she has given a detailed account and provided a context for the argument. I would be surprised if it had no base in reality and I would be surprised if Mr M did not remember something of the incident. This leads me to conclude that he is choosing not to remember. I find the allegation proved.
Allegation 3
69.	According to Ms M in October/November 2007 she and Mr F argued because she wanted to smoke a cigarette before going to work despite having reduced the number she smoked because of her pregnancy.’ He said I was not going to have a cigarette from that day on.’ He got out of bed, pulled her arm, spinning her round and hitting her in the face causing a broken blood vessel to/in her eye. When she arrived at work her employers took her to hospital where she said she had fallen over. No hospital records have been produced. Her employers gave her a pair of sunglasses to wear and Mr F gave her a huge bunch of roses saying he was very sorry. They did not argue again until G was born in February. Mr F agrees that they would argue about her smoking- no shouting just a discussion. He never hit her. In his statement he said he did not remember her having an injury. When giving oral evidence he was more positive: she has never had a black eye.
70.	Again Ms M has given a detailed account and provided a context for the argument. As shown on the video Mr M has bought Ms M a present when he feels guilty. Because of the details I am satisfied that Ms M did injure her eye and was taken to hospital by her employer. I would have expected Mr F to remember this and provide an innocent explanation for the injury if there was one. I find the allegation proved.
Allegation 4
71.	It is alleged that in about October 2008 Mr F pulled Ms M’s hair when she was asleep causing her to fall from bed. Her cousin who was staying with the family heard the noise, came into the bedroom and tried to stop him. There was an argument and he removed the cousin’s Sim card from her phone. The cousin wanted to leave the flat- she was due to return to her own country that day- but he did not want this as it would mean that Ms M would have to look after G and not be able to go to work. He asked Ms M whether she loved him.  G being only few months old must have been in the flat during the incident.  Eventually she or her cousin phoned the police who same to the flat. She did not tell the police that Mr F had pulled her from the bed. ‘I just said I wanted him to go away’. 
72.	Ms M gave consistent accounts in her statement of the 19th March 2014 and the 3rd November 2014 and to Dr McLean in July 2014. Her account to Ms Boylan differs in that she said that her cousin was going to return to her own country by plane. She has not produced a statement from her cousin but the reasons for this were not explored in cross-examination.
73.	Mr F admits that there was an argument about the cousin leaving so soon but he did not assault his wife or remove the cousin’s SIM card.
74.	Police records show that on the 10th October Ms M called the police and told them that although they had separated shortly after G was born he had returned to see his daughter and then moved in. She was fed with him and wanted the police’s help to remove him because she was afraid he might be violent as he had been in the past. Mr F was seen playing with G and he was told to leave which he did. There is no reference to an argument or to the cousin.
75.	 I am satisfied that there was an argument about the cousin leaving and that later Ms M called the police. The findings I have already made show that Mr F could lose his temper and assault his wife. The allegation was consistent with this. However as the police record that Ms M did tell them that he had been violent in the past I find it surprising that she did not tell them about the hair pulling. Given that her statement is not supported by the police account, I am not satisfied the allegation of assault has been proved on the balance of probability.
Allegation 7
76.	It is said that in very early on the morning of the 10th October 2013 Mr F woke Ms M and demanded her phone. The couple went into the kitchen so that the children could not hear them arguing. The argument developed into one in which Ms M accused her husband of not earning enough money to pay their any parking fines. He pushed Ms M on her chest causing her to fall backwards against a sink and the window, causing a bruise. She called police but did not show them the bruise because she did not want her children’s father to be imprisoned.
77.	Mr F admits that there were parking fines but denies demanding the phone or pushing her. He gives no other information about the incident.
78.	The police report is consistent with Ms M’s evidence although it contains no mention of a bruise. Ms M told them that she had previously alleged that she had been raped and that he had threatened to kill her in the past. The children were awake. Mr F had left the flat. When he was found he was arrested but the following day Mrs M did not seek to have the matter taken further.
79.	It is clear that at this time there were frequent arguments in the home. Ms M wanted a divorce. On the previous day G had wet herself at school and I am satisfied that this was because of her stress at the arguments. There is no reason to disbelieve that an argument of the kind alleged was likely to have occurred and I am satisfied that in the course of it Mr F pushed Ms M. However I am not satisfied that she was bruised. It is unlikely that she would keep this information from the police because she did not want Mr F imprisoned whilst at the same time alleging rape and threats to kill.
Allegations 6, 8 and 9
80.	This are three allegations of rape, general allegations of rape starting in May 2013 (Allegation 6), vaginal, anal and oral rape on a number of occasions in the Autumn of 2013 (Allegation 8) and vaginal rape on a specified occasion in September 2013 (Allegation 9). It is appropriate to consider this last allegation first as it is the only one with specific detail.
81.	Redacted
82.	Redacted
83.	An allegation of rape is a very serious matter but nevertheless in the Family Court the burden of proof remains the civil standard. It is of course for the accuser to prove that the allegation is true.  Such an allegation is easy to make and difficult to disprove.
