IN THE FAMILY COURT	No.  ZW14C00287	
(Sitting at Barnet)

St. Mary’s Court
Regents Park Road
London N3 1BQ
Friday, 26th June 2015

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE KARP
(In Private)

B E T W E E N :

		LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY	Applicant

-  and  -

AB
Respondent

_________

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.
(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 Chancery Lane, London EC4A 1BL
Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737
info@beverleynunnery.com
_________

MR. P. HEPHER  (instructed by Legal Services Department, London Borough of Haringey)  appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR. R. LITTLEWOOD  (instructed by HMB Solicitors)  appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.

MISS N. YESHUA  (instructed by Williams and Co Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Guardian.
_________

J U D G M E N T
(As approved by the Judge)

JUDGE KARP: 

1	This is the final hearing of the local authority’s application for a care order in respect of CD, born on 24th April 2010 and now aged five years.  The local authority also apply for a placement order.  CD’s mother is AB.  He was born as a result of a rape of his mother by his maternal grandfather, EF, who has played no part in the proceedings.  CD has been represented by his guardian, Sharon Mayne.

2	The local authority, the mother and CD have all been legally represented in the proceedings.  

3	I have considered the documents contained in the two volumes of the trial bundle, including the social worker’s statement and care plans; the mother’s statements; the reports from Cellmark Diagnostics; the report of Dr. Stephen Blumenthal, consultant psychologist on the mother, dated 25th March 2015; the parenting assessment of the mother by her social worker, Rita Domingues; and the statement of the family finding social worker as well as the guardian’s reports.

4	I have heard oral evidence from Dr. Blumenthal, Miss Domingues, the family finding social worker, from the mother and the guardian.  I have also considered the helpful submissions from all parties.

5	The local authority, supported by the guardian, seek a final care order and placement order for CD to be adopted.  They acknowledge the difficulties that they may have in identifying prospective adopters and propose a tight targeted search for a time limited period of six months and that, if that search is unsuccessful, the local authority will then apply to revoke the placement order.

6	The mother seeks a return of CD into her care and is willing to submit to a supervision order, but, if the court does not agree, then she wishes for CD to remain in long term foster care with his current foster carers and sister.  She is totally opposed to his adoption.

7	The local authority commenced proceedings on 6th November 2014, when they sought interim care orders in respect of GH, born on 12th April 2002; IJ, born on 2nd February 2004; KL, born on 3rd April 2006; and CD, born on 24th April 2010.  The children are all Congolese, but registered as Namibian.  

8	On 11th September 2014, the four children were brought to the local authority offices in Wood Green by an apparent stranger, who said that they had been found in the street.  The children had no belongings with them save for a note which stated:

“Please help these kids find their sister, AB, born 9.9.94.  She came to the United Kingdom on 8th July 2011.  They really need her.  They always cry after her.  She will know what to do with them.”

9	The statement of the initial social worker states that the children presented as very distressed, frightened and appeared to have been coached in their explanations about how they entered the United Kingdom and who they had lived with before coming to this country.  Their explanations were inconsistent.  For example, GH stated she was home schooled, but IJ had reported that they had attended school.  The children stated they could not remember the name of the town they lived in or what airport they travelled from in the Congo or where they arrived in England.  They denied knowing who the man was who had brought them to social services’ offices and said that they had left the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”) on 10th September 2014 and had arrived in London by train.  They then admitted that they had arrived by plane.  They stated that they had never met their parents and were without passports or identification records.  GH stated that she lived in the Congo with her aunt, who told her that they were coming to England.  She reported that her aunt left them at the airport in Congo, gave them their tickets and that they got on the plane alone.  She stated that she could not remember the name of the airports in the Congo or in England and that she had not seen her older sister AB in five years.

10	The children were taken into police protection and placed with foster carers and have remained in the local authority’s care since that time.  They were initially placed in two separate foster placements.

11	AB had been first known to Haringey Children’s Services in July 2011, when she entered the UK as an unaccompanied minor.  It was reported that she had arrived from the DRC and her account was that she had been raped by her uncle in the Congo and that her parents were not alive.  Although her account was not believed by Dr. Humphries, an expert psychiatrist who assessed her within the immigration proceedings, on appeal she was granted status in this country and continued as a looked-after child by Haringey and was then supported as a child leaving care.

12	Within these proceedings, AB wanted to care for all four children.  The local authority sought DNA testing to establish whether the children were related to each other and to their mother.  

13	The local authority reported that the mother has done very well in her education, that she attends college and manages her own independent living well.  

14	After the DNA testing was completed, the results showed that AB was a full sibling to CD and the other children appeared to be related as half siblings, although these results were less certain.  The local authority were suspicious that the mother might be the mother of CD because of the way that they related to each other, and the way that they believed that the mother favoured him over the girls.  

