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:MK15C80004
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTHAMPTON
[ sitting at Milton Keynes ]

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER OF S,A JA AND J  ( CHILDREN)

Date: 7.8.2015

Before :

His Honour Judge Antony Hughes 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

Northamptonshire County Council 
Applicant

- and -

   BJ(1)

    MR(2)

    SS(3)

    GJ(4)

    JJ(5)

                S,A, JA, AND JA(6-9)                                               
Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mrs Joy Pinkham of counsel for the Applicant Local Authority 
Ms Maria Savvides of counsel for the First Respondent 
Mr Prakash Modi, solicitor for the Second Respondent 
Ms Laura O’Malley of counsel for The Third Respondent who did not appear
The  Fourth and Fifth Respondent appeared unrepresented
Ms Paula Marsh , solicitor, for the Children
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Final hearing CARE PROCEEDINGS 

Hearing dates: 3-5 and 7 August 3015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT
7TH AUGUST 2015
HIS HONOUR JUDGE ANTONY HUGHES
Introduction
1.	The children with whom I am concerned and whose welfare is my paramount consideration are S who was born on 7th January 1999 and is 16 years old, A born on 5th December 2001 and now aged 13 years, JA born on 8th December 2006 now aged 8 years and J born on 12th December 2009 and now aged 5 years.  

2.	The children are represented through their guardian, Sukie Gill, by Miss Marsh a solicitor.

3.	The applicant local authority is Northamptonshire County Council represented by Mrs Pinkham of Counsel.  Their position at the start of the proceedings was that they no longer sought a care order in relation to either S or A. S is presently living with her older sister, AJ, and although it is clear from the local authority evidence that those arrangements may be less than satisfactory they do not seek to interfere having regard to S’s wishes and feelings and her age. 

4.	A is presently living with her maternal grandparents, GJ and JJ, who are parties to these proceedings and again the local authority do not seek to interfere with that arrangement given A’s very strong feelings but would recommend to the court a child arrangements order in favour of GJ and JJ to say that they have parental responsibility. 

5.	I should say that the local authority’s ideal arrangement would have been for these two elder sisters to be placed together in foster care and a foster placement has been held open for the girls for many weeks now at great cost to the local authority but the local authority have been constrained to accept the reality of the position.

6.	The mother of all the children is BJ who is represented by Miss Savvides of Counsel.  Her position is that she would like to continue to care for the two younger children but accepts that neither A nor S can return to her care. 

7.	The father of J and the putative father of JA is MW.  He is represented by Mr Modi, a solicitor, and in general terms he supports BJ.

8.	The father of S and A is SS.  He was represented until the first day of this hearing by Miss O’Malley of Counsel but has effectively disengaged from the proceedings.  He does not have parental responsibility and he has made it plain both to his daughters and to the local authority that he wants to play no part in their upbringing.  He was discharged as a party on the first day of the hearing.

9.	The maternal grandparents are GJ and JJ.  They are not represented.  They presently care for A and put themselves forward as carers for the two younger children. 

Applications 
10.	The applications before the court are the local authority’s application for care orders which were submitted and issued on 15.01.2015.

11.	There have been no previous care proceedings in respect of any of Mother’s children.   However Ms J’s oldest daughter AJ (born 13.10.94, now aged 20) left home at an early age. 

Background
12.	There is a significant local authority history in relation to this family which centre round longstanding chronic neglect affecting not only all these children but also an older sibling, AJ, who was reported to have left the family home when she was 17 owing to the unsatisfactory conditions there. The local authority chronology is a particularly stark document.

13.	As long ago as 2005 AJ, S and A were subject to child protection plans under the category of risk of neglect due to poor home conditions consisting of clutter in the house, broken items and no living space for the children.

14.	On 31st December 2007 concerns were raised by a community support officer after she attended the address looking for another male.  It seems that concerns in relation to poor home conditions continued.   A reported that her mother always shouted at her.  No action was taken by the local authority other than sending a letter.

15.	On 13th June 2008 concerns for the welfare of a child believed to have been JA were noted JA having been seen wandering round the garden barefoot in a soiled nappy with poor home conditions and the suggestion that JA was poorly cared for.  Once again no action by the local authority other than a letter. 

16.	On 30th November 2010 there was a referral from the KSA where concerns were raised in relation to JA’s aggressive behaviour in school, poor school attendance, concerns around home conditions and the mother not engaging with the local authority.  Surprisingly perhaps in the context of this case, the case was closed to Children’s Social Care on 17th June 2011.  

17.	A was reported as missing on 8th January 2012 and police attended.  It was they that noted the mess at the property which the mother attributed to the Christmas festivities.  The family were offered support under a child in need plan.  The risk factors at that time were noted as follows: 
(i)	poor home conditions including dirty kitchen surfaces covered with numerous items; clutter; dirty dishes; rubbish; electrical cables; clothes; broken toys and items.  The floor was covered with mounds of clothes, the fridges was dirty, there was no door on the children’s bedroom, there was damp smell at the property and plenty of cobwebs.  The parents’ bedroom was described as uninhabitable and J  did not have a bed.
(ii)	Mother failed to recognise that it was her responsibility to ensure the home was good enough and blamed the children for the state of the home.
(iii)	Mother was failing to engage in the local authority support processes.
(iv)	The children, particularly A and S, were fighting and JA and J were noted to have started copying this behaviour.
(v)	A was leaving the home without her mother’s permission and mother was struggling to manage all the children’s behaviour with JA previously having set fire to the carpet and girls’ bedroom while playing with a cigarette lighter.  

18.	Nothing much seems to have happened in relation to this other than the transfer to a child in need team until 21st May 2013 when there was a child protection investigation.  It seems that some changes have been made since December 2012 but there was a rapid deterioration again which once again mother refusing to engage after the case had been stepped down from a child in need status.  Poor school attendance was noted in relation to the children.