84.	 I am satisfied because of the detail given by Ms M that sexual intercourse took place broadly as she described. The issue is, did she consent? I bear in mind that in reality the line between intercourse where one participant reluctantly agrees and rape where the perpetrator is reckless as to whether the other person consents but that other person remains silent can be a very narrow one. Ms M admits that there have been times when she reluctantly ‘did her duty’. Was this an occasion or, if she did not consent, was her behaviour such as might make Mr F think she was consenting? In my judgment, the context of the incident is important. It took place only a few weeks or perhaps days after Mr F and Z had gone to Bournemouth with the children and at a time when Ms M mistakenly believed he had been unfaithful. This satisfies me that in fact she did not consent. Second, at the time Mr F believed that she was having an affair. Working nights gave him the opportunity to brood. He was terrified of losing her, jealous and angry. This was a scenario where he would probably want to prove his virility and re-take possession of his wife. In my judgment it is more likely than not that he would have wanted to have intercourse, would have taken any sign of refusal or reluctance as further evidence of infidelity and continued regardless. I am satisfied that Ms M showed some reluctance and, having been woken from sleep, showed no sign of consenting. She could have tried physically to resist but I accept that she did not want to risk the children waking. The caution with which Ms M’s evidence in general needs to be treated would make it impossible for her to prove the allegation beyond all reasonable doubt. However after much anxious consideration I am satisfied because of the context it more likely than not that Mr M did rape her.
85.	Because the other accounts are more generalised and the first does not have the context of the Bournemouth matter, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify finding Allegations 6 and 8 proved.
THE EFFECT ON THE CHILDREN OF THEIR LIFE EXPERIENCES
86.	Although the children have received and enjoyed their parents’ love, throughout their lives they have been exposed to threats and violence between their parents and rapidly changing emotional events which have scared Gif not B. It is not just the impact of the incidents at the time which has to be considered but also the continuing fear that they might suddenly occur. I am entirely satisfied that as a result the children have suffered significant emotional harm which because it occurred in their formative early years may affect their personalities and themselves for the rest of their lives.
87.	I have carefully considered not only Dr McLean and Ms Daum's lengthy and detailed reports and their oral evidence but also tested the factual basis for their opinions against the evidence set out at length earlier in the judgment. I am satisfied not only that they have proceeded on a sound factual footing but also that their views are fully justified. I accept their evidence on the children’s difficulties and their needs which I shall describe later.
G
88.	I have already discussed the perception of staff at G’s school that she had too much information about the problems in her parents’ relationship and how during the video incident she was trying to act as a peace maker, trying to divert her mother’s attention from her father. She described to Ms Carter, being ‘piggy in the middle and I am satisfied this was her usual role in the family. It placed her under significant stress, which manifested itself not just in enuresis but also in biting her nails so badly that when Dr Jacqueline Geyt examined her on the 13th March 2014 it was noted that all her nails were’ well bitten’ and two fingers were infected. According to the school nurse she often had bleeding lips, which she would pick, and plasters on her fingers. Her fingers At the examination she said that she felt sick and told the doctor that she often pretended to be sick and wanted her to tell her parents she had been sick. Staff at her school described her as lacking in concentration, easily distracted, needy and seeking attention, for example, complaining of stomach aches and wanting hugs.  Her attendance was quite poor being 78.05% in Year one (2012/13) but improving to 86.11% in the January term 2014. This level still meant that she missed on average one and a half days schooling every fortnight. In Year 1 Ms M often explained her absences by saying that she had a headache or stomach ache.
89.	When G first went to live with her foster carers she was very angry and often hit out. She had no boundaries, refused to eat ordinary food and would not dress in her school uniform in the mornings. By July, according to her carers, she was far more able to accept boundaries and if she does something wrong will apologise immediately. I have not heard evidence directly from the carers and one has to be cautious that ‘before and after’ vignettes may be wishful thinking. However G’s school in July described ‘significant’ changes in her demeanour. She was then seen as a girl who was more focussed and interested in getting on with her schoolwork. She participated more in class and seemed more confident. However this is not the complete picture. In April G alleged that a neighbour’s twelve-year-old son had vaginally penetrated her with his penis. An investigation found no evidence to support the allegation. At the end of June G’s female carer witnessed G behaving in a sexualised manner. More recent reports from the foster carers, outlined in the Amended Placement Order report of the 26th August relate that G falls out with friends a great deal, makes up stories to put other children into trouble, lies, cheats and on a recent hospital visit, stole objects and tried to put them into her carers bag. ‘Her behaviour at times is difficult to control.’ I am unable to find therefore that there has been any significant and sustained change in G’s overall behaviour. Currently her behaviour would be challenging for any carer whether her parents, foster carers or adopters.
90.	Dr McLean and Ms Daum describe G as being a vulnerable and anxious six year old. She is very protective of her parents and adopts a ‘rather parentified’ role. Being in control is an important element the way she relates to others. She appears to have an idealised view of her mother, which protected her from negative feelings about her. She also presented as being ‘quite avoidant, struggling to connect and engage in thinking about her feelings.’ ‘Given the unpredictable quality of violence [and] witnessing violence will have left her to manage aroused states of anxiety …on her own.’ She also showed behaviour which in some ways mirrored that of her mother.’ She shows a tendency towards histrionic expressions of affect that at times comes across as inauthentic eg she can put a focus on physical pain as a way of getting response from the adult world.’ 
91.	 The team are of the opinion that G needs to be relieved of these issues and to be allowed to be a six year old without the pressures of having functioned as a much older child.
‘The risk of the difficulties not being addressed is that her tendency to view relationships as a struggle will impact on the quality of relationships that she will be able to build it the future. Without support this will put her in a vulnerable position, particularly in her adolescent years. Also…[she] is most likely to struggle to engage with her learning. This will impact on her academic development and enjoyment of school, creating a sense of hopelessness in relation to her education.’
