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:MK14C00093
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT MILTON KEYNES

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF T (A  CHILD)

Date: 23.7.2015

Before :

His Honour Judge Antony Hughes 

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

Buckinghamshire County Council 
Applicant

- and -

   CB(1)

    MB(2)

    T(3)

Respondents

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

Miss  Little of counsel for the Applicant Local Authority 
Miss Wentworth of counsel for the First Respondent 
Mr Hamilton, counsel  for the Second Respondent 
Mr Lloyd Morris for The Third Respondent child

Hearing dates: 13-18 July 

Final hearing CARE PROCEEDINGS 

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

JUDGMENT

JUDGE HUGHES:
Introduction
1.	The court is concerned with T who was born on 9TH December 2009 and is therefore five and a half years old.  He is represented in these proceedings through his guardian, David Viney, and Mr Lloyd Morris, solicitor. T has been diagnosed with global developmental delay and duplication of 17q12 on one copy of chromosome 17.  In December 2014, at the age of 5 years old, T was reported by community paediatrician, Dr Mallya, to be functioning at the approximately the level of a 30-month old child (half his chronological age).

2.	This is the final hearing of an application by Buckinghamshire County Council, represented by Miss Little of Counsel, for a care and placement order in relation to T. The Local Authority applied for care and interim care orders in respect of T on 17.10.14.  A fact finding hearing took place at the end of April with judgment being delivered in April 2015 arising out of allegations made by T’s older brother, C.  The Court gave judgment finding that MB had involved C in sexually explicit activity; that C was exposed to MB masturbating and that MB had encouraged C to lick chocolate mousse from his penis and testicles and further exposed him to inappropriate sexual language and gesticulation.

3.	The Local Authority says that since February 2014 T’s behaviour has deteriorated and the parents have not been able do what was clearly expected of them by the court a year ago.  

4.	This judgment should be read in conjunction with my earlier fact finding judgment.  

5.	T’ mother is CB represented once again carefully and sensitively by Miss Wentworth of Counsel.  The mother was born on I December 1973 and is aged 41.  She is vulnerable, highly anxious, and has a cognitive function in the range of scores associated with learning disability.  In an assessment by the court appointed expert in the case, Dr Blumenthal, his further cognitive assessment of CB revealed her full scale IQ to be 69 with her working memory being the aspect of her functioning which is particularly low.  

6.	T’ father is MB.  He was born on 2 August 1973  and is 41.  He is represented once again in these proceedings by Mr Hamilton of Counsel.  He has been unable to accept the findings in the court’s judgment of 29th April and has not been able to return to the matrimonial home since his arrest in the autumn of 2014.

7.	I have already mentioned disclosures made by T’s elder brother, C.  C is aged 13 having been born on [date].  He is subject to a full care order made in February 2014 and lives in a long term foster placement with contact to his family six times a year.  He has chromosome 17q12 duplication, a diagnosis of Klinefelter’s syndrome, asthma and hay fever.  He has global developmental delay and significant learning difficulties but has flourished since being in foster care.

Background
8.	The family has been known to Social Care since C’s birth and a very high level of support has been provided.  In June 2011 both boys were made subjects of child protection plans under the category of neglect.  In June 2013 care proceedings were issued in respect of both boys, who initially remained in their parents’ care under interim supervision orders.  In October 2013 C was removed to foster care following increasing concern as to physical and emotional abuse of him within the home. 

9.	In February 2014, the final hearing was heard before lay justices who made the following findings 
(a)	C suffered physical and emotional abuse whilst in his parents’ care and was treated differently to T.
(b)   That witnessing this would have caused emotional harm to T
(c) 	That the parents needed to demonstrate a future joint parenting commitment to T including support of one another.
(d)	That Mother needed Father’s support with T and that he had not always prioritised his wife and children over his interest in council work.
(e)	That father needed to control his anger and resentment of Local Authority engagement.

10.	At the conclusion of those proceedings the parents did not oppose the making of a full care order for C.  Local Authority’s application for care and placement orders in respect of T was not supported by the Guardian.  A Supervision Order was made in respect of T and since that time he has remained on a child protection plan.  

Current proceedings 
11.	On 17th October 2014 the Authority’s renewed its application for a care order for T; the disclosures made by C contributed to, but were not determinative of this decision.

12.	On 14th November an ICO was made on the basis of T remaining in his mother’s care and he has remained at home to date.  Since his arrest in September 2014 and subsequent bail conditions MB has not resided at the property.  The Court determined that on balance the vulnerabilities of the parents were such that the allegations made by C should be subject to a discrete fact-finding hearing, which would allow time for reflection prior to the final hearing.

13.	Sadly the Local Authority’s case is that despite her best intentions and obvious love for her son, CB is not able to offer good enough care for T and that his needs, which are heightened on account of his developmental delay, will simply not be met in her care.  From the outset the social worker has made plain that CB has not intentionally neglected or harmed T.  The Authority acknowledges that T is clean and well presented; it is the more nuanced aspects of parenting that are beyond CB’s capabilities.  

14.	The court has read the filed evidence in relation to this case together with all the assessments of the parents and of T.  The court has heard live evidence from Dr Blumenthal, the jointly appointed expert, Dawn Wright, school nurse at T’s school, Zoe Warren from the local authority Family Finding & Permanence Team, Magi Zakrzewski from the Children & Teenagers Community Health Service, Anna Shairp the social worker, both parents and the child’s guardian. 

Evidence  
15.	Dr Stephen Blumenthal is a consultant clinical psychologist and adult psychotherapist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and his extensive qualifications are set out on page 55 of his first report.  He conducts numerous psychological assessments for family cases and confirmed in live evidence that many of the individuals he assesses have learning difficulties.