15	On 15th January 2015, KL disclosed to her foster carer that AB was in fact CD’s mother.  The local authority sought clarification from Cellmark.  They have produced further evidence confirming that the test results are also consistent with the mother being the mother of CD, and with the other children being CD’s aunts as well as his half siblings.  AB initially continued to deny that she was in fact CD’s mother, but, a few days later, through her solicitors, she informed the parties that she accepted that she was in fact his mother.

16	On 5th February 2015, KL made further significant disclosure about the children’s ages and backgrounds.  She said that that KL and IJ are both 11 years old rather than eight and ten years of age, that the children had come to the United Kingdom from Namibia and not from the Congo, including the mother, and that the children arrived in London in June or July 2014 and had been living with AB until the day they came to the attention of Social Services.  She said that the children have the same father and that CD was AB’s child.  KL also said that, during contact visits, AB had told them not to disclose anything.  KL reported that they had been told that they were coming on holiday to the United Kingdom, but that they never returned, that the children had previously lived with Aunt Namula in Namibia prior to having been brought to the United Kingdom and that they had lived with this aunt for the majority of their life but sometimes with their respective mothers.  KL also said that, since their arrival in the United Kingdom, AB had attended college, leaving her and CD in her house on their own or with a friend.

17	On 16th February 2015, GH made further disclosures.  She reported that the police had been called several times to her father’s home due to allegations of sexual abuse, that she had witnessed her father sexually abusing a woman in her home and that she was aware that her father had raped a 15 year old girl.  She disclosed that she lived in a hostel with her father for a few years as he did not want her to live in his main house, and that her father was physically abusive to her, to KL and to IJ and beat them on a regular basis.  GH also stated that AB was abused by their father and that CD is her father’s son.  GH said that she was scared of her father and did not want to go back to Namibia.  

18	AB has filed conflicting witness statements within the proceedings.  In her second statement, she altered the initial story she had given at the time of her asylum application, admitted that CD was her child as a result of being raped by her father and that they had all come to the United Kingdom from Namibia.

19	After the children made allegations that AB had told them not to tell the truth during contact visits, further contact has only taken place on a supervised basis.  That contact has taken place once a week for a period of two hours and latterly, since the mother admitted the paternity of CD, she has had separate contact with him.  There are no significant difficulties reported with the contact itself, although CD is reported to be wetting and soiling himself around contact visits.  AB has also missed several of those contact visits, as scheduled in the social worker’s evidence, for a variety of reasons.

20	On 16th January 2015, CD and GH moved to the same foster carer as IJ and KL so that the children could be together.  They all remain in that placement, which is acknowledged by all the professionals to be a very good placement for them.  The single foster carer who looks after them, in addition, has an adopted five year old daughter of her own and the relationships between all the children are reported to be developing very well.  

21	The mother continues to live in one bedroomed accommodation provided for her by the leaving care team.  

22	The local authority carried out an assessment of the mother caring for all or any of the children.  The outcome of that was that she is unable to meet the ongoing emotional and physical needs of the children.  In view of the uncertainty and shifting stories about the children’s history and experiences, the local authority took advice from First Steps, an agency carrying out psychological screening for Haringey.  Their recommendations, after their first professionals’ meeting on 17th April 2015, reads:

“We thought that the decision about placing CD for adoption needs to be carefully thought through.  We wondered whether CD is ready to become an adopted child.  It would be important to consider aspects of his personality and how he lives his life and relates with his sisters at the moment.  We thought it would also be important to consider the support needs of all of the children should CD be separated from his sisters.  E is available to be a long term carer for the children.  Should CD be placed for adoption, we need to think about what family would best meet CD’s needs, taking into consideration his age, his past, the stigma of incest and his relationships with his siblings and E.  Any forever family would need to appreciate that there is another family.  

We heard from E that CD and his sisters are very close.  Should the siblings be separated, contact arrangements would need to be carefully considered.  CD has experienced many losses and separations in his life and keeping contact with his sisters could be beneficial to supporting his identity and developing a healthy mind in the future.  Contact with his siblings may help CD to feel like an ordinary boy who has connection to his birth family and can be in touch with positive aspects from his past.”

23	At the IRH and early final hearing listed on 7th May 2015, I made final care orders, which were uncontested, in respect of GH, KL and IJ, for them to remain in long term foster care with their current carer.  I adjourned CD’s case for it to be listed for a contested hearing.  

24	After the local authority discovered that the children were in fact living in Namibia and not in the Congo, they liaised with the Namibian Embassy concerning the children, trying to obtain assistance in identifying their respective mothers and in making contact with their father.  They also liaised with The Embassy because of child protection concerns.  

