Case No: OX14C00090
In the Family Court at Oxford
28th to 29th July 2015
Before 
Her Honour Judge Owens
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OCC v B & P
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms Wilkinson, Counsel, for the Local Authority
Mr Limbrey, Counsel, for the First Respondent Mother
Ms De Freitas, Counsel, for the Second Respondent Father
Mr Rouse, Solicitor, for the Third Respondent acting through her Children’s Guardian

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

JUDGMENT
Introduction

I am dealing with an application for a care order in respect of AP aged 10 months.  The mother of AP is NB and her father is DP.  

I have read all of the evidence contained in the Court Bundles and handed in through the course of this hearing, and heard from the parents.  By consent no other witnesses were called and the final hearing proceeded on the basis of submissions after the parents had given me their evidence.

Background and evidential summary

As has been acknowledged by all advocates, this is an extremely sad case. I would like to say at the outset that it is clear to me, just as all the professionals have acknowledged, that the parents both love AP and dearly want to look after her.  It is equally clear to me that both parents feel very strongly about the previous involvement of social services in their lives and also that they are being judged on the basis of historic evidence. It is a tragic matter of fact that both parents suffered abuse in their childhoods and were known to the Local Authority as children.   DP became a looked after child at the age of 12.  

NB became pregnant at 14 years old.  She has four older children who were the subject of care proceedings – the elder two of which were from a previous relationship, the youngest two were with DP.  NB tragically had a still birth in 2005 and has suffered from miscarriage, which has had a deleterious effect on her mental health.  DP also has a child by a previous relationship, with whom he does not have any contact

There were various referrals to the Local Authority in respect of NB’s four older children.  The concerns were in respect of the parents’ historic substance abuse; the NB’s dysfunctional relationship with her former partner; the parents’ mental health; DP’s criminal history; the parents’ aggressive behaviour; domestic violence; physical abuse of the children; neglect of the children and ability to work with professionals [C5-9]. 
 
In January 2009 NB contacted police, and informed she was hitting her elder children who she wanted removed from her care.  She was subsequently cautioned for assaulting one of her children.  On 19 March 2009, at around 5am, police were called to the home as one of the children was outside in her nightclothes banging on the door.  She stated that her Mother was angry and would not let her back in.  Care proceedings were subsequently issued, and four children lived with a kinship carer (Paternal Grandmother to one of the girls) during the care proceedings.  The agreed threshold findings setting out the history of concerns within those care proceedings can be found in the disclosure bundle at B68 – 72.

During proceedings there was a psychiatric report prepared in respect of each parent by Dr. Tennent, along with reports prepared by the parents’ treating psychiatrists.  These reports concluded NB has been diagnosed with Bipolar Affective Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorder with psychotic beliefs and persecutory delusions.  Continued use of medication is considered to reduce episodes but can be spasmodic [disclosure bundle, E272].  DP was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder, borderline learning disability, and emotional unstable personality disorder.  He also has a history of substance misuse and criminal behaviour [disclosure bundle, E272].  It was considered that the parents’ insight into their illness fluctuates, as does their use of medications [disclosure bundle, E273].

During the proceedings assessment of the family was completed by FASS. The view of the team was that the parents’ functioning at that time was “quite possibly close to the best it can be” and that “the combination of mental illness and early deprivation, however make it particularly difficult to treat that deprivation and bring about real and lasting change in their parenting capacity” [disclosure bundle, E281].  

The parents contested the final care plan for all four children.  They sought an adjournment of the final hearing in order to begin a plan of “shared care” for the children.  HHJ Judge Hughes did not grant the adjournment and made the following findings [disclosure bundle]:
a.	Gerry Byrne’s evidence to the court was that neither parent had the capacity to meet the children’s care needs and that the primary care needed to be provided by a primary care giver.  Shared care was an aspiration and not possible at that time [Judgment para 19]  If the children were returned to their parent’s there was a risk of emotional harm [Judgment pars 29]
b.	A friend of the parents initially put herself forward to assist the parents in the care of two of the children.  HHJ Hughes considered her contention that the parents would be able to care for the children with guidance as “wholly unrealistic” [Judgment para 32]. During the hearing the friend herself acknowledged that this proposal was not realistic. 
c.	The parents were ruled out as carers for the children [Para  36]
d.	There was an “overwhelming and overriding need” for the children to be placed in secure placements as soon as possible. [Para 37]
e.	HHJ Hughes accepted the evidence of Gerry Byrne and the experts that there can be no confidence placed in any dramatic change in the parents’ mental health presentation and, in any event and most crucially, the timescales are uncertain. [Para 37] 

Oxfordshire County Council was granted Care and Placement orders in respect of two of the children on 11 February 2010, and Care Orders in respect of the other two children who continue to reside with their kinship carer. 