B
92.	Because B was younger than his sister, his family life impacted on him for a shorter time. Nevertheless I am satisfied that that he had been significantly and adversely affected by it.  Although I observed on the video that he was playing by himself seemingly unconcerned by the loud arguing. This is unnatural. He was not always so quiet. The health visitor was punched and pushed by him in January 2014 and the manager of the nursery he attended reported that he presented as being aggressive and frustrated. Ms Carter saw him punching cushions and sofas. 
93.	When B went to live with his foster carers at the age of two years and ten months he spoke little. Dr Geyt noted that he had very few words and as not really able to answer questions.  By early July his carers reported that he was quite vocal although his speech was unclear at times. Some time was spent in the trial exploring whether B’s speech delay could be related to Romanian being spoken at home. I also note that G’s speech development had been ‘patchy’ in September 2012 when she started school. This may have been for the same reason as B’s but the reason is unclear. I have received no expert evidence from a speech therapist and am unable to be satisfied that the delay is attributable to the parenting they received. 
94.	B’s foster carers also report that at first he was very quiet. If he as upset he would immediately hunch up and cry silently. He was in nappies day and night and would want to eat and drink only fizzy drinks, cake and chocolate. He as aggressive, hitting and kicking G and his carers.
95.	According to Dr McLean and Ms Daum, B’s lack of boundaries or routine and his attitude to food in March 2014 suggest that he was subjected to a chaotic and unpredictable environment and his presentation suggested a level of physical and emotional neglect. By July he had appeared to have established a less avoidant attachment to his carers, which provided some basis for optimism in relation to his emotional and behavioural development. But ‘if he is not helped to make sense of and regulate his negative feelings, in particular his aggression, he is likely to go on to develop impulsive and uncontrolled “externalising” behaviours.’
THE WELFARE TEST
The Children’s Wishes and Feelings
G
96.	According to Ms Bakie who has been G’s social worker since the end of June, G wants to live with both parents. In July she told Ms Bakie that she often dreamed about her maternal grandmother and would like to see her every day. However her maternal grandmother is dead and G knows this. I have to bear in mind however that given the tendencies described by Dr McLean G might have said this for effect. Mr Klein, her guardian tried to ascertain her wishes and feelings through drawings on the 30th November. G was reluctant to talk about her family as demonstrated by her bizarrely trying to cut her toe nails when Mr Klein as asking her questions. She placed herself, B and her parents on one island and then quickly added her grandparents, neighbours, her foster carers and their children’.
97.	 Mr Klein believes that G, like B, is too young to have more than a limited understanding of these proceedings or the plan for adoption. I agree.
98.	 Mr Klein also comments that the children are responsive and affectionate towards their parents during contact. This much is clear from the contact notes notwithstanding the discussions during the hearing as to how reliable the notes are as a basis for drawing conclusions about the relationships between the four and her parents’ ability to look after them. I am satisfied that G would like to live with both parents in an ideal world, where there were no arguments and discord. She is however likely to be struggling to reconcile this ideal picture with what she remembers life was actually like. She certainly does not want to return to that life. As regards how her not living with her parents might effect her, I note that she has been able to live with her carers for nine months without behaving in such a way that the applicants have had to consider moving her. Given her improvement at school it is likely that she feels more secure with her carers than she did at home.
B
99.	Ms Bakie and Mr Klein believe that B is too young to express his wishes. I agree. Given the length of time he has lived with his carers I would be surmised if he did not feel that he wanted to remain with them. 
100.	Both children have spent their entire lives living together. In addition G has ‘mothered’ her brother. I am satisfied that both would want, if asked and (in the case of B he was able to express his views) that they would want to remain together.)
The Children’s Needs
101.	The children have the needs of all children, namely too grow up in an environment where they are and feel loved and protected and which promotes their physical, emotional, educational and social development. Insofar as they do not live with both their parents they need as far as is possible to continue to have both knowledge of them and a relationship with them. This knowledge is not only knowledge of the parents as people which will help the child answer the question ‘Who am I? but also that their parents are safe and well. This is he or she parent has had difficulties in his or her life. They will need knowledge of and preferably a relationship with their extended family in the country of their parents’ birth. They need knowledge about their cultural heritage and for it to be promoted. It will not be enough that they have information about the country of their parents’ birth. They need to grow up being able to speak the language, take part in activities of the expatriate community in London and visit that country. Without it, questions of ‘Who am I’ cannot be complete answered and they will be at real disadvantage should they meet members of the community in their later life.
102.	Given their past experiences and the problems this has caused, both G and B are children who are especially vulnerable to these experiences being repeated. In her oral evidence Ms Daum said that they need a secure home for the rest of their childhood and this should take priority even if it means no contact with their parents. I am satisfied that it is essential, so far as is possible, that throughout the rest of their childhoods they are not exposed to unstable relationships, to violence and the fear of violence and to arguments between their carers whether the carers live together or apart. It has to be recognised that ‘ordinary’ arguments cannot be avoided but the arguments described early in this judgment were far from ordinary. 
Should the children be separated?
103.	Dr McLean and Ms Daum advise that the children are:
‘Clearly very close to each other, each asking about the other’s whereabouts when they are not present, saving snacks for their sibling and so on. It is likely that in the context of a chaotic and conflictual parental relationship the siblings have functioned as the most secure attachment figures for each other…If at all possible we would recommend that they be placed together by virtue of their close relationship.’
104.	In an addendum report of the 27thAugust they said that G is attached to B, shows affection for him, misses him when not present and when together, acts in a parental role as his protector and care giver. 
‘If placed separately from B losing this relationship would present G with considerable difficulties and distress in having no secure attachment prior to developing any new attachment relationships. However if placed separately from B it is possible that she might have more individual attention paid to her own needs and be free to develop a closer and more secure attachment to any long-term care-giver.’