25	The social worker spoke to EF over the telephone.  He confirmed that he was the father of all four children.  He stated that he wanted to be involved in the decision-making process.  The social worker asked him for contact details for the mothers of the children, but he denied having any contact details.  He confirmed his postal address and an email address, but has then failed to respond to any letters or emails and has not made any further attempt to contact the local authority.  

26	The social worker has also received one telephone call from a woman purporting to be the mother of GH.  She refused to answer questions but wanted to talk to her child.  Arrangements were made for a further conversation, but the local authority were unable to make contact with her again.  At that stage, neither the embassy nor the Namibian Social Services were able to provide any further assistance.

27	Shortly before this hearing, the local authority received an email from the Namibian Embassy, dated 19th June 2015, enclosing a birth certificate with a different date of birth for CD, stating it to be 23rd April 2010.  The mother states that the date of birth on the certificate is incorrect, as is the place of birth.  It is her evidence that CD was born in Windhoek on 24th April 2010 and not in Ngala Hospital, as stated on that certificate; that she was born on 9th September 1994 and not on 9th June 1990, as stated in the certificate; and that she does not recognise or know anyone by the name of MN, stated to be the father on that certificate with the date of birth of 23rd July 1989 and a place of birth in Great Britain.  She says that she believed that her father registered the birth in 2010 in a false name to hide the fact that CD was in fact his child.  

28	The mother telephoned her father during the hearing.  She gave evidence that he told her that he had made up the name on the birth certificate.  The social worker also telephoned the father during the hearing.  He denied that he was CD’s father, saying that he was the grandfather.  He admitted that he had filled in the birth registration document with a made up name and that the date and place of birth were false.  

29	All parties, including the mother, accept that EF is CD’s father.  It is consistent with the DNA evidence, and I find as a fact that he is the father.

30	A recent email from Helena Andjamba, Director of Child Welfare Services in a Namibian Government agency, reads:

“I can explain that the father to those children have a case of forgery and assault being investigated here in Namibia.  I understand he is not Namibian.  He is not in custody and I am worried about the safety of his children there.  Relatives and parents of the three older children were identified here in Namibia.  One of the mothers only learned later that her child is in the UK and is desperate to have her back.”

The local authority must now make strenuous efforts as corporate parents for the three girls to make contact with any known relatives with the help of the Namibian authorities.

31	I am satisfied that the father knows of these proceedings and that he has had every opportunity to take part in the proceedings but has chosen not to do so.  I have, therefore, made the decision to proceed in his absence.  

32	The court has had the benefit of a comprehensive report from Dr. Blumenthal, consultant psychologist, prepared following his thorough assessment of the mother.  He details her traumatic, horrific, neglectful and abusive childhood, including repeated rapes from her father, leading to CD’s conception and the mother’s then abandonment by him, giving birth unsupported both emotionally and practically on her own.  So far as the mother’s cognitive functioning is concerned, he writes: 

“This was within the low average range for both verbal and non-verbal domains.  It is likely that, if anything, this underestimated her true abilities due to cross-cultural issues and she probably functions closer to average.  Consequently, any difficulties encountered with AB are due entirely to emotional and inter-personal factors.”

33	So far as her emotional and inter-personal functioning is concerned, he writes:

“There was no evidence from my assessment of significant distortions in affect or cognition associated with a severe mental disorder of any kind in AB.  Neither were there indications of less severe mental health problems such as depressive order or anxiety disorder. 

Despite her traumatic experiences, I could not detect any indications of post-traumatic stress syndrome.  There were no indications from my assessment of dysfunctional personality traits associated with personality disorder in AB, although, as I will go on to explain, there are questions about whether her deceptions about the past represents a necessary means of self-preservation or whether they represent a more enduring and entrenched mode of inter-personal behaviour.  

AB’s story is remarkable.  She has been through a great deal in her short life and she has triumphed over adversity.  However, given her early experiences of severe deprivation, as well as sexual, physical and emotional abuse, she remains vulnerable.  She describes an absence of a caring parental figure.  Despite her apparent self-sufficiency, I think she will require a great deal of support and mentoring as she enters adulthood.”

34	Dr. Blumenthal goes on to explain:

“Despite the absence of evidence for formal mental disorder, it would be surprising if AB had not been deeply affected by her past experiences.  She describes suffering extreme deprivation with her mother in the Congo and she was then sent to Namibia to be with her father.  She said that she had no memory of her father and the last time she saw him was when she was a one year old.  She hoped to get an education.  However, she described being enslaved there and she records sexual, physical and emotional abuse.  She escaped the situation by coming to the UK, although many of the facts remain unclear and may well be distorted given the fact that she previously told untruths about the past.  