19.	At long last it would seem a child protection case conference was convened on 23rd July 2013 and all the children made subject to a child protection plan under the category of risk of neglect.

20.	Since that initial child protection conference the children have been subject to four child protection review conferences and on each occasion the concerns have remained the same, namely ongoing poor living conditions noted on all visits except one.  I am bound to say that the chronology then sets out in commendable detail the, quite frankly, filthy conditions in relation to the property.  The kitchen was dirty with dirty piled dishes, broken toys and little evidence of anywhere where food can be prepared safely; the front room was filled with broken toys and bags of rubbish with empty bottles of drink on the floor and food leftovers; the landing upstairs had a filthy carpet with ingrained debris on the carpet and clutter of household rubbish; and all the bedrooms presented in what can only be described as a deplorable condition.  The family bathroom and toilet had dirty clothes strewn or piled on the floor with a broken toilet seat,  the toilet bowl was not always cleaned after use; the back garden was full of scrap metal and broken items including broken toys.

21.	The serious aspect of these conditions are compounded by the fact that there is very little evidence of change over many many years and the singular feature has been the lack of engagement from both BJ and MW and the fact that mother continued to blame the children for the state of the home.   BJ and  MW have not effectively met any timescales for actions set out in the child protection plan.

22.	This is evidenced by a visit on 11th December 2014 shortly before proceedings were issued and where conditions were effectively the same.  There are many pages of photographs in the bundle of the condition of this property and there is little doubt that the children have lived in a neglectful and filthy household for many many years.

23.	Subsequent to proceedings being issued it is right that I record the re-emergence of SS in relation to the lives of the elder girls and the fact that for a period of time following an altercation at the property between mother and S, S left the property.  For a period of time the girls lived with SS but he effectively has washed his hands of his daughters in a particularly unkind and hurtful way and disengaged from these proceedings.  In visits on 11th December 2014, 12th January 2015 and subsequently throughout January home conditions have effectively remained the same. 

24.	Of particular concern in relation to impact on the children it was reported by G School in respect of JA that on 29th January 2015 he was looking very tired and withdrawn and had told a teacher that he had been up until midnight playing on the Xbox with his dad.  Mother’s case is that JA has got the times wrong but of greater significance was JA’s
appearance being described as “quite grubby in appearance on the day with dirty hands and face.  His teacher had to ask him to wash his hands and face.  JA was also noted to have scratches on his face which he alleged had been caused by J and  BJ had to pull J off him at the time of the incident.”  It is perhaps worth recording further that in February there were altercations between the mother’s household and that of SS with allegation and cross allegations being made by the two households. However of significance in the context of neglect, police reported on 16th January 2015 “the conditions are very poor, the front garden is a mess, the living room, stairs and other rooms are littered with junk, all floors are covered in dirt and worktops in the kitchen are not clean …”  The police identified potential concerns for the health of the children.

25.	On 17th February 2015 mother was observed to be cleaning the property but social workers recorded “ the home conditions were still poor” but were described as “appropriate” on the next day.

26.	The local authority’s concern centres on the emotional damage to these children as a consequence of long-term neglect.  Although the children all present as healthy recently JA has presented as withdrawn at school and both JA’s and J’s teeth have been woefully neglected as evidenced by a report from the dental practitioner.  

27.	All the children seem to have been caught up in conflicted family dynamics and adult issues to their substantial detriment and the local authority threshold document is, in my judgment, a stark summary of the neglect that these children have all suffered.

28.	I have mentioned JA’s and J’s dental decay.  J went for an initial examination at the dentist on 7th August 2014 and presented with multiple sites of decay which do not appear to have been followed up adequately.  On 15th October 2014 JA attended with his grandmother and poor oral hygiene and multiple fillings were flagged up to the grandparents.  The report from the dentist reads, “decay in the tooth restored on the day had extended into the nerve of the tooth and JA ultimately required an extraction of the affected tooth.  Despite a request to a parent to attend a follow up appointment, JA attended with his grandmother and treatment included “multiple restorations on his baby teeth and again exposure of the nerve due to deep decay on a particular tooth.”  There were concerns regarding JA’s general poor appearance and continuing poor oral and general hygiene and it is recorded that the grandparent remained resistant to any advice provided by the clinicians. 

29.	It seems there was a further appointment on 31st December 2014 and it was noted his appearance remained poor and there was no improvement in his oral health.  It is recorded “his mother showed very little concern and interest in regards to her child’s failing oral health; any advice offered was met with resistance and disregard.”  A further appointment was made on 1st April 2015 but JA failed to attend.

Assessments
30.	Initial Viability Assessments of AJ,  GJ and JJ have been undertaken.  Whilst it is recognised that these family members are significant to the children, the LA does not support long-term placements for any of the children in either household, for the reasons set out in the assessments.  

31.	In particular, with regard to AJ who put herself forward to care for A: she has two very young children herself, her partner JD is known to children’s social care and is a perpetrator of domestic incidents.  AJ also works part-time. 

32.	It is therefore of some concern that S has chosen to go to live with AJ.

33.	Concerns with respect to the Maternal Grandparents were summarized as follows:-
-	They both suffer from complicated and degenerative health concerns
-	They have evidenced poor outcomes for BJ, AJ and S for the parenting they have offered
-	Throughout the LA involvement have minimised the concerns outlined to them in respect of their daughter’s home and parenting of her children

Parenting assessment of mother and MW 
34.	Jacqui Gardner is an independent social worker who prepared the above assessment.  It is dated 20th April 2015 and she was jointly instructed by the parties to undertake a parenting assessment of BJ  and MW’s ability to parent the children as a couple and to examine whether they could parent the younger children currently in their care.   It is a comprehensive piece of work and to the mother’s credit she is reported as having fully engaged in the process.  Incidentally, her presentation was not all that it could have been and her dental decay was evident.  On the other hand, MW did not fully engage remaining in bed during his first session with the mother.  He appeared grubby and his clothes were dirty.  He like the mother smelt of body odour and has lost a number of his teeth.

