BT13C00053
IN THE BARNET COUNTY COURT

Saint Mary’s Court,
Regents Park Road,
London N3 1 BQ

Monday, 15 December 2014

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE LEVY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET
Applicant

- v -

THE PARENTS
Respondents

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

MR ARCHER (instructed by solicitors) appeared for the Applicant.
MR MAIN-THOMPSON (instructed by Fisher Meredith LLP) appeared on behalf of the mother.
MISS McCARTHY (McMillen Hamilton McCarthy) appeared on behalf of the father.
MS HUDSON (instructed by Eskinazi Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Guardian

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

Digital Tape Transcription by:
John Larking Verbatim Reporters
(Verbatim Reporters and Tape Transcribers)
Suite 305, Temple Chambers, 3-7 Temple Avenue
London EC4Y 0HP.
Tel:   020 7404 7464   Fax:   020 7404 7443   DX: 13 Chancery Lane LDE

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

JUDGMENT
Monday, 15 December 2014
JUDGMENT

 HHJ LEVY:

Introduction

1	These public law proceedings are brought by the London Borough of Barnet, and concern one child, M, who was born on 13 December 2001 and is now 13 years old.  I will refer to his parents as the mother and the father.  The father is not here today because the production order, which I made on 11 December 2014 and which was sent to HM Prison Brixton in the usual way, has not been received because the email address has been changed. In view of the fact that this is a very long-running matter, I consider that I should give my decision and my judgment today, and Miss McCarthy, who represents the father, agrees.  Although I am proceeding in the absence of the father, he has been very much a party to these proceedings and has been present for some, if not all, of the hearings.

2	The father and the mother were married in 1983: they are both of Nigerian heritage.  They had separated before the father began to serve a custodial sentence in HMP Brixton.  M has three older siblings.  His sister A is 30, she studied art and design at university, is working and lives with her two children.  His brother B is 29 and studied leisure and tourism, he lives in the family home and works as a team leader.  His brother C is 27 and is present in court today, he studied mechanical engineering. I have no further information about him. 

3	M’s guardian is Mirelle Higgins, who was appointed on 11 October 2013.  In the local authority, M’s case is held by the Team for Children with Disabilities.  His allocated social worker was Robyn Verney from 23 July 2013 until June 2014, and Daniel Bleasdille has been his allocated social worker since then.  

4	By way of summary, M lives at home with his mother and his brother B.  He has diagnoses of moderately severe autistic spectrum disorder and moderate learning difficulties, both of which are serious and enduring conditions.  His speech is delayed – it is a the level of a 3-year old - but he echoes words and phrases that he has heard, even if he does not understand them, a condition known as echolalia.  M exhibits extreme behaviours.  It is likely that he has attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and also post-traumatic stress disorder. 

5	The family has been known to the local authority since 2005. Concerns about the family include domestic violence, the parents’ failure to accept M’s diagnosis of autism and its impact on his life, their minimising his difficulties and not accepting that he needed specialist help.  They are considered to have limited capacity to manage M’s challenging behaviours and, as a result, M has been exposed to physical chastisement and emotional harm. They have engaged inconsistently with professionals. Throughout this period, i.e. since 2005, the local authority has offered support to the family through the Curtis Family Centre, SCAN (Service for Children and Adolescents with Neurodevelopmental Difficulties), and Resources for Autism.  

6	The local authority’s case is that in his mother’s care, and despite her devotion to him, M has suffered significant harm, that his parents are not able to meet his overall needs adequately, and that he should be placed in a specialised residential school, which will consistently meet his complex needs. M has always lived at home in the care of his mother who has consistently denied that he has suffered any harm in her care. She says that she can and does meet all his needs, and the professionals and experts are wrong.  The father supports his wife’s care of M and her wish to continue to care for him.

7	At the final hearing, which began on 6 October 2014, I heard oral evidence. However, the local authority was not then able to put forward a firm plan for M’s placement, if I were to make a care order. The hearing was adjourned to 11 and 15 December so that the local authority could identify a placement for M. 

Parties’ positions/issues
8	The parties’ positions remain unchanged at this adjourned final hearing.  The issues I have to decide are whether the threshold criteria have been met and, if so, whether to make a care order and approve the local authority’s amended final care plan dated 28 November 2014 to place M at Z, a 52-week per year specialist residential school in Derbyshire, where a place is available for him immediately.  The guardian supports the local authority’s care plan. The alternative is to allow M to remain at home in his mother’s care. The mother’s position that I should allow this is supported by the father.  

The hearing
9	In preparation for this hearing, I read three bundles of written evidence. I heard oral evidence from Dr Maggie Wearmouth, (Consultant Community Paediatrician), Dr Lisa Racussen (Specialist Registrar in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry), Maria Ruegger (Consultant Guardian), both of Great Ormond Street Hospital (“GOSH”), Mr Steve Carroll, the Head Teacher of X Special School, Robyn Verney, M’s previous allocated social worker; the mother, who gave evidence both in October and in December, the father, David Hancox, Head of Care at Z School; Daniel Bleasdille, the current allocated social worker; and Miss Higgins, the guardian.  

10	The delay in this case has been considerable and requires an explanation.  M has very complex needs. The assessment carried out by GOSH did not include a paediatric overview, although it had been expected that it would, and therefore I ordered the report from Dr Wearmouth.  The local authority did not immediately search for a residential school for M on the basis of the GOSH recommendation, because it was waiting for Dr Wearmouth’s report, which was filed on 24 June 2014, and also the outcome of a professionals’ meeting which was held on 10 July 2014, to see whether the GOSH recommendation was agreed. By then it was the summer, and some of the people who would need to be involved in a search for a placement were not available.  The mother refused to consent to M being assessed by suitable schools, and the local authority made an application for a supervision order, and an order pursuant to section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989, which I granted on 24 September.  The final hearing was adjourned part-heard for further assessments. The final care plan at D30 sets out the five schools which met M, and their responses. The local authority chose Z School with another school as the contingency placement.  

Background – pre-proceedings
11	I turn to the background to this application, starting with matters which occurred prior to the issue of proceedings, in particular concerns about M, his assessments and diagnoses.

Concerns about M/assessments and diagnoses
12	I have read the chronology prepared by Dr Wearmouth and appended to her report at E153, and the documents which relate to the assessments of M, and note the following in particular.  M began attending nursery in September 2005, when he was 3¾ years old.  By December 2005 the health visitor had referred him for assessment by Dr Rajendram, a consultant locum paediatrician.  His letter setting out his findings was copied to the father and the mother.  He noted that M manifested significant delay in his general development; at the chronological age of almost 4, he was functioning at a level lower than that of a 2-year old, and his speech was at a level lower than that of an 18-month old child. Dr Rajendram noted that the mother did not seem over concerned: she told him that M asked for what he wants and seemed to understand what she tells him.  The doctor referred M for speech and language therapy. 

13	Further assessments in 2006, by Hannah Sendrove, a senior educational psychologist, and Vijal Patel, a speech and language therapist, reached the same conclusions.  Mr Patel noted that the health visitor, Sue Hackshaw, had offered to refer M for speech and language therapy when he was 2, but the family felt that it was not necessary (page G38). Sadly, in her oral evidence Dr Racussen told me that now the window of opportunity for M to acquire speech has passed.  The mother denies that speech and language therapy was offered at this stage, but Robyn Verney told me that it was on record that speech and language therapy was offered, but the mother did not think that M needed it; the family believed that matters would resolved themselves.  

14	Sian Morris, a special educational needs co-ordinator, prepared a report for the purposes of an application for a statement of M’s Special Educational Needs, and noted that they could be met in a mainstream school with the support of a full-time, dedicated learning support teacher, and the continued support of outside professionals.   On 15 December 2006, when M was 5, Dr Juliet Pearce of the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Children’s Multi-Speciality Assessment Clinic, wrote to the mother. She said that M fulfilled the criteria for autism and set out the basis for her view, namely significant difficulties in language and social communication, significant language delay and disorder, frequent echolalia, poor eye contact, and difficulty in establishing relationships at school. She said he had a moderate learning disability and that his performance skills were around the 3-year level.  Subsequently, on 25 April 2007 Dr Pearce diagnosed that M was on the autistic disorder spectrum and she noted that the mother believed that the disorder was mild, and M was likely to grow out of it (G11).  The final amended statement of Special Educational Needs (G13) notes a delay in general development.  M’s main areas of need were communication and language, behaviour, attention and listening.

15	The mother says that she took M to all his health appointments, and no concerns were raised about his development until 2005. The educational psychologist who assessed M in 2006 did note that he had significant delays, but also noted some improvements. She did not see Dr Pearce’s letter dated 15 December 2007 until her solicitor gave it to her in preparation for the education appeal tribunal hearing in 2013.  However, in 2010 she noticed changes in M’s behaviour, and she took him to her GP, who referred him to Dr Williams at SCAN. He prescribed risperidone, but M had a bad reaction to it, and she stopped it. 

Referrals to social services, involvement with the police and domestic violence.
16	I have read the chronology at pages A1-7, which summarises a number of referrals to social services made variously by the probation service, the police and M’s school between 2005 and October 2013. I have also read the police crime reports (CRIS) for some of these incidents (H1-12). I note that on 6 October 2005 the father had received a Community Rehabilitation Order for offences of deception and dishonesty. (H6)  A probation officer reported to Social Services that the father talked about his family in a very “bizarre” way. The probation officer thought there were mental health issues: the father had disclosed hitting and punching the mother, and had laughed about it. On 30 November 2005 the police made a referral to social services in Form 78: 
“A had called the police. She said that her father had lost his temper and threatened to hit her. He held her by both arms, causing bruising, and struck her across the face, bruising her left cheek. The father admitted that he had slapped S around the face, and he received a caution.” 