Whilst it is impossible to be sure about the veracity of AB’s account now, there was a difference in her presentation in the interview in comparison with that reported by Dr. Humphries three years ago.  She was very emotional in the interview and there was a strong connection between affect and experience, which came across as being genuine.  AB had to learn self-sufficiency early on and seems not to have relied on anybody else since early childhood.  On this occasion, she provided a more plausible account.”

35	He then goes on to discuss the implications of deception in this case:

“Deception is notoriously difficult to assess.  The function of falsehood in this case is unclear.  It appears from the progress of the case that it was GH’s disclosures which prompted AB to come clean about her deception and to tell the truth.  It does not appear to have been a case of her finding it impossible to maintain the deception for internal reasons, perhaps because of guilt.  Rather, she could not sustain it because her story was so at odds with the observations of professionals.  AB has been well served by the false account of her past until recently.  She is, after all, a survivor.  In part, her deception was self-preserving and a necessary means of surviving her ordeal.  However, the extent to which this presents a more established personality trait is unclear.”

36	Having heard the mother give her evidence, there still remain many discrepancies between the various accounts, and I agree with Dr. Blumenthal and find her account remains, at the very least, inconsistent and incomplete.  

37	Dr. Blumenthal writes:

“She described a conversation with her father the previous day, in which she told me that he was extremely insulting towards her.  Her reasoning for maintaining contact with her father was confused and leads me to suspect that she may remain in a rather enmeshed relationship with him.  At one point, she said that the more she has her father’s children with her, the more he contacts her.  At another point in the interview, she told me that her reasoning for having the conversation was to record him and so prove to social services what he is like.  

This issue is important because it reflects the extent to which AB has managed to separate herself psychologically from her father.  It is my tentative view that she remains involved with him emotionally and that the abuse she suffered, which was prolonged, forms a part of her mental structure.  This is often the case with children who have been chronologically abused.  It represents a significant problem in the parenting of children because there is a risk that the abuse will form an aspect of the relationship with the child at an emotional level.  

This is all the more the case with CD, who is the product of the abusive sexual union with her father.  He is bound to remind AB of this at a deep level and this is bound to affect her emotional engagement with him.”

38	I found Dr. Blumenthal’s evidence in this respect to be both insightful and compelling.  

39	Dr. Blumenthal comments on attachment issues:

“There are several issues that make AB’s attachment framework problematic.  In the first place, there are significant cross-cultural issues involved in such an assessment, including the fact that her early attachments appear to have been diffuse and not focused on a single attachment figure.”

40	He goes on to explain the difficulties that AB will have, saying:

“AB described her attachment to her father in exclusively negative terms.  She describes being enslaved by him and being sexually, physically and emotionally abused.  As indicated above, one of the concerns in this case is the extent to which AB has internalised this abusive figure.”

41	He writes further:

“AB is barely out of childhood herself.  It is difficult to determine the nature of her relationships in the future because she has had such an inauspicious start that close personal inter-personal relationships are bound to be complicated.  She described one relationship with a young man whom she met during the London Olympics in 2012.  Since then, they have had a long distance relationship and have communicated by telephone, but not spent any time together.  She told me that she has remained faithful to him and has avoided other intimate relationships.”

42	Dr. Blumenthal concludes:

“It is likely that she will experience difficulties in intimate relations and will require considerable help with overcoming these issues.”

43	In looking at her attachment with CD, he writes:

“AB described a strong attachment to her son.  However, there were some concerns that were raised by her description too.  In particular, I note the observations of the social worker, who states that AB had to be constantly prompted in contact and does not engage in spontaneous play with the children.  My review of the contact notes supports this.  There was some concerning interactions described which suggest a difficulty with placing the children’s needs above her own.  Having experienced the serious deprivation and abuse that she endured, it is likely that she will experience the task of parenting as being challenging.  She has a strong sense of duty and it may be that this is an important motive.  

There are some aspects of AB’s behaviour which would cause concern in considering her capacity to keep a child’s needs at the forefront of her mind.  In the first place, she left CD in order to come to the UK.  She was clearly preoccupied by her own survival.  Although understandable in this context, these do represent deficits in her capacity.  It is concerning that she left CD and GH  at home when she went out to work and, furthermore, that she left all the children with social services.  Whilst she was clearly overwhelmed, it also reflects an inability to prioritise the needs of the children.  I believe that this reflects a lack of insight into her capacities and the needs of the children.”

44	Dr. Blumenthal goes on to comment:

“Her past experiences have left an indelible mark upon her, which is likely to shape the future possibilities in terms of work, intimate relationships and parenting.  She will need significant help in overcoming her early experiences in order to parent herself.”