The two children subject to Placement Orders had a goodbye contact with their parents in August 2010 and were placed with the prospective adopters in September 2010. The application for an adoption order was made on 6 April 2011.   The parents sought leave to oppose the making of an adoption order, but this was refused, and adoption orders were made.
In 2011 – 2012 NB began to harass and intimidate the two girls placed with their kinship carer.  She visited their placement daily, ringing daily in the early hours of the morning, putting notes through their letterbox threatening self harm, and waiting for one of the children outside school and following them home. NB’s behaviour resulted in both children being terrified, and requiring therapy [C65, C72, C75, E12]. A non-molestation order was made against the Mother in 2012, which she subsequently breached, leading to her being remanded at HMP Bronzefield and subsequently admitted to Thames House for psychiatric care. 

Current Proceedings 

The Local Authority accepted a referral in respect of unborn baby AP on 9th May 2014 [CH1].   A pre-birth assessment was carried out using the Parents Under Pressure (PUP) model.  In total the Local Authority facilitated 22 sessions with the parents, including social work sessions, PUP sessions, core group meetings and child protection meetings, before the baby was born [C2].   Unfortunately the Local Authority assessed that there had been little to no progress with the parents’ insight into the Local Authority’s concerns; there was no evidence of any significant change since the previous proceedings; the parents presented as being emotionally unstable in their engagement with the Local Authority and they had only engaged with the assessment on a superficial level [C2, C11-12, C23].

Pre-birth the Local Authority also obtained updating reports from the parents’ treating psychiatrists and from FASS:

Dr Bains’ report on DP is at E1-2.  She set out that he had a brief admission to hospital in March 2014 following an assessment at the Complex Needs Service [E1].  He presented as “very angry with thoughts of self–harm”.  DP was refusing to engage with psychological input through the Complex Needs Service although it was recommended for him [E2].  He had a diagnosis of Mixed Personality Disorder with Emotionally Unstable, Antisocial and Paranoid traits [E1].  His mental health was described as currently stable and he is subject to a treatment plan [E2].

Dr Thurston’s report on NB is at E3-4.  He stated NB “certainly has complex emotional and interpersonal problems which are related to major traumas and loses and to her personality development.  A diagnosis of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder would be appropriate” [E4].  He added it “could be argued that she has a personality disorder (emotionally unstable)” [E4].  Her mental health was described as currently stable [E4].   Dr Thurston also stated that NB’s “deep seated anger remains a problem in attempts to discuss the removal of her children.  She is unable to understand why she lost her children and would contend that overall she was a good enough mother whilst acknowledging there were times things got out of hand” [E4].  

The FASS report is at E5-7.  FASS report that the parents’ current level of insight into their own strengths and needs is limited [E6, E7].  Both parents report no concerns over their ability to parent [E6].  FASS acknowledge that the parents do have strengths but say: “…we do consider that a number of risks remain unchanged from our previous assessment” [E7].  

The Local Authority convened a Family Group Conference on the 31st July 2014 [CH3].  The family offered telephone support and baby sitting [CH3, C20-21].  Apart from the maternal aunt, all other family members requested that their telephone numbers were withheld from NB [C21]. 

AP was born via an emergency caesarean section in early September 2014 at the John Radcliffe Hospital.  The Local Authority issued proceedings on the same day.
On 5 September 2014, the Local Authority issued an application for an EPO, on the grounds that hospital staff were raising significant concerns about NB’s volatility and willingness to engage [C53a – d].  This application was granted.

On 8 September 2014, an Interim Care Order was made [Facts and Reasons at B25j – m].  AP was subsequently placed in foster care, where she remains to date.

A FCMH took place on 2 October 2014.  At that hearing, the parents’ application for an ISW assessment was refused and directions were made to take the matter to IRH on 17 December 2014. 

