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

Case No: MI 13 C 10105

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT  MILTON KEYNES COUNTY COURT

351 Silbury Boulevard
Milton Keynes
Buckinghamshire
MK9 2DT

Date: Friday, 9th May 2014 
Before:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE HUGHES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

	Buckinghamshire County Council	Applicant	
	- and -		
	D (1) R (2) L and A (3) B and K (4 )	Respondents	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court,
Chancery Lane, London WC2Q 1HP
Tel No: 020 7067 2900.  Fax No: 020 7831 6864.  DX:  410 LDE
Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com
Website: www.martenwalshcherer.com
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR TURNER (Counsel) appeared for the Applicant Local Authority
MR CRONSHAW (Counsel) appeared for the Mother
MS BURGE (Counsel) appeared for the Father
MS EDWARDS (Solicitor) appeared for the Guardian

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

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR JUDGE HUGHES: 

1.	The children with whom I am concerned and whose welfare is my paramount consideration are B, who was born on [a date in] 2008 and is therefore five years old, and K, who was born on [a date in]  2010, who is therefore three years old.  The children are represented in these proceedings by Ms Edwards, a solicitor, through their Guardian, Sylvia Baker.  
2.	This has been the final hearing of Buckinghamshire County Council's section 31 application in relation to these children.  The local authority seek findings in relation to threshold to satisfy the requirements of section 31 of the Children Act and thereafter support the placement of the children with the proposed special guardians, L and A.    L is the children's paternal aunt.  
3.	The local authority are represented by Mr Turner of counsel, and L and A are unrepresented but are parties in the proceedings.  The father of both the children is the first respondent,  D.  He is represented by Ms Burge of counsel.  Until the start of this hearing he was seeking the children's return to his care, but, in the event that that was not possible, supported the placement of the children with the proposed special guardians.  At the start of the hearing he indicated through his counsel that he was no longer contesting the case and supported the placement with the proposed special guardians.  He does not oppose the level of contact proposed and is hopeful it can be reviewed after time when the children have settled.
4.	The children's mother is R, who seeks the placement of the children with herself and her partner, KH.  The mother is represented by Mr Cronshaw of counsel.  Her second position is that she supports the proposed special guardianship placement and seeks a level of contact higher than that proposed by the local authority but to be determined by the court. 
5.	By way of background to the proceedings I record that early in 2012 the mother issued private law proceedings in the Watford County Court seeking a residence order in her favour, the children at that time living with their father in what transpired to be less than satisfactory circumstances, the details of which are set out in the local authority's helpful background which I presently set out in this judgment.
6.	On 11th November 2013 Watford County Court transferred the proceedings to Milton Keynes to be heard within care proceedings, the local authority having issued care proceedings in relation to B and K on 7th November 2013.  I rehearse below the local authority's helpful summary of the background to the section 31 proceedings.  Where any part of that summary is in conflict with any findings that I make, clearly my findings prevail.
7.	The parents' relationship commenced in early 2007.  They married in February 2009 and remained living together until their separation in February 2011.  The children remained living with their father and having contact with their mother.  In April 2011 the mother moved to Yorkshire with her partner, KH, and his mother.  Difficulties arose in relation to contact and section 8 proceedings were issued by the mother early in 2012.  The mother and KH now have two daughters – A- 1 who is two, and A-  2 aged four months - and they live in Margate, Kent.
8.	Social Care became involved with the family in 2011 following a referral by a family friend who was concerned that father was struggling to meet B and K's needs.  On 3rd June 2011 B fell from a second floor window at the home.  The local authority expressed concern that B was receiving insufficient supervision.
9.	From 6th August 2011 until 15th September 2011 the Family Assessment and Support Team ("FAST") undertook parenting support work with the father looking at issues regarding the children's safety, developmental needs and maintaining positive relationships.  The children's centre support worker continued to work with the father on a weekly basis and also helped to clean the house.  Improvements were not maintained and the children were made the subject of child protection plans on 9th December 2011 under the category of neglect.  Support was put in place to assist with the management of the family home.  Improvements were made but they were not consistently maintained.
10.	During 2012 FAST provided four further parenting advice sessions.  FAST recommended the father continue to work with professionals to ensure changes were maintained.  The Junior CATCH Team worked with the family in June 2013 and reported on 12th August 2013.  The report highlighted ongoing concerns about supervision and hygiene in the family home.  It was noted that B's behaviour was very challenging and high levels of supervision were required to ensure his safety.  It was recommended that the father attend a parenting course such as Parents As First Teachers, but this referral was refused because they considered that matters had progressed beyond the prevention stage.
11.	Professionals continued to raise concerns about the cleanliness of the family home and the children.  As limited progress had been made under the child protection plan, the local authority commenced the PLO process (that is, the Public Law Outline process) in January 2013.  After four meetings the local authority did not consider that the PLO process had resulted in sufficient change.  On 30th July 2013, 19th September and 21st October, following visits to the family home, a Ms Angela Peck, a health visitor, reported that the family home was dirty, unsafe and unhygienic.  The health visitor's concerns are recorded in her report for the child protection conference on 5th November.  
12.	The local authority also had significant concerns in relation to the mother's ability to recognise the risk posed by her partner KH's father.  His name is DH.  DH is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence in Wakefield for the sexual abuse of his stepdaughters when they were aged between five and fifteen years old.  A report from the Thames Valley Probation has been filed in the proceedings which indicated the severity of the offences and the high risk he poses to children.  