17	On 10 July 2006 the mother took M to a walk-in clinic in Edgware and asked whether marks on M’s back could have been caused by a belt, because she was worried that the father might have hit M while she was at work. The doctor who saw M thought that the marks could have been caused accidentally.  On 8 August 2006 there was a further referral from the father’s probation officer, because the father had mentioned locking M in a room in the past.  On 13 August 2007 the father put the mother in a headlock, and she called the police.  The father did not deny the incident and was arrested for common assault. The mother explained that the incident was triggered because the father had been gambling and lost, and then had been drinking.  She said that M was asleep in bed during this incident. The chronology notes just that M was present.  The mother did not want to proceed with her allegation, and no further action was taken.  On 25 March 2009 the mother disclosed at a parents’ evening that she and the father smack M to manage his behaviour, and a referral was made to social services.  (This is also referred to in a CRIS report.)  In 2009 there was a report that B hit the father.  Also in 2009, on 19 August, the police made a referral to social services. The mother had left M in the care of his father, but the father was arrested in Surrey for fraud. He had left M, age 7, alone at home for several hours.  M was taken into police protection while attempts were made to contact the mother, who eventually collected him from the police station.  On 5 July 2010 a referral was made by the Emergency Duty Team.  The father had assaulted M (age 8) by striking him several times across the back and shoulders with a slipper.  The mother took M to a walk-in clinic. The father was arrested by the Barnet Child Abuse Investigation Team. The doctor who saw M reported that he was very hyperactive, and the parents were yelling at each other at the hospital.  The doctor warned them that if they did not stop, she would call security.  The father was cautioned for this incident.

18	On 14 March 2012, Mrs Burgess, the Head Teacher of N School, made a referral to social services, because at a parents’ evening, at which M’s recent bad behaviour had been discussed, the mother had told members of staff to make him kneel when he is naughty, and she had said that she and the father had smacked M.  On 27 March 2012, the social worker made a home visit.  The mother was very upset. She denied telling staff at school that she and the father smacked M.  The mother has denied throughout that she said that she or the father hit M, or indeed that they had done so.  She explained that kneeling to an elder is a sign of respect in her culture, and if children have done something wrong, they are asked to kneel and apologise.  

19	Finally, on 17 June 2012 N School made a further referral to social services about an interaction between the mother and M when it was said that she had restrained him and ignored his pleas to let him go. A speech and language therapist, Julia Clement, reported that the mother had threatened to take M to the dogs, knowing that he is scared of dogs, and made him kneel on the floor to say sorry to the therapist. The school said that the parents were unwilling to accept that M has severe autism, and so handle him inappropriately.  I note that the mother has said that when she spoke to M on this occasion, she told him that she would go to the door, and did not mention dogs.  Miss Clement did not give evidence. Dr Racussen told me that there was scope for misunderstanding, and it may well be that the mother had referred not to dogs, but to the door, but a threat to go to the door could be just as frightening for a child who is worried about separation from his mother.  

20	Dr Racussen considers that M has been exposed to domestic violence, because throughout this history he would have heard shouting, arguments and threats, and experienced tension in the home. She noted that four members of the family had been involved in police callouts. Her impression was that the police were called out to extreme incidents, but she believed that it was likely that there would have been other incidents. M’s echolalia and his presentation suggest that he has had traumatic experiences: children are as traumatised by threats of violence as they are by actual violence.

21	The mother says that the father has made mistakes, but he has learned from them and has not been violent towards her since 2007.  He has tried to be a good and loving husband and father. I note that the father has a criminal record, mainly for offences of dishonesty, and since 2007 has served several custodial sentences.  I note that in May 2013 he received a suspended sentence order for fraud.  On 19 November 2013, for further offences of fraud involving forged cheques and also for breach of the suspended sentence order, he was sentenced to 17 months’ imprisonment.  I understand that his release date is in May or June of this year, although he may be released earlier under an early release scheme.  

M’s education. 
22	On 30 April 2007, when he was 5 years and 4 months old, M started at Y Primary School.  When he was 6, Dr Pearce assessed him. Y school was concerned because he was extremely self-directed, he had no sense of danger, and his behaviour was challenging at times.  At the age of 6, his personal and social skills were below the level of a 3-year old, and his language skills were below the level of a child age 1 year and 9 months. Nevertheless, she identified that he had good learning potential.  

23	The mother says that M did well at Y school.  In 2010, following his adverse reaction to risperidone, the school reported behaviour at school which she had not seen at home.  She also saw that M came home with bruises and marks and she felt that the school was not stretching him to reach his full potential.   She explained that in March 2012 the school asked her to sign an “individual behaviour plan”, which said that M had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which had never been diagnosed.  The school had made other errors and, as a result, she asked to see M’s medical records. She said that half an hour later the social worker told her that the school had made a referral, saying that M was physically chastised at home, which she said was not true. The social worker accepted her account, but a week later M was excluded from the school and the mother then withdrew him. M, age 10, was educated at home for 9 months. The mother employed a private Special Educational Needs teacher, Ashi Ali.  I have read Miss Ali’s witness statement and noted the activities which she describes carrying out with M and his achievements. I also note that educational psychologist Eve Tobe, in her report dated 18 June 2013, said that Miss Ali’s description of M’s ability was significantly below what is expected of an 11-year old child, and was no higher than that of a reception age child. In January 2013 M returned to Y School.

24	I have seen a letter dated 25 April 2013 from M’s childminder, Gloria Mensah, who says that she looked after M for a few years and he never showed aggressive behaviour to her.  Robyn Verney noted that Mrs Mensah had two children of similar age and kept all the children very busy.  

25	M’s statement of Special Educational Needs was amended for his transfer to secondary school in September 2013.  It recommended a placement at X, a special school for children with severe learning difficulties.  On 5 June 2013, Josephine Durling, an independent educational psychologist, prepared a report.  M was by then 11½.  Her opinion was that he had at least moderate to severe learning difficulties, which were complex; he had made little, if any, progress since infant school; and he was experiencing lifelong complex and significant difficulties in learning.  She noted that the parents had not seen the behaviour described by Y School, and therefore did not accept that M was aggressive and a risk to himself and his peers.  The mother wanted M to be placed in a mainstream school, because there was nothing wrong with his physical abilities. The father was not convinced that M had autism; better teaching would enable M to learn more effectively; it should be possible to teach him to achieve at the same level as other children.  

26	Mrs Burgess, the head teacher of Y School, said that M had severe autism.  He could not control his impulses, and when he urinated, defecated and started throwing objects in the classroom, she had to exclude him.  He had been isolated in his own classroom.  She said that he will trash a room, destroying the walls and furniture.  He spits when he cannot cope with other people.  In her view, the provisions in his statement of Special Educational Needs did not adequately reflect the level and quality of the intervention that would be necessary to provide for his education in the future.  He would not be appropriately placed in a mainstream school.  

27	Miss Durling also noted in her report a history of M being rewarded for behaviours that are not conducive to good learning.  She said that if he were given a biscuit or a drink when he had behaved inappropriately, that would reinforce the behaviour and encourage its future use. She suspected that instances of inappropriate behavioural modification may have been a major contributing factor in the continuance of M’s behavioural issues (G74). 

28	I have referred to the report by Eve Tobe.  She carried out a home visit and observed M at school. She said that M presented as anxious, agitated and emotionally deregulated across the settings.  She recommended a highly specialised setting for children with autism and complex needs and with low cognitive skills and limited language, with staff who have experience in managing high anxiety and challenging behaviour.  The parents did not accept the assessment or the place at X School. They wanted M to attend a school for cognitively able autistic children, and they appealed the decision.  

29	Julia Clement, the independent speech and language therapist, to whom I have referred previously, assessed M for the tribunal proceedings, prepared a report dated 10 June 2013, and found that all aspects of M’s understanding of language were severely delayed. She said: “He cannot express more than basic wants and needs.  He cannot engage in conversation with peers.  He cannot say when he has not understood something.” She witnessed him not wishing to complete activities, responding aggressively, kicking and spitting at his mother, throwing toys around the room, and vocalising loudly or shouting “No”.  

30	The tribunal hearing took place on 16 October 2013, and the decision noted that: 
“The parents have found it hard to come to terms with the diagnosis of autism and have attributed M’s behavioural difficulties, at least in part, to other pupils at Y.  At the hearing the parents and the local authority agreed that M will go to V, a secondary school for children with mild learning difficulties, including children with autism, although the school had concerns about the additional support that they would require. As a result of this process, M was out of school from September to December 2013.”

31	The mother has explained in a witness statement that the suggestion that she did not accept the diagnosis of autism began with a misunderstanding between her and Deborah Cohen, an advisory teacher who visited M while he was being home-schooled and who recommended that he attend a mainstream school with provision for children with special needs.  The mother was happy with that recommendation, and at the time autism was not included in M’s statement of Special Educational Needs.  She explained that when Miss Cohen asked her how M was, she had replied that he was fine, thinking that she was asking about M’s health rather than about his behaviour and this, she says, gave rise to the misunderstanding.

32	A transition plan was devised to introduce M gradually to V School, starting in early December 2013, with his attending 2 hours a day leading to full-time attendance after the February half-term.  The mother and M visited the school on 12 November 2013, and the staff noted that the mother was (as they put it) “incredibly confusing in her communication to M.  M hit both teachers and his mother, and his mother struggled to control him”. The school rapidly requested specialist teaching staff and funding for 35 hours of teaching assistant support for M, and identified a need to work with the mother to help her develop different strategies for managing M that are not so confusing for him (G117).  I have seen a school diary of M’s distressed behaviours, including spitting, demonstrating anxiety in relation to male members of staff, inappropriate excretory habits, and extreme agitation (E159).  On 3 December 2013, while M was at school, there is a description of what was referred to as a “meltdown” with M kicking, spitting, jumping on the desks, pulling his trousers and pants down, urinating on the floor, and saying, “You fucking retard” (G134).  The assistant head teacher of V with special responsibility for autism, Ginnie Odorico, wrote in an email to Robyn Verney on 15 January 2014, that since November M had had two teachers and three teaching assistants, and they had been kicked and spat at daily. The school caretaker had sustained an injury to his face when M threw metal rods at him. M could not sustain more than 2 hours a day because of his high levels of anxiety.  She repeated these concerns at the professionals’ meeting on 20 January and said that the school felt that the placement was breaking down. They did not have the staff to teach him. At that meeting the mother had said that she thought that M’s attendance at V was going well (G143).  

33	On 24 January 2014 there was a very serious incident of challenging behaviour of the sort I have previously referred to, following which Miss Odorico said that the staff were extremely distressed.  She had worked with young people with autism and complex needs and challenging behaviour for many years, but had never worked with a child who presents with such emotional fragility. She said, “Work needs to be done to address his emotional needs before any learning can take place.”  On 3 February 2014 V School formally requested a managed move for M. They were reluctant to exclude a child from a special school, but they were unable to meet his needs: three sets of staff had left because they found the role too challenging.  Since May 2014 M has been attending X School.  