35.	In passing , the independent social worker recorded that the mother had completed a cognitive and capacity assessment with Dr Penny and was found to be above average in terms of her cognitive functioning and capable of understanding the local authority’s concerns.

36.	She conducted an analysis of parenting capacity.  She recorded that the mother “has a reasonable understanding of the children’s basic needs and how these needs should be met.”  However despite that understanding the evidence of the independent social worker is that the mother has consistently neglected to meet those needs and I accept that evidence.  She reports that despite some improvement the back garden remained an immediate safety risk.  There has been an apparent lack of routine, guidance and boundaries and the two older children, S and A, have reported that their mother shouted at them a lot and physically chastised them and they had to assume a caring role for JA and J.

37.	It is a measure of course of Ms Gardner’s balance that she records aspects of positive parenting.  In particular JA and J are of the appropriate height and weight and are in general good health leaving aside their chronic tooth decay.  They attend school regularly and their academic achievement is good.

38.	The effect of neglect on the older children has been all too evident with their referral in 2012 in relation to A who had gone missing and their referral in 2010 in relation to S to the Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services due to challenging behaviour and aggression.

39.	She reports “BJ understands the local authority’s concerns about her care of the children but does not fully accept them.  She feels she is criticised for whatever she does and she completely refutes S’s and A’s account of their experiences of being parented by her.”  Ms Gardner records lack of motivation to change and a general sense of lethargy.  A significant factor in the mother’s life that demotivates her is her relationship with MW who appears to contribute nothing or practically nothing emotionally to her and the children, he has added to the very significant clutter in the home and his own personal hygiene is very poor.

40.	The mother told the independent social worker that she is not willing to accept any further involvement from the Family Intervention Project or attend any parenting courses and “whilst this remains her position there is no potential for her to make the necessary changes to consistently meet all of her children’s basic needs and the efforts that she has recently made will not be sustained, as has been the previous pattern.”  

41.	Unsurprisingly therefore in the context of that very thorough assessment it is the independent social worker’s view that while the mother remains in a relationship with MW she will not be motivated to engage with support services to enable her to make and sustain change.

42.	If the relationship ended and if the mother was found to be generally willing to engage there would be potential for her to make the necessary changes for JA and J but she would need intensive family support, the involvement of a consistent worker and attendance and engagement in a parenting programme.

43.	There is little or no evidence at the time of this hearing, in my judgment, that the mother has the necessary commitment and motivation to change and her evidence from the witness box gave little reassurance.   

44.	Jacqui Gardner also undertook a Parenting Assessment of SS and LS in respect of S and A.  The conclusions are negative.  Despite his earlier position that he wanted to care for both his daughters, a breakdown in the family relationships has taken place since SS filed his statement on 11.06.15.  He did not attend the IRH on 07.07.15 and indicated that he does not wish to engage in proceedings.  He has said to S and A that neither he nor any other members of the paternal family want any contact with them.

Social work evidence
45.	Netsai Muzuva is a senior practitioner social worker with the Local Authority. 

46.	She is the author of four statements, the various care plans, an assessment of AJ and a viability assessment of GJ and JJ, the maternal grandparents.

47.	Matters have changed a little since the filing of her final evidence and the local authority’s current plan is for S to remain with her sister, AJ, and there be no order; A is to live with the maternal grandparents; and JA and J be removed into foster care under the terms of a care order.

48.	The local authority propose that A be made subject to a child arrangements order in favour of the maternal grandparents because they need parental responsibility.  This seems to accord with A’s present wishes.

49.	The original plan was for A and S to be in a foster care placement together and a placement has been held open to them up until the conclusion of these proceedings.  

50.	I am bound to say that, in my judgment, the situation regarding A seems to be generated more by the strength of her wishes and feelings than potentially her best interests and certainly the maternal grandparents will have a difficult task if they are to ensure that she performs well at school and lives a stable lifestyle.  

51.	Both the older siblings will have contact with their mother and the younger siblings once a month and a separate contact with their younger siblings without the mother.

52.	Crucially she gave up to date evidence in relation to the condition of the mother’s home.  She went last Friday, that is to say on 1st August.  She described the conditions of the property as “about the same.”  Her view is that the property remained unsafe and inappropriate for young children.  She described the garden as being quite cluttered as indeed were the kitchen and the front room.   She did not think the property was clean. 

53.	Any improvements that there might have been she described as “minimal” and her experience in relation to the case, which I am bound to say is clear from the chronology and the photographs which are timed at different dates, has been that changes have not been sustained for more than a week.

54.	So far as she is concerned the local authority’s position regarding the state of the home has always been made clear to the mother and, in my judgment, it is highly significant that her evidence indicated that the garden was full of hazardous metals including broken bicycles, wires, tyres and other paraphernalia.  She was able to acknowledge slight improvements to the condition of the garden as previously evidenced in the photographs dated September 2014 but she recalls that there is still a fridge in the garden.

55.	She could understand how S was embarrassed at inviting friends home and the same would be true of any child left at the property today. 

56.	She was challenged in relation to her evidence that there was an insufficient analysis of the positives of the children remaining at home and the detriments as to them being removed from the care of their mother.

57.	When pressed she was able to acknowledge some positives in relation to the mother that she has shown care and concern in relation to her children and that she sometimes kept her informed.  There is a recent example of JA having injured his hand and the mother immediately having informed the social worker by text that she was taking him to the Accident & Emergency Department.