13.	DH's family, including the mother's father, did not initially accept his conviction or the risk that he had posed and appeared to be supportive of him.  The local authority was of the view that, were the children to be placed in the care of the mother, they would be at risk of suffering significant harm were the mother to remain in a relationship with her partner when DH is released from prison, which may be in as little as four years.  Mother and KH subsequently stated that they  did recognise the risk posed by DH and they acted upon this insight by moving to Margate.  
14.	So far as the section 31 proceedings were concerned, at the initiation of those proceedings those concerns were recorded in the statement of Kevin Harrison, a social worker, and have been succinctly summarised in the headings of the interim threshold document.  
15.	At the case management hearing on 22nd November the children remained in the care of father pending a risk assessment of the mother and her partner and further subject to daily monitoring.  The case was timetabled to this final hearing and a contested interim care order removal hearing was listed on 18th December, but subsequently vacated and relisted on 8th January 2014, as the mother went into labour with her daughter, A- 2.  A high level of support and monitoring was put in place involving daily visits to protect the children's welfare over the interim period. 
16.	On 8th January 2014 the matter was further adjourned until 21st January 2014 for two days.  Despite daily visits being undertaken to the family home since 22nd November and the proceedings under section 31 having been initiated, professionals' concerns for the children remaining in their father's care continued due to the poor condition of the family home and the father's inability to make the necessary changes.  By the time of the contested interim hearing, both the local authority and the Guardian considered that the children's welfare demanded their immediate separation from father.  It was also the view of Buckinghamshire County Council and this Guardian that it was not consistent with the children's welfare to place them in the mother's care at that time.
17.	On 21st and 22nd November there followed a contested interim hearing, at the conclusion of which the court granted interim care orders for the children and they were placed with their current local authority carers.  The children are reported to have settled well in placement.  The children have remained at their school and nursery and they have interim supervised contact with their father three times a week, fortnightly weekend unsupervised contact at mother's home.
18.	The social worker's analysis of each child's physical, emotional and educational needs are set out in her comprehensive statement.  Concerns about B's behaviour continued.  His ADHD assessment remains incomplete.  K had at that time been assessed as developing within normal limits, but the social worker has observed him to be very quiet, accepting of B's aggressive and demanding behaviours and considers him to present as "the unseen child".
19.	There then followed a number of comprehensive assessments in relation to the children and the parents which I will summarise briefly.  The following assessments of the parents have been carried out in the course of the proceedings.  On 5th December there was a cognitive assessment of the father by Dr Blasco-Alcala.  The assessment confirmed that father does not have a learning difficulty and is of average cognitive ability.
20.	On 18th December 2013 there was a risk assessment of the mother and her partner by Sheila Newlands of the Court Assessment Service.  The author noted that the mother and her partner, KH, had the start of a developing awareness of the risk to the children posed by KH's father.  However, the assessment raised concerns in relation to KH's emotional state and vulnerability which would be likely to lead him to struggle with the emotional demands of four children.  (I make an aside there:  I come to review Sheila Newlands' evidence in some detail later on in this judgment.)
21.	On 14th March 2014 there was a risk assessment of the father by Sheila Newlands and that assessment concluded that the father was currently unable to accept professional advice and support in relation to his children in order for the necessary changes required to enable the children to return to his care.  He needed to work through his own feelings of anger and frustration.  Were the children returned to his care, the risks which led to the children's removal would remain; that is, the home environment would at times be dirty and unhygienic, but, more worryingly, the challenging, demanding behaviour of these boys described by the foster carer and the school would intensify and ultimately both children would remain at risk of significant harm.
22.	On 18th March 2014 Melissa Benning filed a parenting capacity assessment of the mother and KH.  She is the allocated social worker in the case.  She spent 32 hours with the mother, KH and all four children at the mother's home in Margate and in that vicinity over a four-day period during February half term.  The assessment concluded that the mother and KH have little insight into B and K's emotional needs and that their method of parenting would add to the emotional and behavioural difficulties the children are already experiencing.  The assessment also raised concerns in relation to the impact which KH's own unaddressed emotional needs is likely to have on the children and in relation to the mother's inability to prioritise the children's needs over those of KH.  
23.	I now come to review some of the evidence I have heard in more detail.  I record I have heard live evidence from Sheila Newlands, Melissa Benning, social workers, the mother and the Guardian.  I have also read the ring-binder of filed evidence in relation to the case.  
24.	Sheila Newlands is a social worker in the Court Assessment Service in the Children's Safeguarding Division of Buckinghamshire County Council.  It was she that prepared a risk assessment in relation to the mother and KH.  She also prepared a risk assessment in relation to the father in respect of which there is no need for me to rehearse the content, given the father's position in these proceedings.
25.	In her report of 16th December she carefully sets out details of her meeting with the mother and KH, meeting the mother as she did on two occasions and KH on one occasion in the period November/December 2013.  It is fair to say that her letter of instruction asks for a risk assessment of the mother and her partner in relation to their insight into the risks posed by DH upon his release from prison and their consequent ability to be protective of the children in their care.  It is plain from her observations and her assessment that her report not only addressed that rather narrow issue, but also outlined concerns that she had in relation to KH in particular, which she felt obliged to give and for which I make no criticism of her, particularly having regard to the serious nature of the court's task, which is to evaluate whether the welfare needs of these particular children will be met by them being placed with their mother and her partner.
