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 children and members of their 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: UK13C00438 

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT PORTSMOUTH

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER OF A, B, C, D and E (CHILDREN)

Date: 18th November 2015

Before:

His Honour Judge Mark V Horton

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

	Hampshire County Council	Applicant	
	- and -		
	 
M    (1)
 
F    (2)
-and-
A, B, C, D and E
(By their Childrens Guardian)

Respondents	

Miss McKenna and Mrs Henstock-Turner instructed by Hampshire County Council
Miss Campbell QC and Miss Street instructed by Biscoes Law on behalf of M
Mr Ker Reid and Miss Iten instructed by CBW solicitors on behalf of F
Mrs Lambert of Access Law representing A
Mr Belcher of the Child law Partnership representing B
Ms Gough instructed by the Children’s Legal Practice on behalf of C, D and E
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hearing dates: 15,16,17,18,21,22,23,24 September 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

1.	Preliminary matters
A draft of this judgment was distributed to the parties on Thursday 5th November 2015.  I invited the parties to submit suggestions for the correction of typographical errors by Wednesday 11th November 2015.  All the typographical errors that I have been notified of have now been made and I formally handed down this judgment on 18th November 2015 at Plymouth County Court.  
2.	Given that the parties have had the judgment for two weeks and there is an urgent need to finalise these proceedings I direct pursuant to CPR r52.4(2)(a) that the time for the lodging of any Appellant’s Notice is abridged and any such notice must be lodged by noon on 2nd December 2015.
3.	The Judgment
4.	This is the final ‘welfare’ hearing of Care Proceedings that begun in July 2013 and concerns the welfare of 5 children.  The threshold criteria were proved at a hearing in November and December last year.
5.	The children are A, a female aged 16.  She will be 17 in March 2016.  She has been represented by her solicitor Ms Lambert.  B is a male aged 14.  He will be 15 in December and has been represented by his solicitor Mr Belcher.  C is a female aged 8.  D is a male aged 5 and E is a male aged 3, 4 this month.  The three youngest children have been represented by their Children’s Guardian Ms Edney, their learned counsel Ms Gough and their solicitor Ms Patel.  
6.	A, B and C are living with foster carers who I shall refer to as FC1 and D and E with their paternal cousin and her family who is approved as a long term foster carer for them and who I shall refer to as FC3.  I will not use ‘FC2’ as this could confuse them with ‘FC2’ referred to in my previous judgment and who came in for significant criticism.
7.	The children’s mother is M.  She has been represented by Miss Campbell QC, Miss Street of counsel and her solicitor Miss Hansford.
8.	The children’s father is F.  He has been represented by Mr Ker-Reid and Miss Iten of counsel.  His solicitor is Miss Coates.
9.	The local authority that brings these care proceedings is Hampshire County Council (HCC or LA depending on context).  It has been represented by Miss McKenna and Mrs Henstock-Turner of counsel.  The LA solicitor who has had conduct of the case since the first adjourned final hearing in April 2014 is Mr Penny.  The children’s social worker is Ms Gibson.  She took over after the adjourned April 2014 hearing.
10.	The context of this hearing
11.	This hearing was the resumed final hearing in a care case that commenced in July 2013.  A final decision is long overdue.  The reasons for the delay have been almost exclusively, the actions of employees of the applicant local authority.  I have delivered two previous judgments.  One on 7 April 2014 when I adjourned the final hearing for the first time.  And one on 18 December 2014 when I adjourned it for a second time.  I had attempted to hold the final hearing on two further occasions between April and December 2014 but both attempts were frustrated by matters outside my control.  My December judgment explains why.  All parties agree that a final welfare decision for these children needs to be made now.  No party seeks any further adjournment.
12.	This is I hope an unusual case.  I certainly have not previously come across one quite like it either at the Bar or as a judge.  
13.	My previous judgments explain these comments but in my experience it is exceptional to find a case in which there has been deliberate and calculated alteration of a report prepared by one social worker in order to make that assessment seem less favourable, by another social worker and the Team Manager; the withholding of the original report when it was ordered to be disclosed and the parties to the alterations lying on oath one of them twice, in order to try to cover up the existence of the original report.  Those people are referred to and named in my December judgment but given the enormity of what they did and the fact they still work as social workers it is right that I should name them again so that practitioners and members of the public coming across them are aware of their shortcomings in this case.
14.	Sarah Walker Smart the children’s Social Worker lied twice to me on oath.  I was told during this hearing that she has been promoted to Team Manager within this authority.
15.	Kim Goode, Sarah Walker Smart’s then Manager, was the person who initiated the wholesale alteration of the original report and who attempted to keep the truth from the parties and me.  At the time of the last hearing she was District Manager for the Isle of Wight.  I was told during this hearing that she is still in post.
16.	Lisa Humphreys was Kim Goode’s Manager.  Her evidence was deeply unimpressive.  She made a ‘hollow’ apology to the parents during her evidence; she regarded a social worker lying on oath as “foolish” and she failed to accept any personal responsibility for what had gone on under her management.  At the date of the last hearing she was Assistant Director of Children’s Social Care with Lambeth Borough Council.
17.	In my December judgment I concluded that the parents’ and children’s Article 6 and 8 Rights had been breached.  The children had been removed illegally and the parents had not had a fair parenting assessment carried out due amongst other things to all professionals both childcare and legal, failing to identify M’s communication difficulties and the need for a psychological assessment.  I therefore at the parents’ suggestion, directed that Symbol a parenting assessment organisation which specialises in people with learning and communication difficulties, should carry out a full parenting assessment.  This was to be coupled with individual therapy for both parents.  This ‘dual’ approach had been suggested by Dr Halari a highly qualified adult clinical psychologist who had seen each parent, prepared reports and who gave evidence.  The plan was for the therapists and assessors to work together in order to give the parents the best possible chance of making the agreed and much needed changes to their parenting. 
18.	It is important to set out at this early stage the things the parents needed and still need to improve.  
19.	Before doing so I want to record that the parents love their children and the children love them.  There is a sense of deep and positive emotional relationships within this family.  They are very close even after being out of each other’s daily company for over 2 years.  All professionals have remarked on the positive quality and strengths of their relationships and in delivering this judgment I hold that firmly in mind.
20.	Despite the quality of these relationships the parents had had difficulty parenting the children to the required minimum standard and I made findings about that in my December judgment.  The harm attributable to the parents was caused by their chronic and deep seated mistrust of professionals who challenge them and which pre-dates the events of July 2013 and their desire not to inflict on their children the experiences they themselves had as children.  Both parents had very difficult childhoods and adolescent years.  In addition the parents tended to undermine each other as they did not support each other in decision making.  These factors led the parents to fail to provide effective boundaries for the children.  From this flowed the significant harm I found in December.  This inability to set consistent boundaries had led to appalling neglect of the older children’s educational, emotional and social development and neglect of all of the children’s health needs.  The family home had at times been of a standard that fell below that required to meet the children’s basic needs.  The younger children were at risk of suffering similar significant harm unless the state intervened.
21.	The progress of the ‘dual’ approach
22.	The Symbol assessment did not progress smoothly and was terminated by the assessors after a few months.  Symbol concluded that they could not work with the parents and that it was highly unlikely anyone else could either.  The state of the evidence with Symbol’s refusal to continue with the assessment was that I had little or no new evidence about the parents’ ability to parent their children if living with them although I had some evidence as to how they parent within contact.
23.	The progress of therapy has been more positive.  The parents engaged with it and I have reports from both therapists. However, both therapists and Dr Halari recommend that more therapy is needed.
24.	Dr Halari had provided another report but had not seen the parents again.  Dr Halari told me that the parents needed 4-6 months individual therapy to address their deep mistrust of professionals before her ‘dual’ approach could be attempted again and thus the timescale for measurable change in the parent’s parenting ability would be many months.  She did not recommend that I return any of the children to the parents’ care at this stage and without that work, although she thought the older two A and B, might be able to look after themselves given their ages and experiences of good quality parenting.
25.	It is within this broad context that I must decide what placement will allow me to discharge my duty to place the welfare of each child as my paramount consideration.
26.	The parties positions
27.	The LA’s case is that the level of mistrust that the parents harbour towards professionals caused the Symbol assessment to fail and this needs to be addressed before they can meaningfully engage in parenting work probably via the ‘dual’ approach advocated by Dr Halari.  They are prepared to continue to pay for therapy but given the delay that has occurred the LA submits that the children cannot wait any longer for their parents to change.  Therefore the LA submits that as there has been no measureable change their care plans for the children are the ones that will best promote the children’s welfare during their minority.
28.	The LA plan for A, B and C is to remain with FC1 during their minorities and to see their parents during periods of contact which is different on the one hand for A and B and C on the other.
29.	Their plan for D and E is for them to remain fostered with FC3 throughout their minority and have significantly reduced contact with their parents.
30.	There are plans for sibling contact which too are restrictive.
31.	The Guardian supports the LA’s plans.
32.	M and F seek the return of all their children to their care immediately.  They submit that they have learnt enough through the court process, seeing the children in foster care and the work that Symbol was able to do to have them returned and to avoid the problems of the past.  They are they say, very pleased and proud of the progress that A and B in particular have made in terms of their education and weight and do not want these to suffer in the future.  M has instructed her learned team that she would accept a supervision order and regular monitoring by professionals.  F has said he would co-operate with professionals provided the children are returned.
33.	A and B through their solicitors ask to return home.  They have been forceful in their expressed wishes and feelings and threaten to ‘vote with their feet’ if I do not let them do so.
34.	The hearing
35.	A number of matters arose during the hearing.
36.	The case was listed for 8 days.  The first day was lost as no witnesses were arranged for it.  Despite enquiry I could not establish why this was so.  Fortunately, I completed the evidence and submissions on Day 7 and then adjourned to write this judgment.
37.	The filed care plans for D and E appeared to be at odds with Ms Gibson’s final statement.  The care plans talked of a contingency plan of long term fostering but Ms Gibson’s statement talked of adoption.  This was rectified by the LA filing amended care plans which stated that in the event of a placement breakdown all options would be considered in order to achieve the best placement for the children at the time of the breakdown.  The parents point to this as showing the true thought processes of the managers in the LA who want D and E adopted.  Whatever the explanation it was to say the least unfortunate.
38.	The mother had the assistance of Ms Barber a Speech and Language Therapist with Communicourt, to enable her to understand proceedings; communicate her instructions and to assist her with giving evidence.  Ms Barber accompanied M into the witness box and through cards, words and signs made sure M was fully able to access the court process and give her evidence to the best of her ability.  No party in final submissions complained that the mother had not had a fair hearing or opportunity to give her evidence in a fair way.  I was satisfied that everything that could be done to assist M had been done and that she had had a fair hearing.
39.	During the mother’s evidence she mentioned that she and F had covertly recorded a meeting with the Guardian and some contacts.  The M had used her phone and F a digital recorder that looked like a slightly fat pen.  He produced the pen recorder and 4 recordings.  As the Court security staff had not come across such a device before I took steps to inform HMCTS of the existence of such devices.  The recordings provided by F were not listened to by me and no one sought to rely on their contents.
40.	Dr Halari had not read some documents filed since she last gave evidence.  Time was wasted whilst she did so although she was still not able to read the LA contact notes.  No one asked her to do so however as apart from some specific incidents the contacts had been good.  This wasted time could have been avoided if the Core Bundle had been sent to her more than 2 days in advance of her giving evidence.  The reason for this late delivery of the bundle is again a mystery but clearly represents poor case preparation.
41.	The issues
42.	I have to decide why the Symbol assessment failed.
43.	I have to decide whether a number of professionals including Dr Halari, Ms Gibson and the Guardian failed in their professional duty as alleged by the parents.
44.	I have to decide what if any progress the parents have made since December 2014.
45.	I have to decide which of the two realistic placement options for each child will best allow me to discharge my duty to place their welfare as my paramount consideration.
46.	Chronology of events since the last hearing 
As before I give my thanks to Ms Gough for preparing this chronology which I approve.
25.11.14	Final Hearing day 1		
1.12.14	Visit to FC3 by SW, CG & Helen Randall 		
16.12.14	Panel date for the FC3 		
18.12.14	Judgment of HHJ Horton & CMO	A9	
23.12.14	Christmas Contact for family 		
28.12.14	D & E moved to FC3 and C moved to FC1		
29.12.14	Symbol – letter of instruction 	…	
20.1.15	Professionals meeting 	E4	
21.1.15	CMO	A22.1	
29.1.15	CLA Reviews 	DB/D1-21	
9.2.15	Start of Symbol Assessment 
Interview and contact session	E53.46-53.49, E53.75-53.77	
12.2.15	Assessment session	E53.42-53.46	
16.2.15	Assessment session	E53.40-53.42	
18.2.15	Interview and contact session 
Cancelled as parents unwell	E17.2	
19.2.15	Interview and contact session 
Cancelled as parents unwell	E53.39-53.40, E53.65	
20.2.15	Interim report of Dr Bradford	D1	
23.2.15	Assessment session 	E53.62	
26.2.15	Assessment session 	E53.29-53.38, E53.57-53.62	
2.3.15	Assessment session 
Terminated early by Symbol	E17.2-17.4, E101-106	
2.3.15	Interim report of Dr Chugg-White	D1	
5.3.15	Session cancelled as parents awaiting advice from F’s legal team 	E17.2	
6.3.15	Letter from Dr Bradford	D6.1	
11.3.15	Symbol – position statement/interim assessment
Assessment to continue, contact no longer in the community.  	E17.1	
26.3.15	Disruption/professionals meeting 	E18 	
26.3.15	PEP – child C 
Parents did not attend	B62, DB/C76	
31.3.15	Professionals meeting 	E25	
2.4.15	Symbol – assessment session	E15, E53.23, E53.28-53.29, E53.49, E77	
8.4.15	Symbol – assessment session 	E31-35, E53.6-53.17, E81-92	
9.4.15	Symbol – assessment session- end of Symbol assessment 	E36-39, E53.18-53.21	
10.4.15	Letter from Symbol	E30	
17.4.15	Telephone hearing 	A24.1	
22.4.15	Position statement of B	7	
24.4.15	Position statement of F	10	
24.4.15	Statement of A 	B1	
30.4.15	Symbol – position statement 	27	
1.5.15	Final report of Dr Bradford 	D15	
1.5.15	Final report of Jane Chugg White 	D20	
5.1.15	C’s allegation re FC2 cleaning her teeth with soap	B60	
6.5.15	Position statement of LA	104	
8.5.15	Position statement of CG	106.1	
11.5.15	Telephone hearing 	A25	
20.5.15	Position statement of LA 	107	
27.5.15	Symbol – final report	E54	
2.6.15	PEP – A, B 
Parents did not attend 	B59, 63, 153, DB/C115-155	
4.6.15	PEP at D and E’s infant school 	B59	
19.6.15	Dr Halari – third report 	D64	
2.7.15	Final Care Plans	…	
6.7.15	Final statement of Shirley Gibson	B46	
10.7.15	Parents completed Triple P	B164, B172	
31.7.15	F’s statement 	B11	
31.7.15	B’s position statement 	118	
6.8.15	M’s statement	B139	
11.8.15 	A’s statement 	B177	
18.8.15	CLA Reviews		
21.8.15	CG’s final analysis 	D83	
15.9.15	Final hearing – day 1		
24.9.15	End of final hearing		

47.	The law
48.	I found the threshold criteria proved at the last hearing.  This hearing is about the children’s welfare and I can make public law orders if necessary.