58.	She agreed with the general proposition that the local authority should strive to keep children within their families.  She acknowledged that the mother has tried to care for her children and they had not appeared malnourished.  She acknowledged that separation from parents can cause emotional trauma and attachment issues and emotional instability in later life.  She was alive to the risk of placement breakdown in relation to children who are removed from their homes.

59.	However her analysis, which I accept because she has had a great deal of involvement with these children, is that there would initially be some upset but these children would adjust in circumstances where they had a proper regime of routines, boundaries, clean accommodation, clean clothes; in other words away from neglectful parenting.  

60.	She was able to accept that if A was to live with the grandparents and the younger children are moved into foster care they may find that arrangement difficult but she was clear that the current conditions at home are just not acceptable and at least in foster care the children would be getting consistency by way of routines and boundaries and stability. 

61.	When challenged that the children could stay at home with continuing local authority support, she identified that the support that mother would need in terms of practical support, provision of skips, a family support worker and other strategies all of which had been offered and tried in the past and the mother was unable to maintain change. 

62.	She was challenged that there was somewhat of an inconsistency in the local authority’s case in that by approving an arrangement whereby A stays with her maternal grandparents the local authority were clearly accepting that her care would be “good enough.”  However she stated that she would not approve of the younger children moving to the grandparents’ care irrespective of the concerns regarding their health and age and I am bound to say that this view is consistent with the initial viability assessment that she carried out together with the Connected Persons team in relation to the grandparents.  

63.	Setting aside what is described in the viability assessment as “complicated and degenerative health concerns” and its potential for affecting the long-term care planning for the children, the assessment identifies the following difficulties so far as GJ and JJ are concerned and I quote “GJ and JJ have evidenced poor outcomes for BJ (the mother), AJ and S in the parenting they have offered.   This raises concerns in respect of the likely outcomes for JA and J.  

64.	GJ and JJ report they have a routine which supports their health needs and the local authority raises concerns over how they will fit the children’s routines and prioritise these above their own or even balance them.

65.	GJ and JJ refuse to discuss their financial situation and this has raised concern for the local authority over their ability to offer financial stability to both themselves and the children now and in the future.

66.	In addition to the above should the children be placed with GJ and JJ it is my professional opinion that there will be a honeymoon period however as the children begin to test boundaries, GJ and JJ will struggle with this aspect of parenting especially with limited respite support coupled with health issues.  This is given that the children will have potentially suffered loss and attachments with their parents and therefore likely to present challenging behaviours. 

67.	In eleven years to come J will be 16 years old however JJ will be 81 years old and GJ will be 78 years old.  When JA is 16 years JJ will be 78 and GJ will be 74 years.  This raises concern for the local authority that JA and J will possibly be young carers for GJ and JJ.

68.	Throughout the involvement of the local authority,  GJ and JJ have minimised the concerns raised by the local authority.  Whilst it has been GJ who has attended the majority of meetings, JJ has stated he has not been clear on what the issues or concerns are. GJ on the other hand has acknowledged the concerns although proceeded to minimise them stating that the home conditions are better and that she would eat in them.  This is despite the children and GJ stating that she does not go into BJ’s house due to how poor the home conditions are.  This also raises concern for the local authority over whether GJ would then find it acceptable for the children to spend the night at their mother’s address given that she find the home conditions acceptable although still needing a little more improvement.

69.	“GJ’s collusion with BJ over the concerns by the local authority has raised concerns for the local authority over GJ’s ability to safeguard the children above maintaining family relationships.”

In another section of the report it acknowledges the major role that the maternal grandparents have played in supporting the mother and how they have undertaken some major aspects of parenting and how they make “fantastic grandparents for the children” in offering on and off support.

70.	The concerns centre on the extent to which they are able to assume a fulltime caring role of two very young children based not only on their health and age but also on the other issues that I have rehearsed above.  

71.	In answer to a question by the paternal grandmother she said that help had been offered repeatedly to the mother in the past but the mother said she didn’t feel that she needed any help and I am bound to say that the mother’s own response in the witness box was not a ringing endorsement of her understanding of the need for help when she said “if they can help me be so perfect as everybody expects me to be.”

72.	She also agreed in answer to a question by the guardian’s solicitor that the children’s level of resilience is very high but this was despite the neglectful parenting that they had received.  It was positive that they were thriving in school and school had been an enduring stable feature in their lives.

73.	She was able to confirm worrying aspects of the children’s emotional presentation particularly that in relation to S and A who were clearly upset at the level of parenting that they have received which is what they have both said individually was the reason that they wanted to leave home.

74.	As it happens S struggles to regulate her emotions and exhibits extreme ends of an emotional state.   A is more reserved but both girls, in the opinion of this social worker, had poor attachment to their mother. 

75.	It is a matter of great concern to the court in relation to S’s continued instability.  In her account she left her grandmother’s address in February 2015 to live with her father due to pressure from her maternal grandmother and mother but when her relationship with her father broke down she returned to her grandmother’s care.  She then requested accommodation to move away from the pressure of her family and now lives with her older sister.  In my judgment she continues to present as an extremely vulnerable individual.

76.	A left her mother’s address due to the fact that she does not feel cared for and the poor state of the home environment and she was clear of taking on the caring role in relation to the youngest siblings.  She too went to live with her father, but that relationship broke down and she has chosen to live with her grandparents rather than to go into foster care.