34	The mother says in her first witness statement that at the time when M was integrating into V School, the school had told her about the PPP parenting programme, designed for parents of children with autism, and she had agreed to take that programme, as she had agreed to participate in the Great Ormond Street assessment which I had ordered, because she wanted to understand M’s condition better.  In her second witness statement dated 9 September 2014, the mother said that on 24 January 2014 the school did not follow M’s usual routine. He had been constipated, possibly because he had started to take risperidone (this was the second prescription) a few days earlier. She was trying to explore the reasons for M’s behaviour. She was not trying to minimise it. But, in her view, if V School had been provided with specially trained staff and if they had been with M consistently, he could have remained at that school (C170 para 7).  

Work with Dr Garcia-Rosales, locum consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist, and Lourdes Berdasco, highly specialised systemic psychotherapist, at Barnet SCAN. 

35	I have read Dr Garcia Rosales’ report dated 14 August 2014. I note that M was referred to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services 3 times: in 2006, 2009 and on 1 March 2013.  The latest referral was made by Eve Tobe who indicated that: 
“The mother is having difficulty accepting M’s special needs, his diagnosis and his current situation. She struggles to manage his challenging behaviour in an appropriate way. She did not want support from SCAN, but has requested family therapy.”

36	The chronology notes that in April 2007 a member of SCAN reported to social services that a parenting assessment at the Barnet Family Resources Centre had been cancelled due to difficulties in engaging the family, and it was the view of Dr Garcia-Rosales and Miss Berdasco that the mother did not want to engage in family therapy.  At a review on 14 October 2013, the mother wanted to consider medical options to manage M’s challenging behaviour (E186 in Dr Garcia-Rosales’ report).  She says this: 
“The mother specifically requested a review with a psychiatrist as she wanted to explore medication options in terms of managing M’s challenging behaviour.  We discussed at length the risk and benefit balance of all the interventions for challenging behaviour, including psychological therapies and medication. On balance, after discussing all the options, they agreed that psychological therapy would be first line of intervention, and that family therapy would be helpful in terms of helping the mother negotiate the relationship with M.”  

The mother says that she wanted to work with Miss Berdasco, and also consult the doctor about medication for M, and she has cooperated throughout with their work. 

Precipitating events 
37	On 8 October 2013, M was taken into police protection following an incident when he was assaulted by his father, who was observed by a member of the public, dragging M along the road whilst assaulting him. No injuries were found, but the father admitted “tapping” M.  In interview with the police, the father admitted giving M “corrective slaps”. He was charged, and the case went to the Crown Court, where there was a Newton hearing, at which the trial judge accepted the father’s account of a less severe assault.  He was convicted of common assault, sentenced to one month’s imprisonment and was released on 31 January 2014.  

38	The mother told me that she has not asked the father what happened on 8 October 2013. She had difficulty telling me what she understood by “cuffing”, but eventually demonstrated the father trying to pick M up from the ground. She described the incident as “relatively unpleasant”.  I note that on 8 October the police were unable to contact the mother. She told the social worker that her telephone was not working, and she did not know what had happened until her daughter told her in the evening. She then went to Colindale Police Station to collect M, but he was not there.  In the meantime, M’s siblings had declined to look after him. His sister A was concerned for the safety of her small children. The social worker, Mrs Verney, spoke to the mother the following day, when the mother said that M had no bruises and she seemed unconcerned that he had been hit on the head, and appeared to the social worker to minimise the incident. The local authority wanted to accommodate M, but the parents refused to sign an agreement under section 20 of the Children Act.  

39	On 8 October M was placed in emergency foster care. The foster carer noted that he cowered in a foetal position and kept repeating to himself, “Fucking bastard boy”.  He destroyed her property and she called the police, who stayed with M until an alternative placement could be found. They reported finding it very difficult to contain him.  On 9 October M moved to a second foster carer, who was experienced in caring for children on the autistic spectrum.  At first he seemed to be calm, but on 10 October the foster carer called the social worker from Romford Hospital Paediatric Accident & Emergency Department, and reported that on the previous evening M’s behaviour had deteriorated when she had taken him to a leisure centre; he had hit, kicked and spat at her; he threw himself on the ground in a foetal position; on the drive home he kicked at her and spat and threw a book at her whilst she was driving, and kept repeating “Fucking bastard boy”.  Later that day M was taken to Ethelbert Residential Unit in Ramsgate, where Robyn Verney said that he was relatively settled.  

40	On 10 October 2013 District Judge Jabbitt refused the local authority’s application for an emergency protection order.  He made orders under the Family Law Act 1996 prohibiting contact between the father and M and excluding the father from the family home. His reasons are set out at B14 - 15 in the bundle.  A written agreement was drawn up and signed by the local authority and the mother, and further written agreements were signed on 30 October 2013 and 12 February 2014.  On 11 October an escort took M home.  His behaviour en route was so difficult that they had to use restraint for safety reasons.  Mrs Verney met M at his mother’s home and described how pleased he was to see his mother. They hugged; M ran around the house, making squeaking noises; he asked for a bath; he ran and jumped around, turning on taps and flushing the toilet.  The mother said that she would ask the father to leave the family home, pending investigation and assessment.  Mrs Verney visited daily. Sometimes M was quiet, sometimes he was out of control, and she observed that the mother was unable to put any boundaries in place or use strategies to manage his behaviour.  On one home visit Mrs Verney thought that M appeared wary of his older brother, B.

History of these proceedings
41	These proceedings were issued on 23 October 2013 (also reported as 24 October 2013). The Family Law Act orders were enlarged on 25 October, and listed together with the care proceedings before me on 30 October.  I refused the local authority’s application for an interim supervision order, and directions were made pending a further case management hearing on 19 November.  The father had been arrested on 17 October for a non-related matter, and remained in custody, therefore, the Family Law Act orders were allowed to lapse.  0n 19 November I authorised the instruction of Great Ormond Street Hospital to carry out a multi-disciplinary assessment of the family but it was delayed, due to a delay in public funding. The matter came before me on 1 April 2014, when I listed the final hearing, which began on 6 October, when the parties agreed, and I ordered, that Dr Wearmouth should provide a paediatric overview. I made subsequent orders for the report from Dr Garcia-Rosales (to which I have referred), and for evidence to be provided by M’s school.  

Developments in the course of these proceedings
Education
42	On 13 May 2013, M moved to X Special School.   I have read the witness statement of Mr Carroll, the head teacher, who also gave evidence. M was initially anxious, but not violent.  It took him a while to settle, but as he did his behaviour deteriorated, and he became increasingly challenging to staff.  He was not and is not integrated into the classroom, because other pupils are vulnerable. His attendance at school at 97 per cent is excellent. However, there are many concerns.  Mr Carroll described M as “An anxious child, who seeks a lot of assurance.  He is mostly very calm and co-operative”, 95 per cent of the time, “but when he has an outburst he can be extremely aggressive towards adults working with him, and may seek to damage property”.  M is based in a small room, with two support workers from a team of four.  The room has been described as “impoverished”, and completely devoid of furniture and other objects, due to the serious risk of objects being thrown.  There are no pictures on the wall, nor any Makaton images, as M has a history of taking them off the wall and throwing them.  M has lunch and playtime separately from other pupils because of the risk to them.  The transition from working alone with two support workers to integration into his class could take a year.  It has not happened by December 2014, a period of some 7 months. When M is distressed, he is extremely aggressive and difficult to manage. Staff use techniques which assist them to spot triggers and use de-escalation to avoid an aggressive outburst, but such outbursts cannot be predicted.  M has broken 5 windows deliberately, at a cost of between £3,000 and £4,000.  He has attacked staff approximately every other day, and his behaviour includes slapping, kicking and punching. One member of staff has suffered a broken tooth, a broken nose, and a broken wrist.  Another member of staff was knocked to the ground, and M hit Mr Carroll with a piece of concrete.  

43	Mr Carroll has reported the phrases that M is sometimes heard to say (E205 - 206). They are the subject of findings which the local authority seeks, so I will refer to some of them: “Stop it”; “That’s it, I’m leaving”; “Fight me back or I’ll beat the shit out of you”; “Fight me back, you know what happened last time”; “I’m going to fuck you up”; “Get out of here retard”; “He can’t do it, he’s retarded”; “You kick him, I kick you”; “Leave him”.   

44	The mother says that she is happy that M is attending X School.  She telephones to enquire how he has been, and she is very upset and apologetic if he has hurt others or broken things.  She refers to Mr Carroll’s evidence that the school can meet M’s educational needs.  In his report to the court, Mr Carroll said, “We believe we can meet M’s educational needs provided we are given the resources and time. There are however many other factors beyond the school gates that impact hugely on M, and we have no control over these” (E204).  

45	On 19 September 2014, Dr Racussen of GOSH carried out a school observation visit for the purposes of her addendum report. She spoke to Mr Carroll and two teaching assistants working with M. Mr Carroll described M as “exceptional”.  His outbursts were extraordinary and seemed to come from nowhere.  The previous day he had kicked a teaching assistant in the crotch.  Mr Carroll told Dr Racussen that M has moderate learning difficulties compared with other pupils at the school, who have severe learning difficulties, severe autism and serious medical illnesses.  M’s behaviour is more aggressive and challenging than that of the other pupils.  He said: “This placement is indicative of the extent to which M’s behavioural difficulties are impacting on his ability to learn, socialise with peers, and access a school that caters for his level of difficulty” (E214-23).  Dr Racussen told me that when Mr Carroll said that X School could meet M’s needs (at the professionals’ meeting on 10 July), he also referred to the cost to the school in terms of injuries to staff and damage to property, and he was worried that the overall care package for M was inconsistent, because he did not have the same structured routine and boundaries at home. Mr Carroll told me that he is not convinced that X School can make it work for M.  Keeping M is a risk, and he has a duty of care to his staff.  He does not like to give up, and he rarely turns anyone away.  He referred to the importance of a consistent approach to M, both at school and at home.  He had tried to talk to the mother about M’s behaviour and her denial of his difficulties, but she did not want to talk about it.  At the professionals’ meeting, he had said that M would benefit from a residential placement, really reluctantly, because M is a “great kid”.  The school is unable to pursue an academic curriculum with him and Mr Carroll estimates that it will be between 12 and 18 months before M can begin to learn.  His behaviour is masking his ability to learn.  