49.	The children’s welfare during their minority is my paramount consideration.
50.	I must have regard to the principle that delay is to be avoided and that I should not make an order unless it is better to do so than not.
51.	I must also have regard to the welfare checklist when reaching my decisions.
52.	In this case I have also been referred to a number of cases that emphasise the wide range of parenting that society tolerates before it is appropriate for the state to interfere and remove a child from its parents.  M and F’s teams referred me to Re L (Care Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 at [50]; Re A (a Child)[2015]EWFC 11; Darlington BC v M v F v GF [2015] EWFC 11 at 16 and Re J [2015] EWCA Civ 222 at 53, 55 and 56(vi).
53.	These cases remind me of the important legal principle that nearly all parents are imperfect in some way or other and that the court is not in the business of social engineering or with providing children with perfect homes.
54.	Sir James Munby the President of the Family Division in Re A (a Child)[2015]EWFC 11 at paragraphs 14 to 17 summarised the position.
“The third fundamentally important point is even more crucial. It is vital always to bear in mind in these cases, and too often they are overlooked, the wise and powerful words of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050, para 50:
“society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”
That approach was endorsed by the Supreme Court in In re B. There are two passages in the judgments of the Justices which develop the point and to which I need to draw particular attention. The first is in the judgment of Lord Wilson of Culworth JSC where he said (para 28):
“[Counsel] seeks to develop Hedley J’s point. He submits that:
‘many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or “model” them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.’
I agree with [counsel]’s submission”.
The other is the observation of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC (para 143):
“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, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.”
I respectfully agree with all of that. It follows that I also agree with what His Honour Judge Jack said in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCC B77 (Fam), a judgment that attracted some attention even whilst I was hearing this case:
“I deplore any form of domestic violence and I deplore parents who care for children when they are significantly under the influence of drink. But so far as Mr and Mrs C are concerned there is no evidence that I am aware of that any domestic violence between them or any drinking has had an adverse effect on any children who were in their care at the time when it took place. The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should, I am not condoning that for a moment, but the courts are not in the business of social engineering. The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents.  So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the courts.”
There is a powerful message in these judgments which needs always to be borne in mind by local authorities, by social workers, by children’s guardians and by family judges.”
55.	Finally, any orders that interfere with this family’s Article 8 rights must pursue a legitimate aim, be in accordance with the law, and be proportionate to the harm or risk of harm that I find proved and am trying to protect against.
56.	In reaching my decision I have borne these principles very much in mind.
57.	The Evidence
58.	Ms Gibson
59.	Shirley Gibson is the children’s current social worker.  She is part of a new team who took over following the abortive March/April 2014 hearing.  She has 14 years experience as a social worker, working with families in various roles.
60.	Her main statement in the proceedings is dated the 6th July 2015 and includes an Appendix setting out a Placement Analysis.  She also filed a statement dated 14 September 2015 by way of updating the court on the position since her July statement.
61.	At B49.2.2 and B52.2.145 she summarises the LA’s case.  I paraphrase it.  The LA she says, believes that the parents have not evidenced insight into their hostility and mistrust of professionals or evidenced changes in their parenting.  They have not demonstrated that they can and have moved on from such hostility and mistrust.  Therefore the LA’s concerns remain the parent’s mistrust and hostility towards professionals which the LA believes will be passed onto the children resulting in the children not being able to access any professional help that they may need; their lack of insight into the concerns about their parenting capacity which the LA believes will mean the parents will not work with professionals in the future and their non-attendance at some important meetings due to ill health.  The LA relies on missed contact sessions, in particular the missed contacts during February half term and the missed therapy sessions.
62.	In support of these conclusions the LA in addition to the history prior to July 2013 relies upon the parents’ failure to fully engage with Symbol and the on-going concerns about the parents’ health and well being which have precluded she says, them from attending some appointments.
63.	Ms Gibson rightly records at B50 that she is very concerned about the children’s need for permanence and that this has been delayed due to the necessary focus that there has had to be on the LA’s actions in 2013/14.
64.	Ms Gibson is of the opinion that the evidence available to the court demonstrates the poor home conditions the children were living in; the problems the children had with weight control and engaging with education and the effect of these factors on the children’s social development.  In particular Ms Gibson states that the issue of the parents’ hostility towards and mistrust of professionals which was identified at the start of proceedings remains unchanged.  For these reasons the LA concludes that the children need a decision now about their long term placement and cannot wait any longer.  
65.	Given the lack of progress by the parents the LA submits that if returned home the children would be likely to suffer significant harm in the form of neglect of their global developmental needs.  The LA therefore submits that none of the children can return home to their parents’ care.  In reaching this conclusion the LA relied upon in particular the failed Symbol assessment, the evidence from the parents’ therapists and the evidence of Dr Halari.
66.	Ms Gibson addressed the welfare checklist at B80 when analysing the children’s placement needs.  I deal with this later.
67.	In Ms Gibson’s statement dated 14 September 2015 she records a number of issues that had caused her concern.  It seems to me that Ms Gibson dealt with these issues professionally and appropriately and they should be seen in the context of raised anxieties caused by the approaching court hearing.  In Ms Gibson’s view A and B had changed from being able to discuss their views openly and with maturity to being unable to do as they appeared to be repeating rigid and tainted views in line with their parents.  Despite these children’s ages and expressed views, Ms Gibson is clear that the LA whilst respecting these views cannot support them as they do not reflect the LA’s analysis of what would best promote their welfare.
68.	Ms Gibson gave evidence before me.
69.	She told me she had been optimistic about the chances of success after my December judgment and the instruction of Symbol.  She told me that once Symbol was instructed she quite rightly in my judgment, took a step back and allowed Symbol to get on with their assessment.
70.	When cross examined by M about the role of contact supervisors she said that their job was to safeguard the children during contact.  She was asked about the M requesting to see contact notes during the contacts and this request being denied.  Ms Gibson said that M had made this request on a number of occasions and had received the same response namely that the LA did not allow this during contact sessions themselves although notes were subsequently disclosed after they had been put on the system.
71.	She told me that as far as she was concerned she had accepted the enormity of what had happened to the parents and children and had long chats with the mother about the impact of the previous social work team’s actions.
72.	There was a passage of cross examination based on the M’s belief that Ms Gibson had been secretly giving Symbol information about historical concerns.  However, this line of cross examination subsequently proved unwarranted as it was established that Symbol had had additional information disclosed to them by the mother’s solicitors when they prepared their viability assessment.
73.	Ms Gibson accepted that there were positives since December.  The parents had initially engaged with professionals although this had tailed off; they had engaged with therapy; they had made some acknowledgment to Symbol in relation to matters of threshold; they had made improvements to the house; they had completed the triple ‘P’ parenting course and the attachment of the children to their parents was good despite them being in foster care for so long.
74.	Ms Gibson recognised the difficulties there would be if care orders were made with respect to A and B and they chose to go home despite them.  She said that they would make attempts to recover A and B if they did go home but would only involve the police and remove them if they were living in a “worrying environment”.  The LA may she said, have to apply to discharge the Care Order if it proved unworkable.
75.	Under cross examination by F Ms Gibson demonstrated an understanding of what each child had been through by reason of the process of removal, assessment and court process.  In particular she recognised the difficulties that D and E would have experienced given their ages at date of removal.
76.	Ms Gibson recognised the improvements that A and B had made and their changed attitude to education and health.  She accepted that the parents were pleased with the improvements and said that they are in placements where these improvements are supported.
77.	Ms Gibson was very clear that given the parents previous behaviour she did not see how the LA could work with the parents as the parents would not co-operate.
78.	When cross examined by the Guardian Ms Gibson reiterated her concerns if any of the children returned home.  In relation to A and B she said that the LA could not give into their wishes just because they were “kicking against” the LA’s plan.  She hoped that if Care Orders were made that the parents would support A and B remaining with FC1 as A in particular was at a crucial stage in her education.
79.	My impression of Ms Gibson was a favourable one.  She struck me as an honest, caring and professional social worker trying to do her best for the children allocated to her under very difficult circumstances.
80.	Symbol
81.	Overview of Symbol’s involvement
82.	Symbol was instructed by letter of instruction dated 29 December 2014.  They were given limited access to the court bundle in order to make sure they approached the assessment from a sound factual basis.  My judgment was a key piece of the information that they were given.  It is unfortunate that all parties forgot that they had had by agreement, access to further material in order to provide their viability assessment.  This caused a problem during the assessment and the hearing.
83.	 In March M became concerned that Symbol were talking about things that they could not have known from the material disclosed to them in December/January.  Her solicitor innocently and in good faith reassured her that Symbol had only had the recent material and it was only remembered during the hearing by the LA in fact, that additional material had been disclosed to them for the purposes of their viability assessment.  
84.	The results of this were most unfortunate.  It led to a reinforcing of the parents’ suspicion and lack of trust of professionals.  It also led to an unwarranted line of cross examination of Symbol workers and Ms Gibson by the parents which amounted to accusations of unprofessional conduct.
85.	In order to set up the Symbol assessment a professionals meeting took place on 20 January 2015.  
86.	Four workers were to undertake the assessment each with different skills.
87.	Ms Tessa Duffy set up Symbol in 2000 and is the Managing Director of the company that runs it.  Her original qualification was as a speech therapist in 1982.  Since then she has specialised in providing services to adults and children with disabilities.  She is a Fellow of the Royal College of Speech Therapists; she holds Post Graduate Diplomas in the ‘Psychology of Mental Handicap and Family Assessment’ and ‘Child Studies’ and is currently enrolled on a Masters ‘Child Studies Programme’ with a highly respected university.  She provides training and consultancy to other organisations.  She is the lead assessor for Symbol’s multidisciplinary team.
88.	Ms Heather Hinton is a social worker with over 20 years experience working with people with learning disabilities and vulnerable adults.
89.	Ms Alex Hall holds a Master’s degree in Management.  She has been providing multidisciplinary services to people with special needs and disabilities for over 30 years.  She has provided expert advice to Government departments and has particular specialism in social interaction and attachment.
90.	Ms Lucy Berry has experience as a residential assessment centre manager and is a senior member of Symbol’s Community Assessment Team.
91.	The assessment commenced on 9 February 2015 and involved interviews with the parents and observation of contact sessions.  According to Symbol they worked with the parents to set targets which were reviewable on a weekly basis.  However, this was initially seen by the parents as criticism of their parenting and they were resistant.  Over time the team believed the reasons for targets came to be understood by the parents although F had more difficulty with this in practice than M.
92.	The assessment was suspended on 2 March due to difficulties between the parents and Symbol workers.  During this session the parents had the reasons for target setting explained to them once again.  It is clear that F in particular had difficulty with the need for such targets.  As a result Symbol workers gave the parents examples of situations where they needed to consider setting more appropriate boundaries.  One such example involved F’s practice of having B sitting on his knee during contact.  Symbol raised with the parents whether this was appropriate given B’s age.  According to the Symbol workers M agreed that it was not appropriate and had told him so on other occasions both in relation to B and A.  M now denies agreeing with Symbol that this was inappropriate aligning herself with F’s version of events.  F took the raising of this issue as criticism and also as a reference to previous unfounded allegations that he had been involved in inappropriate sexual behaviour.  He was reported by Symbol to have become confrontational, angry and aggressive and that he had to leave the room twice for a while.  F does not accept this version in particular the number of times he left the room and the reasons behind it.  The session was terminated early and the assessment did not recommence until the 2 April 2015 after the parties had taken legal advice; Symbol had provided a Position Statement/interim assessment; there had been a ‘disruption’ meeting on 26 March and a professionals meeting on the 31 March.
93.	The interim report dated 11 March records what they saw as “problematic dynamics” in the parents’ relationship with F not allowing M to express her own opinion and feelings and if she had, being found to change them to fit in with F’s.
94.	It is right to record that during contact there was evidence of positive play sessions and interactions and that Symbol recognised that the parents and the children present as a close family unit.  In addition Symbol stated that M and F care deeply for their children despite at times, their inability to appreciate the impact on the children of their behaviour and talk during contact sessions.  There was worryingly evidence during their work that B was hostile towards professionals in his life and appeared to unquestionably take on the views of F.
95.	As a result of F’s negative behaviour and its impact on M and the children, Symbol recommended the suspension of community based contact.  According to the interim report all the assessors had found F to act in an intimidating and bullying manner towards them on occasion.
96.	As recorded above a Disruption/Professionals meeting took place on 26 March and a Professionals meeting to discuss the resumption of the assessment took place on 31 March.  Dr Halari attended the 31 March meeting by phone although she was cut off part way through.  No one from Symbol was able to attend although both the parents’ therapists, Ms Gibson and the Guardian did.  The minutes of that meeting are at E25.  It does not appear from the minutes that any person present regarded the lack of a representative from Symbol or the ‘loss’ of Dr Halari part way through as significant as no one is recorded as suggesting it should be reconvened when they could attend.  It appears that there had been another meeting or discussion the previous week possibly the Disruption meeting on 26 March, as reference is made to the “Symbol Assessment Schedule discussed last week” on E28 and it may be that that meeting had provided all the information that was needed.