16.	On his first introduction to the mother he thought that a re-assessment of her cognitive difficulties was urgently required and his re-assessment of mother at a significantly lower level than previously assessed he described as “enlightening.” It was also in my judgment pivotal and an essential component of his subsequent assessment of the mother’s ability to meet T’s needs.

17.	On the central issue as to whether or not the mother has the capacity to provide care for T, he concludes by way of summary as follows:- 
He describes CB as a “fragile and vulnerable person who has significant deficits in her cognitive functioning as well as in her capacity for emotional containment.”   He highlights the need for social support which is sadly lacking in this case, “Someone with her level of disability typically requires a high level of social support, and this cannot be provided exclusively by statutory services.  In such circumstances a supportive, non-disabled partner is important, as are parents or other family members.”  

18.	He too draws the distinction between risks from CB arising out of acts of omission rather than commission.  “The risks are associated with CB having limited understanding and as a result, inadvertently not providing the appropriate level of containment for T.  Nevertheless in my opinion the risks associated with CB ’s care of Tare considerable...Sadly, despite CB’s positive intentions, I cannot recommend that she is able to prioritise T’s needs” 

19.	In oral evidence he says the level of support required could not be provided for under the terms of any statutory support having regard to the level of the mother’s disability both cognitively and emotionally.  He said also that support from family was an important component to contain a parent in these circumstances in the stresses and strains of parenting and this was particularly so with individuals whose IQ was lower than 70 and the mother would need help both practically and emotionally particularly in relation to the area of prospective risk.

20.	He said that a child’s future attachment behaviours would be affected by the degree of emotional provision of the parent.

21.	He observed that mother did not like the intrusion of local authority support and he described that as “part of the difficulty.” 

22.	He deferred to Dr Tagart in relation to child centred issues.  Incidentally I record that Dr Tagart’s views at this stage namely:
“[T] requires an emotionally attuned adult to provide his care; this person or persons will need to be able to provide warmth, boundaries and model appropriate behaviour.  They will require a high degree of patience because T will require many opportunities in order to acquire skills and concepts.” 

23.	He acknowledged that he hadn’t observed the mother’s parenting skills and hadn’t seen her since December 2014 but had clearly brought himself up to date from the range of evidence available.  He was prepared to accord positives in that the interaction between T and his mother was good but he was focusing on the case as an adult psychologist in relation to the mother’s capability.  He acknowledged that he would have liked to see the mother again and not doing so was “a slight deficit.”

24.	Despite challenge he remained very firm that it would be impossible to provide a level of statutory support that would be required and was “beyond a resource issue.”  

25.	He was able to acknowledge that the mother may well have progressed since she has been caring for T by herself since October/November 2014 but that did not assist in what he had clearly identified as the areas of deficit.  

26.	It was suggested to him that T’s paediatrician Dr Mallya had described some of T’s behaviours as “normal boundary pushing” however I noted his concern about T’s poor attention control, his easy distractibility and which in turn results in some difficult behaviour and his needs are for a very clear and structured behavioural support plan both at home and at school. Dr Mallya incidentally went on to say “he comes across as a sociable child who with the right level of guidance and supervision has the potential to maintain the level of progress.  Without that support I worry that his behaviour could deteriorate and then pose an increasing challenge.”  It was suggested to him that the mother with statutory support, given those observations and given the progress that she said that she has made since October, would be able to maintain that level of what was required but it was plain that Dr Blumenthal disagreed with that proposition.

27.	Incidentally before I leave Dr Mallya I also recall that Dr Mallya identified that “T’s needs are very long term, life long, very much likely to change (possibly worsen) as he grows older.  His carers would therefore need to recognise, anticipate so that appropriate services are approaches and support systems are put in place to address his difficulties.”  

28.	Dr Blumenthal was also clear that mother’s level of disability needs a supportive partner who would be present for most of the time and it was likely that given T’s entire developmental trajectory over the next 12 years he would need more than he is getting now.

29.	He accepted that mother was entitled to long term support from the local authority and that she was clearly devoted to him and, in my judgment, she is devoted to T, unconditionally.  But he was clear that T needed more than average input and he agreed with the proposition as articulated by Dr Tagart that T required “excellent parenting and stability of placement to optimise his development.”  Incidentally it was Dr Tagart who also acknowledged that mother appeared to be able to provide some of the requirements as indicated by T’s attachment to her but he also went on to say that it was likely that her own learning difficulties impact upon her ability to provide optimal parenting.  Incidentally Dr Taggart too identified the need for a good support network.

30.	By way of conclusion Dr Blumenthal was unsure at the extent to which the mother accepted the findings in relation to MB and the risk that he posed but he was challenged in cross-examination that the mother was able to show some acceptance to the right person in other words someone with whom she had a relationship, for example, Dawn Wright the school nurse, with whom the mother was able to make some recognition of risks.  He accepted that the mother was defensive and anxious and reacted badly to criticism but he returned again and again to the same theme which was namely how does someone with this level of disability parent a child whatever the positives may be in relation to the case. 

31.	He was taken to the Junior CATCH assessment.

32.	Incidentally I record that their conclusions were as follows: 
“Both parents are at time immature within their parenting; this may become problematic for T who will need robust carers to manage his specific needs now and in the future.” 
“Neither parent has the capacity to meet T’s ongoing, specific and at times, challenging needs.  This is evidenced by the limited progression either parent has been able to make from one piece of parenting support to the next and from one assessment to another; as within these they have been given very specific feedback, intensive support and how to care for a child has been role modelled to them many times around the changing needs of their children.  Sadly neither parent has shown they can utilise this consistently to safely parent T in the long term.” 