45	His concerns were exacerbated by the absence of informal support networks such as family and, in describing her friendships, he comments that she has not been able to tell her friends the truth about her circumstances.

46	In his answers to written questions, dated 23rd May 2015, Dr. Blumenthal comments on her therapeutic needs:

“It is clear that AB requires good quality long term psychotherapy.  However, as a general principle, such an intervention is not possible within proceedings.  In the first place, psychotherapy should not be regarded as a risk management procedure.  Psychotherapy will require a significant time period for the complexity of issues faced by AB, at least two years and probably longer.  This would not be within CD’s timescales.  Psychotherapy within the context of proceedings invites false compliance.  If AB sought therapy, her motivation would have to be high in order to confront the painful realities of her early life and how these have impacted on her.  There is good evidence that she is adept at managing a socially desirable impression and, moreover, she has a history of deception.  Consequently, if therapy is required so that she can keep the child, there is a high risk that she will simulate improvement.

Finally, if AB does decide to pursue psychotherapy, it is likely to be disturbing for her and there is a risk that she will become, at least temporarily, unstable in her mental state.  There would need to be significant levels of support for her in terms of caring for CD.”

47	He comments that a decision about placing CD needs to be made independently of any decisions about therapy, although he does strongly recommend that she pursues therapy after the conclusion of the proceedings.

48	Immediately before this hearing, Miss Y, CD’s solicitor, checked the mother’s Facebook page and produced eight screenshots, which I admitted in evidence.  The mother has admitted that they are posts that she made.  Her name is shown as ACB, C being the surname on CD’s birth certificate.  She posts, as recently as 17th May 2015, with pictures of her father:

“One father is worth more than a hundreds best friend … Anyone can be a father but it takes a special someone to be a daddy … I love my daddy no matter what he is my Hero.  The man that never gives up!!  May God have mercy upon him;;;;!!!!  We all love u daddy!!!!”

49	And another post, dated the same day:

“My hero, U held my hand when I was small; U caught me when I fell.  No matter what u are the hero of my life and every time I think of u my heart still fills with pride.  We will always love u daddy in laugh and In sorrow …”

50	Miss Domingues, the allocated social worker, relies heavily on Dr. Blumenthal’s assessment in her parenting assessment.  She writes, in her conclusions at E135 of the bundle, that AB is unable to provide safe and consistent care for CD for the reasons set out in Dr. Blumenthal’s report.  She writes:

“These experiences have not equipped her for the task of caring for CD.  She has a desire to be a good parent, but needs constant prompting from professionals to meet CD’s basic physical and emotional needs.  AB has not been able to reflect on her experiences as a child and how they impact on her emotional development and on her parenting.  Sadly, she is unable to place CD’s needs above her own needs.  AB has attended contact and needed advice and guidance during contact to appropriately stimulate the children and to meet her half siblings as well as CD’s physical, emotional and basic needs.”

51	She then goes on to outline that AB would be able to benefit from parenting courses and that her concerns are not in relation to her basic parenting, but that her view was that this would not be sufficient to help CD to be able to offer good enough emotional parenting without the recommended long term psychotherapy.  She writes:

“She needs to make significant and fundamental changes to her emotional functioning in order to be able to safely and consistently care for him.  Unfortunately, the counselling sessions that AB has had in the past were based on a false version of her background experiences.  Therefore, she said she was reluctant to consider therapeutic support, highlighting that there are certain issues she did not want to talk about.”

52	She writes:

“AB would find it emotionally very hard to engage in therapy at this time, given that she is trying to embark on self-improvement through her higher education.  The experience of psychotherapy is likely to be distressing and painful and could undermine this.”

53	I accept Miss Domingues’ analysis, confirmed in her oral evidence, of the mother’s parenting capacity.  

54	I have also considered the guardian’s analysis, dated 6th May 2015.  She writes:  

“GH, IJ, KL and CD present as a strong family grouping and this is especially true since January 2015, when they were all placed together in the same foster care placement.  The girls were in the habit of caring for CD, but presented as his primary carers when reunited in the current placement.  However, all the children have benefited from consistent care and attention in the foster care placement and currently GH, IJ and KL, who get on well with their carer, have been encouraged to be open and relaxed in school and in placement and to develop their individual identities as young people.  As a family group of girls, they are cohesive, charming and supportive of each other and it is heartening to see that they can have fun together.”

55	She acknowledges that the mother loves her son and genuinely believes herself to be capable of caring for him.  She reflects on the negative parenting assessments and writes:

“While her dishonesty and lack of candour with professionals has caused difficulties in terms of achieving an accurate sense of her and the children’s family history and story, this issue in itself would not be a barrier to her being able to care for her son, CD.  In fact, AB tells me in her view she deserves another chance to care for son and she believes that this is what would be best for him.”