77.	This social worker indicated that attachment difficulties so far as the older children were concerned could well be a feature of the younger children’s development.  It is clear that JA and J love their mother but did not have a secure attachment and the social worker drew on extensive and growing evidence showing how the experience of abuse and neglect may have a long-term negative effect on children’s emotional and behavioural development and that could affect their lives.  Indeed the guardian had indicated in her first report “there does appear to be an apparent lack of emotional warmth and possible attachment issues between BJ and the children.  Neither S nor A when spoken to demonstrated any allegiance to their mother.”  In other places in the evidence the social worker describes JA and J having a “distant attachment” with both the mother and MW with very little interaction being seen between the adults and the children which would suggest a warm relationship.  In her parenting assessment of MW and the mother she said “the children have been subject to aggressive and hostile behaviours and this has been evidenced when BJ has become aggressive with professionals during home visits and shouted at the children blaming them for the poor home conditions.”  It was also a matter of significance to this witness that JA and J do not mention their parents when talking about “safe places” and that, in my judgment, is an extremely significant piece of evidence.

78.	Her view, in answer to a question by the guardian’s solicitor, was that these children because of their attachment issues required better than good enough parenting when nurturing would be a significant factor in the search for a placement and she was reasonably confident that the experienced foster carers identified for these children would meet their needs and from that I take it to mean, make up the deficits that they have clearly had in relation to their parenting.

79.	It was a crucial observation of Jacqui Gardner that the maternal grandparents have minimised the local authority concerns about the mother’s care of the children describing the home as “liveable.”  Further when discussing with them S and A’s comments that the mother showed them no love and affection their response is that they are not a family that openly shows their affection to one another.  In addition they were dismissive of S and A’s accounts of assuming a caring role for JA and J.

80.	She thought that the maternal grandparents may find it difficult to manage angry outbursts from A or A walking out and if JA and J were added to that household it could well compromise the placement.

81.	She reposed some doubt as to whether there could be a successful working relationship with the grandparents given the history of the minimisation of their concerns.

82.	She was open to the suggestion from the guardian that A should be subject to a supervision order to provide a safety net if she were to live with her maternal grandparents. 

83.	BJ is the children’s mother.  Her position is that she does not want her two younger children removed from her care although she accepts the position in relation to the current placements of her elder children.

84.	Significantly in her statement she doesn’t accept that the children have had a lack of consistent parenting; she does not accept that the children’s appearance has from time to time been poor; she accepts that the children have suffered with poor teeth but does not accept any responsibility for it; she accepts that the children have suffered from head lice but so far as she is concerned she has always treated this appropriately and does not accept any lack of supervision at home.  Further, she does not accept that her older children have taken on a caring role for the younger children although there is ample evidence to suggest that they have.

85.	She accepts that historically the conditions of the home were poor saying that it was correct that approximately three or four years ago it was agreed that the children would eat at her parents’ house while she tidied the kitchen.  On her case three days later the social worker attended and said the kitchen was now suitable for meals.

86.	She says there is significant progress and improvement in relation to the conditions of the home but I am afraid that flies directly in the face of  fairly recent visits by Jacqui Gardner, the guardian and the social worker.

87.	She doesn’t accept that the older children have all cited as part of their reasons for leaving the home the poor condition of the property.

88.	She does agree that MW has not been much help to her addressing the concerns raised by the local authority.

89.	Of course at one time the local authority were seeking placement orders with a view to adoption for these children but the mother is no less resistant to them going into foster care.

90. BJ  had the opportunity of going into the witness box and I am afraid she did not cover herself with much credit allowing of course as I do for her unfamiliarity with the processes and giving evidence, her obvious concern at the removal of her children and the difficulty that any individual has giving evidence on such difficult and important matters.

91.	However I found her to be impatient and dismissive of many of the concerns that were put to her.

92.	As far as she was concerned the property at present was in a perfectly good state and she was dismissive of the historical photographs of the interior of the property and indeed the garden saying that the property was “not like that now.”

93.	She agreed that the property as presented in the photographs and in particular the back garden would present a hazard to children but in answer to S’s view that the condition of the property was “disgusting” she could only say “it is not perfect.”  She didn’t agree that S and A had assumed some degree of responsibility for looking after the younger children although there is clear evidence of them doing so. Adopting a parenting role was recorded by the Family Intervention Project (FIP) team who organised an attempt at bedtime routine and recorded that A and S took the responsibility for bathing and getting JA and J ready for bed with the mother being unable to identify that the success of this particular episode was a result of A and S taking the lead roles.

94.	A school report from KBA was put to her which indicated that S’s physical presentation can vary but there continued to be concerns regarding her looking unkempt, that she can carry a strong odour and questions had been raised about her personal hygiene.  That was in or about November 2014 but she was unable to show any insight in relation to the emotional impact on S of being unkempt and smelly.  Incidentally the school recorded “we have considerable concerns about the impact that home life has upon S’s wellbeing, there are complex family dynamics that have a direct effect on S and her ability to regulate her emotions.”  

95.	Throughout her cross examination the mother presented as continually defensive showing little or no insight.  She challenged the report of the dentist indicating in short form that it was not her fault that no follow up appointments had been sent, disregarding, and in my view deliberately, that the enduring concern was the both children exhibited multiple sites of decay in relation to their teeth.  She attributed JA’s decay to the fact that between the ages of 2 or 4 or 5 he took Epilon which is an anti-epilepsy drug which, according to her, causes tooth decay but the evidence of neglect of his teeth from the dentist is clear.

96.	She showed some considerable lack of insight in relation to the potential impact on JA in learning one day that MW is not his father and became quite impatient when being asked how she would deal with it. 

97.	Incidentally returning to concerns regarding S’s presentation, she said that she certainly did not present in that way when living with either herself or her mother.

98.	There was little or no reaction to the evidence from “Service Six” disclosures by S in 2014 when she described herself as an angry and negative person and believed that she was like that because she had been raised in an angry environment and described most of her family as angry people or indeed that the mother made her feel unloved and uncared for.