33.	He was challenged that Junior CATCH notwithstanding these observations had shown evidence of positive change in the absence of MB, with mother telling the CATCH assessor as she did that she likes to arrange things for T and how she had a different approach to parenting from MB. 

34.	Dr Blumenthal acknowledged that she may have progressed but the deficits outweighed the positives.  He identified a negative attitude of the need for help and that formed part of his assessment and it was part of the level of recognition of her disability accepting as he did that it may indeed be difficult for her given her level of determination to care for T.

35.	Other positives were put to him namely the access by the mother of counselling but once again he said that it was his professional judgment that this did not assist in forecasting for the future and he agreed with the guardian that it was the mother’s capacity to sustain change that was a central issue and counselling had a limited impact on that. 

36.	It was clear that he did not think statutory involvement “from time to time” to be sufficient and in the interests of safety it required a presence of another individual in the home. 

37.	In relation to MB, he agreed there was nothing in his assessment of MB that indicated that he would be a threat to a placement of T with his mother.

38.	Dawn Wright is the nurse at T’s School and has worked closely with the family for 8 years and was the school nurse for T’s brother, C, when he was at that School.  The conclusion to her report dated 12th June is as follows: 
“In my professional opinion CB does not appear to have the capacity to take on board the advice given with regard to behaviour, routines and safe environment and adapt this to her home life with T....In my professional opinion T is at significant risk of a long-term detrimental effect on his emotional development if there are not significant changes within the home environment.  I do not believe that CB has the capacity to make those changes.” 

39.	Of particular concern she also highlights T’s concerning response to anger: “T displays behaviours in response to anger which are different to that which are seen by other children in his peer group or his cognitive level of understanding within [the school].  The behavioural responses he displays to a child or adult raising their voice include covering his face, a facial expression of fear, almost being frozen to one place, going into what appears to be an almost foetal position and wanting to distance himself as far as possible from the situation.”  Mrs Wright contrasts this response to T’s ability to cope with high noise levels within the daily routine. 

40.	In T’s case she thought that consistency was very important and was much troubled by the range of behaviours that she had recorded on her chronology of unusual events selecting as she did merely the worst examples.  She has described observations when T would express terror and fear at raised voices which she found unusual and very troubling.  She has not encountered this reaction amongst any of the other 200 children in the school some of whom are on child protection plans or subject to care orders.  She is concerned that these behaviours have continued for some time notwithstanding careful advice given to the mother and was also concerned that T was exposed to the mother’s anxiety and on occasion she can raise her voice which may be frightening for a child.  The mother’s presentation has been discussed with her and how this may affect T. the mother.

41.	She clearly has had in the past a very good relationship with the mother but now described the mother as being not as open as in the past.  She said by way of example that she recently spent a long afternoon with the mother together with another teacher from the school and the mother opened up in relation to T’s behaviours but subsequently denied that she had done so at a core group meeting.

42.	She seemed very understanding of the mother’s position saying that she was clearly worried about information being passed on to other professionals but as a consequence, and unfortunately she was not confident about the mother’s ability to be open and honest.

43.	By way of example in 2014 she did not inform the school that MB had left the family home.  This was important information as this event would have had a huge impact on T and the school needed to know to manage that information.  Equally the school were not informed that C had been made subject of a full care order which would have left T confused.  There appeared therefore to be no insight on the lack of provision of information in terms of the school’s ability to manage T. 

44.	She described that how from 2011 to 2014 she had spoken on countless occasions about C’s bedtime routine and then the same lack of routine was revisited in relation to discussions about T in 2014.  She does not know whether T has established a routine but if a routine has been established then it took three years for C and in her view the mother struggled to relate events to T’s behaviours.

45.	She was able to be positive about some aspects of mother’s care describing T as “always and clean and well presented.”

46.	She accepted in cross-examination that she had not been to the mother’s house and had not witnessed how she managed T’s behaviour but what she did have was a long involvement with CB  and evidence of T’s unusual and disturbing behaviours at school particularly his reaction to loud angry voices and notwithstanding long sessions with the mother and much interaction and advice being offered, she was concerned that she was still seeing these very concerning behaviours, the last account in her log being 5th June 2015 when T became unsettled by a child who came into the room shouting and he put his hands together, looked down and pulled his knees up towards himself in a foetal position asking this witness to take him to the soft play room.

47.	She acknowledged that in relation to the mother repetition and consistency were important so far as proffering advice was concerned.  She acknowledged that it was positive that the mother had attended the Triple P parenting course twice and receiving consistent messages from all the professionals.  However despite the passage of years it was still a matter of concern that they were discussing the same areas and she wondered therefore if any of the strategies advised had been properly followed through.

48.	Zoe Warren is a social worker with the local authority and gave evidence from the local authority permanence team.  

49.	Of particular interest in relation to her evidence she wrote within her report that within approximately 6 years, 13 children of a similar age had been placed with prospective adopters and 6 children with disabilities have been adopted.  I should observe that those children in the examples given were younger than T and the quickest time for placement after placement order was 176 days but depressingly the longest time was 1219 days.  Of value perhaps in relation to T, she did indicate that her manager had authorised that if T was to be placed for adoption there would be intensive profiling.  She had identified 100 possible families on the National Adoptions Register and may be able to provide a match to T and she thought that after four months it was possible that there would be an indication from a family. 

50.	Magi Zakrzewski is a child and family worker employed by Buckinghamshire County Council Social Services Department at the Junior CATCH (Children & Teenagers’ Community Help Service) based in Aylesbury and it was she that carried out an assessment regarding the parenting capacity for T by his parents, CB and MB.  I have already summarised some of her conclusions when dealing with Dr Blumenthal’s evidence.  