97.	The final sessions took place on 2, 8 and 9 April.  These too were difficult and the one on the 9th was the last.  The assessment was terminated by Symbol after this session.
98.	The session on 2 April was positive with both parents stating they wanted to engage fully with the assessment process and that they felt ready to move on and progress.  There were positive discussions about what would happen next and the use of targets as a way of measuring progress.  6 targets were discussed and agreed.
99.	The session on 8 April began badly with M according to Symbol, speaking in a raised tone and announcing that they were not prepared to work on target setting around boundaries as they did not feel the contact centre was a suitable environment for this to be worked on.  She is recorded as saying: “me and F have decided we are not addressing boundaries anymore.  We always had good contact before you got involved, finding fault over every little thing, this is all a complete waste of time”.  When staff provided examples of poor boundary setting M became agitated.
100.	M also said that she was not prepared to work on targets despite the staff yet again explaining their importance to the couple.  She complained that the session was too long and too soon after her therapy session.  As the discussions continued she became increasingly agitated calling Ms Hinton a “stupid bitch” and Ms Duffy a “lying bitch” who they the staff, were only defending because they were on her payroll.
101.	F was equally forthright complaining that he had not been able to have his say at a previous meeting and accused Ms Duffy of having lied at that meeting. In particular he accused her of lying about the number of times he stormed out of that meeting.  Ms Duffy said it was twice he said he only left once.
102.	Both parents talked about their distrust of professionals, accused Symbol staff of being dishonest in producing their written records and stated that as the staff were employed by Ms Duffy, she would steer the assessment and have the final say.  The parents were according to the notes, confrontational and negative about the assessment expressing that it was a waste of time and just a way for Symbol to make money.
103.	During this session F is recorded as saying that he was aware that the judge (me) had said that he (I) did not feel “Symbol were very good” and that therefore he (F) was struggling with the assessment process.  F in evidence accepted that this was the gist of what he had said.  I make it clear that I never made such comments or anything like them and remind those reading this judgment that Symbol was put forward by the parents and approved by all parties and subsequently approved by me as being an appropriate organisation to provide the assessment needed.
104.	Given the seriousness of the accusations the parents had made they were advised to speak to their solicitors.
105.	I record for completeness that despite the nature of the meeting the parents went on to have an appropriate contact with the children which the parents and it appears the children, enjoyed.
106.	On the next day 9 April M raised numerous concerns about the assessment process.  These included the lack of community contact, the “untruths” told by Ms Duffy and the changing of paperwork by Ms Duffy.  Both parents were confrontational and it is clear that by this stage neither trusted the professionals carrying out the assessment or its methodology.
107.	The couple were asked if they had expressed their concerns during the ‘Disruption meeting’ but F said that they had been repressed by their legal teams and told not to bring these issues up as it would look like they could not work with professionals.
108.	The couple were given an opportunity for a break but it is clear that they had made up their minds that they could not work with Symbol and therefore the session that day was ended.  It was also the end of the assessment.
109.	I must record that during this session M is recorded as saying that “the judge said he does n’t like Symbol.. so he will see it won’t he?”  This is probably a repetition of what F said on 8 March and also a reference to the fact that they were alleging that professionals working for Symbol lie, there was a need for Ms Duffy to be shamed, Symbol shut and the professionals working for Symbol to lose their jobs.  I repeat that I have never said anything like that which is attributed to me.
110.	 Symbol provided a number of reports and recordings evidencing their work.  The reports were written as joint reports.  Their final report is dated 30 April.
111.	Symbol’s opinion was that the parents had found it difficult to consistently and fully engage with the target setting and reviewing process and therefore Symbol had not been able to fully utilise this assessment process.  In addition the parent’s preoccupation with the bad behaviour of previous professionals had hampered the assessment process and prevented the parents ‘moving on’.
112.	Symbol opined that the assessment process had been unable to progress and develop due to the couple’s ”ongoing issues with engagement and their feelings of  mistrust with regards to the assessment and the assessors completing the assessment”.  They made a telling comment at E53.26 where they observed that: the parents “do not accept that they have acted in unhelpful ways”... “even in the face of overwhelming evidence.  When they cannot challenge the evidence in any other way we have found that they have accused professionals of lying”.  Symbol went on to opine that “we have found the couple to be unable to overcome their own needs and wishes in order to prioritise the children or place the children at the forefront of their thinking”.  As a result of the levels of mistrust and hostility, Symbol felt they could not proceed with the assessment and withdrew their services.  In the opinion of the assessors there was no potential for the assessment to continue with Symbol and they were extremely pessimistic with regard to any further assessment with any other assessment team.  The couple’s negativity was Symbol said, likely to be targeted at any assessors who attempted to address the matters of concern and who asked the parents to participate in active work with their children.  This was they opined a predictor of the nature of any joint working with the LA that would be required if the children were living with the parents.  It is noteworthy that although I made provision for the parents, mother in particular to make a Part 25 application for a new assessment no such application was ever made.
113.	Tessa Duffy
114.	Ms Duffy told me that the aim of Symbol’s intervention was to determine the parents’ capacity to change after a period of intervention.  She had she said experience of taking part in a ‘dual approach’ assessment and although this case presented a number of challenges the impression she gave me was that at the start she had been optimistic.  She told me that in all the years that she had been carrying out assessments there had only been one or two where Symbol had had to curtail it and not one where they had not been able to overcome initial resistance, hostility or lack of trust.  
115.	She told me that it became clear that the parents have an absolute antipathy towards the LA and social workers to the extent that they even objected to Ms Hinton being involved in the assessment.  In her and Symbol’s opinion it was an impossible task for the parents to work with or trust any professional which was a significant barrier to moving on.  She said that whilst professionals were not challenging or agreeing goals, things went fine but when they tried to work with the parents the situation broke down “sharply, remarkably and quickly”.  Anyone who attempted to monitor or change their parenting behaviour would she opined, meet great hostility.
116.	She was criticised by the parents for not acknowledging properly or at all the enormity of the emotional toll and distress on the parents and the children caused by the events of the summer of 2013.  In particular Symbol were criticised for not going through the judgment with the parents and not recording any discussion about these topics.  If they had it was submitted, the parents could have ‘moved on’ and the assessment would not have stopped.
117.	Ms Duffy assured me that despite not having a specific note of doing so, both she and Ms Hinton had appropriately acknowledged the events of 2013 and the matters set out in the judgment.  Given Ms Duffy’s expertise, background, experience and the general impression she made on me, I accept that it is more probable than not that such acknowledgment to the standard she thought necessary took place.  She also said in my judgment correctly, that it was not for Symbol to spend a great deal of time on the history.  They had a short period of time in which to carry out their assessment and it was important to get onto the practical issues quickly.  I am also satisfied that there was no need for Symbol to go through the judgment with the parents in any great detail.  This was not their job.  What was required of them was an acceptance of the factual matrix that I had set out in my judgment and to use this as the basis for the assessment.  I am satisfied based on the evidence of the Symbol workers, that they did this appropriately.  In addition to the oral evidence there is specific acknowledgement in their report at E53.24.8.12 that they were aware of the impact of past events on the parents and took it into account.  Their job was to help the parents to put this issue to one side so they could take meaningful part in the assessment.  The difficulty they encountered was that the parents could not or would not let go of this topic and move on.  I remind myself of Dr Halari’s evidence when she told me that she had underestimated the depth of the parents’ mistrust.  It is not surprising that Symbol encountered this difficulty which ultimately caused the end of the assessment and Symbol cannot be held responsible for it as of course they were using Dr Halari’s evidence as the basis for their work.
118.	Ms Duffy was criticised for not setting out clearly the areas that needed to change.  She told me that the areas identified were in relation to the parents’ insight into and ability to provide appropriate diet, education and positive engagement in the assessment process.  The latter would of course be important for future working with professionals.
119.	As to education she gave me her analysis of the problem and how Symbol had planned to tackle it.  What she said seemed to me to make good sense.  She told me school was a complex picture and could not simply be addressed by saying to the parents that they had to back each other up.  They had attempted to explore this issue through dealing with some of the parents’ behaviours and drew up some goals.  She said that there had been a good session on this topic but that the assessment had broken down shortly afterwards.
120.	As to diet it did not seem to me that much work had taken place on this issue.  Cooking sessions had not materialised and there were difficulties with the venue.
121.	Ms Duffy/Symbol were criticised for the lack of communication between Symbol and the therapists.  It was submitted that this was an important element of the ‘dual approach’.
122.	Ms Duffy said there had been two conversations with M’s therapist and none with F’s.  However, both Symbol and the therapists had had each other’s contact details and could have contacted each other if required.  Ms Duffy was clearly of the view that there had been sufficient communication to meet the needs of this case and that the ad hoc nature of the communication had been agreed at the initial professionals meeting at which Dr Halari had attended.  If this had been unacceptable she could have said so.
123.	Ms Duffy was also criticised for not using learning disability aids such as symbols.  Ms Duffy said that in her opinion M had not needed such aids for the stage the work had reached.  Such tools could have been used if they had got to the work proper but they did not as the assessment ended.  M she said, had insights and ability and she felt it was important that M did not feel patronised as this would cause a negative reaction in her.  In her opinion M could understand issues but struggled to hold to the views she had expressed to the Symbol workers and she would often come back to the next session with a changed view.  In her opinion this was partly due to the influence of F.  
124.	Her conclusion was that linguistic communication with M was not the issue as in her opinion M did understand what it was said needed to be done.  The problem was that M did not accept that it had to be done and did not trust Symbol as an organisation.  In these circumstances she said there was no way forward.  
125.	Based on what I have seen and read about M I accept Ms Duffy’s evidence on this point.  In evidence M exhibited exactly the behaviour that Ms Duffy had given evidence about.  At one moment she was able to recognise that which professionals said needed to change and then later say something that appeared to contradict it.
126.	Ms Duffy was also criticised for not having a support worker present to support M at meetings.  Her evidence was that there was no need for such a person.  They were learning disability specialists and it was their job to support M during the assessment.  I accept Ms Duffy’s reasoning on this point.
127.	It was put to Ms Duffy that the use of the contact centre as the venue for the assessment was inappropriate and that sessions should have taken place in the parents’ home.  Ms Duffy disagreed and said that they had carried out many successful assessments in such centres.  Given that no professional made an objection to such an environment and given that I accept Ms Duffy’s expertise in this area I find that this criticism is unfounded.
128.	Ms Duffy was also criticised for the sessions being too long for M given her difficulties.  Ms Duffy did not accept this criticism.  She said M had appropriate breaks and after she had given evidence with the agreement of all parties, produced a list of interviews/contacts that had taken place with the parents.  Having read that document and heard the evidence of all the workers I am satisfied that M and F were given sufficient breaks and in any event I am satisfied that the workers were alive to this issue and would have factored it into their analysis if the assessment had progressed.   I am further satisfied that this would have made no difference to whether or not the assessment had been able to be completed.  The central issue was the parents’ attitude towards professionals and the need for and aims of the assessment.
129.	The assessment was criticised due to de-briefings taking place in a car park.  Ms Duffy said that the contact centre had closed and de-briefing had had to take place at the next session which for the mother was unhelpful.  The de-briefing had not taken place in the car park.  However, she said Symbol workers had offered to go back to the parents’ home although she understood why the parents found this unacceptable.  I accept it was not ideal that the debriefing did not take place immediately after the assessment session but given subsequent events and looking at the process overall I am not satisfied that this was a material failing.
130.	Overall I was impressed with Ms Duffy.  Whilst a wealth of experience and expertise does not mean that a person is infallible I was satisfied that Ms Duffy had set about this assessment with the correct approach and attitude.  I am also satisfied that whilst some of its elements might not have been ideal such as the venue closing, Symbol attempted to deliver it in a fair way taking into account the mother’s communication difficulties.  I accept Ms Duffy’s evidence that the assessment was in effect doomed to failure by the parents’ entrenched mistrust of professionals and their obsession with the breaches of their family’s Human Rights.
131.	Heather Hinton
132.	Ms Hinton is a social worker with 25 years experience.  She had read the updating documents and did not wish to change the opinion set out in the Symbol reports.  She emphasised that she did not come to the assessment with any opinion as to the likely outcome and had approached it with the hope of a successful outcome with the children returning home.
133.	She told me she had been with Symbol for 10 years and had had hundreds of families pass through their assessments.  She gave me the impression that it was in her experience very rare for the team to conclude that it was not possible to work at all with a parent or parents.
134.	Ms Hinton was clear that the past mistreatment of the family had been referred to by Symbol workers and that the length of the process had been acknowledged.  However, the workers also made it clear that they were a new organisation carrying a new assessment.
135.	She said that targets had been identified with the parents in particular boundary setting.  However, this proved to be an issue and had had to be put on one side at various points.
136.	She gave detailed evidence about the 8 April session.  It is clear it was a fraught session and that the parents were making very serious allegations against Symbol workers, Ms Duffy in particular.  She told me that at the end of the session she had been under the impression that the parents would be continuing with the assessment however that was not to be.
137.	Ms Hinton accepted that given the improvements in A and B’s weight and their educational achievements it would be a different boundary for the parents to enforce.  She said that the tools needed to enforce these boundaries would include co-operation which I inferred included co-operation between each parent as well as with professionals.  She said that the parents needed to establish a positive relationship with the school and must gain the confidence to know that the children will thrive at school.  She had some concern that if the children were at home the parents would revert to their previous parenting style.
138.	She was asked about what the parents regarded as the artificiality of the contact centre.  She disagreed that it was an inappropriate environment in which to assess the parents.  In this environment it was possible for the parents to learn and demonstrate how to back each other up by the maintaining of specific boundaries within contact.  As with Ms Duffy’s evidence I accept Ms Hinton’s on this point.
139.	As to the children’s weight I did not gain the impression that much work had taken place on this aspect.  However, given the events of March and April I am not surprised.
140.	As to the acknowledgement of the Human Rights breaches Ms Hinton told me that these had been acknowledged in their first meeting as had the traumatic effect of the breaches on the family.  She told me the parents were also given time on other occasions to air their grievances about the history.  Having heard Ms Hinton I accept her evidence on this point.  She struck me as a sympathetic person of integrity on whose evidence I could rely.