99.	She was equally unaccepting of JA’s view as expressed to a social worker that during family arguments he and J would play hide and seek and how JA would put his fingers in his ears and count out loud so that he could not hear the arguing.  On the one hand she described what JA and J were doing as “a game” but on the other hand said that she tried to stop A and S arguing. 

100.	She was unable to say why she couldn’t keep the property clean and tidy on a continuous basis but in answer to a question by her mother as to whether she could keep it tidy (assuming that it is in fact tidy at the moment), she said “I can only do my best.”  In my judgment the events of the last ten years and the numerous observations of the condition of this property and the conditions to which the children have been exposed indicate that the past is the best predictor of the future.

101.	Subsequent to giving her evidence, the mother sent in a photograph of a transformed kitchen that appears to positively shine with cleanliness. I have no confidence that the situation will be maintained and it all comes too late.  It is not without significance that this work has occurred on the eve of the hearing when proceedings were commenced in January.  She could not attend the final day of the hearing as one of the children was unwell. MW did not attend either. 

Grandparents’ evidence
102.	GJ and JJ are the children’s maternal grandparents.  

103.	There is little doubt that historically they have been significant in all the children’s lives with S and AJ having lived with them in the past and A living with them now since 18th June where, according to their evidence, A has “settled at home brilliantly.”  

104.	So far as the younger children are concerned the grandparents are “significant in the children’s lives.” GJ says in her statement “we see the children on most days.  We do most of the school runs for the children by taking and collecting them.  We have the children on weekend days and take them out to do activities.  We have taken them to the park, shopping, to the seaside and away on holiday.  We have bought the children books and puzzles and things to stimulate the children.  When we look after the children it is almost always on our own without their mother.“ GJ also described in her statement the range of activities that she and her husband do with the children and the good relationship that they have with the children’s schools.

105.	In her statement she is accepting that the conditions of the children’s home has “gone downhill.”  She says, “I agree that it is not very good for the children to be living in this condition.”  That however is a substantial understatement of the deplorable conditions that have subsisted for largely ten years.

106.	She also goes on in her statement to say “in an ideal world I would like the children to be able to live with their mother however if they cannot I would like them to live with me.”  In the event of foster care for the children she asks for contact to them on every Saturday or every Sunday.

107.	She says in her statement that she loves her grandchildren and wants what’s best for them and does not want them to be placed with strangers when she believes that she can provide a loving home for them.  She would accept a care order in relation to the children if it meant that they could live with her and her husband.

108.	When she came to give her live evidence she reiterated her position that ideally she would want the mother to retain care of the two younger children with help and she would do everything she could to “see that everything was alright.”  She took the view that she thought that the mother could cope if “we all pulled together.”  

109.	I am afraid to say that that is, again, a substantial underestimation of the events of the last ten years and the numerous opportunities that the mother has had to remedy the situation at home and not provide neglectful parenting.

110.	GJ said that the children were close to their mother and she had observed warm interaction between them but the overriding picture in this case, in my judgment, is one of lack of consistent emotional warmth.

111.	When cross examined by the local authority it was clear that she hadn’t really appreciated that if JA and J were to live with her it was a long-term option and conceded that it could be “a bit of a struggle.”  She reposed the hope that should the children go into foster care that she would be able to enjoy holiday times and respite care with the children expressing the view that the contact proposals were inadequate.

112.	There is no doubt that GJ and JJ love their grandchildren and there is no doubt that they have provided substantial support particularly in relation to schooling without which I am very clear that the children would not have attended school as punctually and as religiously as they have done, and their education would have suffered.   However they will have seen with their own eyes the events of the last ten years and the consistent neglectful condition of the property.  It seems that they have been powerless to intervene more effectively and this was thrown into sharp relief in answer to questions about the state of the children’s teeth. GJ’s view was that the mother was trying her best but the fact remains that the state of J and JA’s  teeth was truly disgraceful and when the extent of tooth decay was put to her and the need to advocate for dental appointments she said “I can’t go over her (the mother’s) head.  They are her children and not mine.”  

113.	Everybody in this case has paid tribute to GJ and JJ in relation to the contribution that they have made to their grandchildren and which they continue to make so far as Amy is concerned but I am bound to say that the submission made by the guardian’s solicitor that they are limited by age, illness and insight is certainly correct in relation to the prospect of prospective care for these two younger children throughout the duration of their childhood, however worthy their aspirations and their contribution to date.  

Guardian’s evidence 
114.	The guardian in this case is Sukie Gill and she has prepared an Initial Analysis and a Final Analysis.

115.	Since the preparation of her final analysis the care plans for the children have changed substantially with the two younger children not being now put forward for adoption, no order being sought for S and a child arrangements order coupled with a supervision order being sought for A on the basis that she continues to live with her maternal grandparents.  

116.	She took the view that for the two younger children to join A at their grandparents is not tenable and they should be removed from their mother’s care.  

117.	It is evident from the questions put on her behalf and her own evidence that she was concerned about the emotional needs of the two younger children and the fact that they have suffered from lack of emotional nurturing.  It would be very difficult for  GJ and JJ having regard to their health needs and the demands on caring for A, to provide them more than good enough care that these children now needed as a consequence of their experiences.  She also took the view that A was enjoying being “the only child” in that particular placement.  I agree with that evidence 

118.	She was open to the possibility of the grandparents having extended periods of contact for holiday and/or respite care in the fullness of time after the children have settled into new placements and formed attachments.  There is, in my judgment, and based on all that I have read and heard, an overriding need for these children to form positive attachments with any foster carers and what will also have to be measured is the extent to which the grandparents can support any placement away from family. 

119.	In contradistinction, she was clear that the grandparents could provide good enough care for A whose primary need was stability whereas the younger children needed better than good enough care because of their emotional and attachment needs.