The Local Authority applied for a section 34(4) order, permitting the suspension of contact [B49 – 60].   Contact supervisors had been raising concerns about the parent’s unpredictability and volatility.  On 14 November 2015 matters escalated when after a misunderstanding about advice given regarding the making up of a bottle, NB became extremely upset and began to shout.  AP became distressed and was screaming.  When the Family Support Worker attempted to remove AP from the situation, DP prevented her from doing so and was verbally threatening.  The panic alarm was activated and police were called. 

On 17 December 2015, the s.34(4) application was adjourned generally as contact had been progressed satisfactorily and was underpinned by a written agreement.  The parents’ contact was separate for a time, and joint contact commenced when they appeared able to better manage.   The Guardian notes that the parents have, for the most part, been able to demonstrate child focused and appropriate behaviour during the recent contact sessions.  However, it is concerning to note the contact note of the session which took place on 22nd June 2015 (CN167-169), though NB disputes the record of this session.

On 5 January 2015 the court granted the Guardian’s part 25 application for the instruction of a psychiatrist, Dr. Gwen Adshead, to assess each of the parents.  The IRH was re-timetabled to 13 April 2015. 

At the IRH on 13 April 2015, the matter was re-allocated to the County Court on the basis that the final hearing would take more than three days.  Proceedings were extended beyond 26 weeks, and the final hearing was listed for four days commencing 27 July 2015. 

The psychiatric assessment of NB is at E8 – 26.   Dr. Adshead considers the most likely diagnosis for NB is that of emotional unstable personality disorder (EUPD).  NB has real strengths that moderate her EUPD, but her main difficulty is anger and anxiety regulation.   Dr Adshead comments that it is clear NB struggled to provide emotionally stable parenting to her children.  The future risk lies in the enhanced risk of failure to provide a safe and secure environment psychologically for children.  NB’s affect and arousal regulation problems mean that the children may be exposed on an unpredictable basis to her anger and distress, and she may not be able to soothe them.  Dr. Adshead foresees that NB will continue to need support, and recommends a psychological intervention.  She notes that it may be difficult for NB to engage in psychological work that increases her capacity for self reflection as this will be painful for her, and the therapy would be for at least 12 months. [E21 – 24].  Dr. Adshead considers that a change of mind requires some acknowledgment of past distress and dysfunction, and she believes NB is “still in a state of mind where she finds this difficult.  Her insight is partial and fragile; and her vulnerability to agitation and arousal was evidence at our interview” [E26]. 

In terms of on-going contact if AP is placed with family, Dr. Adshead noted NB’s difficulties adhering to boundaries in respect of her older children, and thinks there is a real risk such behaviour will reoccur [E25].

The psychiatric assessment of DP is at E28 – 49.   Dr. Adshead provides a current diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality traits that affect his capacity to regulate his distress.  She sets out how this may affect his parenting at E41, and notes that his history contains features that are associated with increased risk of harm to others.  The most appropriate source of treatment for DP would be from the Complex Needs Service, from which he has disengaged.  Ultimately Dr. Adshead states that DP “might be able to make changes, but it is not clear to me that he thinks that he needs to.  I am also conscious that the timescale for any psychological change might not meet AP’s psychological ad other developmental needs” [C45].

The parents have put forward options for alternative family carers for AP, namely:
i)	LT: The Mother’s older sister was assessed.  She was not putting herself forward as a long term carer, and it was not recommended that AP could be placed with her in the short term.  [C26 – 35]
ii)	DH and LH:  The viability assessment of the couple did not recommend further assessment. [C54 – 59]
iii)	DD and OD:  DD is the Mother’s cousin, and OD is her husband.  The couple have been the subject of positive assessments [viability C60 – 66, C70 – 76, C77a-h, full kinship assessment C83 – 110]

The Guardian has filed her final report which can be found at E95.  She concludes that AP cannot be safely cared for by her parents and that therefore the final care plan of placement with DD and OD is in AP’s best interests.

Threshold

The relevant date for determining whether the threshold criteria are satisfied is 4th September 2014.  A final composite threshold document was produced by Ms Wilkinson for the Local Authority at the commencement of this hearing.  Threshold is not accepted by either of the parents in this case in any form, although there were some concessions in relation to some threshold aspects earlier in these proceedings and which are recorded in the Bundle.