46	With regard to the issue of consistency, the school provides a book, which M’s team complete and invite the mother to complete, to provide feedback, but her entries did not report unsettled or difficult behaviours, but only positive behaviours.  I have had the benefit of reading the home/school contact book, because the mother exhibited a copy of it to her witness statement of 9 September 2014.  I want to refer, in particular, to an entry at C235 which is dated in June.  Chad Ankansa completed this report and it appears that Chad wrote: 
“We had a fairly good morning.  M had a session with the music therapist and then some time on a bicycle.  Unfortunately M then started throwing things at me. Eventually he took his shoes off and threw them at my head.  One hit me and broke my nose. We had a much calmer afternoon and went to the Welsh Harp Reservoir.”     

To which the mother replied: 
“Hello. I’m sorry for what happened. My hope is that you will be able to help him to improve his behaviour.”        
 
She goes on to refer to an earlier comment from Chad that M had been asleep on the bus. In June Mr Bleasdille reported that M had attacked a school escort and a student on the school bus, and the bus had had to be cleared and restraining techniques used.

47	I have read the Z School assessment of M based on their visit to him on 17 October.  They note that he has made small steps of progress at X school, as the staff have come to understand his needs and he has come to trust them and consider that with the right support and consistency of approach, M has good potential to learn: his current attainment masks a high ability.  Nevertheless, M’s behaviour continues to be very difficult. In November he broke an expensive TV monitor at the school. On 2 December Mr Carroll wrote to Mr Bleasdille, informing him that they had had to take M home early the previous day.  He said, “Mum is mystified why all this is happening as M is perfectly happy at home.”  I do not know what happened earlier in the day, as a result of which M was taken home early, but the result is that all three of the school’s teaching assistants now refuse to escort M to and from school.” Mr Carroll added in his email to Mr Bleasdille: “I hope that M is more settled today.  I really don’t want to exclude him, but we can only take so much.” (E232) I have also seen a report of an incident which occurred at around noon on 2 December. While a member of staff was in the changing room with a student, M kicked the door as he went past, hitting her on the shoulder and pushing her against the hand-dryer and the wall. Mr Bleasdille told me that Mr Carroll thought this could have been an accident. I was also told that on 11 December Mr Carroll told Mr Bleasdille that in the previous week M had defecated on the classroom floor on two occasions. 

48	The mother says that M is very happy at M School.  She told me that Mr Carroll told her recently that M’s behaviour is good 97.3 per cent of the time (although that was not confirmed by Mr Carroll.  She has worked with the staff on consistent ways of managing M’s behaviour between home and the school, and she was very upset when she learned that M had caused injuries to staff.   

Continuing work with Dr Garcia Rosales and Lourdes Bedasco

49	At a review on 20 January 2014, M threw curtains and a picture in a glass frame, and the session had to be ended because there was glass all over the floor.  Lourdes Berdasco reported to Mrs Verney on 29 January that the mother had brought behaviour charts which she had been asked to complete, but she had completed then with non-challenging behaviour, although she also reported M “hopping and screaming” at home.  Dr Garcia Rosales had highlighted to her the incongruence between the reports of M’s behaviour at home and the behaviour displayed both in the session with her and at school.  Dr Garcia Rosales agreed to prescribe risperidone (0.25 mgs) with the aim of reducing the frequency, intensity and duration of periods of challenging behaviour, and with a view to increasing the safety. I note that Dr Wearmouth told the professionals’ meeting on 12 July that low dose risperidone is used to manage challenging behaviours in children with learning difficulties, and she referred to an evidence base to support this.  In her report to Mrs Verney, Miss Berdasco noted:
“The mother tries to control M’s behaviour when he gets out of control, and yet as a mother she also becomes protective to the extent that she does not see the level of risk when certain behaviours have taken place.  In her wish to protect her son and in her loving feelings, she underplays the level of risk, such as the time when there was broken glass everywhere.” (G159)

Her recommendations included helping the mother to understand the risks involved, and how M’s learning might be impaired if his emotional needs were not fully understood and addressed. A joint letter from Dr Garcia Rosales and Miss Berdasco to the mother, proposed collaborative work on a plan to help M achieve and develop. 

50	I note that family therapy has been offered to the family four times.  On three occasions it was declined or stopped by the mother.  The mother continued to see Lourdes Berdasco, but Dr Garcia Rosales reported that there had been no reflective process on family relationships and behavioural management, and therefore she had to conclude that the mother’s engagement with their service, although it had improved, coinciding with these court proceedings, remained impartial.  Dr Garcia Rosales said: “Children like M require a supportive and containing environment, where the carers will be able to implement behavioural strategies and plans consistently with education, with a view to supporting the generalisation of the learning of adaptive behaviour.  The care of young people like M is challenging for any parent or carer and requires the acquisition of specialist skills”. (E197).  Dr Garcia Rosales continues to review M regularly, and has increased his prescription for risperidone, most recently on 24 October to 1 mg per day.  The mother says that she has continued to work with Dr Garcia-Rosales and Miss Berdasco, and she agreed to the second trial of risperidone.  

Co-operation with social workers.
51	The mother has cooperated with social workers in announced and unannounced home visits in accordance with the written agreements which she signed.  Robyn Verney has described two particular incidents on which the local authority relies in support of its case.  The first was a home visit on17 October 2013 when Mrs Verney described M swinging a skipping rope in the living room.  The mother asked him to stop.  When he continued, she told him she was leaving.  He stopped swinging the rope to go after her. Mrs Verney told me that she was struck by the mother’s inability to control M.  She tried to placate him, she offered him alternatives and rewards and said he was a good boy.  The mother admitted using threats to leave to control M’s behaviour.  Mrs Verney told me that this was typical of behaviour she had observed on many other visits, and she had spoken to the mother about the importance of ensuring that M received specialist input.  She had said that if he did not, by the time he was 18 M would have no boundaries, would not be able to manage his behaviour, would be a vulnerable young adult, and could get himself into serious trouble.  The mother did not want to think about the future, and said she preferred to be positive. 

52	The second occasion was the contact between M, and the father and C, which Mrs Verney observed on 23 April 2014.  They told her that when M is out of control at home the mother locks him in the bedroom or makes him kneel down and put his hands in the air.  After C and M had left, the father told Mrs Verney that he had had enough.  When M becomes like this, he said, it is necessary to hold him down for his own and other’s safety.  He explained that on 8 October 2013 he had been out in the community with M, and he had needed to hold M down as he could have run off or put himself in danger.  He would not hit M now, but he cannot control him.  The father agreed that M requires specialist intervention, and the family could not control him adequately.  He agreed to him going to a specialist residential establishment. He said he had opposed the GOSH recommendation on the basis of what the mother had told him.  He had not read the report. 

53	When Mrs Verney discussed the contact with the mother, later that day, the mother said that M was not well.  Mrs Verney observed M’s behaviour, and again saw that the mother could not control him.  She said that M had no boundaries and no way of modulating his behaviour or adequately explaining what he wanted, and the lack of inconsistent expectations did not help.  The mother said to her, “In Jesus’ name he will grow out of it.  God will make an amendment.” (C119) C told Mrs Verney that M needs specialist intervention, because he was concerned about what would happen to M if the current situation continues.  The mother said that she wants M to go X School, and she will continue to work with the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service.  C explained that his mother’s concerns about a residential placement were that the family would not be able to visit him, that M would never come home, and that M would be harmed there in some way.  The mother says that she does not and has never locked M in a room, nor made him kneel with his hands above his head. She can control M using non-violent techniques. She will never give up on him.  

54	Mr Bleasdille confirmed that the mother has allowed him to make home visits twice a week in the period of the adjournment from October to December and her management of M in the home has caused him no concern.  He has observed that M has a routine, he does puzzles.  The mother has to repeat instructions to him, he is normally compliant, but the mother does not challenge him.  I note that in addition to attending the PPP parenting course, which the mother has also recently attended a Mencap session on how to make outings with M a positive experience. 

Resources for Autism
55	I referred earlier to support from Resources for Autism. Webster Johnson was commissioned to work with M on an outreach basis, which involved him engaging M in play and leisure schemes away from the home.  He worked with M for 2 months or so, but M became increasingly violent.  Resources for Autism have also reported (C148) phrases, expressions and words that they have heard M say, which are similar to those reported by Mr Carroll.   Lisa (? surname) of Resources for Autism attended the professionals’ meeting, and reported that when they undertook a routine home visit to make contact with the family and obtain the mother’s consent to their working with M, she refused to let workers into the home, and insisted the conversation take place at the front door.  The support workers observed M kicking and hitting his brother (I do not know which brother). When asked if the family needed support, they said that it was okay, they had seen that type of behaviour before.  The mother denied that anything was happening, and then asked the workers not to say that anything had happened, and stopped the conversation.  The mother denies this account in its entirety.  She says that she was very pleased to have the offer of support from Resources from Autism, and immediately signed the necessary consent forms.  