105.	As regards B they wrote that:
‘B is attached to G, shows affection for her and misses her when she is not present. However when G is not acting as his parent he tends to play on his own and does not readily join in games with her. If placed separately from G this would be a considerable loss to him as the main attachment figure he currently has. It is not easy to see any advantage to B in being placed separately from G.’
106.	In her oral evidence Ms Daum said that it would be very difficult for the children to be separated. In his oral evidence Dr McLean spoke of the high importance of sibling relationships. It would be particularly dangerous to break the relationship between G and B.
107.	The local authority’s final care plans do not explicitly recognise its acceptance during the final hearing that the children must not be separated. Ms Bakie in her statement dated the 31st July 2014 stated that ‘the children should remain together as a sibling group.’ However the social worker who will be the children’s Family Finder wrote in her report of the 6th August 2014 that if after three months suitable parents have not been identified for both children they would also start looking for a permanent foster placement but would, also consider the possibility of separating the children’s adoptive placements.’ 
108.	 In his Final Analysis dated the 27th August 2014 Mr Klein recommended that
‘If it is not possible to place G and B in an appropriate placement within the time scale proposed in the Family Finder’s statement [ie three months], then the alternative of identifying appropriate long term foster carers for both children together should be explored prior to placing them separately.’
109.	I am satisfied that separating the children would be likely to cause significant harm to the emotional development of each child. In addition it would be likely to make a carer’s task of looking after G much more difficult and increase the risk of the placement breaking it down. Being together will provide them with continuity, unique emotional support and a continuing relationship with someone who shares their cultural heritage. It will continue a relationship, which hopefully will provide mutual support throughout their lives. Living apart, even with regular contact, will be much less effective in providing these benefits and safeguards.  Short of something exceptional occurring which makes it necessary in the interests of one or other of the children to be separated they must not be separated. And I do not mean by something ‘exceptional’ it being decided that it is impossible to find an adoptive placement together. They must not be separated even if this means that either of them will forgo the chance of being adopted. There is a risk that this advice and my judgment may be overlooked in the future especially if the children’s social workers change. I regard the issue as so important that I shall not approve the final care plans unless either the authority accepts this and inserts it into the care plans or amends the plans to make their position clear and unambiguous and includes this paragraph of the judgment so that the Court’s views are not overlooked. In so far as I am disagreeing with Mr Klein I do so because in my judgment great weight than he has given must be attributed to the benefits and safeguards not just during childhood but beyond which provided by continuing to grow up together.
G
110.	Dr Mclean advises that G’s most pressing need is to be in an environment where she can be relieved from adult matters and where she is not exposed to violence. She needs to have the opportunity to step down from her parentified role. Foremost of her educational needs is the opportunity to attend school consistently. She would benefit from regular and ongoing therapy. I am satisfied that she has a clear and urgent need for it. 

B
111.	Dr McLean and Ms Daum assess B’s more pressing need is to form a secure attachment with a ‘robust and attuned’ caregiver who can keep him engaged, respond to the entire range of his emotions and provide a structured and predictable environment within which he can develop a sense of safety. He is likely to need better than average care in these respects. He does not require any special educational provision or individual therapy unless he begins to display troubled behaviour as an older child.
The Parents’ Ability to Meet the Children’s Needs
112.	Both parents love their children. Both are able to provide them to a far greater extent than anyone else with knowledge of and the opportunity to have contact with their wider family and to grow up within their cultural heritage. At the moment they can do not better than meeting some but not all of their physical needs. G’s school reported that when she was at home she was well presented and appropriately dressed. When B was received into care however, the carer reported that his clothes smelled of urine. Attendance was poor. When a doctor carried out the children’s Initial Health Assessment on the 23rd April 2014 she noted that G had decayed teeth, something not noted by Dr Geyt six weeks earlier. During the video incident Ms M indicated that G could not have sweets, pointing to her teeth. Ian appointment has recently been made for G to have seven teeth extracted under general anaesthetic. I am satisfied that her teeth decayed whilst she was at home because her parents did not adequately supervise her cleaning her teeth and by failing to secure proper dental care. Although the issue of the delay in the local authority arranging palliative care was raised during the hearing I have been given no explanation of the steps they took between the 23rd April and recently. I have to conclude that as an authority they neglected this matter. As set out above G’s school attendance was poor. I have recorded the foster carers’ description of B’s unwillingness to eat properly. In cross-examination Mr F agreed that there was no routine for meal times.
113.	 I bear in mind that for most of the children’s lives the parents have depended for help from a number of nannies. Both in my judgment have failed to provide overall good enough physical care. Both worked and therefore Mr F is as responsible for this as Ms M. Without satisfactorily attending parenting courses are unlikely to do any better in the future as single carers.
114.	For reasons already discussed I am satisfied, like Dr Mclean that Ms M and Mr F although currently separated remain preoccupied with each other. Dr McLean and Ms Daum advise that in their opinion Ms M and Mr F are unable to associate with each other without conflict whether in an intimate relationship or not. ‘It is apparent that many issues between them are entirely unresolved and could well lad future confrontations between them as in the past.’ The Guardian agrees as do I . If the children returned to live with one of their parents, at the present time there is a high likelihood that one or other parent would make strenuous efforts to persuade the other to reconcile, justifying this to themselves as being for the sake of the children. Even if they continue to live apart I am satisfied that without   significant changes by both parents violent arguments and emotional outbursts would again appear. This would compound the emotional harm already suffered by the children. The existence of a restraining order will have no effect unless Ms M is determined to maintain the separation. 