56	She writes further:

“What concerns me, however, is AB’s emotional life and her capacity to empathise with others and thereby promote emotional security in others, such as the dependent child in her care.  AB does not give the sense that she is in tune with the children’s experience, firstly in coming to the UK and then their experience of being in her care.  I think she lacks insight into other people’s feelings and does not understand what it means to be a child or how to care for a child in order to promote and prioritise that child’s needs, wellbeing and development.  

In discussion with AB, she was not able to reflect upon the impact of her actions on GH, IJ, KL and CD.  I completely accept that her lack of emotional insight and adequate parenting capacity is as a result of her own disrupted childhood and is her emotional response to deprivation and abuse and, in this way, she can be described as a survivor.”

57	The guardian also accepts Dr. Blumenthal’s analysis in relation to the need for therapy.  She describes CD in her report as an “engaging child”:

“He is less babied by his sisters since coming into the current foster care placement.  This is in part due to his sisters having busy lives and being encouraged in more appropriate activities other than being carer to CD.  Also, his experience of being in foster care with his sisters appears to be a positive one for him and, as he grows and develops, he is becoming a more independent child.  The foster carer’s daughter is the same age as CD and I think this too encourages him to be more age appropriately independent.”

58	She then comments on the local authority’s care plan for CD of adoption, stating:

“In principle, this would be the appropriate long term care option for a child of his age that had no suitably positively assessed family members available to offer long term care and, of course, the reason a child of CD’s age needs his own stable long term family placement is because children generally have the opportunity to thrive and develop to their potential within such an environment.  However, it seems to me that the local authority has yet to adequately set out the evidence relied upon in support of a care plan for adoption for CD rather than the alternative, which would be for him to remain with his sisters in a long term foster care placement.  I do not believe that the current care plan for CD is necessarily wrong, but I think that it must be right to consider whether, given CD’s life experiences, his attachments and his cultural and ethnic background, such a care plan is right for him and whether it is achievable within a reasonable timescale.”

59	She goes on to comment:

“If he were a much younger child, there would be little doubt that adoption would be right for him because he would be ready to make or transfer his emotional attachments to new adoptive carers.  In his current circumstances, where he is placed with his primary attachment figures who represent his security, the transition for him and his sisters is likely to be difficult and emotionally disruptive to a child who has already experienced a good deal of loss and disruption as well as neglect in his young life.”

60	She concludes:

“I consider his situation to be quite complex, in that it is not only about the need for every young child to have a permanent family of his own, but this must be balanced against the particular needs of this particular child.”

61	The guardian, therefore, suggested that CD’s application should continue whilst the local authority obtained further evidence. 

62	In her final analysis, dated 22nd June, and with the only further evidence being the statement from the family finding social worker, she concludes:

“CD has a particularly complex life history and background, one which in part he shares with his sisters and aunts.  As a child of incest, he will need therapeutic assistance throughout his life in order to explore and to come to terms with his life story and his family relationships.  He will need the emotional stability and security of a family placement to support him while he explores his background.  Against this background, the permanent severing of his relationship with his sisters and aunts is not, in my view, wholly advantageous to him because, given his age and stage of development, they have represented real links to his past and at least a partially shared history.  Therefore, an analysis of his long term placement needs would seem to indicate that adoption would not be in his best interests.  However, it seems to me that, even given all the expected difficulties of finding him a permanent placement, the local authority should attempt to do this.”

63	I do not understand the leap from the first part of that paragraph, where adoption is stated not to be in his best interests, to the suggestion that a time limited search should be carried out.  

64	I heard oral evidence from Dr. Blumenthal.  He was a thoughtful and impressive witness.  I found him to be helpful in his analysis of whether the mother can care for this child.  His evidence was that the recent evidence from the mother’s Facebook page of positive views of her father lent support to his original conclusions.  He was clear in his evidence that, whilst the mother might be able to provide good enough care to meet CD’s physical basic needs, she would not be able to provide for his emotional needs.  He explained that many people who have suffered extreme trauma are still able to have a coherent narrative as a care-giver, but that, sadly, this mother is not able to do that.  She is not able to keep her child sufficiently in mind and is not able to think about what it feels like to be a child.  He gave several examples to support this, including the abandonment of CD, the leaving of CD and GH when she went to college, the ongoing deceptions or self-deceptions about her contact with her own father, and her ambivalent and enmeshed relationship with him on an ongoing basis.  He explained the difficulties for professionals in working with her because of these ongoing deceptions.