Expert evidence
56	Maria Ruegger and Dr Racussen carried out a multi-disciplinary assessment of the family and provided a report dated 13 March 2014. They have also provided the notes of their interviews and their clinical records and prepared an addendum report. Their conclusions include the following:  M has moderate to severe childhood autism; he has limited use of language, his development being at 3 years and 11 months; he has little eye contact and non-verbal communication (E58); he has moderate intellectual disability compounded by poor school attendance as a result of his emotional, psychological and behavioural difficulties (E59).  It is likely that he has ADHD, but this requires further assessment once he is a more containing environment (E60).  It is also very likely that he has PTSD, but that tentative diagnosis should also be re-evaluated when he is settled (E61). He has significant developmental and emotional needs which required sustained intensive interventions (E62).  M’s extremely disturbed behaviours are more likely to be the result of the parenting he has received and the failure to meet his special needs, than a reflection of his inherent difficulties. As a result, he is sometimes outside the control of adults.  His behaviours are such that he cannot be contained in a school that caters for children with moderate autistic spectrum disorder. The parents have unrealistic expectations of M (E67). The family has little appreciation of his needs and minimise his difficulties and their consequences (E72–3). The family’s strategies to manage M are inappropriate (E76-8).  There was concern about the mother’s mental health, her lack of focus and the level of denial and hostility and suspicion towards professionals, her stress and anxiety (E69).  I should say that the mother denies that she has any difficulties of the sort, and they have not been further investigated within these proceedings.  The report says this: 
“The mother loves M and would not intentionally harm him, but she has very little appreciation of his needs.  She prioritises the integrity of the family unit over M’s need for protection from harm and his needs as a child with significant disabilities.  Her overriding priority is the unity of her family at any cost. This has found expression in her willingness to tolerate her husband’s physical abuse of M, his gambling, the financial impact of this on the family, his criminal activities, and the periods of imprisonment whereby he is not available to assist with care of M.  It is difficult to be certain exactly what the mother understands about M’s difficulties and needs, in part because she was intent on pursuing her strategies of minimisation and denial by way of convincing that neither M nor the family require the intervention of professionals beyond a full-time school place.”  (E70/6.46)

57	They recommend that M should be placed in a specialist residential setting, where the impact upon his behaviour of a contained environment could be assessed with a view to determining his longer term placement options (E81), and with a view to assisting him to acquire skills in communication and emotional regulation and to promote his adaptive functioning (E50-1).  

58	The mother says that she accepts the diagnoses of M’s conditions, and that his speech is delayed.  She does not accept that he has been exposed to domestic violence in the home. She does not accept that there have been regular occurrences of domestic violence in her home.  She agrees that M’s behaviour requires consistent management, and she has tried to achieve this, both with V and X Schools.  She does not accept that her overriding priority is the family.  Her priority is M. She is able to exert boundaries with him.  If he does something wrong, she tells him “no” firmly, explains that it is not acceptable, and asks him to apologise, which he does.  She does not accept that M repeats at school, or indeed in other places, phrases which he has heard at home. He could have heard those words at school, on the bus, on the road, in the community, or through the media. 

59	The report of Dr Wearmouth is dated 24 June 2014 and was based on a review of documents. She said that there is no professional doubt that M is autistic. The history of speech delay and behavioural upset at the age of 2 or 3 are classic presentations of childhood autism.  She provided a helpful explanation about echolalia, namely that autistic people tend to echo words and phrases that they have heard, even if they do not understand them, and thus the obscenities that M has been heard to say repeatedly are likely to be those he has heard.  She agrees with the GOSH assessment that M’s behaviour is more likely to be a consequence of parenting than a reflection of his inherent difficulties, and the suggestion that he needs to be assessed for ADHD and PTSD away from the home environment she described as the only pragmatic solution.  She noted professional concerns that have been raised with regard to the mother’s understanding of the nature of M’s difficulties and her lack of insight, and she also noted marked differences in parenting style between the father and the mother.  She concluded that there is a need to assess the nature of M’s distress, and to decide a holistic care plan, including an educational placement that meets his emotional, developmental and educational needs.  She noted that the mother says that she was unaware of the diagnosis of autism in 2006/2007.  However, Dr Wearmouth examined the documents in detail, and her view was that the mother could not claim to have been unaware either of the diagnosis or the status of N School.  

60	Dr Wearmouth agrees that M needs to be removed from the care of his family, but her first preference was a local specialist foster placement, which would enable M to continue to attend X School, and to have regular supervised contact with his family. If that were not successful or possible, then the next preference would be a residential unit.  In her oral evidence Dr Wearmouth accepted that the suggestion that M could be placed with foster carers might be optimistic, and that she had formed that view, in particular, when she had read about M’s behaviour at X.  Dr Wearmouth told me that the fact that 5 per cent of M’s behaviour is challenging is very serious, and we have to provide for that 5 per cent and not for the 95 per cent that is not challenging. We also have to take account of the fact that M is on the verge of puberty and is growing in size and in strength.  

61	I have mentioned the professionals’ meeting on 10 July 2014, at which they agreed that M would not be in a safe, nurturing environment if he were to remain at home, and an alternative placement was the best option, as he needs to be assessed out of his home environment, to see what his full potential is.  

62	Because of the passage of time since GOSH had carried out its assessment, I ordered an addendum report, which was based on an up-to-date observation of M, both at X School and at home, and a review of the evidence which had been filed since the professionals’ meeting on 10 July.  On 2 September Miss Ruegger carried out a home visit, with Dr Margaret DeJong, who was supervising the work.  The mother told them that she had attended the PPP parenting course, and she said that she had learned how to use positive behaviour towards M and how to calm him.  Miss Ruegger pointed out that the mother had been using these distraction techniques previously, and the mother was unable to tell them what she might do differently.  They noted that there were very few toys available for M in the home: there was one plastic ball and a small cardboard puzzle.  

63	Mr Main-Thompson, I note that the mother is distressed, which is not surprising.  I know she would like to hear all I have to say. I am going to rise for 10 minutes.  If she wishes to come back into court, of course she is welcome to.   If she does not wish to, I will understand. 

64	MR MAIN-THOMPSON:  I am grateful.  I will see what the position is. 

65	JUDGE LEVY: Thank you.
(The court adjourned)
66	JUDGE LEVY:  I was referring to the GOSH addendum report and the home visit on 2 September by Miss Ruegger and Dr Margaret DeJong and their observation that there were not many toys for M.  They reported that he became increasingly agitated, tossed the ball in the air, and then took the remote, which he banged quite hard against the ceiling.  The mother raised her voice, took the remote away and put the television on. Most of the time she used soothing tones and pleaded with him, which Miss Ruegger had observed during previous meetings. They reported that there was little evidence of clear boundaries and setting of limits. In their view, the mother continued to minimise M’s difficulties.  She said that he was doing well at X School, but she did not mention his difficult behaviour there. They concluded that the mother showed no greater understanding of M’s needs than she had prior to the report which they had filed in March. Her views continued to be at variance with those of professionals, and it was unusual for the parent of a child with M’s degree of difficulty not to want the support offered. They had no doubt that the mother loves M very much and is terrified of losing him, and they sympathised with her.  They observed that M would always have been difficult to parent, but denial of his difficulties had got in the way of the mother accessing support in managing his behaviour. They said at page E218, paragraph 37: 
“M would not have the behavioural difficulties he presents with if he had boundaries consistently set and maintained from an early age.  M will present an ever-increasing risk to the safety of others as he grows older.  It is important that efforts are made to assist him to regulate his emotions and gain control of his behaviour.  It is our opinion that work of this kind can only be undertaken in a specialist residential unit.” 

They said that it is evident that M is managed at X School due to a higher staff/child ratio.  His cognitive ability would allow him to be educated in a school for children with moderate difficulties, but for his significant emotional and behaviour difficulties. They concluded that the most important therapeutic intervention for M will be consistent behavioural management across all settings and at all times, and that it was important to have accurate information about M’s functioning and his response to interventions, including medication. 

67	Dr Racussen told me that she thought it unlikely that M’s behaviour at home is as different as the mother reports it to be, because the conditions he suffers from are pervasive and the symptoms manifest themselves in all settings.  M’s needs are so profound because of the combination of autistic spectrum disorder and learning difficulties, that it is hard to believe that he presents no challenging behaviour at home.  

The parents’ case
68	I have included the mother’s comments on the evidence I have reviewed to date.  She gives a very important description of M.  She says he is a lovely boy; he is used to her and he is fond of her; she can understand his needs and deal with situations without resorting to violence or bringing out challenging behaviour.  He is generally happy unless he is upset.  He has certain skills: he can choose clothes and dress himself; he brushes his teeth; he eats well; he asks for the foods he likes.  She accepts his diagnosis. She has always put him first.  She does not accept that she has ever neglected his needs.  The mother told me that her religious faith is very important to her. She believes that there is nothing God cannot do in his time. She attends church regularly with M, where he sings and claps. There may have been a reference in prayers to Satan being a “liar” – one of the phrases M has been heard to repeat – but he does not say this any more.  She attributes M’s behaviour to the autistic spectrum disorder and his learning difficulties. She thinks his behaviour has deteriorated because of something that has happened at school, because he did not behave like that at school before. She had no clear recollection of the injuries which M had caused to staff at X School.  She said she had been busy and the details had not stayed in her mind, but she thought that M would only have behaved in that way if he had been provoked.  She continues to deny that M’s behaviour at home is problematic. He has only ever had to be restrained once, and that was the incident on 8 October 2013, for which the father was convicted of assault. She told me that making M kneel on the floor should be seen in the cultural context of kneeling to greet and apologise to an older person.  She did not comment on the fact that he has been seen to have rather similar circumstances to those at home, in the sense that he has few toys and a bare bedroom, similar to those in which he has taught at X School.  She said that M does spit at home, although less than at school, but she attributed this to the growth of a wisdom tooth, and she told me that she had taught him to spit in the sink.  She denied that she is minimising or excusing M’s behaviour.  

69	With regard to her relationship with the father, the mother told me that when he is released she wants him to be reunited with the family, but not immediately if he needs to work on his anger management.  Both the father and the mother believe that X School can meet M’s needs, and that the mother is meeting those needs at home. She has learned a lot about autism and is committed to learning more in order to continue to meet M’s needs.

Threshold
The law
70	In a public law case such as this, the court has no jurisdiction to make any public law order unless and until the threshold criteria set out in section 31 of the Children Act 1989 are established.  Section 31 provides that the child “is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, and that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him”. The burden of proof is on the local authority and the standard of proof is the simple balance of probabilities.  The relevant date since when protective arrangements have been in place is 23 October 2013, the date of the local authority’s application for an interim care order.  The local authority seeks findings as set out in its interim threshold statement (A8-9) and the final threshold document dated 14 August 2014 (A49-51) which incorporates the parents’ responses. Both the father and the mother have filed responses to final threshold. They acknowledge the father’s assault on M that precipitated these proceedings. They reject the assessments of M and the allegations that he has been subjected to any mistreatment or inconsistent parenting in their care. On that basis, threshold is disputed.  

71	Turning to the allegations, I have followed the scheme which Mr Archer set out in his submissions on threshold which combines the two threshold documents.  