26.	In relation to her primary function, she concluded that mother and KH had the start of a developing awareness of the risks KH's father, DH, may pose to the children and currently they recognise the need to offer protection to the children.  However, she went on to say that her assessment concluded that KH was a vulnerable person in his own right and, as a couple, mother and KH would struggle to cope with the emotional demands of four children.  Of course I have in mind in relation to the two older children that they already have the behavioural and other difficulties and this must form part of the consideration of the welfare needs of those children whose interests I must consider.
27.	KH's vulnerability was highlighted in her report.  She found, of the two, the mother more able to comprehend the issues; more accepting of professional input; and more willing to understand that DH was a risk to her family.  However, she went on to say, "KH, however, presented to me as a very vulnerable and immature young man who seemed quite self-obsessed.  I found his remarks about his father having ADHD like him quite chilling and, for me, this indicated that he had yet to accept what his father had done or was even denying it."
28.	She gave some detail in relation to KH's presentation, he having told her that his brain was "now bursting" and "bursting at the seams", blaming, as he did, Social Care for punishing the mother.  The effect of the local authority pressure was, he told her, making him feel worse and he said it was his fault that the mother could not have her children and then said that the mother was being punished for what D (that is to say, the father) had done.  He also went on to say that, if it turned out that he was responsible for not allowing R to have her boys, then he would leave.  I shall come to that later.  
29.	But, in terms of his vulnerability, he told this social worker that he became panicky in public places and when at the Job Centre would "panic about every question".  He was described in the interview as becoming agitated, talking very quickly and focusing much of what was happening on himself, believing he was to blame for the mother's involvement with Social Care.  A cogent picture emerged of KH as a vulnerable and needy young man.  It transpired he was having therapy.  It also transpired, as reported by Melissa Benning, the social worker in the case, that shortly before his interview with Ms Newlands in November 2013 he had overdosed on Trazedone and reported to the social worker that  "he was trying to make the best of a bad situation" and he felt "all was coming back to him".  
30.	It is a significant feature of this case that he failed to disclose that   suicide attempt or cry for help, whatever it was, to this social worker who was undergoing a risk assessment of him.  That fact goes directly to the issue of future risk and the need for a cooperative and open relationship with the local authority.  It is also significant, in my judgment, that that fact was also not disclosed by the mother to this social worker either.
31.	She rehearsed in her report that KH had told her that when he was a child he thought his father could do no wrong.  He told her that his father was his best friend.  He initially had not believed the allegation, but had changed his mind when told that his father had pleaded guilty to the offences.  He then confronted his father in prison and told him he had lied to him and felt betrayed by him.  He told the social worker he suffers with anxiety as well as ADHD, which I have already mentioned, and that he was just like his father in terms of having ADHD.  This made this social worker question whether he really saw his father as a real risk in the future.  
32.	She was prepared to agree that it was very difficult in these circumstances for anyone to come to terms with the knowledge of an individual as an abuser with whom he had a close relationship, but she felt that he had had time to move on.  He did not, it would seem, offer reassurance by saying he wished to distance himself from his father and she felt that he should have come to his position a lot quicker if he was truly a protective parent with a young child and another on the way.   
33.	She acknowledged that what he had said was that what his father had done was too big to forgive, and she was challenged in cross-examination that in effect she was over interpreting the father's responses in a particularly negative way, knowing the history as she did.  She was also challenged that it was unfair of her to attribute to KH and the mother any adverse inference in relation to her perception that they had failed to understand that KH's mother had failed to protect her children - an issue, incidentally, to which I am more receptive.  There may be some truth therefore in that suggestion, but this very experienced social worker was clearly very worried about KH and the parallels he drew between himself and his father.  She gained the impression that he identified with his father in lots of ways and it was her impression that he viewed his father in a positive light, notwithstanding some of the things which he clearly said.  She was troubled by his indication that he would leave the mother if it was thought that he was the one to blame for not having the care of her boys.  She saw that as a potential lack of commitment rather than anything positive to advance the mother's position, the mother at that time being pregnant and the parties having one small child.  
34.	It emerged on questioning that she felt that KH was self-absorbed and only concerned for himself.  The mother was in a relationship with a vulnerable man and she found his response to difficulties - namely, that by indicating he would leave - worrying.  His self-obsession was worrying because in her professional judgment this would cause an emotional blockage to understand the emotional needs of these children whose future stability and emotional security are a vital component in their placement.
35.	I found this observation of his potential for lack of emotional availability most cogent and reinforced by the observations of Ms Benning, the current social worker, whose evidence I will now come to.  Melissa Benning has been the allocated social worker in this case since December 2013.  She is the author of four statements, the amended special guardianship support plans, and contributed to the special guardian assessment report.  Central to her involvement has been the preparation of a lengthy parental capacity report in relation to both mother and KH, which was conducted over February half term, spending, as I have already said, 32 hours in direct assessment work with the family when the boys and the mother's own children were present.  
36.	I should say at the outset that, in my judgment, this was an extremely comprehensive and thorough piece of work and, having listened to her live evidence and had that live evidence tested in cross-examination, I have little doubt that her observations were both fair and accurate, not least because although she records that the assessment would have been stressful, invasive and difficult for the mother, KH and the children, but the parents nevertheless remained courteous and welcoming and communicated in an open and honest manner.  She makes other reference to their being relaxed.  This means, in my judgment, that they presented in an unguarded way for which I give them credit, but it also lends weight to the accuracy of the social worker's observations.