51.	Having seen and heard her in evidence and having read her report I have little doubt that she was responsive to the mother’s needs and conscious of her disability.

52.	As part of her assessment she addressed the element of risk and it is a matter of some concern that the mother has acknowledged to her that although she is finding it easier to meet T’s needs without MB being around so she can focus solely on T but has also consistently stated that she wants to have MB living back in the household. 

53.	She said so far as the mother’s anxiety is concerned “CB demonstrates a very high level of anxiety and although it is natural to have some anxiety within an assessment time CB’s was above and beyond what I would normally experience.  CB’s behaviour demonstrates that as a parent she is unable to regulate her emotions and needs in order to focus on T’s needs and not on her own.”  Her view in relation to T was that he needed very robust parenting which the mother was not able to give him she reacting rather than anticipating his needs.  

54.	Regarding CB’s anxiety, she did record that T was sensitive to mother’s anxiety and when she raised her voice when anxious he would stand and watch her and when agitated flap his arms.

55.	She did not feel that the mother really understood why the assessment was being carried out.  Her recommendation states that “T already has severe developmental delay which requires him to be parented in a style over and above what CB and MB are able to provide therefore I feel as unfortunate and sad as it is, T may not be able to live within the birth family.”  Her recommendation was that T be removed from his parents’ care.  The cornerstone of her recommendations was this: “for T to be able to reach his full potential it would be in his best interests that an alternative family is found for him in which he can feel a sense of safety and security, one in which he can rely on adults to anticipate and meet his needs throughout his childhood and into adult as he deserves.”  

56.	In cross-examination she was subjected to some criticism that she might not have been sufficiently reassuring to the mother regarding the positives but I have little doubt that she was aware of the mother’s anxieties before she started and although she accepted that an assessment has potential to undermine, it is part of her function to question a parent to ascertain their insight.  She told the court that she was careful to accompany criticism with positive input and I have no doubt that this was the case.  

57.	Many examples of positives in relation to the mother were put to her and she acknowledged them where acknowledgement was due as indeed I believe she did during the course of her assessment.  In common with other professional witnesses she has acknowledged some change and some improvement and although mother was able to implement advice she sometimes did not adhere to the rule, for example, the rule when T leaves the table not having finished his food that he is not allowed to return to eat any more food.  An example of a positive was that she recorded the mother successfully distracted T when he presented some challenging behaviour and applied a boundary which T responded positively to.  Mother has encouraged T to dress himself independently and offered praise. 

58.	She acknowledged that mother has managed some changes in relation to the areas of boundaries and routine.  She was able to provide basic care skills and T was always well presented and she was ready to acknowledge the fact that this could be in some way due to the absence of MB and she was able to concentrate on T.  She observed warmth from the mother so far as T was concerned but remained concerned that strategies and suggestions were not sustained.  Crucially T’s care required someone to “forward think for him” and she did not think that the mother had that capacity saying that the mother does not possess the skills, the knowledge and the understanding to provide anticipatory help.  This could not be achieved unless somebody was with her all the time.

59.	She was challenged that an earlier report by the Court Assessment Service (CAS) in 2013 was more positive regarding mother’s capacity to interact appropriately with children and recorded that the parents may be able to respond to T in a more appropriate way because mother’s feelings for him are different from those that she has for C.  Although that assessment recorded concerns it was also recorded that both mother and father showed a good understanding of T’s developmental needs both now and when he becomes older describing them both as “engaging really well.”  The selfsame report highlighted the difficulties that the mother had with negative comments and the effect that this had on her self-esteem.  

60.	This witness was clear that she adopted the same approach and I accept that she did.

61.	However mother’s level of anxiety was always going to be an issue in this case and she accepted that anxiety could well lessen.

62.	She agreed with Dr Blumenthal’s observations when put to her in cross-examination namely that someone with her level of disability typically requires “a high level of social support and this cannot be provided exclusively by Social Services.  In such circumstances a supportive non-disabled partner is important as are parents or other family members.”  She agreed that in her assessment she struggled to identify any friends or family that could help the mother and described her as “very isolated.”  She also agreed with what Dr Blumenthal had recorded as her negative attitude towards the need for help.

63.	Her view was that mother underestimated her difficulties and does not have the capacity to meet T’s high level of needs in way that can promote his development.  Clear evidence from Dr Mallya was also suggested to her namely that the gap between T’s chronological age and developmental age continues to increase and this in turn would have implications as to the severity and degree of T’s learning disability as he gets older.  She agreed.

64.	In fact this was clearly a key issue so far as she was concerned and she went on to say that the way a child’s behaviour is addressed is the key to the child feeling secure and confident.  She remained of the view that the mother lacked the capability to deal with T’s developing needs.

65.	Anna Shairp is the social worker in the case.  She has filed two statements and co-authored the care plan.  She concludes in her last report that the parents cannot provide the support T needs even with a significant level of professional support and has a very strong concern that should T remain with his parents he would become far more delayed because his developing needs will not be addressed in childhood and was concerned that the impact that this will have upon T will last throughout his childhood and into adulthood. 

66.	She saw the care plan for T’s removal as an opportunity for him to acquire vital skills at this crucial stage of his development otherwise the opportunity will be lost forever and that is why the care plan in the first instance is one of adoption.  I should also say that she had concerns regarding T’s behaviour, and she says in her statement:
“T’s behaviour has deteriorated to such an extent that he is hitting staff at school and other pupils, he throws toys and other items at home, he ignores when he is asked to do something or says ‘no’ and runs off.  CB is unable to manage his behaviour effectively and is reluctant to ask for advice or reveal the extent of T’s behaviours in case this is held against her.”  