Ms M
115.	In their report of the 16th July 2014 Dr McLean and Ms Daum wrote that 
‘Ms M’s histrionic personality means that she is preoccupied with her own needs which make it very difficult for her to focus on either the practical or emotional needs of the children. In our view she is unable on her own to provide good enough care for the children. With support she may be able to provide for their practical needs but at an emotional level she is quite unable to function as a parental figure. She can neither put consistent boundaries in place nor respond to her children’s emotional states in a measured and containing fashion. Her overemotional manner is already being transmitted to G in particular and her failure to respond to them is already damaging their capacity to manage their own emotional distress.’
116.	As regards the possibility of Ms M benefiting from therapy, Dr McLain in his first report wrote that there is no known treatment for histrionic personality disorder. She had no insight into her condition and ‘it is not possible to see the basis for any treatment intervention.’ This was repeated in the second report. ‘We see Ms M’s main difficulty as being her personality problems rather than her being the victim of domestic violence and consequently we do not think there is any therapy which could be usefully offered.’
117.	Ms Boylan noted that although Ms M had repeatedly said she did not wish to pursue a relationship with Mr F she had demonstrated over time that she found it difficult to adhere to. Their relationship has been characterised from the beginning by separations, partial reconciliations, cultural expectations and conflict. Her record of assessing risk and prioritising her and the children’s safety was not good. ‘She demonstrated throughout the assessment that she struggled to think coherently about her relationship with Mr F as a whole picture and that she has responded “in the moment” to circumstances rather than anticipating events and taking stock.’ She needed help in recognising and responding to emotionally abusive and controlling behaviour and planning to prioritise her and the children’s safety.’ She needed to make rapid progress’ in making a number of changes with Ms Boylan listed. 
118.	Since the 23rd June 2014 Ms M has been attending weekly therapy sessions with an organisation  which offers therapy to women survivors of domestic abuse. A report dated the 6th October from a therapist at the organisation states that she had engage well and had demonstrated an ability to express emotion and show empathy. For understandable reasons of confidentiality only a general report could be given but ‘She is beginning to understand the emotional and psychological impact of domestic abuse on herself and her family’. 
119.	When Dr McLean gave oral evidence he pointed out that the prospects of Ms M significantly benefiting from therapy are slim. Even in borderline personality disorder cases, the patient lacks insight, which affects treatability.
120.	Whether or not Ms M suffers from a Personality Disorder has been contested in this case. Given the experience of Dr McLean and the absence of evidence to the contrary I have to accept that she does. However, the only relevance of the diagnosis is whether or not any significant change can be achieved and if so, within what time scale. In the circumstances of the issues I have to decide, the difference has no practical effect.  I recognise Ms M’s love for her children, which has led her to persist over some months with therapy, which must be painful. However at the moment I have insufficient evidence, which would justify my finding that there has been a significant improvement in her ability to look after their emotional needs in an adequate way. I would not expect such a change in the limited time in which therapy has taken place especially as it has apparently been directed to help her as a victim of domestic abuse. As Dr McLean said, her main difficulty are her personality problems rather than her being the victim of domestic violence. In many cases I have heard it said that one has to expect that it would take at least one and a half years. I am satisfied that even if she has personality difficulties rather than a Personality Disorder therapy will take this amount of time.
121.	I am satisfied based on all the evidence as well as the expert evidence of Dr McLean and Ms Daum that at the present time  Ms M is unable to meet her children’s needs. Before she can do so she will need to attend parenting classes and demonstrate that these have brought about an increase in her practical skills and that psychotherapeutic help has brought about a significant change in her insight and emotional functioning.

Mr F
122.	As described above Ms Boylan concluded that a number of long standing indicators and dynamic risk factors meant that without risk management measures Mr F represented a substantial risk of substantial physical harm to Ms M and a high risk of substantial emotional harm to her and the children. Because he did not acknowledge that he was a perpetrator of domestic violence he was not suitable to undertake a domestic violence perpetrator programme. I am satisfied that his violence towards Ms M and his dependency needs mean he needs undergo a DVIP programme in order not only to protect her if the children live either with her or him   but also to prevent his becoming jealously dependent on and violent towards any future partner should the children live with him. Unless Dr McLean recommends otherwise I am satisfied that both the DVIP and the therapy Dr McLean recommends are needed. The provision of each is highly specialised and one cannot be a substitute for the other.  He is prepared to take part in such a programme but its effectiveness requires as a minimum his acceptance of his violence. It will take time for him to demonstrate this as until now he has denied behaving in an abusive manner. At the present time, there appears to be no way in which his participation in the programme can be funded because his savings will be used for the therapy.
123.	 In July Dr McLean and Ms Daum advised that Mr F’s dependent traits could be amenable to treatment in either individual or group therapy. However at that time he had no interest in treatment for himself, only being interested if it might help him resume his relationship with Ms M. Even if he were amenable it would take a considerable period of no less than eighteen months to be effective. After Mr F indicated that he was now prepared to look after the children as their sole carer, the Anna Freud Centre carried out a further assessment in November. Dr Mclean is now satisfied that Mr F has genuinely changed his position as a result f a numbers of factors- realising that contrary to his previous belief the Court may not allow the children to live with their mother, her new relationship as evidence that she sees their relationship is being over and his feeling angry and betrayed by the new relationship.
‘[He] was convincing in his desire to prioritise the children’s needs over his relationship with Ms M…We do consider it possible that Mr F could potentially care for the children on his own but he has not yet fully demonstrated his capacity to do so.’