141.	Ms Berry
142.	Ms Berry has qualifications in psychology and neuropsychology.  She is an Operations Manager for Symbol.
143.	She confirmed in evidence the pressure that the parents felt to discuss the “cruel injustices” of the past as the parents put it and how in sessions they were allowed time to discuss these issues.
144.	She described the events of 9 April 2015.  She told me she had asked about events the previous day as a way of moving forward.  She told me that the impression she gained from F was that he felt that he had been made to conform by his legal team when he did not want to.  She told me that lots of families she works with have grievances but that usually she can talk them down.  On this day she failed as the parents did not want to listen.
145.	In cross examination she said that she believed the assessment had used specific techniques aimed at meeting M’s learning profile as both Ms Duffy and Ms Hinton had told me.  Based on all the evidence I have heard and read and the view I formed of her credibility, I accept her evidence.  
146.	It was also put to her that she had ‘told’ M off and had poorly communicated with her.  Ms Berry was clear that on 9 April the day being asked about, M did not want to listen and only wanted to make statements.  Given all that I have read and heard, I believe her.
147.	Dr Bradford
148.	Dr Bradford did not give evidence.  He had provided two reports one interim the other final which were not challenged.
149.	He attended two meetings aimed at setting up the therapy and co-ordinating it with the Symbol assessment.  He reported that F had engaged well; was motivated to work and had been able to identify areas that he needed to address in order to meet the best interests of his children.
150.	The goals of the therapy had been to develop a trusting relationship with F and to work on a ‘formulation’ so that F could identify changes he wished to make in order to become a more effective parent and come to understand why he functions in a particular way.
151.	Three themes emerged during F’s sessions.  First, his strongly held negative beliefs about social services given that in his view the children were “kidnapped” and his family “violated” and metaphorically “raped”.  He sees himself as the protector of his family and the one to put right the injustices his family have suffered.
152.	Second, his difficult childhood and adolescence which affect the way he parents.
153.	Third and the more dominant one leading up until the date of the report in early May, the difficulties he had with Symbol.
154.	F had he said, demonstrated some insight in that he has been able to acknowledge that on occasions his problem solving style and the way in which he construes a situation can act as a barrier to effectively solving conflicts.
155.	Dr Bradford concluded that F had developed a trusting relationship with him and had started the work to identify a ‘formulation’ although problems with Symbol had latterly prevented this.  F is he reported committed to working on problem areas but the extent to which he is able to translate what he had gained in therapy into practical aspects of his parenting was yet to be seen and remained a key goal.  F would benefit from further sessions focussing on developing a ‘formulation’ and looking at ways he could put into practice areas of change.
156.	Ms Chugg-White
157.	Ms Chugg-White did not give evidence as neither of her two reports were challenged.
158.	Her evidence was that M engaged very well with therapy.  
159.	M she opined, had demonstrated a level of insight into the areas of parenting particularly the setting of boundaries, that she struggles with.  These problems are rooted in her own abusive and inconsistent childhood experience and a desire not to inflict on her children the mistakes that were inflicted on her.  M had during the Symbol assessment recognised herself repeating unhelpful patterns of behaviours and had tried to use strategies taught by Ms Chugg-White in order to cope.  Sometimes successfully.
160.	M she reported suffers from depression, anxiety and panic attacks although the therapy did seem to be helping with these.
161.	M suffers from some symptoms of PTSD but M was not ready to address the issues underlying these given the uncertainty and instability that she is currently subject to.  In effect she had chosen to “place the trauma material in a box” a mechanism supported by Ms Chugg-White.
162.	Ms Chugg-White opined that M given the past and recent events, found it difficult to trust professionals which would be further impacted by the high degree of trauma that she suffered as a child.
163.	She also reported that whilst M had some complaints about Symbol which later became fatal to the assessment, she had talked positively about Symbol on 24 February 2015.  M had she recorded, commented that Symbol had explained things more and that she felt much better and more positive.
164.	Overall Ms Chugg-White’s opinion was that M had engaged extremely well; had a lot of insight into the issues affecting her and was extremely willing to work on strategies for change.  She was aware that she needs support to learn ways to manage her responses.
165.	Ms Chugg-White recommended M undertake further therapy.  This would look at short term and long term goals.  The short term goals being to improve her parenting ability.
166.	In her opinion medium term work was absolutely essential in order to help M achieve her goals.
167.	Whilst not essential but highly beneficial she should have longer term therapy in order to address the underlying causes of M’s trauma.  This could only occur when there is more stability in M’s life and less stress and distress from current circumstances.
168.	Dr Halari
169.	Dr Halari is a Senior Chartered Clinical Psychologist and Hon. Lecturer at Imperial College London.  She has an impressive and extensive C.V.
170.	Dr Halari carried out a comprehensive assessment of both parents in July 2014.  For the purposes of this judgment it is not necessary to set out in full her findings.  Her relevant conclusions were that both parents would benefit from one to one psychological support/therapy in order to be able to deal with their traumatic and disruptive early childhood and adolescence life experiences.
171.	She opined that M’s experiences of being physically and sexually abused as well being abandoned by her mother had led to dysfunctional and negative thought processes (abandonment, rejection, mistrust, low self esteem, possibly anger), feelings and behaviours which have precipitated her symptoms of depression and anxiety.
172.	She said that F’s early life experiences of being abandoned by his mother and having little or no support from his father had also precipitated feelings of mistrust, abandonment and possibly anger.
173.	Both parents she said had received inconsistent unstable and dysfunctional parenting.  This had impacted on their ability to parent their own children confidently and effectively.
174.	F she said would benefit from exploring, identifying and understanding his own  thoughts, feelings and behaviours as well as the impact of his past experiences and their effect on his current parenting ability.
175.	In her opinion both parents needed 16-20 sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy administered over 4-6 months.  In evidence to me in November she said she could not see it being less than 6 months.  Progress she said would be monitored at various intervals and the use of appropriate and relevant outcome measures would provide an indication of whether and to what extent therapy was effective.
176.	Dr Halari stated that if the parents felt judged or had a negative view of a professional they would be likely to minimise their difficulties or disengage with the process.  These were prophetic words.
177.	Overall she felt the parents had the capacity and ability to make the necessary changes and ensure that the changes were maintained over time.  However, she opined that the parents should start their therapy before the children were returned to their care and that it should continue after the children returned to enable the parents to put into practice within the home environment, the skills and knowledge learnt.  
178.	In her subsequent evidence she accepted that it was not for her to make recommendations relating to the children’s welfare and that when and if the children should return to the parents’ care had to be a child focussed decision informed by child care professionals.  The parents she said should not be prioritised over the children.
179.	Further on this topic she confirmed to me in her evidence in November that from the psychological perspective of the parents’ abilities, she was not at that stage recommending the children returning to their parents and that if any of the children did return then without the parents having successfully undertaken the required therapy and parenting work their previous styles of parenting were likely to re-emerge.
180.	In her evidence to me on 26 November 2014 she expanded and to some extent varied her opinion so as to recommend a ‘dual approach’.  That is one where therapy and parenting assessment were to be carried out in tandem the one with the other.  She opined that progress could be measured over about 10 sessions that could be delivered weekly.  She said she had not had experience of this way of working before but had got the idea from working with multidisciplinary teams within mental health settings.
181.	She was in favour of identifying goals, the process of assessment and an end point and then working towards that end point intensively.
182.	She was clear that the parents’ “conflicted relationships with the world around them and with many different agencies and many different professionals” was a chronic problem and not limited to the events of July 2013.
183.	She opined that education was a core or fundamental element of parenting and that the parents had had immense difficulties co-operating with the education welfare agency.  The problem was she said chronic and extreme.
184.	In preparation for this hearing Dr Halari had been asked to provide an addendum report.  It is dated 19 June 2015.
185.	Based on the evidence she then had she believed that the parents understood and accepted the recommendations for therapeutic work and parenting work.
186.	She commented that the parents had formed appropriate relationships with their therapists but not with Symbol workers as they did not feel comfortable and/or did not have a trusting relationship with them.
187.	Based on the information provided to her she was satisfied that the parenting work was tailored to the parents’ psychological functioning although she wondered whether it had fully factored in the extent of mistrust that the parents held against professionals.  In evidence to me she was subsequently to admit that she too had underestimated the extent of the parents’ mistrust.
188.	Dr Halari commented that regular liaison with the parents’ therapists might have helped Symbol to better tailor their assessment sessions to the psychological needs of the parents.  However, I have already recorded that she was involved in the professionals meeting setting the assessment up and had not raised any objections to the method of working that the therapists and Symbol agreed.
189.	Dr Halari also said that it was possible that too many assessors had been involved in the assessment making it difficult for the parents to feel comfortable.  However, as I commented earlier she was involved in setting up the assessment and must have known there would be 4 people involved yet did not raise any objection.
190.	In terms of the parents’ progress with their psychological functioning she opined that they had started to engage with appropriate therapy.  F she said had demonstrated good engagement in the therapy and had started to form a trusting relationship with the therapist.  M she said had engaged well but that her symptoms of depression and anxiety had significantly increased in line with events in relation to the Symbol assessment.  M she said had to work on developing trust, stability and stabilisation of mood as well as working on the current situation and her parenting abilities.
191.	She believed that both parents were likely to maintain the progress that they had made and to make further progress.  Both parents would benefit from a further 10-12 sessions delivered over a 3 month period.  However, in evidence she said that they could require much more therapy bearing in mind the sessions that they had already had.
192.	Dr Halari concluded that the parents would be likely to find it difficult to engage with different professionals in the absence of trust and a thorough understanding of processes and assessments.  She went on to say that any sign of them being judged, criticised or misunderstood would make it difficult for the parents to trust professionals or to engage in assessment and that they were in these circumstances likely to remain on their guard and vigilant around professionals.
193.	It was still her view that the parents had the capacity to make changes in their parenting and that they had shown a willingness to do so.  It is difficult to know she said, whether they would be able to make and sustain the changes in the absence of a completed parenting assessment/intervention.  In her opinion the parents seem to find it difficult to engage in and take on board advice that is given to them in relation to parenting.  It was not clear she said, whether this was because they do not believe they need to change or because their engagement and ability to take on board professional advice is hampered by their previous experiences with professionals or because of their difficulties with trust and fear of being negatively judged or because of the influence of their early lives and not having a comprehensive understanding of the process and reasons for the intervention.  It could she said, be a combination of all these factors.
194.	Dr Halari gave evidence to me during this hearing.  She did not wish to alter or add to her June 2015 report.
195.	She confirmed that she had attended the professionals meeting on 19 January and said she was satisfied that the approach set up by Symbol was appropriate for this family.  She told me that the parents had had a good opportunity to make use of the parenting intervention offered by Symbol and that nothing else was more likely to work with them.  On what she had read she did not think the parenting intervention was flawed.  Indeed under cross examination by the LA she said that the parents could not have been given a better opportunity than with Symbol especially as the parents had chosen them, they were independent, highly skilled and had the necessary speech and language experience to work with people like M.
196.	She told me that the parents had been unable to minimise or put on one side the trust issues that they have.  Based on the documents she had read it was her opinion that the parents were still at the start of their journey and had not come very far in dealing with their trust issues, although as she had not met the parents again she could not give a conclusive answer on this.
197.	Dr Halari was asked whether the children or some of them could return to the parents now from the perspective of the parents’ psychological functioning.  She confirmed that the parents were no further forward than they were in November 2014 and that therefore if the children were returned, the parents’ previous parenting styles were likely to re-emerge.  She confirmed that it was for those assessing the children to assess the children’s timescales and the appropriate time to return the children to their parents.
198.	In relation to therapy she agreed that the 10 weeks she had originally recommended had turned out not to be a realistic timescale and said that it was hard to know how long it would take.  It would she said take a lot of work.  She stated that the issue of trust was “completely overwhelming in this case” and predated the events of July 2013.  She agreed that the list of professionals the parents would not work with now included Symbol and the parents had even complained about their legal teams.
199.	In answer to a question from me Dr Halari said that the parents needed individual therapy to get them to the point of being able to take part in the ‘dual’ approach which she still felt would be a good way to conduct the parenting assessment.
200.	She recognised that the relationship between M and F could undermine any progress.  Each parent she said may progress differently and that one may hold back or sabotage the progress of the other.  In particular she said F has undermined M in the past and could do so in the future as it is a feature of his personality.  In her view F’s fundamental premise was that he thought he did not need to do the work and was only doing it as it was court led.
201.	When cross examined by M she said that the basis of her opinion was limited due to not having seen all the documentation and not having heard the evidence of the Symbol workers.  However, I established that in fact the only documents she had not seen were the LA contact notes and she said she did not need to see these as she had obtained a summary of the contact notes which suggested that the contact had been positive.  She also said that she had looked at contact through the Symbol reports and appendices.  Having heard her evidence I am satisfied that her not seeing the LA contact notes does not undermine her opinion as there was general agreement amongst all parties as to the quality of the contact which she took into account.
202.	Under cross examination by both parents she conceded that it would have been better for M if there had been less people working with her.  I do not understand why Dr Halari was expressing this view at this point in time when she does not appear to have raised it during the professionals meetings other than in relation to Symbol’s wish to bring in their own psychologist.  It is possible that her view was given with hindsight which is understandable but could not fairly be levelled as a criticism of Symbol.
203.	 Dr Halari said that it would have been helpful if not fundamental, for there to have been an acknowledgment of the distress the parents had been through.  This was necessary she said, so that the parents ‘heard’ that the assessors were “on their side and wanted to help them overcome their difficulties”.  
204.	I have to say I was concerned to hear this evidence.  The concern I had was whether if this was taken too far, the independence of the assessors would be called into question or at least the appearance given of them not being independent.  I am still troubled by this point and it emphasises the fine and difficult line that the assessors walked in this case.
205.	Obviously in agreeing with Miss Campbell and Miss Iten on this point Dr Halari was basing her answer on the mother’s and father’s view of the evidence namely that there had not been sufficient acknowledgment of the past.  I am satisfied that Symbol felt that sufficient recognition had been given and so Dr Halari’s answer needs to be seen against this finding.