Parties’ Positions

The Local Authority seeks a care order for AP with a final care plan that places AP with DD and OD.  They envisage that DD and OD will apply for Special Guardianship in due course.  Contact proposals were refined at court on 27th July 2015.  The revised final care plan therefore proposes that, if I make a final care order and approve the plan, introductions between AP and DD and OD would start next week.  During these introductions DD and OD would meet with the parents, initially with the social worker present.  After the required LAC review in around 4 weeks from placement, contact would be reviewed.  Subject to the parents’ presentation, the Local Authority would set up direct contact around 2-3 months after her placement.  Ongoing contact arrangements would then be subject to regular review but 3-4 contact sessions in the first year of contact are anticipated. 

NB opposes this plan, and seeks for the children to return to her care and that of DP.  If this is not possible, she then supports placement with DD and OD but would like shared care as the next best option, and failing that more direct contact with AP than is currently proposed.

DP also seeks to be allowed to care for AP with NB.  If this is not possible, like NB, he supports placement with DD and OD but would like that to be under a shared care arrangement.  Failing that, he also seeks more contact than is currently proposed.

The Guardian supports the Local Authority’s application for a full Care Order for AP with a plan of her being placed with DD and OD.  She assesses the risk of the parents destabilising any kinship placement as high and she does not support any form of shared care nor for direct contact as a result (though she states this may need to be revisited when a Special Guardianship Order is applied for).

Relevant legal considerations

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 with regard to threshold, and the welfare checklist contained in section1 of the Children Act 1989 and, I have also had regard to the cases of Re S-B and Re R.  Given the dispute with regard to threshold in this case, I have also had particular regard to the principle reiterated in the case of Re K that it is for the Local Authority to prove, to the civil standard, on proper evidence, any facts upon which they rely.
 
Threshold Findings

The final composite threshold document lists seven grounds upon which the Local Authority relies in seeking to establish threshold:

i)	Both parents have a longstanding history of fluctuating mental health difficulties, and an associated inability to regulate their anxiety and anger;
ii)	As a result, the 4 children who were the subject of the previous proceedings suffered physical and emotional harm (agreed threshold at B69-72 Disclosure Bundle);
iii)	Neither parent accepts that their mental health and psychological profile affects the ability for them to safely and consistently meet a child’s needs.  As a result, they continue to pose a risk of physical and emotional harm to any child in their care.
iv)	The parents have ongoing difficulties regulating their emotions, and are unable to prioritise AP during emotional outbursts, leading to her suffering emotional harm (14th November 2014 at CN59-61 of the checklist Bundle);
v)	& vi)
The parents are not able to work with social services.  They continue to mistrust social workers, and hold persecutory beliefs.  As recently as 22nd June 2015 they have demonstrated that they still hold persecutory beliefs of conspiracy by government agencies and professionals and have discussed these openly in the presence of contact supervisors (CN167-169);
vii)	The parents have not made any attempts to address the concerns highlighted by Dr Adshead in her reports dated 16th January 2015 (E8-27).

As was commented by HHJ Hughes in his judgement on 11th February 2010, these parents are not bad people and I agree with his assessment.  The question of threshold goes directly to the heart of what, if any, changes the parents have made since those previous proceedings and their insight into their difficulties in providing good enough care for any child.

The evidence in this case is simply overwhelming in terms of threshold being made out.  The previous proceedings established a base-line in terms of the physical and emotional risk of harm to any child in their care.  I know that they both feel they have been discriminated against in terms of their mental health issues; they both told me as much when they gave me evidence yesterday.  It is not in dispute that they have both been relatively stable in relation to their mental health for a significant period during these proceedings.  However, the Local Authority are not seeking to establish that they are currently undergoing a period of mental distress.  Threshold is put on the basis that they both have a long-standing history of fluctuating mental health difficulties and an associated inability to regulate their anxiety and anger.  The evidence of the mental health experts in this case is remarkably consistent.  Both parent’s treating clinicians (at E1-4) provided brief reports in July last year in which they note the complexity of the emotional and interpersonal problems faced by both parents.  They also note good engagement with their respective services and also the stability of their mental health at that point.  However, it is also clearly recorded that DP does not wish to engage with Complex Needs because he felt that he could not trust staff there.  In respect of NB Dr Thurston notes her “deep-seated anger” which hinders discussion of the removal of her children and that she needs to acknowledge the need for and allowed family and professionals to help and support her to have a brighter future.