M’s diagnoses

72	The local authority relies on the diagnoses of M’s conditions made by GOSH and confirmed by Dr Wearmouth, who agrees with the GOSH view that M’s behaviour is more likely to be a consequence of parenting than a reflection of his inherent difficulties. The local authority says that this explains why M exhibits extreme behaviour, and supports the assertion that he has been exposed to significant physical and emotional harm.  The mother says that she does not challenge the diagnoses, except for the reference in Dr Wearmouth’s report to anxious attachment between M and her. She says they are very close. M seeks physical contact with her, which autistic children generally do not like.  He was very happy when returned to her care in October 2013, as I have noted.  

73	GOSH says the following in the first report:  
“M’s complex needs arising from his developmental disorders and learning difficulties mean that it is even more difficult for him to make sense of his environment and his persistent exposure to fear and verbal and physical violence in the home and to inconsistent strategies for managing his behaviours has adversely impacted on his emotional, social and educational development. Neither parent is able to read his cues or put in place strategies that would help him contain his emotions and regulate his behaviour.  He has not had the opportunity to fulfil himself emotionally, socially and educationally.  He is communicating fear, distress, frustration and unhappiness through behaviours such as aggression and urinating in public.” (E74/6.57)

74	I accept M’s diagnoses and the experts’ view that his behaviour is more likely to be the result of parenting than a reflection of his inherent difficulties. In reaching this conclusion, I have considered all the evidence, including the schedule of concerns raised by others and referrals made to social services in relation to incidents in the home.  

The parents’ inability to manage M’s behaviour, as set out in paragraph 3 of the interim threshold document at page A8. 

75	This document refers to an incident on 6 August 2013. This is a report by CAHMS in relation to an incident at an appointment with Miss Berdasco.  It reads:
“The local authority received a call from CAMHS (SENCO) after M entered her office, threw all her files over the floor, went into the bathroom and got water, which he poured over the papers.  He didn’t sit down or do anything his mother asked him to do, and she was unable to control him. He then stripped off and the appointment ended with the mother dragging M down the corridor naked.” (A8 paragraph 3(i))

The second incident referred to is one of two observations and home visits that Robyn Verney gave evidence about on 17 October 2013, when M was twirling a skipping rope (A8 paragraph 3(ii)).  

76	The father and the mother both deny, the mother in particular, that she has difficulty managing M’s behaviour, but the local authority says that there are a number of pieces of evidence on which I can rely.  First, the observations which I have referred to, the incidents on 6 August 2013 and 17 October 2013, are consistent with other observations, for example, made by Robyn Verney when M had contact with the father and his brother, and the observation made by Miss Ruegger on 2 September 2014, and therefore I should accept the professionals’ accounts of M’s behaviour and the mother’s difficulty in controlling it. I can also rely on Mr Carroll’s accounts of M’s behaviour at school, including serious injuries to staff and damage to property. Dr Racussen said that it is inherently unlikely that M’s behaviour is so very different at home from the behaviour which is observed elsewhere.  I have noted Mrs Verney’s report of the father’s comments to her on 23 April 2014 to the effect that he could not control M, and I compare that with the father’s evidence to the court (which I will come to).  It is suggested that I should take into account the circumstances observed in the family home, namely that M has a bare bedroom and very little to play with, and compare that with his circumstances at M, where he is taught in a bare room because of his challenging behaviour.  

77	The mother’s evidence is that she can control M using non-violent methods and, more recently, using techniques which she has learned from the PPP parenting course. And I have noted that during his twice-weekly home visits between October and December 2014, Mr Bleasdille confirmed that nothing in M’s behaviour or the mother’s control of him caused him concern, but he also told me that the mother did not challenge M. Having reviewed all the evidence, I find that there have been occasions, including those to which the local authority refers, when the parents have not been able to manage M’s behaviour. 
	The mother minimises incidents/denies the difficulties she experiences with M’s behaviour. 

78	Reference is made by the local authority to the incident on 8 October, when the father assaulted M.  The local authority says that the father’s accounts were inconsistent.  He referred to a “tap” on the ear, which it is suggested would be unlikely to lead to an immediate 28-day custodial sentence.  The father said that in order to restrain M from running into the road, he put his arms around M, lifted him up, cuffed him round the ear and told him to behave himself. M had started shouting, and so he cuffed him again, and when he was asked what “cuffing” meant, he demonstrated a flicking motion with two fingers.  He said that he had used this sort of restraining behaviour with M once in a while, but this was the only time that he had cuffed him in this way.  He admitted that he shouts at M. Typically he would say, “Shut up. Behave yourself”, but he is not abusive.  The father did not ask me to go behind the conviction nor the caution which he received in 2010 and, therefore, is not able to suggest that there has never been a time when he could not control or found it difficult to manage M’s behaviour. However, the question was raised as to whether this amounted to significant harm. I have mentioned that the mother told me that she had never asked the father what happened on 8 October, and had assumed that “cuffing” meant picking M up from the ground.  

79	The local authority asks me to find that the father assaulted M, and that his actions merited a 28-day custodial sentence, both of which findings are consistent with what happened in the criminal court. I am also asked to find that both the mother and the father have minimised the incident, which I do. My finding is that the father assaulted M, for which he received a 28-day custodial sentence. Both the father and the mother have minimised this incident and its effect on M. 

80	Also in relation to the parents’ denying difficulties that they have experienced with M’s behaviour, the local authority relies on the experience reported by a number of people at X School, Resources for Autism and Eve Tobe, of hearing M repeat expressions which have caused concern. I have set out some examples of these in my review of the evidence. The local authority asks me to make a number of findings, and Mr Main-Thompson has responded to these on behalf of the mother.

81	 Firstly, that M said the words and phrases which are reported, which the mother does not challenge.  Secondly, that he said them because he was repeating what he had heard, which the mother does not challenge. Thirdly, that it is possible that he heard them during a stressful incident, which is not opposed. Fourthly, that it is unlikely that he heard them at school.  Mr Main-Thompson accepted that I might find that I could make that finding, and I do, because Mr Carroll gave evidence that most of the children with whom M was travelling to school on the bus, and at school, are not verbal. For the same reason, I am asked to find that it is unlikely that he heard them on the school bus, and I make that finding.  I am asked to find that it is likely that M heard these words at home, given his routine, and it is submitted on behalf of the mother that there is no evidence for this.  M is a child who is usually at home if he is not at school.  He may be at an appointment with his doctor, Dr Garcia Rosales, for speech and language therapy, although I think those generally take place during the school day.  His mother told me that she sometimes takes him out, for example, for a walk in the park which will help to calm him.  But M is a child who is usually at home if he is not at school and if he did not hear these expressions at school, it seems to me, on the balance of probabilities, likely that he heard them at home.  Finally, I am asked to find that given that M is repeating words that he heard at home, I can infer physical abuse, or at least emotional abuse, and Mr Main-Thompson submitted that this would be an inference too far.  

82	I make all the findings sought except that I find that I can infer emotional abuse from the words and phrases M has repeated: I cannot go so far as to infer physical abuse. As to the identity of the people or persons from whom M heard these words, the household comprises the mother, the father when he was at liberty and before these proceedings began, C, and no doubt M’s brother B and sister A, and possibly visitors to the home. It is a pool of people, which I cannot define because I do not have sufficient information. The mother denies that she has ever used any of the words or phrases that M says, apart from praising him as a good boy, which he also repeats frequently.  The local authority has suggested that C should be included in the pool of people whose words M has copied, and that the possibility of C as somebody who has said the things that M has repeated is corroborated by Mrs Verney’s observation of M’s fear of C and his general fear of men when seen by professionals, and also by the father’s explanation to GOSH that C is better able to control M because he is a large, no-nonsense kind of person of whom M is afraid.  

83	As regards C, he has had no opportunity to counter the allegations that he has said these things or perhaps has done something to M as a result of which M repeats these worrying phrases, and I do not think it would be proper to make any finding about him in the absence of his having an opportunity to intervene and give evidence.  The father says that M is unlikely to repeat anything he says, because he has only seen M three times since 8 October, and on two of those occasions he saw him at GOSH and once was the contact which Robyn Verney supervised. It is suggested that it is unlikely that M can recall and is repeating phrases that the father might have said prior to October 2013.  I am not able to make any finding beyond the pool of people from whom M may have heard these words and phrases, and that may be incomplete and I can make no finding in respect of C, who has not had an opportunity to contest the case against him.  

84	As to the reference to the mother threatening to take M to the “dogs” or to the “door”, I am asked to make a finding that it is not an appropriate way to manage M’s behaviour in the context of the evidence as a whole, and I find that it is not necessary to make a specific finding about this.  

85	I am also asked to bear in mind that the father is reported as having told Miss Ruegger and Dr Racussen that M’s behaviour at home was difficult to manage, and that that behaviour included running outside and refusing to return until the mother came home, urinating in the home and on himself, which he had done for the past year, and spitting at people when he was upset or having a tantrum.  He said that the family deal with that by telling M to stop and keeping out of range.  I have referred to the methods of controlling M which the father has referred to as having used on occasion in the past.  The mother says that she does not minimise M’s difficulties, but 95 per cent of the time his behaviour at M is fine and when he is at home she can contain his behaviour with effective strategies, which do not include the use of force or shouting. The picture painted by the professionals of M at home is bleak and does not represent the reality as she knows it.  Having considered all the evidence, I find that the mother does minimise incidents and the difficulties she experiences with M’s behaviour from time to time.  

The father and mother’s lack of insight 

86	It is suggested that while the parents’ hopes for M are understandable, they are not realistic: either they are in denial, or they do not understand. The guardian has said about this that it is dangerous when hopes become unrealistic expectations, such as when the mother told me that she expects that within 3 years M will take GCSEs, and the father said that he expects that M will improve and be able to get a job. The difficulty with such expectations, and the danger, is that it does not enable the parents to analyse the situation for M as it is and make the right choices for him.  

87	Having reviewed the history, it is clear that concerns about the parents’ lack of insight into M’s conditions and the impact of those conditions on his development go back a long way, to Dr Rajindram’s letter of 9 December 2005, and as reported since then by others. In particular, the mother gave conflicting messages to Dr Racussen and Miss Ruegger about her misunderstanding of M’s difficulties and needs, and they found that although she said that she accepted the diagnosis of autism, her ambivalence about this was evident when she minimised the seriousness of his condition (E69 para 6.42). I find that both parents lack insight into M’s conditions and the impact on his future development.  