206.	Interestingly she told Miss Campbell that Symbol may not have appreciated the enormity of the parents’ mistrust, something she herself was later to admit she had failed to do.
207.	Dr Halari under cross examination from both M and F seemed to be critical of the lack of communication between the therapists and Symbol and vice versa expressing the view that she thought the therapy work would be informing and shaping the parenting work.  She described the communication that had taken place as minimal given that there had been no conversations with Dr Bradford and only two with Dr Chugg-White.  However, it should be noted that the two conversations with M’s therapist were described as lengthy.
208.	Given that she was intimately involved in setting up this assessment and had attended two Professionals meetings, I am surprised that she expressed this view at this point in time.  If this was such an important part of the assessment or if she was concerned that it was not happening, I would have expected her to have stressed this at the professionals meetings she attended and for it to be minuted.  She told me that she was quite adamant about this at the January meeting but I am not persuaded that she did so or did so in a way that was apparent.  I make this comment based on the re-examination of her by Ms Gough.  
209.	Ms Gough took Dr Halari to E2 of the bundle a letter from Symbol setting out the structure of the proposed assessment and suggesting that there be weekly consultations between therapists and Symbol. Dr Halari was asked why she had not supported Symbol in this at the meeting on 20th January.  Her answer was unsatisfactory.  She said that she had not taken up this suggestion and had assumed that it would happen.  She could not recall any discussions about weekly liaison but did remember discussions about regular liaison.  She was taken to E5 being notes of the professionals’ meeting on 20th January.  It is clear from this that the therapists and Symbol workers were well aware of the need to keep in contact with each other in order for the assessment to work well.  It appears from E5 that the agreement reached with Dr Halari who was present by phone, was that the professionals would communicate in particular if a difficulty arose.  Dr Halari agreed she was aware of this.  Dr Halari was further taken to E10 being the “Action Points Arising from the Professionals’ Meeting of 20th January”.  Point 1 provides for the exchange of contact details so that “Therapists and Symbol can liaise and keep each other informed”.  Dr Halari again confirmed she was aware of this.
210.	Ms Gough also asked Dr Halari why she did not raise the lack of liaison at the professionals meeting on 31st March.  Dr Halari could not recall but went onto say that she had always maintained that that there needed to be regular liaison and that if her concerns were not minuted then she accepted she had not emphasised it enough.  
211.	This and subsequent answers on this topic in similar vein did not convince me that Dr Halari had raised this issue at the 31st March meeting.  It is possible she may not have seen this as a problem or it may be because as she said, the meeting concentrated on the therapy or it could have been that she was leaving it to the two psychologists and Symbol all of whom she regarded as highly skilled and capable, to sort out.  
212.	Further I was also surprised about Dr Halari’s evidence on this topic given that no one from Symbol attended the meeting on 31st March.   If the lack of communication had been thought by her to be an issue at that stage, I am surprised that she did not ask for the meeting to be rearranged so that Symbol could attend for that issue to be discussed.  
213.	In any event I am not satisfied that the level of communication between professionals was such an obvious failure as her previous evidence might have suggested.  I simply cannot accept that someone as well qualified and experienced as her would have failed to raise the issue of communication if it was so fundamental to the success of the assessment and if in her view it was not taking place sufficiently frequently or meaningfully.  In reaching this conclusion I remind myself that Symbol and the therapists were highly skilled and understood the need to communicate as this had been recorded in the Symbol letter at E2 and specifically discussed in January.  They had exchanged contact details (E5 and E10) out of recognition of the need to liaise.  As Dr Halari said in answer to my question on this point Symbol and the therapists are highly skilled and it was possible that they had a different professional view to her as to the level of communication needed which would have been equally valid as her opinion.
214.	Further in evidence Dr Halari appeared critical of the apparent lack of follow up information in the form of visual summaries which would have enabled the parents to process the information and ask questions.  I remind myself of Ms Duffy’s evidence about not wishing to patronise the parents and M in particular.  It is I accept a very fine line and indeed a difficult one for a professional to walk.  On the one hand it is important that teaching is delivered appropriately and in an accessible manner but on the other over simplification and too elementary an approach could give rise to a negative reaction which would become a barrier to learning.  Given Ms Duffy and her team’s expertise I am satisfied they were the best people to judge what M needed in order to access the learning and assessment that they were trying to deliver.
215.	Dr Halari appeared to be of the opinion that the parents may not have understood what was expected of them during the assessment.  They needed she said to be reminded why they were being challenged in sessions and they needed the purpose of any target set explained to them.  Given the short and interrupted nature of the Symbol assessment I am satisfied that the assessment was in reality still in its infancy when it stopped and that therefore this criticism lacks some weight as we do not know how Symbol would have developed their work if the assessment had gone smoothly.
216.	Dr Halari was critical that feedback from sessions could not take place immediately after the session.  I can understand this point and it is unfortunate.  However, this assessment was taking place in the real world and practical realities sometimes do cause challenges, just like ‘life’ presents daily challenges to parents.
217.	Miss Iten asked a very important question the answer to which gives me some hope for the future whatever I decide should be the children’s placements for now.  Miss Iten asked whether if the failed Symbol assessment was not as Dr Halari envisaged, it would be wrong to conclude that future work would fail too.  Dr Halari was clear that it would be wrong to reach this conclusion.  She relied upon the fact that despite initial reluctance from F the parents had engaged with individual therapy and she believed the parents would maintain that engagement.  She linked into this the parents’ attendance on the Triple P course which she thought was “another positive step along the road”.  It was possible she said that the mother was demonstrating some of the things learnt on the course within contact.  She reiterated her opinion that the parents still had the capacity to change but that there were still issues about trust and other unknown obstacles.
218.	At the end of Dr Halari’s evidence I asked a number of questions some of which I have incorporated into my record of her evidence above.
219.	I asked her whether she thought that the level of mistrust in the parents was such that they required individual therapy.  She answered that it was and that both parents needed such therapy.  She said that she thought she had underestimated the level of mistrust that the parents had of professionals.  She said she knew it was ingrained but she did not know the extent of it until she read the updating documents.  This therapy was necessary irrespective of whether I found that Symbol’s approach had been appropriate or inappropriate.
220.	I also asked Dr Halari what the timescales were for the individual therapy.
221.	I first asked her to answer on the basis of the parents’ view of the Symbol assessment, namely that it had not been thought through properly or delivered properly.  In light of her answer I did not need her to answer from the point of view of the LA and CG.  
222.	She told me that even on the parents’ view of the Symbol assessment we were no further forward than before.  She said that given that the level of mistrust was greater than previously identified, the parents needed individual therapy before being able to undergo the ‘dual approach’ of assessment supported by therapy.  Given that the parents had positively engaged with therapy this was probably the right way forward for them.  
223.	She said that the timescales for the individual therapy would be longer than previously estimated and probably 4-6 months even if there were weekly sessions.  She thought that there may be a need for further sessions after that.  Provided this individual therapy produced positive outcomes she would expect that the therapy would continue in order to support the parents through the parenting assessment.  The timescales for this second stage, the so called ‘dual approach’ would be the same as those given in November.  At the 10 week stage an assessment could be made of the how the parenting work was progressing.  
224.	It was clear from these answers that the timescale for the completion of a further ‘dual approach’ parenting assessment were in the region of a minimum of 8-9 months and probably much more.  
225.	I further asked Dr Halari to give an opinion on what would happen if I returned the children or some of them now based on the parents’ current functioning.
226.	She said that based on what she had read the parents are keen to maintain the routine and structure the children currently have and said so in their statements.  She said that whether they could do so was a difficult question.  She then paused in her evidence to consider her answer and then continued that she thought it would be easier with the older two children as they themselves could ensure that they adhered to the same boundaries and routines as they had in foster care.  In relation to the younger children she found it difficult to comment given she had not heard all the evidence.  However, she said she would be more reluctant about returning the younger children as she feared that the parents would revert to previous patterns and be unable to set boundaries and get them to school amongst other things.
227.	The final part of Dr Halari’s evidence was depressing to hear and I noted that the parents the mother in particular, were deeply affected by it.  M became tearful and unable to continue with the hearing.  It was clear to me that she had understood the evidence given and its impact on the likely success of her case for the immediate return of certainly the younger children to her care.
228.	Mrs Bryson
229.	Mrs Bryson is a contact supervisor.  She has worked at the particular contact centre for 8 years and worked at a secure unit for children for 20 years before that.  She is I am satisfied, a highly experienced worker. She and her husband, who is similarly well qualified, supervised a number of contacts with these parents.  Mrs Bryson stopped supervising contacts when a situation arose that meant that she felt she should no longer supervise contact as doing so could make contact difficult for the children.
230.	She told me that she supervised a contact on 16 April 2015 when at the end of it B handed M a note from A.  A had written M a note about highly personal matters that are not relevant to my decision.  According to Mrs Bryson M had the letter in her hand and had her back towards the window.  Mrs Bryson recalls she asked M what it was and that M became defensive and said that no-one else was going to read the note as it was personal and about “girl things”.  Mrs Bryson told M that she could not take the note from her but she would report the matter to the social worker.  
231.	In cross examination by M it was suggested that the parents had offered to show the note to Mrs Bryson.  She however was adamant that they had not.
232.	Mrs Bryson was asked about the children.  She told me that A and B have grown and matured and present as more confident.  The younger 3 are still growing up and are boisterous.
233.	My overall impression of Mrs Bryson was an extremely favourable one.  She struck me as a direct but kindly person whose only interest was keeping children safe during contact and making the experience as good as it could be for the family concerned.  Having considered the mother’s evidence and Mrs Bryson’s alongside each other I have no difficulty accepting Mrs Bryson’s evidence as to what happened on 16th April.  She was clear and straightforward with no reason whatsoever to lie about what she had seen and heard.
234.	Ms Woodrow
235.	Katherine Woodrow is a friend of FC3.  She is on a ‘gap year’ and plans to study nursing or midwifery.  On 19 August 2015 she was present in FC3’s house when the CG visited.  The point at issue is whether D and E told Ms Edney that they wanted to go home to live with their parents or not.  Ms Edney had specifically gone to FC3’s on this day to ascertain their wishes and feelings.
236.	On one level this is an unimportant issue as it is accepted by all parties that D and E have asked to go home but as with a lot of things in this case, the issue has been blown out of all proportion fuelled as it is by the parents’ mistrust of professionals including Ms Edney.  Ms Edney does not recall the boys telling her this directly and is certain that they did not.  Ms Woodrow is equally adamant that they did.
237.	I have been asked to make a finding as to which version is correct, the parents putting it that either one or the other is lying and given that Ms Woodrow appears credible it has to be the CG who is lying.
238.	I will make a finding about this but whatever finding I make this issue is illustrative of the strength of the parents’ mistrust of professionals and their readiness to accuse professionals of lying.  They have no sense of proportion and no willingness to accept that people can be convincing but genuinely and innocently wrong.
239.	Under cross examination Ms Woodrow despite having told me she has a good long term memory had to accept that she had got the date wrong.  Again this is in the wide scheme of things an unimportant detail as it is accepted that the CG did visit whilst she was there.  However, it is illustrative of the frailties of the human memory and a helpful reminder of the need for great care when assessing people’s credibility.
240.	My impression of Ms Woodrow was of a witness who believes her evidence is true.  There seems no reason why she would lie or make up her evidence but this does not mean D and E did say it as she could have conflated two situations and simply be mistaken.  D and E have said to her on a number of other occasions that they want to go home and it is possible she has innocently misremembered that the CG was present.
241.	The mother
242.	During M’s evidence Ms Barber stood by the mother to support her.  Ms Barber had prepared a series of cards for the mother to use to indicate such things as needing a break and not understanding a question.  As it turned out M managed giving evidence very well despite Miss Campbell’s concerns expressed to me on the morning of the second day of her evidence and I am satisfied that she had a fair opportunity to tell me what she wanted to.  As I have recorded before, the process of cross examination had to be adapted and such adaptations curtailed the sort of penetrative questioning that a person without M’s specific difficulties would be exposed to but I am also satisfied that the other parties were able to fairly put their cases to the mother.
243.	The opening sentences of the mother’s evidence set the scene.  She told me she felt sick when she heard that Ms Walker-Smart had been promoted and Ms Goode and Ms Humphreys were still in senior management posts.  She said she felt she and F had been really treated badly and it was completely unacceptable.  There was understandable passion in her speech.  She went onto complain about the children being kept away from each other because of unfounded incest allegations and said that whilst social services say they accept that there is no sexual abuse going on she felt stared at and watched which she found unacceptable.
244.	She told me she had completed the Triple P parenting course which she said taught her basic stuff such as setting boundaries and how to divide one’s time between the children and oneself.  I note that she had been asked to do this course before but she had not done it.  When subsequently asked about why she had not done it before she blamed Ms Gibson for not giving them the right information.  Nevertheless it is a good thing that she has now completed it.  She said that she felt that if the children were home she and F could demonstrate the skills learnt but that without them at home it was difficult.  She felt she could not achieve the goals set for health, diet and school other than in the home situation.
245.	She talked with pride of A and B’s achievements in terms of weight and school.
246.	She was asked what she would do if for instance B said he did not want to go to school.  She said she would encourage him and seek help from the school.  If he said he was ill she said she would look at him to see if he was ill.  As to diet she said she would work with FC1 and would limit the children’s pocket money.
247.	As to C she thought C had been “pushed to one side like a bit of rubbish” and that if A and B returned home C should do so too so as not to be left alone in foster care.
248.	She told me that all the children want to come home.
249.	She disagreed very strongly with the LA’s placement and contact plans.
250.	Later in her evidence in chief she returned again to the theme of the unacceptable behaviour of professionals.
251.	She was asked about working with professionals.  She said that she had strong views about being able to work with some people and not with others.  She said that social services will always find something to twist around to fit what they want.  She said there had been lots of tampering with evidence and lots of lies.
252.	She was asked by Miss Campbell how she thought she had changed since the start of proceedings.  She said the children had been gone 2 ½ years which had given them the chance to sit back and think of the right and wrong things that she and F had done.  She said that she was quite strict with the older children and F was the softer one.
253.	She was asked whether the therapy had helped her.  She paused before answering and said it had as there were days when she felt “jumbly and happy” but there were days when she had to talk about the children and then she gets upset.  She said she would like to continue with her therapist.