120.	In relation to the mother her evidence was clear namely that the mother has no insight into the effect of neglect on her children and cannot sustain any meaningful change.  I accept that evidence after balancing it with all the other evidence in the case.

121.	It is a matter of significance to the court that when the guardian visited on 16th June 2015 she stated  “it quickly became evident that nothing had changed from when proceedings first commenced in terms of BJ’s and MW’s poor presentation, lack of acknowledgement of the concerns and the poor home environment.  In fact the upstairs bedrooms were worse and in BJ’s own words were “trashed” with clothes and toys everywhere on the floor and beds which according to her was because she was in the process of tidying up.” 

 122.	She went on to say in relation to the mother, “she did not appear to know where to start and presented as overwhelmed. MW was quite detached from the situation and just sat there offering no emotional or practical support.”  

123.	I am reminded that it was Jacqui Gardner’s evidence that the presence of MW may be a demotivating factor but crucially the guardian said this … “I am not convinced that her parenting will be any different if she was caring for the children on her own. BJ’s understanding of harm appears to be limited to a parent deliberately acting to harm a child, she consistently told me that she does not beat or starve her children neither does she leave them unsupervised, she appeared to struggle to understand her failure to act to do something can equally be as harmful.”  She shared the same view as Ms Gardner in relation to the general sense of lethargy about the mother in every aspect of parenting and hence her recommendation that the children should be removed from their mother’s care.

The law
124.	I remind myself that Hale LJ (as she then was) said in Re C and B (Children)(Care Order: Future Harm) [2000] 2FCR 614 at paragraph 33 

	“… under Article 8 of the Convention both the children and the parents have the right to respect for their family and private life.  If the state is to interfere with that then there are three requirements:  first, that it be in accordance with the law; secondly, that it be for a legitimate aim (in this case the protection of the welfare and interests of the children); and thirdly, that it be “necessary in a democratic society” “.

125.	I have firmly in mind that under normal circumstances the best person to bring up a child is a natural parent and the powerful remarks by Mr Justice Hedley in Re L (Care : Threshold criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 and the toleration that society must have to the very diverse standards of parenting “including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent.”

126.	That principle was supported by the President in the matter of A (a child) MB14C01592 who repeated the observation of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC in Re B when she said “we are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children.  But the state does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial, political or religious beliefs.”  

127.	I also adopt and agree with the propositions advanced in Re MA (Care Threshold) [2010] 1 FLR CA 433 that the significant harm that I should have regard to must be sufficiently high to justify the momentous step of taking children away from their parents and the risk must be an unacceptable one.

Threshold Findings
128.	I turn to the local authority’s threshold document.  That document was drafted in the context of an application for an interim care order under s.38(2) of the Children Act but the same criteria apply, in my judgment, in relation to considerations under s.31 and I am satisfied that the threshold is made out in that all the children have suffered significant harm attributable to the care given by their parents.  All the children at the relevant time were suffering significant emotional harm and neglect due to the first and second respondents’ failure to provide the children with a safe and clean home environment and meet their emotional needs.

129.	In coming to this conclusion I have had careful regard to all the filed evidence as well as the oral evidence of the parties. I have heard from the mother, the maternal grandmother, the social worker and the Guardian.  I have drawn carefully on the filed evidence which has largely been unchallenged. In addition to the neglect issues I have been struck by the extent of emotional abuse to which these children have been subjected and I record the following from the evidence:

130.	S has consistently shared with a number of professionals including the Guardian her experiences whilst living with her mother – poor home conditions, a lack of emotional warmth, being verbally and physically chastised and generally feeling unloved and uncared for.  She described her mother as “lazy” and “taking no responsibility” S and A have stated that they have not been able to invite their friends to their home due to the state of the house, the clutter and dirt.
  
131.	A has reported that as soon as she turned 16 she would be leaving the family home. The Guardian observed a “lack of tangible emotional warmth in the family” on a visit to A in BJ’s home.

132.	S has been bullied at school because of poor personal care.  There is little consistent evidence in the family home of shower gel, bath soap, bath towels etc for the children to use. 
133.	S and A have both assumed carer’s roles in the family home. 

134.	BJ has blamed the children for the poor state of the home environment.
 
135.	Concerns have been raised by G School in respect of JA.  He had presented looking very tired and withdrawn on 29.1.15, telling the teacher that he had been up till midnight playing on the X-Box with his dad.  He was also grubby with dirty hands and face. His teeth were very dirty and covered in plaque and one tooth was rotten and broken.
 
136.	The children have been caught up in arguments between the families. SS and LS and BJ and MW appear to have no regard for the impact on the children of their behaviour.   JA is reported to have started wetting the bed and hiding under the bed for up to 2 hours following altercations. 
137.	JA told the social worker that during arguments in the house between Mother, S and A he and J would play hide and seek.  JA would put his fingers in his ears and count out loud over the arguing so he couldn’t hear it and J would go and hide.    

138.	S has said that she wishes to be considered for semi-independent living as she is tired of the adults arguing. 

139.	LS has sent deeply offensive and abusive messages to S via Facebook. LS has been posted abusive and aggressive messages on Facebook to BJ.  

140.	Since she left his care, SS has sent A unpleasant  and abusive messages.   He has said he wants no more to do with either A or S. The last message sent to A by her father said “…you were never my daughter.” 

141.	S moved into a foster placement on 8.5.15.  She had to sign her own s20 agreement herself as her mother  refused to do so. 
142.	The children have been blamed for Social Services involvement.
143.	Laura Terrett, Family Welfare Co-ordinator, KBA submitted a report outlining her involvement with S and graphically describes incidents where S presented as very distressed at school.  S presents sometimes as unkempt and carrying a strong odour which will impact on her interaction with peer group members and has caused her to be bullied.
144.	Rhiannon Maple of Service Six, has conducted 1:1 sessions with S who has shared her unhappiness with her home environment, S told Jacqui Gardner that she doesn’t know where she wants to live and feels no sense of belonging in any household.