65	Dr. Blumenthal was asked about the psychological future for CD and said that this would require thorough assessment by a child psychologist, but accepted that this was outwith his area of expertise and that he had not even met CD.  He did opine that early intervention is really important, and his view was that a good placement for CD would make all the difference.  He said:  

“If that is his current placement, then he needs to be there.”

He emphasised that the most important thing for a child with his experience, will be a placement with very firm boundaries. 

66	The allocated social worker, Miss Domingues, has clearly worked very hard on this case and has understandably found the changing historical narrative a considerable challenge.  She confirmed her written evidence that the mother, because of her own understandable enormous emotional difficulties, does not have the emotional capacity to parent and will not be able to do so within any timescale concordant with CD’s need for permanency.  She points out the inconsistencies in attendance at contact.  She was also concerned by the mother’s ongoing ambivalence about her relationship with her father and how that might put CD at risk in the future.  She acknowledged how well the mother has done educationally and in other ways in managing to maintain and develop herself after such a hugely disadvantaged childhood, but the chronic sexual abuse that she suffered from her father and the implications of bearing his child remain untreated.

67	Miss Domingues was cross-examined on the advantages and disadvantages of long term foster care or adoption.  When pressed on the balance for CD of losing his current foster carer and developing attachments with his siblings with that foster carer and her daughter, balanced against the potential slim chance of a forever family, her evidence was not convincing.  I found that her evidence failed to take into account the particularity and unique history of this case, in particular, the potential ongoing value to CD of living with his siblings, not just having some possible sporadic contact with them.  I found her to rely overly on the generalised research that long term fostering is more likely to break down than adoption without taking the particular factors of this case fully into account.

68	The mother’s written evidence contained very many contradictions and inconsistencies.  It was clear that she had told lies on repeated occasions, both to found her original immigration claim and then when the children arrived.  

69	There is no doubt in my mind that the mother loves CD deeply.  She gave brave and difficult evidence to this court.  She has had an appalling childhood of sexual and physical abuse, neglect and a lack of nurturing relationships and she has had to survive by whatever means have been available to her.  The words of Mr. Justice Baker in Devon County Council v EB & Ors [2013] EWHC 968 (fam) are particular apposite to this case:

“… it is not uncommon for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing.  The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for various reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress and the fact that the witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything: see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720.”

70	Shame, panic and fear are all readily understandable reasons for this mother to have lied.  I accept Dr. Blumenthal’s view that the current narrative has more of a ring of authenticity, contrasted with the lack of emotional congruence in her demeanour when telling the original false story to Dr. Humphries.  However, there remain many aspects of the story in the evidence that she gave to me which I find unbelievable.  I share the concern of the professionals as to the benefits of therapeutic work without a base of total honesty. 

71	Sadly, I find that the mother, for understandable reasons, as set out by Dr. Blumenthal, is not able to parent CD.  She has been separated from him against her own wishes since he was one year old.  She lived with him for two months, seriously neglecting his physical safety, by leaving him on occasions alone with an 11 year old child in a strange country and home totally unfamiliar to him.  She then abandoned him to a stranger to leave at social services.  She has huge unmet and unresolved emotional needs herself, which prevent her from providing emotional care to him to a minimally acceptable standard.

72	I find that there is a possibility that AB would be assisted in these areas by long term psychotherapy, if based on honest engagement, but this would take at least two to three years and is outside CD’s time frame.

73	So far as the law is concerned, the court cannot make a care order unless the circumstances are as set out in section 31 of the Children Act 1989, that the child concerned is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him, if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him.  If the threshold is established, the court must then consider the local authority plans for the child, keeping the child’s welfare as the court’s paramount consideration.  The court must take into account all of the relevant circumstances of the case, but in particular the welfare checklist set out in section 1(3) of the Children Act and remember that any delay in determining the welfare decision is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare.

74	The local authority applies for orders, the effect of which contemplate a permanent separation of CD from his birth family; and Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are engaged in relation to this application.  

75	Following the recent decisions in the cases of Re B (A child) [2013] UKSC 33, Re G (A child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, Re P (A child) [2013] EWCA Civ 963 and BS (Children) [2013] EWCA 1146 and W (A child) v Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1125, I must consider whether or not the permanent removal of CD from his birth family is proportionate to the risk of harm to him in his family’s care.  In evaluating which set of arrangements for CD’s future are to be endorsed, his welfare is paramount and the court must not approach the task of deciding whether or not to approve a care plan in a linear way, but must undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child’s future before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child’s welfare.  In short, where adoption is the care plan, no other option must meet CD’s welfare needs.

76	This has been further clarified in Re R (A child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625, where the President of the Family Division said:

‘… the making of a care order with a plan for adoption, or of a placement order, is permissible only where, in the context of the child's welfare, “nothing else will do”.  As Baroness Hale of Richmond said in Re B, para 198:

“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.”’