37.	I know the mother takes the view that the children presented in the period as "the worst they have ever been" and it was the first time the parties had all four children together, but I have little doubt that this social worker made every allowance for that and, notwithstanding the mother's protestations in her statement to the contrary, gave them feedback in their individual assessments which took place on the second day.  
38.	Although there are numerous positives in relation to the assessment which I have noted carefully, these are, I am sorry to record, outweighed by the negatives, and it is her professional opinion that the mother and KH appear to have little insight and understanding of the emotional needs of B and K and their parenting methods add to the emotional and behavioural difficulties of both the children.  She records lack of insight in relation to understanding, for example, the many changes that A also has experienced and how this may have impacted on her emotional and behavioural needs.
39.	Central to her concern is the needy nature of KH and his capacity to meet the needs of the children in his care.  She describes those needs as overwhelming, which are exacerbated by the mother's apparent inability to challenge him and demonstrate assertiveness, and she doubts whether mother would be a sufficient protective factor for the children.
40.	Incidentally, in relation to KH she records in her report that he has a history of multiple drug use, mental health and behavioural issues and, to her knowledge, two suicide attempts, the most recent being in November 2013 to which I have already alluded earlier in this judgment.  Despite KH telling her that he is receiving assistance from the Beacon Hospital, she indicated in her evidence that when she checked on 13th March they reported that KH was not currently on their records.  That, for a moment or two until I was reassured by the mother's evidence, concerned me.  The mother later told me that he was engaging regularly in relation to his treatment.  He had the assistance of a mental health nurse and in relation to that issue I am quite prepared to accept the mother's evidence, but it does go (and this is the vital component of my observation in relation to that) to underline the serious nature of KH's difficulties if he requires that level of support.
41.	She comprehensively assesses the key features in relation to parenting ability in her report, encompassing guidance and boundaries, stability, emotional warmth and stimulation, as well as ensuring safety and basic care.  Significantly, in my judgment, it is once again KH that emerges as the centre of concern, and she categorises his mannerisms, his inappropriateness of boundary setting, his transference of his own anxiety on to the children causing confusion and unnecessary distress, his overly quick responses to blame B and K and his undermining and challenging the mother's responses to setting boundaries and guidance.  There is little doubt, in my judgment, that she had ample time to observe these interactions and for these concerns to be played out in front of her.
42.	She does not believe that there would be any adequate package of support to allow the mother to care for the boys with KH as there are too many strands of concern which she described as "very significant issues".  A central issue was KH's apparent inability to put the children first before his own needs.  
43.	During the course of this final hearing she was ordered by the court to file an updating statement dealing with her concerns in relation to the visit to the mother's property the previous weekend to this hearing and also to justify her position on contact, which she proposed at a level of four times a year per parent on a supervised basis for two hours, the emphasis being on the children's need for permanence and stability and to recognise the special guardians as their permanent carers.
44.	In any event, I record, so far as contact is concerned, that the proposal is that the matter should be subject to six-weekly reviews under the terms of the supervision order proposed and the fact that the children are children in need.  I have little doubt the special guardians will be supported in relation to their understanding of the need to promote the parents in a positive image and for contact perhaps to move forward after an initial settling in period of twelve months or so.  I should say that I am entirely persuaded that the necessary machinery is in place in order to enable contact to be kept under active review, and I certainly record the desirability of that happening.
45.	I have mentioned the social worker's recent statement which was dated 6th May.  In that she described her visit to the mother's property on 3rd May, transporting B and K to their mother and KH's home for contact.  This was, she described, a difficult and uncomfortable visit due to the negative and awkward atmosphere present in the home, and it was KH in particular who presented as negative and dismissive of B and K, with KH seeming in particular to be unable to put the opinion that he had of the social worker aside in order to make what could well have been the last staying contact for the boys an enjoyable experience for them. 
46.	Her observations go into commendable detail when one reads the contact note.  The boys were very excited in the trip down in the car and had bought some cake.  On arrival B greeted KH with the news that he had saved some cake for him and he was inappropriately rejected.  B was observed to look confused and unsure.  There are other examples of KH blanking the children and in effect refusing the engage with them.  
47.	As I have said, the contact note is extremely detailed and this social worker's observation, which I accept, was that it provides prime evidence that KH was unable to prioritise B and K's needs beyond his own, and I accept that was the case.  It provides good evidence of his inability to provide consistent care for two vulnerable little boys.  There is little doubt that KH can provide high levels of emotional warmth and interaction from time to time, but there appears to be an unhealthy link to how it is that he himself is feeling and these children need consistency of care in relation to emotional interaction, particularly having regard to their own difficulties.  
48.	Unsurprisingly, given the strength of the mother's opposition to any plan that would deprive her of the opportunity for caring for her two boys, who clearly she loves, cross-examination of this social worker was thorough and comprehensive.  She was challenged that earlier observations of the family recorded by a previous social worker, Mr Harrison, and indeed by herself in an earlier statement, were extremely positive.  In Mr Harrison's report of December 2013 he affirmed that KH and the mother were able to meet the competing needs of the children.  
49.	After her own visit on 2nd January 2014 she agreed that her report at that time  was wholly and completely positive and there were no concerns of a significant nature.  However, she explained that her early involvement was categorised by a snapshot visit and the difficulties that she illuminated in her comprehensive and lengthy assessment were not evident; that she had now been able to see the bigger picture as a consequence of the many hours invested in this case as opposed to her snapshot observations of two or three hours.  