145.	For the avoidance of doubt, and arising from the facts above which I accept.   I make the following findings based on the balance of probabilities:- 
1.	That the children have been subjected to home conditions that have frequently been no better than squalid.  
2.	That any improvements made by Mother have been minimal and short-lived.
3.	That living in such conditions causes emotional harm to the children, inter alia because their physical presentation is likely to be affected which in turn can lead to social isolation and bullying; that their self esteem and confidence is compromised because they are embarrassed to invite friends home; that there is nowhere available for play, homework etc which eventually will lead to under performing at school and under achieving educationally.
4.	That feuds and arguments between family members have had a significant emotional impact on the children.   
5.	That S and A have suffered emotional abuse as a result of being abandoned and rejected by their father.
6.	That the children (in particular S and A) have suffered significant emotional harm as a result of being blamed for the poor home conditions and social services involvement. 

The welfare stage
146.	Having found that the threshold criteria under the Children Act has been crossed for the purposes of making an order I go on and consider the care plans and the range of orders available to the court in relation to these children but before I do so I make a number of additional findings.

147.	Additional findings
(1)	Social Services have been involved with this family for ten years and became involved primarily, and to start with, because of the state of the house.  The squalid state of the house is a chronic long-term issue and any improvements are transient with the mother lacking insight as to what is acceptable or unacceptable in terms of home conditions for children.
(2)	There is a lack of emotional warmth shown by the mother to her children.  I have little doubt that she loves her children but it is deeply significant that S has felt “generally unloved and uncared for” and A has looked to S for emotional support.  
(3)	The mother has relied almost exclusively on the grandparents to get the children to school and back and although she may have attended parents’ evenings from time to time has not done so consistently.
(4)	The mother has refused to accept responsibility for JA’s and J’s poor dental health which the court finds is attributable to a great extent to neglect.
(5)	The children are presented at school as dirty, unkempt and smelly and S has been bullied as a result of her presentation.  It is of great significance that S has referred to her mother as “… lazy, unhygienic and smelly.”  
(6)	Both A and S have had to undertake a great deal of parenting of their younger siblings.  The mother on her own is unable to parent even two of her children to a good enough standard and MW appears to offer no practical or emotional support. 
(7)	The mother showed no insight in her evidence in relation to the fact that JA was scared and distressed during the course of family arguments and conflict in the home.
(8)	The mother has shown a total lack of empathy when answering questions about JA’s paternity as I have rehearsed in evidence.
(9)	The maternal grandparents, possibly out of a sense of loyalty to their daughter, show little insight as to just how bad things have been for these children over the last ten years notwithstanding that the contribution that they have made outside of the home. 
(10)	There is a substantial risk that if J and JA were placed with them that that could jeopardise A’s placement or indeed the placement of all three children and the court finds, after hearing both the maternal grandmother and the mother, that the court could have little confidence of the mother being kept at arm’s length.  Indeed in a discussion in evidence by the grandmother as to the prospect of respite care, she indicated the wish for the mother to be included.  There is I am afraid to say, very little understanding of the degree of harm that these children have suffered but, notwithstanding that, every avenue must be explored for these children to have quality time with their grandparents when in foster care.

148.	Having made those additional findings I accord to the parties all the positives in relation to the case namely the love and affection that the grandparents and indeed the parents have for these children and the potential for loss for any child not to be brought up by birth family in particular regard to the two younger children.

149.	I must consider the provisions of the Welfare Checklist under the Children Act 1989.  As is often the case it is a child’s physical, emotional and educational needs under s.1(3b), any harm that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering under s.1(3e) balanced against the capability of a child’s parents or any other person (in this case the grandparents) in meeting a child’s needs under s.1(3f).

150.	I make a clear finding that neither parent is capable of meeting J’s and JA’s welfare needs within their timescales. MW has proved himself to be singularly ineffective.  Mother cannot or will not effect the changes that are required and maintain them and as a consequence all her children’s needs have been neglected. The parenting to which these children have been subject falls clearly outside the wide and diverse standards that could be expected in a tolerant society envisaged in the authorities to which I have earlier referred.

151.	I go on to consider the capacity of the grandparents to meet the children’s needs and I find that due to the range of the factors canvassed in the assessment of them (which I accept) that they are not capable of meeting these children’s needs to the standard for the duration of their childhoods that is required not least because they also have care of A.  There is of course a potential for loss to J and JA at not being brought up by birth family but the sibling relationship and indeed the relationship with mother and the grandparents can be maintained through contact and I urge the local authority, and provided there is an acceptance by family of placement, to be inventive and imaginative in relation to future contact once matters have settled.  

152.	I therefore make the care orders as requested in relation to the two younger children approving the care plans as I do together with the plans for reduction of contact.  I approve a child arrangements order in favour of the grandparents in relation to A.  I find that although she may appear to be settled at the moment there is potential for disruption and a supervision order of not less than 12 months would meet her needs.  She should, in my judgment, be designated a child in need.  

153.	So far as S is concerned, her distress at the home life that she has experienced while in the care of her mother has been a very poignant and probative aspect of this case.  In fact care orders are necessary and proportionate in relation to her two younger siblings partly due to the experiences that she has suffered and the need to avoid that harm in the future.  There is no public law order that would adequately meet her needs and I approve that there be no order as there are no exceptional circumstances requiring that that should be the case. 

154.	Finally I invite the local authority and the Independent Reviewing Officer to look imaginatively, in consultation with foster carers, at what enhanced role the grandparents can play in terms of respite care and holiday contact in due course.