254.	She was cross examined by the LA and said she recalled Miss McKenna apologising on behalf of the LA for the things that the previous team had done.  She did not accept that Ms Gibson had also spoken to her about what had happened and how they had been badly treated.  
255.	She said the LA had done nothing about what they had done to them.  It was put that the LA had paid for her therapy.  She said that she could not accept that as although she did have a difficult childhood she had been forced to go to therapy.  She continued that at this time it has nothing to do with her childhood and that it was all about her children.  She said she had taught herself how to cope with what happened in her childhood and the reason she is going to therapy now is because she cannot get over the fact that her children have been stolen from her.  She told me that she had dealt with the issue of her childhood abuse herself, that the person involved no longer exists and that she did not think she should be made to talk about her childhood and would prefer “to keep a lid on the box”.
256.	It was clear to me from this exchange that M struggles to see the point of the therapy as envisaged by Dr Halari and is only using it as a coping mechanism for what is happening to her now rather than addressing the underlying psychological problems that she has and which need to be addressed if she is to be able to parent her children appropriately.
257.	M then went on to complain about Ms Gibson saying she had not been completely honest and had made things up as she had reported that the father had smelt of alcohol when it was his inhaler that produced the smell.  She also accused Ms Gibson of making up that M was angry, aggressive and hostile.  I note that there are numerous recordings in the papers to support Ms Gibson’s observation and that by making this comment M is demonstrating a lack of insight into her behaviour.
258.	She accused the LA of having a hidden agenda and that Ms Gibson was controlled by her managers.
259.	She told me that she and F were “up for” working with anyone and that if Symbol had made the right approach she and F could have worked with them.  However, Symbol had brought up subjects that had been in early paperwork and which should not have been read by Symbol.  This included the session where Symbol workers raised with F about B sitting on his lap.  At this point in the evidence it had not been remembered that Symbol had been provided with material for a viability assessment.  Given the fixation M had on this point that failure was unfortunate as she went onto accuse Ms Gibson of giving Symbol information secretly without telling anyone and therefore acting unprofessionally and Ms Duffy of lying.
260.	When asked about the events of this contact M said that Ms Duffy had deliberately upset F by challenging him on this point.  She denied that she had agreed with Symbol that it was inappropriate and accused Ms Duffy of telling lies.
261.	She was asked about her mistrust of professionals.  She denied it went a long way back in time.  She said rather tellingly, she could not forgive social services for what they had done and that this would cause problems for her working with them in the future.  She said that this was not her fault but the fault of professionals and social services.
262.	She was challenged about her comment that her mistrust did not go back a long way in time by being referred to her appearance before a court in 2007 for failing to get the children to school.  She said that her trust in certain professionals had disappeared at this point and mentioned that one witness had tampered with the medical evidence.
263.	In relation to her 2013 conviction she accepted she had failed her children and had pleaded guilty.  She said that the welfare officer was cross that they did not have to pay a big fine.
264.	Whilst I can completely understand M’s comments in relation to the events of July 2013 this exchange demonstrated her lack of insight into the fact that she had had problems working with professionals for many years preceding this; the depth of her current lack of trust of professionals and gave an insight into the difficulties that any professional would have working with her in the future.
265.	M was asked about the meeting to discuss the breakdown of the Symbol assessment.  She said she did not feel she had been able to say everything she wanted to and that she and F felt they had to sit around the table and agree.  She said their legal teams had told them to keep quiet as otherwise it would look like they could not get on with Symbol.  
266.	She was asked about the recording where she said I had said that I did not like Symbol.  She said she did not put it quite that way but that I had said that Symbol had not helped very many families.  I make it clear I never said anything like this for the reasons set out above but it is an indication either of the level of M’s inability to understand or an illustration of how she interprets information to fit in with her own views.  Either way it is a real concern for the future.
267.	She said it had been her solicitor’s idea to use Symbol and that she had not wanted to use anyone.
268.	M’s level of mistrust was made clear when she implied that Ms Gibson and Ms Duffy were conspiring together as she had seen them in the same building at the same time during the assessment.  I am satisfied that Ms Gibson and Ms Duffy were innocently and appropriately in the same building.
269.	She was asked about Mrs Bryson’s evidence.  She accused her of lying about her being loud and aggressive and asking to see the letter that was passed.  She added that she did not trust anyone from the contact centre.
270.	The LA asked her about Dr Halari’s evidence.  She said that she would do therapy but did not need it before the children could be returned home.  She agreed that 4-6 months was too long for the children to wait and that she wanted them home immediately.
271.	When asked by A’s solicitor M said that she would like to speak to FC1 to find out about A’s routines and diet so that she could put them into practice.  She wanted A home immediately.
272.	B’s solicitor asked detailed questions about M’s understanding of what routines B would need if returned home.  She showed some understanding of what B would need and put forward some strategies that she would use to support him.
273.	She was asked to whom she would turn for help if things were not going well.  She then mentioned FC3 and her therapist and other people whose names she could not remember.  She was asked whether she would approach the LA and she said yes but it seemed to me very much an afterthought.
274.	When cross examined by Ms Gough M said that she did not feel the CG had ever properly represented the children.  She referred to the CG’s first visit to A and B.  She also said F had made a complaint to CAFCASS about the CG.  For her the CG was the last person left over from the time of the old social work team; that she had not changed her position and was still siding with the LA.  In short she did not trust the CG.
275.	She was reminded that Ms Edney does not work for the LA and had changed her opinion in particular to support a further assessment by Symbol.  M said it had taken the CG a long time to change her mind.
276.	M was also asked about the conflict in the evidence between Ms Woodrow and the CG as to whether D and E had told her directly that they wanted to go home.  M was adamant that Ms Woodrow was right and that the CG was lying although admitted that it was F who had read the CG’s report and therefore she was relying on his interpretation of the report and her recollection of what he said.
277.	One of the issues M had with the CG arose out of M’s difficulty in understanding the duty of the CG to listen to a child’s wishes and feelings but to form their own view of the child’s welfare needs.  M seemed to equate the children’s wishes and feelings with their welfare needs which of course might not be the same.
278.	My overall impression of M was that she loves all her children very much and desperately wants them home.  She was clearly very pleased with the progress they have made in foster care.  However, there were very strong negative themes that came through from her evidence.  These were a mistrust of professionals and a tendency to accuse them of lying if her views or recollection conflicted with theirs irrespective of whether there could be other explanations for the disagreement.  I picked up strong anger, frustration and hurt at the way she felt her family had been treated by professionals particularly in July 2013.  I picked up a tendency to interpret events to fit in with her internal view of the world which was now coloured by the events of the summer of 2013.  I also picked up ambivalence towards her therapy and a lack of understanding of its overall purpose and goals.  I was also left wondering whether she really did understand the reasons why her children had suffered harm and what she needed to do to prevent such harm happening again if the children were returned to her.
279.	The father
280.	F told me that A should return home immediately to be with her siblings.  To not listen to her wishes and feelings he said would be a “massive deficit to her needs”.  He said he was “joyous” at her educational achievements and saw no problem in getting her to go to school.  As to her past failure to attend school he said that there had been a concerted effort by Educational Welfare and the social services that had undermined the education of the children.  In other words it was their fault not the parents’.
281.	As to maintaining A’s weight at a proper level he told me that because of her age she would do this herself and that she had the knowledge to do so.
282.	He told me that he would work with the school, health professionals and FC1.
283.	He was asked about his relationship with B.  He said that they love each other intensely and that B wanted to come home.  To ignore his wishes would directly undermine his view of authority.
284.	When asked about C he said that she had understood that the move to FC2 had not been justified in the way that people had said it was and that C was mature enough to know that the social workers had acted wrongly.  I found this hard to accept given her age at the time.  It seemed to me that he was projecting his own views onto C.
285.	F did not think that C would think it fair if A and B returned home and she was left with FC1.
286.	As to D and E he said it was not justifiable leaving them with FC3 who was just 5 minutes away from the parents’ home.  He saw FC3 as being a support in the future and that they were child centred with a depth of love for D and E.
287.	As to working in the future with professionals he said he did not have a problem with professionals coming into the home.  Given the history of his past co-operation I found this evidence surprising and formed the view that such co-operation was unlikely to occur in practice.
288.	F was asked about M’s suspicions about people from Educational Welfare and his ability to work with professionals.  His position was to support M’s views.  He said that he trusted any professional until they gave him cause not to but went on to agree that he did not trust a lot of people including Ms Gibson, senior management in social services, members of the Educational Welfare department, the CG, Helen Randall and Ms Duffy.  He was asked about Ms Berry and said there was a possibility she was a professional of good intent who had been fed misinformation.  Later in his evidence he criticised Dr Halari and she was thus added to the list of professionals who had not done their job properly.
289.	In relation to the Symbol assessment he said he had learned more on the Triple P course than from Symbol.  He had become in conflict with Symbol because he had been unreasonably challenged about B sitting on his knee.  He denied that M had also challenged him about this.  He told me B is 1” taller than him and weighs 13 stone.  He said Ms Duffy was an untruthful liar and had been confrontational.  When talking about this aspect he adopted a theatrical voice to emphasise his point which I found bizarre.  He said Ms Duffy had wanted to subjugate him and she would not back down.
290.	In relation to therapy he said it had benefited him only in a very limited way.
291.	F was asked about Dr Halari’s opinion that he and M were no further forward than in December.  At this point he made a dismissive noise and said that given that her first assessment had not been that sound he was of the view that she had limited information upon which to base her current opinion.  He criticised Dr Halari and the initial assessment that had been carried out by saying that the tests were administered by Dr Halari’s assistant who “screwed up” the test as she could not show him how to complete one of the puzzles.  He initially said he had only spent a few minutes with Dr Halari which in his view was an inadequate period for her to assess that he needed therapy. Later in his evidence he minimised this even more by saying it was 90-100 seconds.  He accused Dr Halari of trying to get away early.  He said she was not necessarily wrong to conclude he needed therapy but she jumped to conclusions and it would be a surprise if she had assessed him properly.  He thought 4-6 months of therapy was “over the top” and that she had “jumped to conclusions like so many psychologists”.  He felt she had passed a few sentences with him and asked a few questions then she had offered him therapy which would lead to reunification.  He said that with reunification on offer he jumped at it.  Later in his evidence he phrased it as her “throwing him a bone” which he was going to “chase” as she said she could help him get his children back.
292.	When asked about his manner he said that he is keen to put his point of view and that some people can find that threatening. 
293.	He was asked about the meeting on 26 March.  He said he had not been able to say what he had wanted to due to legal advice he had received.  He was referred to E79 which is the Symbol note of what he said where he refers to being prevented by his legal team from saying what he wanted to.  He confirmed that these were the words he used.
294.	When being asked questions by B’s solicitor he expanded his views on the CG saying that there was “no God given reason why he should trust her” and accused her of being a “rubber stamp for the LA”.
295.	He was asked whether he needed to make any changes before the children were returned home.  He responded that “there is always room for improvement and that there had been difficulties and he had made errors of judgment but that it “had been difficult dealing with an incredibly predatory LA”.
296.	He agreed that the children needed a decision now and that he had no objection to them being sent home and monitored.  However, he did not want the monitoring to be done with “pre loaded motives”.
297.	I record that during F’s evidence I checked that M understood what F was saying as F was using long verbose and rather rambling sentences.  She confirmed she did because she had a rapport with him.
298.	My impression of F was of someone who loves his children very much and wants them home.  He believes he can care for them.  I noticed during his evidence that he tended to project his thoughts onto the children when being asked to consider things from their perspective. This was particularly noticeable with C.  He had difficultly answering questions directly often giving long answers not always on point and he was at times difficult to follow.  He gave me a strong sense of his mistrust of professionals and the system in which they work.  He displayed a tendency to verbally attack those who challenged him or who disagreed with him.  This took the form of attacking their professionalism and calling them liars.  This did not stop with the obvious targets such as the Symbol workers and Ms Gibson but extended to Dr Halari and the CG.  These characteristics gave me cause to doubt the accuracy of his factual recall as it was clear his memory of and interpretation of events was highly coloured by these traits.  They also gave me very grave concern as to whether he could work with professionals in the future.  His comments about the therapy led me to consider whether he in fact saw the purpose and need for it and thus whether he truly accepted that he needed to bring about any changes in his parenting.  Having considered his comments I have concluded that he does not really see the purpose of the therapy or that he needs to make significant changes to his parenting.  Given his evidence I formed the view that he would be likely to repeat previous patterns of parenting behaviour if any children were in his care.
299.	The Guardian
300.	Ms Edney told me her opinion had not changed and that none of the children should return home as their parents had not made any or any sufficient changes to their parenting.  In her opinion the children would suffer significant harm if they were returned to the parents’ care without them having evidenced changes to their parenting skills and demonstrated an improved ability to co-operate with professionals.
301.	She told me she regarded Symbol as a specialist independent assessment team who had given the parents a fair opportunity for an assessment.
302.	She said she had seen some positive changes in M who was more motivated than F to engage with services.  She said that M had the “intent” to change but it was her ability to implement that change and sustain it that was the problem.  Whilst she recognised that M had said she would accept outside monitoring she had not seen any evidence to show that she in fact would do so.  Her concern was that whenever there was a challenge to the children or their parenting it became difficult for the parents not to revert to previous patterns of parenting.  She said F could demonstrate some insight into the LA concerns but was not always consistent.  
303.	She told me she had not appreciated the strength of the parents’ animosity towards her and had only realised quite how strong their views were when she heard F’s evidence.
304.	She told me that D and E did not tell her directly that they wanted to go home although she had always accepted that they did.  She said that the whole point of that visit was to ascertain their wishes and feelings and so if they had said this she would have reported it.  She told me she had made notes of the meeting and that they were accurate.  She said that Ms Woodrow was present on 5 August and had told her that D and E had said they wanted to go home but they did not say this to her.  She did not accept Ms Woodrow’s version therefore.
305.	Overall she said that despite A and B’s ages they could not be relied upon to maintain the improvements they had made themselves.  She did not think given the parents’ inability to work with professionals that any effective support could be put in to support the children at home.  She said that the children needed a decision now and could not wait 4-6 months for their parents to do the necessary therapy and undergo a parenting assessment.