77	So far as the placement application is concerned, the mother does not consent to the court making a placement order and I, therefore, have firmly in mind the extended welfare checklist in section 1(4) and the authority of Re P (A child) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, which reads:

‘125. [In] the context in which the critical word “requires” is used in section 52(1)(b), it is a word which was plainly chosen as best conveying, as in our judgment it does, the essence of the Strasbourg jurisprudence.  And viewed from that perspective “requires” does indeed have the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable.

126. What is also important to appreciate is the statutory context in which the word “requires” is here being used … Section 52(1) is concerned with adoption – the making of either a placement order or an adoption order – and what therefore has to be shown is that the child’s welfare “requires” adoption as opposed to something short of adoption. A child's circumstances may “require” statutory intervention, perhaps may even “require” the indefinite or long-term removal of the child from the family and his or her placement with strangers, but that is not to say that the same circumstances will necessarily “require” that the child be adopted.  They may or they may not ...’

78	The threshold is conceded in this case, and I find it established on the grounds that, at the time the local authority commenced proceedings, CD and his sisters had been abandoned by their parents or the adults caring for them and, at that time, there was no person known to the local authority with parental responsibility for him; that CD was left with no belongings or support and in a distressed and frightened state; and that the mother left CD alone in her flat, supervised only by his 11 year old sister when the mother went to college.  

79	The local authority, supported by the guardian, seek a placement order for a six month time limited search for adopters for CD.  I have heard realistic oral evidence from the family finding social worker, Rose Philips, that the chances of finding suitable adopters are slim, but by no means impossible.  She readily accepted that, as a black boy aged five, the product of an incestuous conception, with little information about his early care but likely to have had multiple care-givers and with speech delay, he is likely to have very significant challenges in going through adolescence.  She accepted that CD’s need for ongoing contact with his sisters and the sisters’ contact with his mother presented a difficulty to potential adopters.

80	Before I consider the difficulties of finding suitable adopters, I consider the question of whether or not adoption is the order that best meets this child’s welfare needs.  Will nothing else meet his needs?

81	I have carried out the advantages and disadvantages analysis of all options, the “balance sheet checklist” referred to in the authorities.  Sadly, CD cannot return to his mother’s care.  Adoption might provide him with a forever family, with a statistically lower chance of a failed placement.  However, I find that the value of ongoing contact with his sisters and his mother weighs more heavily in the balance with CD’s difficult history, which he shares with them.  I have to consider his welfare throughout his life.  His sibling relationships are also likely to endure into adulthood and be a source of strength to him through that adulthood and I find that these relationships will provide for him significant pleasure and strength and will reduce the risks of the breakdown of a foster placement.

82	I accept Dr. Blumenthal’s view that it is the quality of the long term placement, whether foster care or adoption, which is the most important thing for this child and that any carer will need firm boundaries.  The local authority and the guardian both agree that the present placement is of high quality.  I, therefore, find, on an holistic analysis, his welfare needs are best met by him remaining in a long term foster placement with his current carer and with his sisters, and that adoption would be a disproportionate interference in the circumstances of this case.

83	I agree with the guardian’s second report, where she says that this five year old boy is currently placed with his primary attachment figures, who represent his security, and that any transition to a new placement is likely to be difficult for him and be emotionally disruptive, particularly in the light of the losses that he has already suffered and his history of neglect and deprivation.  Whilst I find that there may be a slim chance of a successful adoptive placement, I find this is far outweighed by the known advantages of the current placement with his siblings, notwithstanding the less secure legal framework of fostering.

84	I am grateful to the local authority for agreeing to amend their care plan to provide for a gradual reduction in the mother’s contact to monthly supervised sessions with a review.  I invite them to have an open mind at this review, to seek the views of the foster carer, the mother, the school, the social worker and the independent reviewing officer before coming to a conclusion as to whether or not the level of contact needs to be varied either up or down at that stage to best meet this child’s needs.  This will need to be regularly reviewed, particularly in the light of the mother’s progress (or otherwise) in therapy.

85	I also invite the local authority to consider whether there is any possibility of identifying an adult mentor figure for the mother, as recommended by Dr. Blumenthal.  It is also imperative that they follow up on the recent information from the Namibian authorities in respect of the girls’ respective mothers.

86	I, therefore, dismiss the application for a placement order, make a final care order and invite the local authority to file an amended care plan.  I also direct that a transcript be obtained of this judgment, particularly for the children as they grow older, because there is such unclear information available to them about their history.  I invite the parties to address me on whether the mother or the child seek disclosure of any particular documents for therapeutic purposes.

__________