67.	I have to say that her involvement in relation to this case as the social worker has been proactive.  She has visited CB at home at least twice a week except when on leave; she has liaised with school and carried out supervised contact sessions with the father.  She has a very good understanding of the issues in the case.  She considers the level of visiting and support required at present to be intrusive and not allowing T a normal family life and amount to him being ‘co-parented’ which is not in his best interests or a long-term solution.

68.	She too identified the mother’s isolation and recounted in her evidence when she called the maternal grandmother on an occasion when the father had been staying there prior to his bail conditions and had left a message to find out where he had gone that  the grandmother indicated that she did not want her to call again.  The maternal grandmother has not engaged over any issue of the case and the mother is indeed isolated from family. 

69.	She records the observations of Kathy Williams, registered child minder, who has cared for T on many occasions.  She describes T as “very demanding and will change his mind after he has asked for something.  T will shout if he doesn’t get his own way and needs to be reminded regularly that he shouldn’t do this.”  Kathy Williams describes T as “an anxious little soul.”  She has observed that mother constantly checks and re-checks that she has got everything and her anxiety is transmitted to T.

70.	Of particular concern are the observations recorded in her report regarding CB’s apparent lack of openness with staff at home visits stating that she is “fine” and doesn’t need any help.

71.	Although T has plenty of toys and attends social activities arranged by either Social Care or his mother and it is positive that the mother has involved herself in engaging in these activities, it is the apparent lack of stimulation that troubles her as it is clearly required to bring on T’s development as Dr Taggart in her report has made it clear that T requires plenty of opportunities for the “over learning” he requires.

72.	It is of no small significance, in my judgment, that she also reported that C had now had an opportunity to develop “over learning” and he had progressed to a remarkable degree in the care of his current foster placement.

73.	She acknowledged that it was necessary, in common with other professionals, to give CB lots of praise and she has tried really hard to befriend and support her but acknowledged also that it was difficult as she was the social worker having effectively to monitor the mother’s progress.

74.	She also had concerns that mother would not be a sufficient protective factor for T bearing in mind her reluctance to accept the findings of the court and her reluctance to accept that MB had displayed angry outbursts in front of the children.

75.	Mother has not been seeing C at contact as she was acknowledged that she would not be able to stop herself asking him what he had said about his dad which of course led to the findings that the court made against MB.

76.	The care plan’s main focus is for six months to be on adoption.  The existing foster carers of C, Mr and Mrs Knight, would be assessed at the same time as prospective foster carers and if no suitable adopters had been identified in the six month period a decision would be made by way of recommendation to the agency decision maker to change the plan to long term fostering.

77.	She was constrained to agree that the statistics regarding the placement of older boys with disabilities for adoption were not attractive but thought that it was a possibility that should be explored.

78.	She clearly saw the need for ongoing contact and that would be open to consideration in any care plan so far as CB was concerned provided that she could accept the decision of the court and any decision would be informed no doubt by the attitude of adopters and T’s welfare.

79.	She was able when taken to the digest of the core group minutes prepared by mother’s Counsel to acknowledge many positives in relation to the efforts made by the mother but adhered to her view notwithstanding those positives that the mother would need continual support.  Despite progress being made by the mother her view was that T’s needs were not being fully met and there was not reasonable support package that could be provided to make up for the mother’s deficits.  Again she returned to the issue of her finding that the mother could not be open and it was difficult to get a true picture of what was happening at home.

80.	She accepted that permanent removal was a lifelong step and did not accept that this was in effect social engineering.

81.	In relation to father, there is a suggestion that supervised contact with the father provided evidence of wariness in T at contact.  She was able to acknowledge that T did have a good time at contact with his father but not consistently as the father struggled to interact.  I am afraid I find it difficult to draw anything in particular from looking at the contact notes other than the fact that contact was “broadly positive” within the confines of contact in a supervised setting.

82.	The mother’s care plan for T to remain at home with her and a range of support being provided to her to care for T would involve, she said, the local authority in effect parenting which would be intrusive and in any event, she clearly could not conceive of any plan that would make up for the mother’s deficits. 

83.	CB is T’s mother and she has made two statements both of which I have read with care.  

84.	By the time she made her second statement of 24th June 2015 she was able she said to accept the court’s findings in relation to C.  

85.	At the time that the submissions were made at the close of this case she was anxious that I should know firstly how sad she was, that she and MB and T cannot be together and secondly, and perhaps just as importantly, she wants what is best for T. 

86.	As she said in her second statement “T and I have a warm and loving relationship.  I adore him.  I want him to reach his full potential.  We have a very strong bond.”  

87.	Of course it is her case that with support she can meet T’ developing needs and I know that that is her dearest wish.  However at the same time she wants him to have the best possible care so that all his needs are met and she said candidly, and poignantly, at the conclusion of her live evidence: “I don’t know for sure if I can meet his needs.  I like to hope so.”  

88.	She was able both in her statements and in her live evidence to point to the very active steps that she has taken to try and enable that to happen.  A range of courses the details of which are all carefully rehearsed in the chronology prepared by Miss Wentworth, her Counsel, to include to name but a few: Paediatric First Aid course, Fun with Food course, Triple P parenting programme, Counselling, Sure Start and many, many other activities albeit supported by the local authority and the very active social worker in the case.

89.	She also says in her statement that it is her belief that she can provide T with age appropriate stimulation and was able to tell me in live evidence the range of activities that she undertakes with him.

90.	She presents in live evidence, as she has done to all the professionals as a very anxious lady indeed, and her relationship with the local authority has been difficult as a consequence.  She is easily discouraged when told that she is doing things wrong and attributes her current lack of confidence, notwithstanding some counselling, to the ongoing involvement by Social Care.  I have made various references in this judgment to her lack of candour and she says in terms “I am reluctant to give information because irrespective of whether it is good or bad it always seems to end up with me being criticised.  If I ask for help it is considered that I cannot cope.  If I don’t ask for help then it is thought that I am hiding something.  I feel I cannot win.”  