Dr Adshead’s assessment of NB also concluded that she would need psychological intervention to enable her to think about her anger and arousal regulation and how this might affect a child.  She is very clear that NB has struggled to provide emotionally stable parenting to her children in the previous proceedings and that this risk remains present now.  Both NB and DP also have diagnoses of personality disorders.  These, as Dr Adshead sets out clearly in her assessments and in her appendices to those reports, are “disorders of interpersonal relating, characterised by poor affect and arousal regulation”.  She explains very carefully that “people with personality disorder who become parents may struggle to care for their children.  This is NOT (her emphasis) because they do not care for them or feel an attachment to them; but they find the normal psychological tasks of parenting intensely challenging…because they cannot manage their own negative feelings…they cannot manage them in their children… This unpredictable parental emotional behaviour is hard for children to deal with or make sense of”.  The evidence of the contact session on 14th November 2014 at CN59-61 demonstrates graphically just how unable the parents are to regulate their emotions, and how little appreciation they have of the impact of this upon AP or any child present.

The evidence of the various social workers in this case also demonstrates time and again that the parents are, in fact, unable to work with them.  NB told me how she was open-minded about working with social services.  Unfortunately, the rest of her evidence where she blamed them for breakdowns in communication and not treating her fairly, would suggest that she is not as open-minded as she told me.  I find that both parents in fact have a deep-seated distrust of social services and the evidence of the contact session on 22nd June 2015 (CN167-196) shows that this distrust is coupled with a belief that they are being persecuted.  I don’t doubt that their early childhood experiences have led to them feeling very let down by and distrustful of social services.  The point is that their beliefs appear not to be rational and damage their ability to work constructively with social workers in the best interests of AP.  Put simply they cannot move past their distrust to put AP’s needs first, I find.

I do not agree with the Local Authority that the parents have not made any attempt to address the concerns highlighted by Dr Adshead in reports.  They have, as Ms Wilkinson acknowledged, sought out and completed a parenting course without the assistance of social services.  That is greatly to their credit.  They have also continued to engage with their treating clinicians and NB has sought assistance from MIND. However, as Ms Wilkinson submitted, it is not disputed that they know how to provide basic care to a child.  The issue in this case is their being able to put that knowledge consistently into effect.  The other aspect of concern in this case is their ability to accept their problems and to address those with psychological therapy as recommended by Dr Adshead.   On the evidence before me, I find that they continue to pose a risk of physical and emotional harm to AP by virtue of their inability to regulate their anxiety and anger, arising from their complex mental health and personality disorders.  They are also, I find, unable to work constructively with social services and to prioritise the needs of AP above their beliefs of persecution by professionals.  They have also not addressed their difficulties with psychological therapy as Dr Adshead recommended.  This, coupled with their inability to accept the risks they have posed in the past and continue to pose to any child, not just AP, means that threshold is amply met in this case.   I have therefore turned to consider what is in the best interests of AP in this case, her welfare being my paramount consideration as it must be.
Options in this case

The identified options in this case after considering the final evidence and submissions of the parties are as follows:
i)	For AP to be cared for by her parents;
ii)	For a full Care Order to be made with a plan to place AP with DD and OD under that Care Order.

Analysis of these options – advantages and disadvantages of each

As noted by the Guardian in her final report (E107) “due consideration must be given to a child being brought up by birth parents if possible”.   As is noted throughout the social work evidence and by the Guardian in this case the parents clearly love AP.  The key issue for the professionals in this case has been how safe AP would be in the care of her parents despite the fact that her parents love her.  Both NB and DP argue that they have made changes since the assessments and decisions made in the previous proceedings and that it would not be fair to judge them on the basis of that past evidence.  However hard they may find this to understand, that past evidence is the starting point for these proceedings and I have looked to see what evidence there is of real and sustained change in their capacity to safely parent a child in their care.  

The pre-birth assessment which is documented in the first social work statement of Sandra Curley dated 3rd September 2014 records “little to no progress with regard to the parents’ ability to offer reflection or insight to the experiences of their childhoods/adult traumas” (C2).  It concludes “Child and Family Assessment via Social Worker concluded negatively as the parents were unable to engage fully with the process.  Parents Under Pressure Parenting assessment concluded negatively.  The parents were able to attend all sessions but were only able to engage at a superficial level.  The could undertake the theoretical tasks set but were not able to demonstrate that they could reflect on past difficulties in order to make the changes necessary to evidence that they are capable of offering consistent safe care to a child.  A high proportion of the time in sessions was spent trying to regulate the parents’ aggressive outbursts…On the basis of the above it is my view that it is highly unlikely that these parents will be able to moderate or manage their own emotional distress sufficiently to enable them to offer the child safe care.  My view is formed on the evidence from direct contact, and other professionals’ experiences of working with the couple.  This includes input from mental health specialists and research.  The presentation has been evidenced in these parents long term..Both parents have stated several times that they wish to do whatever they have to to keep this baby, however the evidence is that they either cannot or will not engage with social care to complete an assessment at any level other than on a very superficial level” (C23).