 He needed to commence urgently weekly therapy, which should last for a year and which would address his low-self-esteem, poor ability to manage his emotions and his tendency in attachment relationships to allow himself to be manipulated and ill-treated. He would also be greatly helped by a parenting programme. After a period of six months there should be an assessment of his progress in terms both of his individual functioning and parenting. In addition during this period he would have to demonstrate his ability to remain completely separate from Ms M as well as taking steps to secure suitable accommodation for him and the children. At present he is living in a hostel. In cross-examination Dr McLean said he thought Mr F had shifted but he did not think that he has finally accepted his marriage is over. However when interviewed he was able to talk about the children with some insight, not just repeating what he had read.  It would be unwise to think that he could overcome his difficulties in six months and he would need to continue therapy after the children returned to his care. It is difficult to predict how he would change. ‘I would err on the side of caution when considering whether he will continue to make rapid change.’ Currently Dr McLean doubted whether he had a great deal of insight. The Guardian thinks his insight is very limited.  I agree with them both. Nevertheless the shift in his position had given Dr Mclean reason to believe that it was worth giving him the opportunity to change in six months and this length of time would not be such a problem for the children. I note that Dr McLean does not say that change is more likely than not.
124.	I must give weight to the experts’ experience and to their having carried out a detailed assessment. However I am less optimistic than they are that Mr F has genuinely changed his position about accepting that his relationship with Ms M is over. In addition there would, in my judgment, be significant difficulties in ascertaining the true position during the six months especially if Ms M retains, as I believe she does retain, an emotional attachment to him. And, Mr O’Brien for the local authority points out, Dr McLean’s view is predicated on Mr F being absolved from the allegations.  I recognise that most people can change and I hope that Mr F will be able to fund and take part in psychotherapy notwithstanding the emotional pain it will cause him but on the present evidence whilst not ruling out a significant change in six months I think it unlikely. At the current time therefore I am satisfied that Mr F is currently unable to meet most of his children’s needs and is unlikely to be able to do so for at least twelve months, if then.
The Local Authority’s Ability to Meet the Children’s Needs
125.	The local authority’s primary proposal is that the children should be found an adoptive home. They are however realistic about the difficulties in doing so. Ms Christie who works in the Applicant’s Family Finding team wrote in August that in their experience it would take between nine and twelve months subject to unforeseen difficulties or lack of suitable options. Especially significant factors include G’s age and emotional needs compounded by the fact that they were seeking a sibling placement.
‘For children like Gand B we would have to consider carefully separate placements as there can be negative and positive features of placing sibling groups together. They did not have any in-house Romanian adopters but they could match ‘regionally’ and as the children they could find adopters who might not have the same ethnic background but ‘could promote their identity needs’.
 For obvious reasons, the search has not yet begun. For the first three months it is intended to concentrate on finding an adoptive home for both children. If this is unsuccessful parallel searches for adoptive and foster homes will be conducted. 
126.	I am satisfied that if the children can be a suitable adoptive placement together with enough support for the adopters being provided it is more likely than not that it will meet many of their needs, the most important of which is a secure permanent home that meets their emotional needs. It will not however meet their need for a continuing appropriate relationship with their parents. The local authority does not propose that there should be direct contact and indirect contact with its recognised difficulties in making sure than communications both from and to the children are effective will be a poor substitute. It is unlikely to be able to reassure G that her parents are well and safe. Although not entirely ruling out the possibility that the authority will find adopters of her parents’ nationality as I am satisfied it is highly unlikely to happen. There are many ethnic groups in Eastern Europe and relationships between the groups can be difficult. Adopters from ‘the region’ may not be suitable. Nor is a willingness ‘to promote their national identity’ likely to mean that the children will grow up speaking their current first language or associating with other’s of their parents’ nationality. The price therefore of the children obtained, as much security as is possible from a number of options each with its own drawbacks, is likely to be the loss of their cultural identity. It will also mean the loss of any opportunity during their childhood at least of having contact with the members of their extended family with the advantages this would bring not only in having knowledge about their family but also having family in  the country of their parents’ birth whom they could visit.
127.	I read Ms Christie’s evidence as indicating a real risk that adopters will not be found who are prepared to adopt both children. Finding potential adopters is only the start. These are likely to have been assessed as being generally suitable to adopt but they will require to be assessed in depth as being suitable to look after these two children with emotional needs, one having significant needs and being at an age where there is a real risk that she will protest about losing direct contact with her parents. Recent research funded by the Department of Health, Beyond the Adoption Order: Challenges, Interventions and Disruptions  Sewyn, Wijedasa and Meakings, illustrates how adoptions can breakdown, not necessarily soon after the placement but in the child’s teenage years, adverse factors being the late age (average 3 years) when both entering care and being placed. Even after an in-depth assessment, the adopters will continue to need the active support of the agency for some time, not just months, after both placement and the making of adoption orders.
128.	I am satisfied that it is unlikely that suitable adopters will be found within the next nine months. 
129.	Ms Christie was more optimistic about finding a long-term foster home for the children. Although their current carers who have looked after the children very well and deserve the thanks of everybody are prepared to continue to look after them until a permanent home is found, they are unable to offer them a permanent home.