91.	Although I am very alive to her sensitivities in this regard I do not believe the social worker could have done any more than she has done to support the mother during this difficult time.

92.	I do however accord to her that she has made some progress in a number of areas since she has been looking after T on her own.  I also accept and find that she has done all that she can, according to her abilities.  However therein lies the difficulty in relation to this case namely that her own disability renders it impossible, particularly over time, to meet T’s developing needs and I find the evidence of all the assessors to be well made out in relation to her lack of anticipatory skills and the prospective risk to T’s development.  

93.	The issue in this case is whether or not those deficits can be balanced by local authority support and I come to that issue when I come to set out my findings in relation to this case.  

94.	In terms of her understanding the processes, she clearly understood that if T was adopted then this may necessarily curtail future contact notwithstanding the guardian’s recommendation that there should be direct contact between T and his parents if at all possible. 

95.	On the other hand she wanted what was best for him so that all his needs were met and certainly showed some understanding that the court would be driven in its decision making by considering T’s welfare. 

96.	However her primary case has always remained that she would like to continue to care for T and removing T from her care would have a far worse impact on him than him remaining in her care and she states as such in the closing remarks in her final statement.

97.	MB is T’s father.

98.	He is aware of the findings that were made against him earlier in the year but does not accept them as says he did not behave in the way in which C alleged that he had.  In live evidence however he could give no explanation in relation to C’s disclosures.  

99.	He is against adoption for T.  He would prefer long term foster care and contact ideally once or twice a month so that T does not forget him.

100.	If T and C were placed together he would certainly be open to and would welcome contact to C notwithstanding his allegations.  

101.	The guardian supports direct contact post adoption if it is possible and MB thought that he would be able to contain his feelings if he met the adopters and would have no animosity towards them as long as they had been properly assessed.  

102.	He would be in favour of an open adoption.  Certainly I have reviewed all his contact records and can find that notwithstanding apparent criticisms of him in contact, the contact was broadly positive and there were numerous examples of warm and loving interaction between him and his son.  Provided that he can keep his feelings in check then a meeting with any prospective adopters would clearly be in T’s best interest. 

103.	He remains in a relationship with the mother and it is her hope that he can still continue to give her emotional support although envisages any move back home post any removal of T would have to be on a phased basis.

104.	He explained detail the counselling that he is having and will continue to have.

105.	It is not necessary for me to rehearse any further criticisms of him other than what I have already found in my previous judgment.  I accept that the consequences are devastating for him. 

106.	He is clearly supportive of the mother’s case.  He described the mother as being in need of some emotional support and to be praised and guided.  He took the view that she was doing “a fantastic job” in caring for T and I wonder to what extent he really has taken on board the observations of both Dr Mallya and Dr Blumenthal.  

107.	He has accepted that he has lost his temper previously in a LAC review.  He was clearly angry at the findings and threatened to go to the newspapers.

108.	There is a suggestion in the papers that T has been observed to be wary around MB  in contact because of the frightening behaviour that he witnessed at home in relation to C and the inconsistent responses that he received from his parents.  I am bound to say, notwithstanding this criticism, that I have found the notes of contact to be broadly positive and not a bar in any way to direct contact if it can be promoted and if it has the approval of adopters.

109.	His primary position is of course that he supports the mother.  He cannot return to live at the family home while T is there but clearly wants contact with T as he grows up.  If T is either adopted or placed in foster care he would like some direct supervised contact. 

110.	David Viney is T’s guardian in these proceedings and has prepared two reports for the court.  In his final report he describes T as anxious and lacking in confidence and agrees that his needs are unable to be met by CB.  The Guardian highlights the need for the Authority to be robust with family finding and realistic – giving serious consideration to changing the plan if an adoptive placement cannot be found promptly.  He recommends direct contact to parents, if this can be managed appropriately.

111.	Material to his recommendations are his consideration of the reports of Dr Tagart, Dr Blumenthal and Dr Mallya all which go to highlight a significant risk to T’s development if his care is provided by CB . 

112.	He carefully rehearses in his analysis Dr Tagart’s view regarding the care that T will require in the future namely “emotionally attuned” carers who are able to provide “a wide range of stimulating activities.”  

113.	He notes that Dr Blumenthal has commented that T requires more than “good enough parenting” and, in my judgment, the mother is just not able to provide this due to her own difficulties.

114.	He highlights Dr Blumenthal’s concern about the mother underestimating her difficulties and having little insight, her lack of cognitive and emotional super structures to manage the challenges, her limited support structure and apparent lack of insight regarding the findings so far as C is concerned. 
 
115.	The guardian notes that CB has stated in her recent statement that she now accepts what C has said but the guardian wonders, as indeed do I, the extent to which CB has been able to fully take on board my findings.

116.	The guardian raises a significant concern as to whether CB would be able to fully safeguard T in the future and I note that Dr Blumenthal has confirmed that CB could not be considered a protective factor.  I agree with these very grave concerns.

117.	However, and perhaps most materially, for this guardian is the central issue of T’s development and the clear evidence from Dr Mallya that the gap between T’s chronological age and development age continues to increase who says “this … will have implications as to the severity and degree of T’s learning disability as he gets older.”  In my judgment T is at the risk of significant harm in terms of his development if those developing needs cannot be fully met and the guardian is clear that CB’s limitations and her inability to sustain any changes would impact on her ability to meet T’s needs.