Mary Austin, Family Support Team Manager, also details difficulties working with the parents to try to engage them in the twin track planning process (C79-82).  She also expresses her opinion, based on the difficulties documented, that the parents “would be an enormous challenge for any alternative carers of AP to work with.  Their behaviour is likely to undermine any non-confidential placement” (C82). 

The statement of the social worker Shanika Bennett completed on 13th March 2015 (C111-C137) echoes the earlier statements of her colleagues.  She gives her opinion that the behaviours presented by these parents are not compatible with safe child care.  She concludes “In summary NB and DP’s mental health has undermined their parenting of older children requiring permanency away from them.  Whilst both their mental health is currently better managed, their emotional regulation and personality issues leave them unable to focus sufficiently and consistently on AP’s emotional needs and overall well being.  They currently are unable to work effectively with child care services to enhance their ability to do this in the short or long term” (C132).

The psychiatric assessments by Dr Adshead of both parents in January of this year (her reports filed in February) also conclude that they have made little or no changes since the previous proceedings.  In respect of NB, she notes a high risk of the behaviour in 2012 which led to her being remanded in custody will recur (E25).  It is her final conclusion that “there is always the possibility of psychological change; even for people with complex mental health needs and traumatic histories.  I think this is true for NB.  However, a change of mind requires some acknowledgement of past distress and dysfunction; and I think that NB is still in a state of mind where she finds this difficult.  Her insight is partial, and fragile; and her vulnerability to agitation and arousal was evident at our interview.  If she could get therapeutic help, and could engage, then I am sure she could make some positive change over time.  However, I do not know whether any change would be in the timescales necessary for AP’s security.  I am also concerned that NB’s parenting problems may be more evident when AP is older; that the most risky time for her is not now, but when she is an older child.  I note that NB’s fearful preoccupation about her children and their risk of abuse seems to have started when the girls were older” (E26).

In respect of DP, Dr Adshead concludes “my view would be that DP might be able to make changes, but it is not clear to me that he thinks that he needs to.  I am also conscious that the timescale for any psychological change might not meet AP’s attachment and other developmental needs” (E45).

The Guardian also notes that the parents “remain fundamentally unchanged in the palpable rawness of their feelings of distress and anger with regard to the decisions which have been made in respect [of their older children]…They continue to present as somewhat pre-occupied with persecutory core beliefs that remain unchanging” (E99).  It is her opinion “that the number of risks to any child in their care currently remains essentially unchanged from previous assessments that have been undertaken by professionals.  These risks to AP as identified are unacceptable in my view” (E100).

NB in her final statement indicates that she is engaging with mental health services.  She indicates that she thinks the contact which she has with her Community Psychiatric Nurse and Consultant Psychiatrist provides her with the help she needs, and that she is willing to explore further therapeutic help but would prefer to organise this for herself (C139-140).  Crucially she has not therefore even begun the therapy identified by Dr Adshead as necessary to address her underlying difficulties.  From her evidence to me I find that she also seems to lack an understanding of how her behaviours can impact upon a child in her care and believes that AP can be returned to her care now.  This echoes the conclusion of Dr Adshead that NB’s “affect and arousal regulation problems mean that her children may be exposed on an unpredictable basis to her anger and distress; and she may not be able to soothe them.  It is possible that NB may struggle more with older children who challenge her; as opposed to babies” (E22).  Dr Adshead also notes that she suspects that NB “needs a psychological intervention to help her think about her anger and arousal regulation; and to help her think about how this might affect a child” (E23).  However, she also notes that “the FASS team found that she struggled to trust them; and I think this might continue to be a problem for NB in engaging in therapy” (E23).  In terms of the likely timescale for such therapy, Dr Adshead suggests it would have to be long term, at least 12 months (E24).  NB has not therefore even begun to undertake the therapy identified as necessary by Dr Adshead and, even if she had, the likely timescale is at least a year with likely problems in engagement on the part of NB so there is a poor prognosis of success.