130.	The disadvantages of long-term foster homes especially for children so young are well recognised. As the Green Paper Care Matters: transforming the Lives of Children and Young People in Care stated in 2006 
‘The day-to-day responsibility of parenting of children in care is divided between carers and the social worker representing the local authority as corporate parent. However, there are high rates of turnover among social workers and staff in children’s homes, and a lack of stability in children’s placements means that many children lack a consistent adult in their lives. In addition, organisational structures in local authorities can result in responsibility for children being passed from one part of the organisation to another during their time in care. Whilst many children in care receive an excellent service, far too many do not.’ 
131.	On the other hand, foster carers will receive continuing support from the local authority and access to services such as CAMHS and the children’s welfare will be regularly monitored. Foster care would have the advantage that the children would continue to have contact with their parents- the local authority’s proposal is four times a year- and this will assist in promoting their Romanian identity.
132.	 If either parent made significant and sustained changes to their life the fact that the children were not adopted would mean that it might (and I deliberately emphasise the word) be appropriate for rehabilitation to take place. I do not want to encourage any expectation that this would happen because to do so would probably discourage the parents from supporting the placement and expose the children to more uncertainty which itself could undermine the placement. But it would remain a possibility, which has both advantages, and, more likely, disadvantages.
Risks
133.	In my judgment there is a high risk that if the children returned to live with either parent that the would again be exposed to disharmony and the emotional development, far from being promoted would be more impaired. If they had to return to care, there would be no guarantee that they could return to live with their present carers. The effect on their development of their further adverse experiences and their increased ages would make it virtually impossible that they could be adopted.
134.	Adjourning the proceedings for six months would keep open the possibility that they could move to live with their father- it being very unlikely that Ms M would be able to make sufficient progress in psychotherapy within that time. However for the reasons I have already given I think it unlikely that this would be possible for at least twelve months. Even then there would be a significant risk of disharmony amongst the parents even if Ms M was only seeing the children during contact. Even if Mr F benefited from counselling, one of the factors, Ms M’s behaviour, would not be removed.  Delaying a final decision would definitely continue the children’s uncertainty, be likely to increase the difficulties of moving them from their current carers because of the length of time they have been there and delay any search for a permanent home. It would make it even less likely that prospective adopters could be found and, notwithstanding my comments about how short of something exceptional happening they should remain together, increase the risk that they would be separated. Further, as Mr Klein points out, neither child will be able to start therapy until they have been placed permanently. I agree. The purpose of the therapy, in part, will be to help them understand what has happened and is happening to them and there is no point in it while their future is uncertain
135.	Placing them in the care of the local authority whether with or without placement orders would allow a search for a permanent home to start at once. Delaying looking for a foster home for three months carries a risk that there will be delay in finding a further home especially in the light of my finding that a search for an adoptive home is unlikely. However I can understand the authority’s reasons for concentrating on such a search for a limited amount of time. 
136.	Mr O’Brien on behalf of the local authority accepts that adoption is not without risk but support will be available should difficulties arise. I am not sure that this is always the case in practice. Adoption being carries a risk not just of a break down in the placement but, more likely, the placement not meeting all the children’s needs. If it broke down the children will have neither a permanent home nor a relationship with their parents. However the risk of the placement being unsuccessful is less than the possibility that Mr F would be able to look after the children. I cannot say whether the risk of such a breakdown would be less or greater than the risk of the breakdown of a placement with him after he has been assessed to have made enough changes.
137.	 I cannot assess whether a foster placement is more or less likely to break down than an adoptive placement. Foster carers may make less emotional investment in the children and this may be of benefit in helping them to look after G without themselves feeling guilty at failing. On the other hand they are more likely to ask for the children to be removed and less likely to provide a family after the children have left care.
138.	In summary all the options other than the children returning at once to either parent carry risks which are difficult to assess and whose assessment is based on uncertainties. As between fostering and adoption there is no clear choice based on risk levels. 
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXPERTS AND THE GUARDIAN
139.	In their first report of the 16th July Dr McLean and Ms Daum expressed the view that neither parent as able to meet the children’s needs in the future, either individually or together. Accordingly a permanent alternative placement should be found, preferable with both children remaining together. In their firs addendum dated the 27th August they advised that the advantages of adoption relate to the sense of security derived from permanency and belonging. This was possibly of particular importance for G who may well present any long-term carer with behavioural difficulties. The disadvantages were associated with the loss of contact with their parents- a loss of any affection they experience with them and the importance of identity. However Ms M being self-occupied had little to offer and Mr F although able to express more genuine interest was so preoccupied with Ms M that his children were secondary. For that reason they supported the local authority’s plans for adoption. Although long term fostering had the advantage of contact the disadvantage as the relative lack of security. Direct contact with her mother might well be a disadvantage for G who as already identifying with her style of relating in an artificial and over-dramatised way.
140.	When Dr McLean gave oral evidence on the 21st October he recognised the difficulties with securing adoption particularly for G. He recognised that it might not be possible to find suitable prospective adopters and said it was very difficult to choose between adoption and fostering. He emphasised again the children’s need for security. He could see G accepting other adults as parental figures and although she would have difficulties, on balance adoption was the better choice.
141.	Their final report dated the 21st November 2014 written after their second assessment of Mr F whilst indicating that they thought he could potentially look after the children expressed no recommendation. As already noted, when Dr McLean gave evidence for the second time he thought that the shift in Mr F’s position had given reason to believe that it was worth giving him the opportunity to change in six months.
142.	The children’s guardian, Mr Klein, in his Final Analysis dated the 27th August wrote that he was unclear if Ms M could make appropriate use of therapy. She was poorly placed to meet both G and B’s immediate or long term needs. Mr F was vague about the support he had in the community, he was thought unsuitable for DVIP and the Anna Freud Centre had said he would need a minimum of eighteen months therapy. 