118.	In my judgment the guardian has provided a clear and careful analysis of the risk of significant harm to C if he continues to be cared for by his mother.  He acknowledges the very great love that both parents have for T and the fact that he has an established relationship with both of them but in particular his mother and this should be maintained by contact.  

119.	It is for that reason he recommends post adoption contact if at all possible and that MB and CB should be given the opportunity to meet the prospective adopters if this is felt appropriate.  Happily this is now recorded in the amended care plan following various exchanges in court.

120.	The guardian is clear that there is indeed a risk of significant harm if T remains in his mother’s care and very clear that any deficits in the mother’s care cannot be made up by statutory resources.

121.	Although there is a narrow window of opportunity for adoption it could offer lifelong commitment by potential carers but any search must be on a realistic basis and he approves the limited opportunity set out in the care plan.  The primary search therefore he said should be for an adoptive placement and if that was not possible, long term foster care.

122.	It is clear that Mr and Mrs Knight, who care for C, are prospective candidates but he accepts that this is a matter of careful analysis to see if it is possible that they could meet the very high needs of both C and T.

123.	He paid tribute to the mother’s commitment.  It was suggested to him on behalf of the mother that the mother’s level of anxiety would fall if she were able to care for T without the threat of ongoing proceedings.  He agreed that that was probably right but T’s needs would not be met in that scenario.

124.	In the local authority’s initial care plan they were not proposing the prospect of any continued direct contact post adoption to the father.  The guardian clearly disagreed with this stance and agreed with a suggestion made in cross-examination, having read the contact notes, that the father’s contact was broadly positive.  By T seeing his father in a safe environment it could help him to allay any fears that he may have.

125.	In the event of T going into long term foster care, T would need time to settle and he would put the level of contact to father at no more than four times a year subject of course to the LAC reviews. 

The law
126.	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” “.

127.	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.”

128.	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.”  

129.	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.

130.	All the relevant law in relation to cases involving a care order with a plan for permanent removal of a child from its family by way of adoption has been significantly summarised in the case of Re R (A Child) 2014 EWCA Civ 1625.  It is in fact a rehearsal of existing case law of which the primary examples are Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings : Threshold Criteria) 2013 2FLR 1075 and the well known and often misinterpreted decision in Re BS (children) Adoption Order : Leave to oppose 2014 1FLR 1035.

131.	I distil from those cases and the other rehearsed in the judgment of Re R the following:
1.	Baroness Hale of Richmond’s remarks in Re B: 
“The test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s welfare, in short, where nothing else will do and again “we all agree that an order compulsory severing the ties between a child and her parents can only be made if “again justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interest.”  In other words the test is one of necessity.  Nothing else will do.”

2.	What is required in these cases has also been healthily illuminated by Ryder LJ in CM v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council 2014 EWCA Civ 1479.

“The process of deductive reasoning involves the identification of whether there are realistic options to be compared.  If they are a welfare evaluation is required.  That is an exercise which requires the benefits and detriments of each realistic option one against the other by reference to s.1 (3) of the welfare factors.  The court identifies the option that is in the best interests of the children and then undertakes a proportionality evaluation to ask itself the question whether the interference in family life involved by that best interest option is justified.”  

3.	As Pauffley J said in LRP (A Child) Care Proceedings: Placement Order 2013 EWHC 3974 (FAM): “the focus should be on the sensible and practical possibilities rather than every potential outcome however farfetched.”

4.	The observations of Baker J in Re HA (a child) 2013 EWHC 3634 (Fam) paragraph 28 are helpful: “rigorous analysis and comparison of the realistic options for the child’s future … does not require a court in every case to set out in tabular format the arguments for and against every conceivable option.  Such a course would tend to obscure rather than enlighten the reasoning process.”  

5.	In many cases, and indeed probably in most, there would only be a relatively small number of realistic options.

6.	None of this should obscure the most important abiding principle that the court’s paramount consideration in accordance with s.1 (2) of the 2002 Adoption & Children Act is the child’s welfare “throughout his life” in other words interpretation of the words “nothing else will do” must not exclude the overriding welfare considerations in relation to a particular child’s case as Macur LJ said in M-H (a child) 2014 EWCA civ 1396.
7.	Of particular relevance in this case :
Acknowledging that it might not succeed in finding a placement for T does not mean that adoption cannot be a proportionate response to meeting T’s needs CM v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1479.

Threshold
132.	I have looked at the local authority final threshold document.  It is evident of course from the findings that I made in the judgment of 29th April that threshold is crossed for the purposes of s.31 of the Children Act.  I have carefully balanced the accounts of the parents with conflicting accounts of the local authority and the experts and having done so find that numbers 1 to 4 and 7 to 10 of the local authority’s final threshold document are proved to the requisite standard.

Conclusion and findings
133.	There is unanimity in this case amongst the experts, the social worker, the local authority assessors and the guardian that despite the mother’s very best intentions and unconditional love and commitment to T, mother is not able to offer good enough care for T. I accept that evidence. He has a high level of need as a consequence of his developmental delay which simply cannot be met by the mother who has difficulties herself for all the reasons I hope that I have set out carefully in this judgment.

134.	There is no suggestion that CB has intentionally neglected or harmed T and his basic care is good enough.  T is always clean and well presented and CB has done her utmost to meet T’s needs.

135.	One of the major issues in this case has been to the extent to which it would be possible for the local authority in providing support to the mother to care for T could effectively make up for her deficits and for T in that way to be provided with good enough parenting.  It has been suggested that to remove T from his mother’s care and provide an optimum level of parenting by adopters or long term foster carers is in effect a feature of social engineering.  