306.	Under cross examination by the LA she said that for her the problem was that there had been no change in the parents’ communication style, parenting or ability to work with professionals.
307.	Under cross examination by M she said she had had little recent contact with the parents or children due to the parents’ finding her presence difficult.  She had read the contact sheets and other documents however, in order to reach her opinion.
308.	She was asked whether she accepted she had made mistakes and that therefore her judgement was poor.  She accepted that with hindsight she had missed a number of things such as the need for a psychological assessment, the problems in FC2 placement and the need to promote sibling contact which FC2 was frustrating.  She also accepted that some of her recommendations to the court had been wrong.  However, she said that whilst at times she had had to reflect on her recommendations she had made them on the evidence then available and on her view of what then was in the children’s best interests.
309.	When asked about the LA’s plan to substantially reduce contact between C, D and E and their parents she acknowledged that this would be a loss for the children given the quality of the relationship between them and the parents but said such reduction was necessary for the children to settle in their placements and come to feel that those placements were their homes.
310.	When asked questions on behalf of A she accepted that A had said she would not stay with FC1 whatever my decision.  However, she was clear that she wanted A to remain with FC1 given A’s achievements since being with them.  Unsurprisingly she recognised the difficult practical reality of keeping A with FC1 if A decided to leave.
311.	She was asked if she accepted that A is more mature, has grown in confidence and was motivated to continue with her educational progress.  She said that she acknowledged that A is very proud of her achievements since being with FC1 but that she was only 16 and still needs parental guidance and boundaries.  Whilst support from the LA would be available to her if she was living at home the question was whether she would or could engage with it.
312.	She was asked questions on behalf of B.  She said her concerns remained as they were at the beginning of proceedings.  These related to health, education, social interactions and opportunities, emotional welfare and ability to engage with professionals.  Whilst recognising the progress B had made with all these given the parents have not evidenced change, she was concerned as to whether he would maintain these changes if returned home.
313.	In answer to me she said that even if I accept her recommendations the parents should continue with their therapy and their parenting should be kept under review as they will continue to be a significant part of the children’s lives.
314.	Resolution of material factual issues
315.	The Symbol assessment
316.	I am satisfied that Symbol is rightly regarded as a long running well respected organisation which specialises in working with parents with communication and learning difficulties.  The team used in this case are all well qualified, Ms Duffy particularly.  I accept that this does not mean that they are infallible and do not make mistakes but it does mean that any party criticising them must establish such criticism on a firm evidential basis.
317.	I am satisfied that the planning of the assessment was carried out properly.  First, Symbol had the necessary materials such as my judgment and the reports of Communicourt and Dr Halari.  I am satisfied that they took those into account when setting up the assessment and in particular when looking at M’s needs.  Second, they set up a professionals meeting which involved their workers, the therapists and Dr Halari.  This gave them an appropriate framework for the assessment.
318.	I do have some concern at the level of communication agreed between Symbol and the therapists.  However, Dr Halari was present at the meeting setting this up and all of the professionals were very experienced.  Therefore I am satisfied that they must have judged the level and method of communication adequate for the case otherwise they would not all have agreed it.  I accept that whilst Dr Halari may have thought there should have been more communication she was not the one working the case and those that were, were best able to assess the level of communication that was needed.
319.	I accept that a ‘target’ based assessment was the appropriate model.  Without targets how could change be measured?  I do accept that the parents struggled to understand this process but I am also satisfied that Symbol tried very hard to explain it to them on numerous occasions.  The difficulty was with the parents not Symbol.
320.	I understand why the assessment had to be undertaken during contact sessions.  I appreciate the venue and times of sessions were not always optimal but in a sense this mirrors real life when things do go wrong or present challenges.  Overall it was an appropriate method.  I understand that the mother in particular felt she would be assessed better if the children were home.  However, this was not practical as it could have given the children the impression that they would definitely be returning home when this may not have been possible.
321.	Criticism was made of their communication with M.  I do not accept that the criticism is justified.  Ms Duffy’s background is in speech and language therapy and her team are skilled at working with people with such difficulties.  They had the relevant reports on M to work from and I am satisfied from what I saw and read that they took this material into account when working with M.  I was particularly struck by Ms Duffy’s evidence about the difficult balance that needed to be struck between enabling M to understand on the one hand and not patronising her on the other.  This is a difficult balance to strike.  Even if I am wrong and Symbol did not set up the assessment as well as they should I am satisfied its failure was not due to it.
322.	Symbol were also criticised for not spending enough time going through my judgment and acknowledging the appalling behaviour of previous professionals.  This was it was alleged, the key to successful future working with the parents.
323.	I accept that Ms Duffy could not point to written notes showing that they went through the judgment with the parents but I accept her oral evidence that they did and did so to an extent that seemed to them appropriate to the circumstances.  I accept Ms Duffy’s point that they were a new independent team and had a lot to achieve in a short period of time.   The impression I received from the written and oral evidence was that the parents were far more entrenched in their views than either Dr Halari or Symbol realised and that this is probably the reason why they had difficulty getting the parents to let this issue go and to “move on”.
324.	The assessment ran into severe difficulties after only one month.  On 2 March the issue of B sitting on F’s knee was given as an example of a boundary that needed addressing.  I accept the assessors’ version of events of this incident in preference to the parents’.  The written record of it is at E101-E104.  I do so as they were the professionals, there to observe and they made notes of what happened.  The parents’ view of events are highly coloured by their own perspectives and emotions and are not reliable.  I accept that when the appropriateness of B sitting on F’s knee was raised M agreed with Symbol.  Given B’s age and size it is not surprising that Symbol raised this issue as it was not age appropriate behaviour and could be seen as holding back B’s emotional development.  I do appreciate the sensitivity that there is surrounding any hint of inappropriate behaviour given the previous unfounded sex abuse allegations but the father’s confrontational, angry and aggressive reaction was out of all proportion to the challenge.  
325.	I am satisfied that the procedure adopted after this outburst was appropriate namely a period of reflection by both sides and a disruption  meeting on 26 March followed by another professionals meeting on 31 March.
326.	I am also satisfied that the suspension of community based contact was justified as a result of F’s behaviour.  The logic is that if this sort of behaviour was repeated in the community it could be difficult to contain and may place the children at risk.
327.	Whilst I approve of the procedure adopted after 2 March I do have concerns about the professionals meeting on 31 March.  Dr Halari was cut off part way through and no-one from Symbol was present.  I do not understand how this meeting could have been effective without a representative from Symbol and Dr Halari being present throughout.  Nevertheless, none of the professionals seem to have considered this point and so I conclude that they were satisfied that all material matters had been discussed and agreed at the previous meeting on 26 March, see E28.  Even though I have concerns about this meeting I am satisfied that such concerns would not have made any difference to the outcome of the assessment for reasons I will set out later.
328.	There was only one further proper session after 2 March and that was 2 April.  The 8th and 9th April were taken up by both parents refusing to work with Symbol and criticising them in very strong terms.  In my judgment the parents had by 8th April decided that they were not going to continue with the assessment and their criticism of Symbol represented an example of their defence mechanism which is to verbally attack and accuse others of lying when things go wrong or they are challenged.  It can be seen during the exchanges that they had with the workers on these dates that they blamed the Symbol workers being especially vicious towards Ms Duffy. They blamed their lawyers for stopping them saying what they had wanted to say and even brought me into it by attributing words to me that I had not said.
329.	Taking into account all I have read and heard I am satisfied that the reason the assessment could not be carried out was due to the parents’ attitudes, their entrenched mistrust and inability to work with professionals, their behaviour and their inability to put their children at the forefront of their thinking.  I accept Symbol’s analysis that the parents were in my words, obsessed with the past behaviour of professionals and their level of mistrust prevented them “moving on” and taking part in the assessment.  It is obvious to me that the parents did not see that they were in any way responsible for their failure to complete the assessment despite strong evidence to the contrary.  I am like Symbol, extremely pessimistic as to whether any further assessment can be carried out without a significant shift in the parents’ thought processes which could only be brought about through therapy.  With the parents in this position I like Symbol, Ms Gibson and the CG, am satisfied that there is little chance of the parents working constructively with professionals and in particular the LA, in the future.
330.	Ms Gibson
331.	Given the impression that Ms Gibson made on me I am satisfied that she has acted professionally throughout her involvement in these proceedings.  In my judgment any criticism made of her must been seen in terms of her dealing with an extremely difficult case, in highly unusual circumstances and in terms of the parents’ tendency to go on the attack when challenged or someone holds opinions they don’t agree with.  
332.	The senior management in Hampshire County Council Children’s Services
333.	I do not accept the general allegations made by the father in particular, about HCC having a hidden agenda.  I am satisfied that the actions of the LA since my last judgment demonstrate a willingness to put right the wrongs that their employees committed.  They have paid for therapy and a new assessment for instance.  I do think it was unfortunate that Ms Gibson’s statement contained reference to adoption as the contingency plan for D and E which was in conflict with the filed care plans but I am satisfied that their current plan does represent their true intentions and is in line with the law which is to look at all possible placement options in the unlikely event that they have to leave FC3.
334.	The Children’s Guardian
335.	The conflict between Ms Woodrow’s evidence and the Guardian’s was put in terms that one of them must be lying.  I do not accept that.  Whilst Ms Woodrow has no apparent reason to lie and appeared credible the same can be said of the Guardian.  I am conscious that it is quite possible for a witness to be honestly mistaken and yet convincing and I do not see why this cannot apply to this case.  I do not see this issue is of any relevance other than that it demonstrated yet again the level of the parents’ suspicion of professionals and their very strong negative feelings towards Ms Edney.  As I am being asked to choose between the two versions I will and I prefer Ms Edney’s.  I make this finding as Ms Edney had specifically gone to FC3’s home to see D and E and to find out their wishes and feelings.  She was therefore looking for expressions of their wishes and feelings and if they had said this to her she would have duly reported it.  There was no reason why she would not report this if they said it, as she already believed it was their view from her discussions with FC3.
336.	The parents criticised Ms Edney for a number of the decisions she had made and opinions she had expressed.  I am satisfied that she acted professionally and did her best in the circumstances that presented themselves to her at each stage.  I found her ability to accept some of the criticisms put to her by the parents impressive and a sign of a good professional.
337.	What progress have the parents made since December 2014?
338.	I accept that the parents to an extent have engaged with their therapists and that this is positive.  However, they have engaged to differing extents and have not begun addressing the underlying issues that caused them to parent in the way they did in the past and which caused significant harm to their children.  These underlying issues are I accept rooted in their own childhoods not just the events of 2013/14 and it is necessary for them to deal with them before meaningful and sustained changed can be achieved.  F’s evidence about his therapy caused me real concern as he did not show any real insight into how it could help him.  As to M she made it clear that she does not want to “open the box” on the abuse she suffered and therefore is not willing to address the problems that it has created for her.  Neither parent therefore demonstrated insight into how therapy could help them or a genuine willingness to make use of it.  Up until now it has provided a safe place for them to express their fears and concerns about the court and assessment processes and no more. They are both at a very early stage in the journey they need to take if their therapy is to bring about sustained changes to their psychological functioning and their parenting styles.
339.	I also accept the expert evidence that the relationship between M and F can have a negative effect on their ability to co-parent effectively.  It was noted during the assessment that M could show some improvements but that those improvements were not maintained as she was influenced by F.  Given their close and mutually supportive relationship this is not surprising but it does provide an additional barrier to meaningful and sustained change.
340.	I also accept that it is positive that they have attended a Triple P parenting programme.  However, this is of limited use without a fundamental shift in their psychological functioning and given the failure of the Symbol assessment there is little if any evidence that it has brought about change or that any change could be sustained.  It was accepted that some of the interactions by the mother within contact may be due to her trying to use what she learnt.  This may be so and she is to be praised for this but it is not proof of the major shift that is required.
341.	In my judgment it has not been evidenced that the parents have made the necessary changes that could allow them to make sustained improvements to their parenting styles or allow them to co-operate with professionals.  Whilst they have demonstrated some ability to engage with therapy and have attended a parenting course they have not demonstrated that their fundamental attitude towards professionals has changed.  Indeed I saw evidence during their oral evidence of their continued, deep seated mistrust and their tendency to accuse professionals of lying when challenged or disagreed with.  Furthermore, I am satisfied that the failure of the Symbol assessment has reinforced in their minds that professionals cannot be trusted and this will make it even more difficult than before for professionals to work with them.
342.	Placement options
343.	The placement options for the children are to return home or to remain in foster care.  In order to inform my decision I have considered each child’s situation against the welfare checklist.
344.	In broad terms I accept Ms Gibson’s analysis of the welfare checklist with respect to each child.  I have however additional comments to make which I do below.
345.	The welfare checklist
346.	Wishes and feelings
347.	I accept that A has expressed the wish to return home.  As this hearing approached the expression of her wishes became firmer and more dramatic.  She now says she will go home anyway whatever decision I make.  Because A is 16 it is very important that she feels that I have listened to what she has said and I must give significant weight to her wishes and feelings.  However, a child’s wishes and feelings must be considered in light of their age and understanding and whilst it is agreed that A has matured significantly during the currency of these proceedings she does not have the objective overview of the case that I have.  She needs to understand that there is a difference between her wanting something and it being something that will promote her welfare.  I must reach a decision that will best discharge my duty to place her welfare as my paramount consideration.  Therefore when considering her wishes and feelings I must remember that she was in a very poor state when removed from her parents due to their failures and that when considering allowing her to return to them I have to balance the likelihood of harm she is thereby exposed to against the harm that could be done by frustrating her wishes.  I accept the Guardian’s evidence that whilst A is 16 she still needs parental guidance and boundaries and there is a question mark over whether her parents could give her these especially if it involved engaging with the LA.
348.	A wants unsupervised contact with her parents and her grandmother.  
349.	A has told Ms Gibson and her solicitor that she enjoys the educational opportunities that have been made available to her since being in foster care which are very much to her credit and will improve her life opportunities significantly. She is also pleased with her weight loss despite a minor setback which she is taking steps to remedy.  
350.	Overall I am delighted with A’s achievements since being with FC1 and I am glad to hear how pleased she is and how proud her parents are of her.  