50.	She agreed that she had indeed made a referral to Kent County Council after her full assessment in which her concerns were expressed, and was constrained to agree that Kent County Council appeared not to be concerned.  There is a positive letter in the bundle which rehearses very positive feedback from the health visitor during mother's latest pregnancy, describing mother and KH's handling of the children as "positive, affectionate and appropriate".  They were also commended on the way that they were engaging with the children's centre.  
51.	I am bound to say I would not be at all sure that would be the current view of Kent County Council.  Had they seen the comprehensive evidence comprised in the bundle that is before the court, I would find it surprising if that was indeed their current view if they were in possession of all the evidence that is before this court.  
52.	She was challenged on each of the various headings of care that she had set out in her report.  She made allowance that it was a difficult time following the birth of the baby, but over the four-day period she said that the parents did calm down and presented as relaxed and she was with them for a long time.  It is plain from her report that she was aware of the difficulties that are necessarily involved in any close scrutiny of a family and clearly was not unsympathetic to them.  
53.	Her report, however, gave one or two other disturbing examples of lack of emotional attunement by KH.  One such example was the children being made to eat up very tough and clearly indigestible meat which left A -1 gagging.  It is significant that they were almost forced swallow the meat and she wondered about the emotional impact of this exercise on the children.  
54.	The picture she gleaned was of KH wanting his own way.  She said "It was about power over the children".  It seems, according to her evidence, that he persisted notwithstanding her voiced concerns and she felt uncomfortable.  She said it was traumatic to watch.  B was particularly affected.  There were other issues regarding safety, boundaries and stimulation.  Although she observed and recorded good emotional warmth, particularly from the mother but also with KH and the children, KH was not able to sustain it because he was unable to maintain and manage his own emotions.  An example of this was particularly evident in her latest statement on the visit this last weekend, which I have already summarised.  She categorised that the happiness of the boys, evident on their way down in the car, was flattened.  KH was unable to put his emotions to one side and B in particular did not know how to respond.  
55.	She was able to acknowledge, when cross-examined in terms of risk from KH's father, that distance had been put between KH and his father by virtue of the move to Margate.  But there is an especially significant passage in her report which reinforces her belief that KH is still on a journey.  She states:
"It is my professional opinion that KH remains at very early stages in regard to his acceptance of his father's offences and struggles to accept the seriousness of his father's actions and the risks he presents to the children.  KH expressed he feels he is the person he is today due to his parents' values, morals and courteousness.  KH advised that he had avoided trying to think about what he would do on his father's release.  However, he acknowledged that he would not be allowed round his children.  KH expressed he felt it won't go away and feels he will want to see his father to address it.  However, at the moment he feels there are other priorities."
It may well be, given the passage of time and some professional help (which I would deem to be essential in relation to KH protecting his own children) that he can develop enough insight to be truly protective on his father's release, but, as far as this judgment goes, it is a matter about which I am profoundly unsure at this present time.
56.	Finally, the social worker was challenged on her view that contact should reduce to as little as four times a year on a supervised basis.  I fully accept that, from the mother's point of view, this is a stark reduction given the high level of warmth and affection that the boys clearly feel for her, let alone her feelings for them.  However, on balance, I am bound to say that I agree with the social worker's observation that the primary welfare need is for the children to settle and to regard the proposed special guardians as their permanent carers.  To his considerable credit, D accepts that position but it is of course perfectly understandable that the mother feels that she cannot.
57.	After carefully balancing this social worker's evidence with other evidence in relation to the case, including the mother's evidence which I will summarise shortly, I accept her observations and concerns and I record for the purposes of this judgment the high level of quality work that she carried out in relation to this assessment for which she should be commended.
58.	So far as the mother is concerned, R is B and K's mother.  She is also the mother of two other children, of which KH is the father.  She opposes the plan for special guardianship and wishes to care for B and K together with her two other children in what she describes as a loving and supportive home.  Her case is that she would be fully able to protect them. She prays in aid her understanding of the risks posed by KH's father by virtue of the fact that they have moved their home to Margate.  She has also been able to acknowledge certain shortcomings in the care available from KH and herself, but maintains that she and he are able to provide good enough care.
59.	I observe from the outset that, by any interpretation, B and K certainly need more than good enough care as they are vulnerable children as a consequence of their experiences.  If she is unsuccessful in her application to care for her sons, then she would support the proposed special guardian placement, but challenges the level of contact proposed by the local authority which I have already rehearsed.  She has filed two lengthy statements together with exhibits, and I have read them both with care.  
60.	She presented herself at the hearing with her youngest daughter, A -2, as a babe in arms, KH having remained at home to care for A -1 and who has not been called by her to give evidence.  I do not for one moment underestimate the difficulties that she has faced over the course of this hearing: looking after A -2, who she is feeding and who from time to time became fractious and distressed, and as well having to focus on the difficult emotional issues in this case.  I hope she agrees that the court has gone to great lengths to make the giving of her evidence as easy as possible for her in what must be a terrible situation for her.
61.	She has in her oral and written evidence challenged the social worker's conclusion.  During the lengthy assessment carried out by Melissa Benning, the children were "the worst behaved they have ever been", she said.  Although she has been able to acknowledge some of the recorded shortcomings - for example, in relation to safety issues with A running into the road - her general position is that all the issues identified can be worked on.    