136.	I reject that proposition that make the following findings:
1.	The level of support that would be required in relation to such an arrangement would be so extensive as to be detrimental to T’s welfare.
2.	The mother due to her high level of anxiety has found it difficult in the past to fully engage with the extent of help being offered and although proceedings may have finished would be ever fearful and anxious regarding local authority involvement which in turn would devolve on T.
3.	T needs better than good enough parenting and if he does not receive it then the harm identified by Dr Mallya would intensify.  The gap between his chronological and developmental age is already widening while in the care of the mother.  Continued care by her would cause him continuing and increasing significant harm, albeit entirely unintentional.  

4.	T’s welfare needs requires him to be removed from his mother’s care and continued care by her in the home environment will be harmful to him and he will not be able to reach his potential as his mother is unable to promote his development consistently.  This would have an impact on the opportunities available to him in later life.  I find that although there is little doubt that T is the centre of the mother’s firmament she has been unable to consistently implement the advice and strategies that professionals have offered but, to her very great credit, has made some progress since she was T’s sole carer since the autumn of 2014.

137.	The fundamental principle in cases of this sort is that there is a duty imposed on the court to make such order that accords with the paramountcy of T’s welfare.  There is, in my judgment, nothing in our existing case law that undermines this fundamental principle and the words “nothing else will do” does not and should not exclude the overriding welfare consideration in relation to any particular child’s case.  The issue in this case has been the capacity of T’s parents, and most particularly CB, to satisfy his overwhelming welfare needs for the duration of his childhood and indeed, his life given the nature of his disability.  

138.	My task is to establish that there is proper evidence from the local authority, the experts and the children’s guardian which addresses all the realistically possible options for this child.  I have to scrutinise any analysis of those options.  I am satisfied that proper evidence is before the court in order to enable me to do so and that includes the evidence of course from the parents themselves.

139.	Having reviewed all the evidence I am satisfied that I have all that is necessary to set out in this judgment the rigorous analysis and comparison of the realistic options for T’s future that our law requires.

140.	I record the mother’s absolute sincerity in wishing to care for T but unfortunately this conflicts directly with his welfare interests and this is directly connected to her own level of functioning.  The risks to T in terms of his future welfare of remaining in his mother’s care are just too great and not manageable in terms of additional local authority support for the reasons that I have articulated. 

141.	I have little doubt, and I say so with great sadness, that the judgment that I gave at the end of April has disqualified any prospect of MB and CB caring for T together.  CB has told me how sad it is that they are not all together and I have enormous sympathy for that sadness.

142.	However the simple truth is that T cannot afford to wait any longer for his complex needs to be met and the evidence dictates that remaining with his mother is not a realistic option. 

143.	That leaves either adoption or long term foster care.  

144.	I find that the statistics are not optimistic on the prospect of finding a suitable match within four months as the care plan dictates.  Nevertheless it represents the best option to meet T’s welfare needs given the lifelong commitment of adopters and the prospect of stability.

145.	It is only if that prospect cannot be fulfilled that long term fostering should be considered.  Both options offer the prospect of continuing and ongoing contact in terms recommended by the guardian. 

146.	So far as father is concerned, my earlier judgment has in effect disqualified him from caring for T and although he does not agree with it I believe he understands this.  Of course he does not want his son adopted and very much enjoys the positive contact that he has with him.  He has taken steps in his own life to include regular counselling in order to help him contain his angry outbursts and frustration and that in itself is an achievement in the same way that the mother has achieved some progress while T has been in her care.

147.	Having made these findings and observations I formally acknowledge all the positives in this case namely the evident love that both parents have for T; the tremendous efforts the mother has made to keep T in her care and the examples of warm and affectionate interaction at contact. 

148.	In considering the local authority care plan I also considered the provisions of the Welfare Checklist under the Children Act 1989.

149.	Central to that Checklist and relevant in this case are T’s physical, emotional and educational needs (s.1 (3b)); the harm that he has suffered or is at risk of suffering (s.1 (3e)) and in particular, and that is the essence of this case, the capability of his mother or any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant in meeting his needs (s.1 (3f)).  

150.	I find, and do so again with enormous sadness, that neither parent is capable of meeting T’s welfare needs within his timescale and any arrangement whereby mother continues to do so with local authority support will not meet his welfare needs and could contribute to his continuing harm.

151.	I therefore approve the amended Care Plan as I do the plan for a limited search for an adopter and thereafter foster placement and the proposed arrangements in relation to contact.  I hope that both parents are able to meet prospective adopters if that is possible as it may well inform any prospect of post adoption contact.

152.	I would urge the local authority to look very very carefully at the willingness of Mr and Mrs Knight (C’s foster parents) to care for T as well.  There are many advantages in placing these boys together but of course the central issue for those whose task it is to assess that option is the ability of Mr and Mrs Knight to meet both boys’ needs which are complex and which will become increasingly complex.  

153.	I have considered the placement order application together with the relevant consideration of the Checklist under the Adoption & Children Act.  I had in mind particularly the loss of natural family and any effect that that will have on T in the future and the potential for loss of a relationship with his parents and brother but I am entirely persuaded that only adoption, in the first instance, would meet T’s welfare interests identifying as I do his need for stability and permanence throughout childhood and indeed in his case, into adulthood.  There is an overriding welfare need for a permanent substitute family for T and a decision is required to be made now.

154.	This has been a very sad case.  CB has been anxious to tell me during the course of this final welfare hearing that she wants what is best for T.  That is what this judgment has been intended to provide and I therefore make a care order and placement order on the basis of the local authority’s care plan.  I am heartened by the fact that the very conscientious social worker will remain involved.  I would urge the independent reviewing officer to close scrutiny of the care plan in the context of having read this judgment. 

155.	I hope that appropriate support can be offered to MB and CB in the hope that they will embrace any opportunities that are offered to them in relation to contact, if it is possible.