The parents’ failure to engage fully with professionals 

88	The local authority says that the mother has let professionals and voluntary workers into her home, but she does not engage fully with them, and when she disagrees, she does not follow through with their advice. The local authority refers to the mother’s failure to complete the behaviour diary, which Dr Garcia Rosales asked her to do so that she could assess the effect of risperidone on M. By that, I mean her failure to complete the diary with any information which would have enabled Dr Garcia Rosales to assess the effect of medication.  They refer to her refusal to send M to X School between February and May 2014, her completion of the X Home-School book in a way which did not indicate difficult behaviours and did not enable them to know what was happening in the home and her attitude towards Resources for Autism (to which I have referred).  

89	The mother says that she is not over-optimistic.  She has three older children who do not have disabilities. She is a woman of faith and, therefore, it is understandable that she hopes that M will improve and lead a normal life. She has sought and followed professional advice. She won the appeal with regard to the appropriate school resource for M, and she should not be criticised for having made that appeal.  She has engaged with services, including Resources for Autism, and there is no evidence that her actions have disadvantaged M.  The father says that he accepts the diagnosis of autism and learning difficulties, but nothing beyond that. He told me that it is not too serious and he believes that in a few years M will get better. He hopes that he will take exams and get a job, that he will be a lot better at writing and speaking.  Physically, M is 100 per cent, and with proper tuition he will be able to string words together and have a proper conversation.  The father told me that he is aware of the reports of M’s behaviour at X School and the injuries caused to staff but he did not accept that any of the staff had suffered fractures or a broken tooth. He told me that for M to behave as described, somebody must have upset or provoked him. Someone else was to blame.  He believes that X School has exaggerated its reports of injuries to staff, but still considered that it is the right place for M.  

90	When I considered all the evidence in preparation for writing this judgment, and I reflected on the fact that the mother has three older children who are very successful, I wondered why the mother did not realise long before others pointed out to her that M had developmental delay, and why she was not the one raising the issue and asking for advice and assistance early on.  I find, having considered all the evidence, that the mother does not fully engage with professionals, in particular when she disagrees with them. 

91	In summary, I find that the evidence in support of threshold is overwhelming. My findings apply both to the mother and to the father, as I have set out. I find that M has suffered significant physical and emotional harm and educational harm, and neglect of his special educational, developmental and social needs as a result of his parents’ but principally his mother’s care of him not being what it is reasonable for a parent to give, and the threshold criteria are therefore established. 

M’s welfare/placement
92	The starting point for my consideration of M’s placement is section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 which provides: “When a court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child…the welfare of the child shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”  When considering what is in the interests of the child’s welfare, the court shall have regard, in particular, to the factors set out in the welfare checklist in section 1(3).  In this case, in my view, the particularly important factors are M’s needs, the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances, characteristics of M, and any harm that he has suffered and is at risk of suffering, and the capacity of his mother to meet his needs. The decision as to which placement is in a child’s best interests engages Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that everyone has a right to respect for his family life, and I have born in mind the judgment of Lord Neuberger in the case of Re B (A Child) (Care proceedings: Threshold criteria [2013] UKSC 33, when he referred to recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with reference to Article 8 and, in particular, the decision in the case of YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 33.  He referred there to the two considerations that have to be born in mind when considering the best interests of the child, namely that it is in the child’s best interests that his ties with his family be maintained and that it is in the child’s best interests to ensure his development in a safe and secure environment.  He went on to say: 
“…where the maintenance of family ties would harm the child’s health and development, a parent is not entitled under article 8 to insist that such ties be maintained.”

93	I emphasise this because of the importance to the mother and her family of their cultural tradition that a child should remain in the care of his parents until he reaches his majority. I take the view that the right to family life includes the right to observe family and cultural traditions such as these.  I note that reuniting or keeping a child with his family is an important aim of Article 8, but the interests of the child prevail. The principle of proportionality applies, as noted by Ryder LJ in his recent judgment in the case of Re CM v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2014] EWCA 1479. He said: 
“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.”

94	In considering what is in M’s best interests, I start from the position that he should remain in the care of his family if at all possible. I have to consider his needs and what is in his best interest, taking into account the matters referred to in the welfare checklist. I have to consider whether the order the local authority seeks is necessary and proportionate to M’s needs, and I bear in mind that I should make the least interventionist order that will meet his needs.  

The local authority’s care plan 
95	The local authority has identified Z School in Derbyshire as being best able to meet M’s needs. The school caters for children aged between 8 and 19 with learning disabilities, autism, speech, language and communication difficulties and challenging behaviour. Fortunately, David Hancox, head of care at Z School, was able to give evidence on 11 December, and told me that M’s needs and behaviour fit with the profile of the young people in his care at Z.  Most of his colleagues who will be caring for M have been there for between 10 and 11 years, which speaks to their experience and commitment. In the 17 years he has been at Z he has only known two placements which failed, and in both cases those young people had been incorrectly diagnosed and had mental health problems which required other support.  Z has had a great deal of success with young people, who have come to them dependent and unable to socialise, but who have left with greatly improved levels of independence and social skills.  Mr Hancox told me that he would like to work with the mother.  He understands that she cannot contemplate M being removed from her care.  He told me that most parents of young people placed at Z felt the same, but he emphasised that the school does not try to take the place of the young person’s family. They seek to support both the young person and the family, and to that end they support and facilitate contact.  

96	Z School has carried out an assessment of M and recommends a 52-week placement, starting with a 3-month assessment period with 2-to-1 staffing, followed by a review.  It has suggested preparatory work with M, and the work that has been done is set out in section 4 of the care plan (D27-33). I note that, in accordance with that plan, staff from Z have made several visits to M so that he has some familiarity with them by the time he moves, and that he will be accompanied by two staff from X School who will remain with him at Z for the first 4 days.  It is clear that a great deal of thought and work has gone into this transition plan, but sadly the mother has played no part in it, because she refuses to acknowledge the possibility that M could move to Z. On 16 November Mr Bleasdille and Dr Garcia Rosales made a joint visit to the mother, and Dr Garcia Rosales urged her to try to work with the local authority, but without success.  I noted that when Mr Hancox was in the witness box, the mother did not look at him once. I hope that she was listening and heard the sincerity and care which I heard in his evidence. 

97	During the hearing, I was told that Mr Bleasdille will remain the allocated social worker for M for an extended handover period of 6 weeks, and the case will then be allocated to a social worker in the Looked After Children Team in accordance with the local authority’s usual practice.  As to contact, it is proposed that M would have a settling-in period for the first month, during which he would not have contact with his mother or any other member of his family, but the mother would be able to call staff daily to have reports on how M is. After that settling-in period, M would have direct monitored contact with his mother once a month, and telephone contact once a week. The school would look into the possibility of using Skype.  As to contact with the father, earlier in these proceedings Robyn Verney carried out a risk assessment of the father for the purpose of considering whether he should return to the family home, and also looking at contact. That is set out in her witness statement of 23 May 2014.  She concluded that the father should not return to live with the family at that stage, but once M had settled at X School, where he had just started, he could perhaps have contact at the school. The local authority proposes that when the father is released from prison they would carry out a risk assessment with a view to contact being supervised by a social worker.  The guardian agreed that the father should meet a social worker on his release in order to see whether anything had changed, but if that meeting is satisfactory, she would support contact supervised by the Z School staff, and I agree with her. The local authority has said in its plan that it will provide financial assistance to the father and the mother. As regards contact with his brothers and his sister, the plan is that once M is settled, he will be able to have supervised contact with them, and the local authority will consider providing financial assistance to them to cover the travel costs.   

	The parents’ proposal
98	The father’s and the mother’s proposal is that M should remain in the mother’s care.  The mother says she has always cared well for M. She has always put his interests first.  In the course of these proceedings she has taken courses to improve her understanding and to learn new techniques. She has done him no harm. She can cope with the challenges he presents, and in her culture a child stays with his family until he reaches majority, and her culture should be respected.  The mother proposes that M will continue to attend X School until he is 16. She told me that other children are doing well there. The staff are good, M is happy, he will get GCSEs, and nothing is impossible.  In fairness, I must say that she did visit one of the schools which the local authority considered, and she tried to arrange a visit to another school, but the person there who arranges visits was unwell. She told me that she has not been able to work with the local authority on a plan for M which she does not accept is in M’s best interests.  When asked about support that she would need in order to care for M at home, she referred to reinstating transport for M to school, because since the teaching assistants at X School refused to accompany him to school on 2 December, she has been taking him to school in a taxi.  She would welcome the continued support of Resources for Autism in the form of outreach work, holidays, play schemes and outings.  She told me that the father will not return to the family home until he has, firstly, fulfilled the conditions of any release scheme and, secondly, he has done work in relation to his anger management.  The father told me that since he spoke to Robyn Verney in April 2014, he had had a change of heart.  In 2014 he had told Mrs Verney that he agreed that M should be placed in a residential unit.  He had thought that might be alright, but, having read in the papers about the abuse of children in such units, he has changed his mind. M is his son.  He loves him and will look after him until he dies. The mother looks after M very well.  She is a selfless mother.  

	The realistic options for M
99	There are two realistic options for M: remaining in his mother’s care, with or without a supervision order to the local authority, or a care order and placement at Z School.  I have noted that Dr Wearmouth initially suggested a specialised foster placement, but accepted that it would be too much to ask of foster carers, and I have noted that the local authority placed M in temporary foster care with disastrous results in October 2013, and cannot now identify any foster carer who could meet M needs. No-one has asked me to consider long-term foster care as an option.   

100	I turn to the parents’ proposal that M should remain in his mother’s care, looking at both the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal.  The strengths are that M would remain in the care of his mother, with whom he has a close relationship and who has been his primary carer throughout his life. He would have a continuing relationship with his siblings and with his father when he is at liberty.  It would be in keeping with the parents’ cultural tradition.  M would remain at X School, which is familiar, where his attendance is 97 per cent and his behaviour is manageable most of the time.  He would continue to have access to local report from SCAN, Resources from Autism, his GP, and Barnet Family Services.  Children with autistic spectrum disorder do not cope well with change, and so remaining in a familiar environment would be better for M.  The mother would continue to work with the school and the other services which support M. She has attended training courses and she will continue to learn how to support him.  She would not allow the father to rejoin the family until he has completed anger management work.  If a supervision order were granted, the local authority would be under a legal duty to supervise, advise and befriend M, and the mother would be required to allow the local authority access to him.  