In relation to DP, as Dr Adshead notes at E43, he is currently having the most appropriate treatment for his mental disorder from his clinical team.  She does also noted that “some form of psychological therapy that would help him understand his distress and anger would be helpful; but the most appropriate treatment is provided by the Complex Needs Service; and they did not feel that they could help DP; who has also said he would not go there” (E43).  As Dr Adshead goes on to explain, DP “seems to be able to engage in therapies he has chosen; but issues of trust make it hard for him to engage.  He has not been able to engage with the Complex Needs Service, despite being offered many appointments” (E44).

It therefore seems clear to me that both parents have significant issues to address in order to achieve the necessary psychological change identified by Dr Adshead.  They have not begun to address these and still lack a starting acceptance that they need to make any changes; the likelihood of achieving successful therapeutic input is therefore not high at present as Dr Adshead noted.  As a result, I find that they remain unable to safely parent AP, based on the overwhelming expert and professional evidence before me in this case.  As was submitted by Mr Rouse on behalf of the Guardian, AP is at a critical stage in her development as she will be a year old in September.  She needs permanency and an opportunity to form a secure attachment without further delay.  The timescales likely for her parents to make the changes Dr Adshead identifies as necessary are far beyond anything that is appropriate for AP, I find.  The option of returning AP to their care is therefore not a realistic one and I find that this would apply equally to some form of shared care arrangement with DD and OD.

Shanika Bennett detailed the parents’ unwillingness to meet with her to discuss the possible placement of AP with DD and OD (C132).  She also notes the parents’ resentment of the carers of their elder children and the alarming and disruptive impact of this upon their elder children’s’ kinship carer.  Ms Bennett notes “I must conclude that NB and DP would not be able to stop themselves from disrupting and undermining any placement in or out of the family if they had the opportunity” (C132).  

I do not find that the Local Authority have behaved unfairly in this case towards the parents.  On the contrary, throughout both pre-proceedings and these lengthy court proceedings they have accepted the need to have up to date expert psychiatric assessments of the parents and have continued to try to work with the parents despite some very abusive and, frankly, bizarre behaviour shown by the parents (as recorded in the contact note for 22nd June 2015 for example).  Mary Austin has gone out of her way to try to meet with the parents to break through their suspicion (C80).  It is true that contact has been much more positive since January this year, as NB told me in evidence.  However, it is equally clear to me that contact has required a high level of supervision and even with that supervision incidents such as happened on the 22nd June occur, and therefore supervision cannot be reduced and an alternative venue would not be appropriate– as Mary Austin notes at C145.  

The sense of persecution which these parents clearly have, their lack of acceptance of their difficulties, and their inability to work constructively with professionals, would make any increase in direct contact (at least for the first year) highly likely to expose AP to conflict.  It reinforces the view of the Local Authority and the Guardian that, whilst there may be some direct contact between AP and her parents, this should be initially for 3 or 4 times a year.  I agree that the amended care plan with regard to contact strikes the necessary balance between ensuring that AP retains her relationship in some form with her parents, and ensuring that she is safe in a secure and stable placement.  Any more contact than that proposed would risk undermining that security and stability, I find.  Placement with DD and OD for AP is the only remaining realistic option for her and is, I find, in her best interests. I will therefore endorse the amended final care plan.

Conclusions

As I said at the outset, this is a very sad case.  It is abundantly clear to me that both NB and DP are deeply damaged people as a result of childhood traumas.  It is also, as I have previously noted, clear to me that they deeply love AP and that they are not bad people.  Unfortunately, they have significant issues which they have yet to address and which leave them at risk of causing physical and emotional harm not just to AP but to any child in their care.  In the interests of AP, and any other children which they may go on to have, I would urge them to try to understand and accept this in order to be able to move on and make real progress in tackling their difficulties in parenting.  I would also encourage them to try to take on board Dr Adshead’s assessments of them and to seek the therapeutic help which she has identified they need.  I will therefore grant leave for each of them to disclose Dr Adshead’s report about them to their respective GPs, if they wish, to assist with accessing the help they need.

I will therefore make a care order in this case and endorse the final amended care plan.  I urge the parents to reflect on not just what I have said in this judgement but also what HHJ Hughes said previously and to try to find a way to work constructively with social services in the future in the interests of AP.