62.	I am bound to say that her assertion that KH was not controlling was difficult to square with the evidence in relation to the recorded observations of his management of the children, although I am prepared to accept that she may feel that he is not necessarily controlling of her.  He is, however, desperately needy.  There is little doubt that she provides him with a substantial level of support and there is a marked lack of insight in relation to her understanding of his detrimental effect on the children and the impact this has on her case.  
63.	In relation to other support, it seems that her own mother can only offer sporadic help if needed. She has a career and a seven-year-old daughter of her own and a difficult partner who has strange and reclusive behaviours and his own needs.  She was able to acknowledge when cross-examined by the local authority that there were a lot of concerns about KH, but her position was that all these issues could be worked on.  But I am bound to say that, on the first day of her evidence at least, she gave little understanding as to the impact of KH's behaviours on K and B.
64.	In the context of his vulnerability, she was taken to his account of his history to Melissa Benning.  I am bound to say it makes poignant reading, starting, as he did, experimenting with drugs at the age of 12, graduating to Class A by the time he was 14; that he served a period of imprisonment, been homeless, lived on the streets for three months and for a while in 2008 smoked heroin and used crack cocaine.  The death of his daughter and partner would have had a profound effect on him, and he described himself as being in a bad place for three years.  He has undoubtedly had a difficult time.  He has received medical advice in relation to his psychological and mental fragility and some treatment.  
65.	More particularly, he overdosed, as I have already explained, in November 2013.  The mother was asked about that when she gave evidence.  Her explanation was that KH blamed himself for her predicament in relation to the children and thought that if he was not there she would get the children back.  A was in the property when her father attempted suicide, mother preferring to call it "a cry for help", and it was she that accompanied him to the hospital.  She was able, when pressed, to agree that this was a serious and significant incident and she had not disclosed it to Sheila Newlands because, shortly, she was never asked about it and understood that Sheila Newlands' brief was to report on the risks posed by KH's father.  I am afraid I was far from convinced that that was a proper reason and I find that she wilfully failed to disclose something that she knew would be prejudicial in relation to her case to care for her sons with KH.
66.	She reports in her latest statement that they have found out that KH may have adult ADHD and/or anxiety, and the anxiety has been heightened due to the current proceedings.  She goes on to say, "However, we have been informed that this condition will not affect his ability to parent the children."  There is of course ample evidence provided by Melissa Benning that the father's behaviour has profoundly affected the children: be it either by overreacting to K putting a felt pen on the carpet, on the one hand, and the consequent effect on K, or his rigid and inflexible view at the meal table in relation to the indigestible meat, as observed by Melissa Benning, and the subsequent effects on B.  
67.	She was able to accept in cross-examination that this did amount to inappropriate disciplining and that Melissa Benning's account was correct, but it was clear that she saw these issues, as I have said before, as issues to be worked on with the children in situ.  In fact she said they could only be worked on with the children in the house, and there appeared to be some resistance to the notion that the children should not be exposed to that type of regime in the first place.  
68.	My impression of her evidence was that she cast a protective veil over KH's difficulties.  Of course that much I understand.  She clearly loves KH and is committed to him.  He is the father of her two youngest children, but her determination to manage the situation and improve it and at the same time care for two vulnerable children, in addition to her two younger children, is, in my judgment, profoundly misplaced and does not prioritise the welfare needs of B and K.  
69.	She was asked what her reaction was in relation to the incident where K was disciplined for drawing on the carpet and the eating incident involving all the children.  I am bound to say I felt that there was an attempt at minimisation, with her first of all saying that she was in and out of the room and did not recall, for example, A -1 gagging.  Eventually, when pressed, she accepted that the concerns were justified.  Although she said she had not seen it happen before, it should not have happened and she cannot see it happening again.
70.	Her response reminded me of a piece of evidence tucked away in the papers which was a note of a telephone call from the nursery in Kent in January 2014, when the nursery worker indicated that she had carried out a home visit to the family over the Christmas period and she had noticed that KH was quite short with the two boys and "she didn't get a good vibe about him".  Concern was expressed that one of the boys was put on the naughty step and left there for a considerable amount of time and, as far as she could see, he had not done anything wrong.  When she left she did not leave with a good feeling.  This is of course more than an echo of the concerns that are set out by Ms Benning in her comprehensive assessment.  
71.	She was challenged in relation to the social worker's visit on the weekend of 3rd May and KH's behaviour.  Once again she attempted to minimise it by saying that he just took himself away and went outside because he was not comfortable being near the social worker and showed, I am afraid, little insight into the impact of KH's behaviour on the boys and the description that B felt flattened.
72.	It is difficult to square the circle in relation to her comment on those observations with her observation from the witness box that, if she thought that KH's behaviour was damaging, she would take her sons away from him, attributing as she did the present situation to the difficulties involved in the pressure of the court case.  She said that she would do anything to protect them, and I believe that she may honestly believe that, but I am afraid showed little understanding or insight into the impact of harmful behaviour to the children and is, in effect, blinded by her affection for KH.
73.	She was, however, able to accept the suggestion made in the social worker's statement that she lacked self esteem and was avoidant, but she said that she chose to discuss matters carefully with KH away from the children and third parties and they settle their differences in private.  However, it is her ability to act in a proactive way to pre-empt emotional harm to the boys which has been marked in the examples that I have been presented with, together with her contention that apparently recently KH has let her take back control.  I was left with the impression that she was unable to protect the children from the negative effects of KH's behaviour.