101	The weaknesses of this proposal are that I have found that M suffered significant harm in his mother’s care, and she has not been able to acknowledge this.  M is exhibiting extremely challenging behaviours which indicate a high level of anxiety.  He makes great demands on his carers. The experts, the social workers and the guardian consider that the mother is not able to meet M’s complex needs adequately.  The mother is unrealistic about M’s conditions, his abilities and his future development, and she may not make the best choices for him as a result.  The mother needs to work full time. There have been occasions when she has not been available for M when it has been difficult to contact her, for example in October 2013.  M is approaching puberty and is growing in size and strength. Dr Wearmouth said that if there is no change in M’s behaviour, in a year or two there is a risk or two that he could assault his mother, and she would not be able to cope.  She told me that the mother cannot be the sole carer of a pubertal autistic boy and work fulltime.  Both the team from GOSH and Dr Wearmouth recommend that M needs to be placed outside of his family in order that his complex needs are met.  The father is in prison.  It is not certain when he will be released. When he is, the mother may not be able to protect M from further abuse by his father.  A supervision order would not mitigate these concerns, because M would remain in the same environment.  

102	Turning to the local authority’s care plan, applying for a care order and to place M at Z School, the strengths of this proposal are that it is recommended by both GOSH and Dr Wearmouth that M be placed in such a specialised residential unit 52 weeks of the year, and the local authority propose that such a placement would need to be underpinned by a care order.  The care provided by Z School would be tailored to all M’s needs, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and that would ensure that he receives consistent care, supervision, behavioural management, routine and structure.  It would provide a safe contained environment in which M can gain confidence.  It would provide him with appropriate education in accordance with his statement of Special Educational Needs. Staff will be able to monitor M’s behaviour accurately, and therefore be better placed to assess the effect of interventions, as compared with Dr Garcia Rosales and X School, who were not able to do that.  M will be helped to regulate and moderate his emotions so that he can safely interact with other young people, and this will help him reach his potential, which may include a degree of independence. Staff from Z School have visited M both to assess whether the school is the right placement for him, and he therefore has had the opportunity of familiarising himself with them.  Z will be able to facilitate contact, which will mitigate to some extent the loss of his family. They will advise the family and support contact. They will not try to replace M’s family.  

103	The weaknesses of this proposal are that it would involve the loss of frequent, daily contact with his mother and loss of family life, and is not in keeping with the mother’s cultural and family values.  X School has been a positive experience for M much of the time.  It has been noted that he has made small improvements and he would lose that.  He would also lose support services and those who provide them who are familiar to him.  A child with his conditions should have as few changes as possible. I am reminded that the move into foster care, two foster placements in October 2013, at the beginning of these proceedings, was traumatic for M, and a move to Z School will be hard for him, although Dr Wearmouth thought that this move might not necessarily be as distressing for M as the placements were in October 2013, when he had been assaulted and he had been in police protection, because he would then have been in a state of alarm and distress, whereas this move, to the extent possible, will have been prepared.  But she did advise that there will be a transition period during which M is likely to be unhappy and unsettled.  The guardian advises that the usual concerns about a child remaining in care throughout his childhood, that he will be within the care system and subject to Looked after Child procedures, will not necessarily apply because of M’s limited understanding.

The Guardian’s Views  

104	Miss Higgins, has provided two analyses, in November 2013 and October 2014, and approved a position statement for the resumed hearing on 11 December, which sets out her detailed analysis of the realistic options for M. She accepts the diagnoses of his conditions and the description of his complex needs. She acknowledges that both parents love M, and that the mother has been committed and has fought for M to have the best care.  She can cooperate with professionals, but, if she does not agree, she will not work with them. A clear example of that is her refusal to contribute to the local authority’s plans for M to move to Z School.  The guardian accepts the expert’s conclusions that the mother cannot meet M’s needs adequately and has concluded that a final care order is proportionate to those needs and that he should be placed at the school. She agrees that it is a serious matter to separate any child from his mother and family, and that this move will be particularly difficult for M, and she accepts that when he is in his mother’s home M has, certainly recently, appeared to be tranquil when social workers have visited, but she told me that that is the only setting in which M is like that, and it is not healthy for him.  The guardian is impressed by the staff, who are very experienced. She does not think there is a strong possibility that the placement will break down. There will be a difficult transition period during which M’s behaviour is likely to deteriorate, but she is confident that Z School can manage, and she stresses that the mother and the family could help by telling the staff about M’s likes and dislikes, and his favourite foods and matters of that sort.  

Impressions of the parents

105	I want to say a little about my impressions of the mother and the father. I have made findings about them, which stand. However, I want to reflect, with regard to the mother, on the number of positives there are about her. There were positive assessments of her in 2009 and 2010. Nobody doubts her love for M, nor her wish to do the best for him, as she sees it. She has worked hard both to support her family financially and to care for M, and often she has had to do this as a single parent, because the father has not been available to share the responsibility.  She is a woman of faith, and it is very important to her. She has signed three written agreements with the local authority, and there is no suggestion that she has breached any of them. She has co-operated with the GOSH assessment. The fact that M attends X School 97 per cent of the time is a real achievement. She has welcomed social workers into her home, even recently Mr Bleasdille, knowing full well the local authority’s plan for M.  Mr Main-Thompson told me that she is beginning to realise that M’s needs are for a much higher level of help than she thought was the case at the outset.   However, other views also stand out from the evidence that I have considered.  M’s extreme behaviour is preventing him from achieving his full potential. That is a view shared by Miss Berdasco, Mr Carroll and Dr Racussen. I have been told in the evidence more than once that M is in a school for children with severe learning difficulties, although he is far more capable, and the fact that he is in that school shows how difficult it is to contain him.  He needs consistent boundaries to his behaviour at school and at home, and this view has been shared throughout the evidence by Josephine Durling, an independent educational psychologist, by V School, Dr Garcia Rosales, Mrs Verney, Mr Carroll, Miss Ruegger and Dr Racussen, Dr Wearmouth and the guardian.  In other words, both by professionals who have worked with M and his mother and the experts who have carried out assessments for the purpose of these proceedings.  

106	It is clear that the mother either does not or has only just begun to understand the impact of M’s conditions on his development, although she has been living with them for years.  I find that the mother does not recognise that M has behavioural, educational and social needs that she cannot meet or adequately support. This was particularly expressed in the report of Mr Carroll, that the mother had described herself as being mystified by the reports of M’s behaviour as recently as last week, because M does not present challenging behaviour at home.  I find that the mother still minimises or seeks to excuse M’s behaviour, as she did when she tried to explain his behaviour at school within the past two weeks and when she did not seem to take on board how serious it is that M’s teaching assistants are no longer prepared to escort him to and from school.  It is clear that things are not going as well at X School as the mother claims, and if Mr Carroll has not excluded M, he has thought about it.  So it does appear that she cannot work consistently with professionals, especially when she does not agree with their views, and the particular evidence of this is her inability to work with the local authority to prepare M for a move to a residential school, although I have accepted that she visited one school and tried to visit another. Mr Main-Thompson told me that the mother was unable to differentiate her firmly held view that M should not be removed from her care for preparation for a possible move to a residential school, and therefore she could not agree to the further assessments that were necessary. 

107	When she gave evidence at this adjourned hearing, the mother could not answer any question as to what she would do and whether she would help support M if I were to make a care order and approve his placement at Z School.  She simply could not contemplate the possibility.  It is a great pity that such an intelligent and devoted mother could not tell me that she would do everything possible to alleviate the distress that everyone agrees M will feel on being separated from her, at least by sharing with the staff at Z details of M’s routine, likes and dislikes.  

108	Robyn Verney’s evidence suggests that the father has greater insight into M’s needs than the mother. I note that at a meeting at M he asked about the possibility of M leading an independent life.  Mrs Verney was present at the end of that contact on 23 April when the father phoned his wife and told her that they should consider a residential placement for M.  But by the hearing he had changed his mind and accepted the mother’s views.  It seemed to me entirely possible that the father did so because he sees her as a good mother, but also perhaps he wants to be reunited with the family. The father’s case was not assisted by the suggestion that Mr Carroll had exaggerated the injuries which M had caused to his staff, which is in effect to say that Mr Carroll lied about them.  The mother is very happy with X School, both parents would like M to stay there, but both minimise the difficulties which M’s behaviour presents, and the devotion of Mr Carroll and his staff. Their positions in this regard are inconsistent.  

109	I assume that if M were able to express his wishes and feelings, he would say that he would prefer to remain at home in the care of his mother, where he has lived all his life.  I have considered M’s needs, the likely effect on him of any move and change in circumstances and a move to Z School, his behaviour, his particular characteristics, the harm that I have found he has suffered and is at risk of suffering, and the capacity of his mother to meet his needs. M is a child with serious lifelong conditions and complex needs who has a loving mother. Nevertheless, he has suffered significant harm in her care, because his needs have not been adequately met there.  It is very sad that a child who has so much to contend with should not have been able to develop to his full potential.  He has just turned 13, and there is not a great deal of time left in which he can be helped to do so.  It is essential that M be cared for in a way which will enable him to learn and achieve whatever he is capable of, and on the basis of all the evidence I have considered, I cannot be confident that he would have that opportunity if he were to remain in his mother’s care, because she does not accept and minimises the extent of the problems. I acknowledge that a move away from his family and into a residential unit will be particularly hard for M. I note that the local authority has a contingency plan if the placement at Z School were to break down.  But the Z School staff have done a lot of preparation, and the guardian says that there is not a high risk that the placement will break down. I take that to mean that she thinks that the placement will be successful.  I acknowledge all of the difficulties inherent in a move to a residential school, but I balance against that the experts’ recommendation, supported by the guardian, that M’s interests will be best served by his being placed at Z School, and I conclude that such a placement is necessary and proportionate to M’s complex needs.  

110	On that basis, I make a care order to the London Borough of Barnet. I approve the care plan for M to be placed at Z School and for contact, subject to the views of the guardian, which I share, with regard to the father’s contact.  The care plan will be subject to review, both because it is required by law and because it will be necessary as M progresses, and I hope very much that the mother and the family will feel able to support M there.