‘Therefore the risk for G and B is that should the Court accede to Mr F’s request the children will need to remain in an interim placement for a considerable amount of time. Additionally, when considering all  the other concerns regarding Mr F’s current position it is not clear to me that any therapy Mr F undergoes would be successful’.
143.	Mr Klein recommended that the best interests of both children would be served by making placement orders.  However, if it is not possible to place them with appropriate adopters within the time scale proposed by Ms Christie, the alternative of fostering them together should be explored prior to placing them separately.
144.	When Mr Klein gave oral evidence he did not change his recommendation. He pointed to the significant delay there had been within the proceedings. To extend this delay by half a year would mean that the children had experienced sixteen months of uncertainty. A decision needed to be made now. Progress for all adults and children oscillates. The children may have made good progress in their current placement but there might come a time when this would plateau. Mr F’s situation was ‘embryonic’ but uncertain. He would have to meet his own needs as well as the needs of his children as children. Mr Klein thought that he as not entirely convincing that his relationship with Ms M was over and there was still the possibility of a reconciliation. As regards the choice between adoption and fostering Mr Klein recognised that adoption placements can break down but the research was not necessarily about current adoptions, which are now supported. The worst scenario was Greturning to her father and that placement breaking down.
DISCUSSION
145.	Adoption is one of the two most draconian decisions that can be made about children. It must be the last resort. Many members of the public, not being aware of the detail of this case, would be astounded that a Court would contemplate removing children from their mother merely because she has been the victim of domestic violence. However as the lengthy history of their childhood demonstrates, violence and arguments between their parents and uncertain and fluctuating emotions have been a constant throughout the lives. They have had a serious and in all likelihood long lasting effect on G’s emotional development and is likely to have had a similar effect on B’s had he not been removed from his parents’ care. There is no prospect if the children returned now to either parent that matters would improve significantly or that any improvements would be maintained. There is a significant risk that there would be a permanent improvement if the decision was delayed for six months and such a delay would delay G receiving the therapy she urgently needs and B the therapy which may help him. It would at least significantly reduce and probably remove  the prospect of their being adopted.
146.	For the reasons I have set out in this judgment I am satisfied that neither Ms M nor Mr F are able to meet their children major needs now or in the foreseeable future. The children’s welfare requires that they be found another home. In order for this to be achieved, care orders are necessary.
147.	Being fostered is a less intrusive interference with the parents’ right to respect for their family life, carrying with it as it does the possibility of rehabilitation. As describe above it may meet some of their needs, for example a need to see their parents and their cultural needs in a way which adoption is unlikely to to. However given the children’s ages, the length of time remaining of their childhood and their emotional needs which I find are their most important relevant needs I am satisfied that if suitable adopters can be found their welfare requires that they should have the opportunity notwithstanding that the time when the local authority will be exclusively looking for adopters will delay their moving to a permanent home. The potential benefits far outweigh this disadvantage. I have to rely on the local authority complying with its statutory duties and properly and rigorously assessing both the suitability of  potential adopters for these individual children and their need for support in the light of their circumstances rather than merely offering a standard package. In short I am satisfied that the welfare of Gand B, viewed separately, requires that placement orders are made.

DISPENSING WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARENTS TO MAKING PLACEMENT ORDERS
148.	Because I am satisfied that each child’s welfare viewed separately requires that a placement order should be made but the parents do not consent , section 52(1) of the 2002 Act is satisfied. I dispense with the consent of each parent  to each child being placed for adoption.
CONTACT
149.	The local authority propose that the current frequency of contact should be reduced from once a week to monthly until the children are placed for adoption at which point direct contact would cease. There would then be yearly ‘letter box’ contact. If they were not placed for adoption contact would be further reduced to four times a year during school holidays. This would allow the children to see their parents near their birthdays and in major holidays. The frequency would balance the need for the children to retain their relationships with their parents whilst at the same time allowing them to experience stability and security in their relationships with their foster carers. The frequency and arrangements would be reviewed at the six monthly Looked After Children (LAC) Reviews.
150.	Mr Klein agrees with the local authority’s proposals.
151.	The Mother invites the Court to order contact once a month and Mr F, not less than once a fortnight during the next six months. 
152.	The issue of contact has to be viewed in the light of the plans for the children. I cannot make an order for contact which extends beyond the making of an adoption order. It is generally said by adoption agencies that the existence of contact orders beyond placement makes finding potential adopters more difficulty. I am certain this is true in this case given the difficulties which already exist. Nor can it be said that prospective adopters once identified would agree to contact not that the parents will react to my decision by actively supporting the placement. These are matters which can be resolved only in the future. The local authority is under a duty to keep the issue under active consideration. 
153.	I am satisfied that in the present circumstances the proposed frequency of once a month is appropriate while  the children are waiting for a final decision to be made and if they move to a foster home. I am satisfied that at the present time the children’s welfare does not require an order to be made. I am satisfied that the local authority will adhere to the care plans and change them only if changing circumstances and the children’s welfare requires the change .
CONCLUSION
154.	Subject to the amendments to the care plans as outlined in paragraph 109 , care orders and placement orders will be made, the Court dispensing with the consent of the parents to the later orders.
155.	Finally I thank the experts and Mr Klein for their invaluable help and the advocates and solicitors for the anxious care they have given to this difficult and troubling case. The parents by their courtesy and restraint have made it possible for everyone to focus on their children’s needs. I shall be grateful if the local authority pass my thanks to the children’s current carers for doing such a good job.

22 December 2014							HH Judge John Mitchell