74.	She was cross-examined at great length regarding the potential of risk from DH.  On 5th April 2012 I record that Kirklees Borough Council conducted a risk assessment.  In that it was recorded that KH and the mother would not be concerned for their daughter in DH's company.  It is clear that at the time the mother knew something of the offences and I categorise the offences for which DH is serving a 16-year prison sentence as very serious and very depraved.  I accept the evidence I have heard from her that she now accepts the nature of the risk posed by him, but a key element for the court is the extent to which KH truly accepts the nature of the risk and his influence over her if he does not.  He was recorded, for example, at a family group conference in October 2013 as still being "unsure".  Her statement of 20th January 2014 makes mention of she and KH engaging in a Lucy Faithfull foundation course to educate them further about the risk of sexual abuse which she described in the witness box in this hearing as being helpful and it was a matter that had yet to be arranged by her solicitor.  However, it is of no little significance that such a course has not been arranged and remains outstanding.
75.	I do not doubt her determination and her present commitment to her children but wherever one looks in the evidence obstacles are presented, consciously or unconsciously, by KH.  An example of this is that the mother would be prepared to engage with the local authority under the terms of a supervision order, but it is a matter of record that KH would not agree to a supervision order as he would not want Social Care interfering with his life.  This observation severely undermines any genuine attempt of the mother to engage.  It has, of course, been a matter of continuing concern to the court that KH has not chosen to give evidence or indeed been called by the mother, although she was clear that it was her decision that he should stay at home and look after A in order that she should not suffer a break in her routine.  It is a curious decision, given the level of concern about KH.
76.	Her position that any acknowledged difficulties within the family can be worked on with the boys in situ was, I found, an unattractive one, as there was little insight or understanding as to the serious nature of those concerns and the extent to which it would impact on these already emotionally damaged children.  It would be a harmful experiment and cannot be countenanced.
77.	Sylvia Baker is the extremely experienced Children's Guardian in this case and she has prepared two reports: one by way of initial analysis and then a comprehensive report in preparation for the final hearing.  That report is dated 18th April and addresses all the issues in the case.  She considers the relevant elements of the welfare checklist.  She supports the children being placed in the care of their aunt and uncle, L and A, by way of a special guardianship order, together with a 12-month supervision order in favour of the local authority.  She approves the special guardianship support package and her report, which is in the comparatively new CAFCASS format, contains careful analysis of the pros and cons of placement either way.  It also contains a careful analysis of the welfare considerations of the children in reaching her recommendation.  
78.	When she came to give her live evidence her main focus was on achieving stability for these boys who had a difficult two years when they were cared for by their father.  She said that they needed better than good enough care, and I agree with her.  She was impressed by the lengthy assessment carried out by the local authority.  She was troubled by her own observations in January 2014 and pressed for a further assessment by the local authority and had been particularly concerned about the lack of consistent care and concerns in relation to KH.  
79.	Her reaction in relation to the mother's evidence was that she felt sad listening to it.  It is clear that the mother has invested a lot in her relationship with KH.  She was extremely impressed with the proposed special guardians, and the impression that she gave is that they were amongst the most impressive proposed special guardians that she has seen in a very lengthy career and it was remarkable the extent to which they wanted to work with the mother and they did not express negative views about her.
80.	She expressed as an imperative that the plan had to work for these children.  The consequences of failure would be very damaging for them and that is why she was pleased that the local authority had pulled out all the stops and provided a comprehensive support package with which she agrees.  She was challenged that Melissa Benning's assessment was at a time which was in effect a bad few days for the children, but she was clearly impressed by its very thorough nature and described the report as insightful and it demonstrated some of her own worrying observations.
81.	If the children were to remain with the mother, she believed that their behaviour and emotional attachment would deteriorate, and I found this to be an especially significant feature.  She said that she was not sure that the children would recover from it, and I am bound to say I agree with her professional opinion.  She emphasised that her preference is always to place with a parent if possible and she was hopeful, notwithstanding her own reservations, that the mother would emerge with a positive assessment and sad that she did not.  
82.	She was challenged that the proposed contact regime was too restrictive, but she reiterated the most important feature was that the children should be given time and space to develop a positive attachment with the special guardians and there were adequate mechanisms for reviews of contact.  I agree with her and I accept her evidence.
83.	Little law has been rehearsed before me in relation to this judgment but, for the avoidance of doubt, there are two features of law that I would like to refer to.  Firstly, it should be abundantly clear that I have firmly in mind that, under normal circumstances, the best person to bring up a child is a natural parent.  The powerful remarks by Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050  and the toleration that society must have to the very diverse standards of parenting included the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent.  I pause there.  These are children who I have already found are children in need and  who will  need more than good enough care.   
84.	I also adopt and agree with the propositions advanced in Re MA (Care: Threshold) [2010] 1 FLR 431 that the significant harm that I should have regard to must be sufficiently high to justify the momentous step of taking the children away from their parents and the risk must be an unacceptable one.  It will be plain from the conclusions and findings that I come to presently that, regrettably and sadly, that is precisely what I find: that the risk is unacceptable in placing the children with either of their  parents.
85.	In this case I remind myself (and in fact I was reminded by Mr Cronshaw, for which I am grateful) that I should stand back and carefully evaluate the evidence and the competing positions of the parties.  
86.	The local authority seek a special guardianship order, a supervision order for 12 months and approval of the support plan, together with findings in relation to threshold.  Father supports the local authority.  He is hopeful that in the longer term more contact will be offered.  Notwithstanding whatever view I may have taken in relation to his parenting of the children in the past, his stance throughout these proceedings has been realistic and worthy of credit.
87.	The mother, as I have said, for perfectly understandable reasons, wishes to care for her two sons in addition to her two daughters and jointly parent with KH.  I find her lack of insight into KH's lack of emotional regulation has been marked throughout the hearing and has directly gone to her own inability to act protectively.  Her suggestion that improvements can be made with the boys living with her are neither practical or child centred and I accept the evidence of the Guardian that this would merely have the effect of exposing them to continuing and future harm.   
88.	I find as a fact the social worker's concerns of the mother and KH applying guidance and boundaries to be well made out: in relation to KH's mannerisms; the appropriateness of boundary setting; the transference of his own anxiety into the children causing confusion and unnecessary distress; his overly quick responses to blame B and K; and his undermining and challenging the mother's responses to setting boundaries.   I find the social worker to be a reliable historian.  I am aware of the positives in earlier reports, but this was an intensive and thorough piece of work and comprised an objective assessment of the mother's ability to care for her sons.
89.	I do not doubt this mother's love and her present commitment, but she has, both in her written and oral evidence, minimised the concerns posed by KH and failed to either grasp or accept the range of professional concerns.  I would be concerned that, if the children were placed in her care, they would not always receive her priority over and above KH's very needy presentation.  
90.	I find that DH remains a risk for the future and I categorise that as a high risk, and it is significant that no course has been undertaken by the mother and KH, although I accept that they would necessarily have had their hands very full at the moment with two young children.  It needs to be addressed.  It is an imperative that they should look at undergoing that course because they have two children in their care.
91.	I balance the mother's position with that of the special guardians.  I am bound to say the special guardian's report is an impressive document, and I am thoroughly persuaded that these proposed special guardians will be alive to the grave difficulties imposed on them by caring for these boys and will show them the necessary commitment assisted by the very comprehensive package of support.  They are, in my judgment, steadfastly committed to these children.
92.	I turn my attention to the final threshold document.  Father accepts the amended version, item Nos. 1 to 3.  Mother does not accept item Nos. 4 and 5 in so far as they relate to her and KH.  I find the threshold criteria in relation to both the mother and the father to be made out in every material respect.  There is ample evidence in the assessment of Melissa Benning of the behaviour and other difficulties of KH and its impact on the children together with the mother's inability to act protectively.
93.	There is ample evidence in the documents, which I accept, of the limited acceptance and insight into the conviction of DH and evidence of the father's conflicting views in relation to that, although I accept that he is on the journey to understanding.  But, as I have said, he needs to go on a course.
94.	Having found the threshold criteria made out under section 31(2) of the Children Act, I move on to consideration of final orders necessary to promote the children's welfare.  As well as the paramountcy principle which I have referred to at the outset of my judgment, I keep as my compass the welfare checklist under section 1(1)(3), with particular emphasis on section 1(1)(3)(b), the children's physical, emotional and educational needs; (e) any harm which they have suffered or are at risk of suffering; and, crucially, (f) the capability of their parents or any other person in relation to whom to court considers the question to be relevant in meeting their needs.  
95.	As a consequence of the findings that I have made, neither parent is capable of meeting these children's special welfare needs and they have suffered serious neglect.  I accept the Guardian's contention that they need better than good enough parenting.  I have made various findings in relation to the mother and KH which effectively precludes any notion that they should care for these children.  
96.	The ability of the special guardians to provide the care that these children need has not been the subject of any challenge in these proceedings and the children's emotional needs cry out for them to be settled in a safe and secure placement as soon as possible.  I specifically approve the special guardians support plan.
97.	I turn now to the question of contact.  The father's position is commendable to the extent that he recognises the children need to settle and he very much hopes that in the fullness of time further and more extended contact may be granted to him depending on the children's circumstances.  The mother has been enjoying a high level of contact for every alternate weekend and substantial periods of holidays.   The severe reduction in contact is something she finds difficult to accept, although she does accept that the children need time to settle.  She also feels that the children may resent the very short periods of time that they are allowed to spend with her, having regard to the close and warm relationship that they have had with her.  However, I am entirely persuaded that that is what is required in this case and the children need to be given time and space to form the positive attachment with the special guardians and that is best assisted and supported by the proposed reduction in the contact plans which I approve.
98.	Finally, I mention the mother.  It is important that everybody hears this and that is why I am putting it in this judgment.  She has conducted herself throughout these proceedings with commendable courage and dignity.  For much of the hearing she has had her tiny baby in her arms and she has sought to deploy what arguments she could in support of her position that the boys should be returned to her care.  They have not of course lived with her since 2011 and I have made findings that her circumstances preclude her being able to care appropriately for these vulnerable children who have already been damaged by their experiences.  She may be able to console herself with the notion that at least the boys have found a family placement with committed guardians and also I record that she has done everything in her power, assisted by her counsel, to persuade the court that they should live with her.  I am bound to say that it is a pity that KH was not present to support her during what I can only imagine has been a very difficult four days.  I urge her, however, to do all that she can now to support this placement with the special guardians,  as I am entirely persuaded that is where her children's welfare needs can best be met.  I make all the orders sought.  
99.	------------------------------------------------------
100.