351.	B too has expressed very strong wishes.  He wants to return home and as this hearing approached has said that he will do so irrespective of my decision.  At age 14 nearly 15 I must pay attention to his wishes and feelings however I make the same comments about my duty to promote his welfare as I made with respect to A.  B’s understanding of the issues in this case is probably less than A’s given his age and like A he has probably built up a positive picture of being at home with his parents and may not have the maturity to see the part they played in his neglect.  Further, there is evidence that he is influenced by his parents’ views, his father in particular.  In contact if he does not get the attention he wants from his parents, his behaviour can decline.  Therefore in considering what weight I should attach to his wishes and feelings I must bear in mind his age, level of understanding and whether the views expressed are his or those of his parents.  Like A I remind myself of the poor state he was in when received into care and I need to consider whether he will maintain the substantial improvements he has made since being in foster care if returned home.
352.	He wants unsupervised contact with his parents and siblings and the LA recognises that they must negotiate with B over this.  
353.	He is rightly pleased with his achievements since being with his foster carers.  He has lost weight and been able to fully access education.  I am delighted with the overall progress that he has made and I do not want him to slip back.
354.	C likes living with A and B.  She wants to return home.  However, it is clear she likes living with her foster carers who have provided her with excellent care under difficult circumstances.  Given her age she is too young to have been able to form an objective balanced view of where her best interests lie but her wish to be at home shows her attachment to her family.
355.	D is too young to provide a considered view of his wishes and feelings.  His foster carers report that he and E frequently say they miss their parents and want to return home.  Given that he lives close to his parents it must be difficult to understand why he cannot live with them. However, he appears settled with FC3 and is doing very well.
356.	E is too young to give a considered view of his wishes and feelings.  He is reported by FC3 to be settled and to enjoy contact.  He and D have a close relationship and play well together.
357.	Physical, emotional and educational needs
358.	I accept that despite being 16 A, because of her previous childhood experiences, needs a primary carer who can meet her basic care needs and provide her with suitable advice and boundaries.  She needs consistent routines in order to maintain the educational, health and social achievements that she has made and to understand boundaries and consequences.
359.	I was pleased to see that Ms Gibson’s view is that A is a very polite, caring and nurturing young woman who has developed great insight and maturity over the last 2 years.  
360.	Emotionally she needs to be able to concentrate on her own life free of the concerns of the adults around her.  This applies to her parents as well as other family members and professionals.  Her primary carer needs to be responsive to her needs and not by implication, consumed by their own.  In addition for her emotional well being she needs a good quality relationship with her family.
361.	As to education I can see that A is thriving at school and her attainment continues to improve.  Whilst being one year behind she works extremely hard and is making good progress.  She has a 100% attendance record and has made friends with her peers.  This is very good news and represents a huge improvement from where she was when she came into care.  The LA are concerned as to whether these improvements will be maintained if she is living with her parents given the parents’ parenting history and lack of progress.
362.	Overall Ms Gibson describes a positive picture of A and the improvements that she has made since being in foster care.  I recognise these improvements and congratulate A.
363.	The crucial question when considering A’s placement is whether she could look after herself if living with her parents and withstand their negative and uncooperative attitude towards professionals.  On the one hand her increased maturity and her achievements indicate she is better able now than in 2013 to do so but I retain doubts about whether she could in fact do so given the strength of her parents’ feelings.
364.	I accept that B needs a primary carer who can meet his basic care needs and provide a consistent routine in order to help him understand boundaries and consequences.  I accept that he needs continued support as Ms Gibson says, with for instance his weight control.  The recent increase in his weight demonstrates that he still needs support.
365.	In relation to his emotional needs B needs a good relationship with his parents.  I accept the evidence indicates that he has a strong attachment to F which if not recognised during contact by F can lead to B being angry or withdrawn.  B’s relationship with his father is therefore not always positive.  B can at times be disrespectful towards people such as his mother and historically A.   There are hopeful signs however, that B is gaining control over his behaviour and maturing.
366.	B too has a 100% attendance record at school of which he is rightly very proud and for which I praise him.  B likes science and likes his school.
367.	His social development has like A’s improved dramatically.  He takes part in a large range of social and educational activities which have all gone to increase his confidence and enjoyment of life.  He likes performing magic tricks which demonstrates not only his dexterity but also his growing confidence.
368.	C given her age requires a primary carer who can meet all her needs.  In particular she needs emotional warmth, consistency of care and protection from harm.  Her current foster placement meets her needs as the fact that she is thriving shows.  She likes her foster carers and likes the attention she gets from her parents in contact.
369.	Since being in foster care Ms Gibson believes her anxieties have lessened and her confidence grown although as she is aware of the court proceedings the unknown outcome has made her feel insecure.  Whatever decision I make I accept that C loves her siblings and parents.
370.	C did not attend nursery or Reception class which meant that she was delayed in her educational development.  However, she very quickly caught up with her peers and is continuing to do well.  She enjoys school and continues to make academic progress.
371.	Upon coming into care C demonstrated a difficulty with social interaction with her peers.  This has improved since she has been with FC1 and she now sees friends, attends clubs and enjoys social contact with her own family and that of the foster carers.
372.	D also will need a primary carer who can meet all his needs as at his age he is wholly reliant on his carers.  He is a sensitive, quiet boy who is very attached to E.
373.	D has an ELSA at school and appears to be happy and responsive in that environment.  He is not achieving quite as well as his peers but will be receiving help through his PEP.  He is currently in a family placement which is meeting his needs very well.
374.	E like C and D needs a primary carer who can meet all his needs and be protected from significant harm.  
375.	He is a happy boy who can at times be unconfident and require reassurance such as when he started pre-school.
376.	E enjoys contact with his siblings and parents and generally presents as settled.
377.	I agree with Ms Gibson and the CG that the children have a desperate and urgent need for permanency and to be with long term carers who can meet their needs and protect them from significant harm.
378.	Age sex background and relevant characteristics
379.	A is 16 nearly 17.  Her age means that her wishes and feelings should be listened to carefully and should be followed unless to do so would be likely to expose her to an unmanageable risk of significant harm to her development.  She is an intuitive, warm and confident young woman who is obviously enjoying herself apart from the pressure of these proceedings.
380.	B’s is nearly 15.  He is a friendly sociable young man who Ms Gibson describes as thriving socially, academically and physically.  He has made huge progress in all areas of his development since July 2013 which I am delighted about.
381.	C since being with A and B has thrived and become emotionally more stable.  She enjoys school and has an age appropriate relationship with A and B.  When considering her I remind myself that she has had the most moves of all the children and that her time in care was unsettled up until last Christmas when she moved to FC1.
382.	D at times needs reassurance from his carers but is described by Ms Gibson as gaining in confidence.
383.	E too is gaining in confidence both with his foster carers and also at school.
384.	Likely effect of a change in circumstances
385.	A and B have been with FC1 since 17 July 2013.  Their placement has therefore been stable and the benefits of it are obvious.  C was originally placed with FC1 but moved to FC2 six weeks later to be with D and E. This placement was not a good one for the children and C moved back to FC1 in December 2014 at the same time as D and E moved to FC3.  Thus C has had 4 homes in the last 2 ½ years and D and E 3.  The LA plans Ms Gibson says would mean that none of the children would have to move again.  There would be other changes for the children however as the LA plans are for their current placements to become permanent and therefore the LA proposes changes to the contact arrangements.  These would impact on the amount of time the children see each other and their parents.  Given the strong relationships within this family reduction of contact will represent a significant change for the children and potentially lead to a lessening of the relationship between them and their parents.  The contact arrangements will need careful consideration by way of a robust review process.
386.	If I decided A could return home she would regard this as a good thing.  She would be living with her parents and in her own home which is now fit for her to live in.  She could continue with her education and maintain her friends and activities if she had the wish to do so and was supported by her parents.  However, there is a risk that once back home her parents’ old patterns of parenting could re-emerge and she might find it difficult to maintain the progress that she has made in all areas of her development.  Given my conclusions about the parents’ progress since December 2014 this is a significant risk and one that cannot be ignored.  However, at nearly 17 I recognise that she should be able to look after herself and were it not for her parents’ attitude I would have no hesitation in agreeing with her wishes.
387.	B too would regard a return home as a good thing.  I have concerns as to whether he really understands his parents’ role in the neglect he suffered and whether he understands the influence that his father has over him.  Therefore if he returned home I am concerned that despite his good intentions he would slip backwards and the excellent progress he has made could be lost or at least diminished.  I do not think he could withstand his parents’ negative attitudes given his age and susceptibility to influence by his parents.
388.	If C, D and E returned home they would be returning home to their parents which they want.  However, their parents parenting abilities have not changed significantly and they would be exposed to a repeat of the neglectful parenting they received before 2013.  This would undo all the good work that has been done with them and lead to them suffering further significant harm.
389.	Harm
390.	Ms Gibson succinctly summarises the LA’s view of the harm that the children have suffered and are likely to suffer at B95.12.1.  She states that whilst in their parents’ care the children suffered from poor educational opportunities; social isolation; neglect of some of their health needs, in particular their weight and at times a poor home environment.  I have dealt with my findings as to the harm and risk of harm in my previous judgment when looking at threshold.  Ms Gibson’s summary correctly mirrors my findings as does the CG’s analysis.
391.	Ms Gibson and the CG state that given the lack of progress made by the parents since the children were removed there is a likelihood that the children will suffer significant harm if I returned them to their parents’ care.  This would be through a repetition of the parents’ previous parenting styles.  This is despite the parents acknowledging the positive changes that the older children in particular have made during their time in foster care.
392.	I agree with the LA and the CG that the parents have made little progress since last December and I have already found that the experience of the Symbol assessment has entrenched their already ingrained views of professionals.  I therefore am satisfied that if I returned the children home to their parents they would be subject to their parents’ negative views and parenting style with disastrous consequences for their development in all spheres in the short, medium and longer term.  I am afraid I do not accept the parents’ statements that they will allow professional monitoring if the children are returned home in order to lessen the risks.  Each parent made it clear that the monitoring they would accept was to be on their own terms and was not to be judgmental or challenging.  Apart from this being unrealistic it also demonstrates that the parents have not made any changes in their approach and are not willing to do so.
393.	Capacity of the parents or any other person to meet the children’s needs
394.	I agree with the LA’s and CG’s views that the parents are unable to meet their children’s needs bearing in mind the harm that the children suffered or were at risk of suffering at the time proceedings was issued and their lack of progress since December 2014.  The parents continue to mistrust professionals in particular social work professionals as demonstrated by the failed Symbol assessment and this experience has made their mistrust and hostility even more entrenched than it was.  Whilst it is positive that the parents have engaged with their therapists the engagement has produced little or no improvements in the parents’ ability to co-operate with professionals or their parenting abilities.  I agree with Dr Halari that the parents need substantial individual therapy to get them to the point of being able to undergo a ‘dual approach’ parenting assessment and unfortunately the children cannot wait for this to happen, they need a decision now.
395.	I have no doubt that FC1 can meet A, B and C’s needs as they have already demonstrated that they can do so.  I am immensely grateful for the excellent care that they have given the children and for the progress that they have enabled the children to make.
396.	I also have no doubt that FC3 can meet D and E’s needs as they have been doing so for nearly a year.  It must be extremely difficult for them being family members and living so near to the parents.  There have been hints that they do not see the need for the children to be kept away from the parents but even if this is their view I am satisfied that they have the children’s best interests at the forefront of their minds and will abide by my decision even if they do not agree with it.
397.	Range of orders
398.	I can only secure the children in their foster placements if I give the LA parental responsibility under Care Orders.  If I make supervision orders the children will return to their parents and such an order will be unworkable given the parents’ poor history of cooperation.
399.	Conclusions
400.	A and B have given me the most difficulty in reaching a decision on their placements given their ages and strongly held views.  However, their wishes and feelings are only one part of all the circumstances that I must take into account before deciding which placement option will enable me to discharge my duty to put their welfare as my paramount consideration.
401.	What I do not think A and B see is that their parents unlike them have not changed and that they will not receive the sort of support that they need and have received from FC1.  Nor do I think they see that if living with their parents they will be exposed to the same neglectful parenting as they experienced before.
402.	I accept that at nearly 17 A rightly expects me to consider her views very carefully and I suspect she believes I will go along with them.  I have grave misgivings about doing so given the state she was in when removed in July 2013, the superb progress she has made since then and her parents’ lack of change.  I recognise that if I do not agree with her wish to go home that I could be generating a resentment in her which will be difficult to manage.  However, I have heard the case and she has not and I hope that she will have sufficient faith in me to accept my judgment.
403.	Despite her views I am satisfied that in order to promote her welfare she should remain with FC1 as this would give her the best chance of maintaining the progress that she has made.  She is at a crucial stage of her social, emotional and particularly educational development and she now has a real chance of fulfilling her full potential, something which was thought unlikely two years ago.  I cannot agree to her returning home as I am satisfied she is still in need of parental support and guidance which she would not get from her parents.  She would be exposed to the same type of parenting that she experienced before with similar negative effects.  In reaching this decision I have taken into account her increased maturity and I hope that she will use this to accept my decision.  I can see that by next summer after her GCSE exams, the situation may be different and perhaps then she and her social worker can sit down and negotiate a return home but until then I am certain that she should remain with FC1.
404.	B at nearly 15 is in the same position as A.  He expects me to consider his wishes and to accept them.  I am satisfied however that his wishes are influenced in part by his parents’ views and he is not able to see the likely effect of those views on him if he returned home.  I do not think he has the resilience to withstand the negative attitudes and beliefs of his parents particularly his father’s and this would be likely to undermine the progress that he has made.  He has achieved a huge amount whilst with FC1 and it is vital in order for him to reach his full potential that he continues receiving this excellent care.  Like A I hope that once he has completed his GCSEs he will be able to discuss returning home if that is what he wants but until then I am clear that his welfare requires him to remain with FC1.
405.	The decision with respects to the younger three children has not been as difficult as for A and B given the conclusions I have reached about the parents, their lack of progress and the likelihood of them repeating their previous parenting patterns.  I am satisfied that C, D and E’s welfare requires them to remain with their current carers where they have flourished and where I am quite certain they will continue to flourish.  If I returned them home they would be likely to suffer further significant harm of the kind they suffered and were at risk of suffering in July 2013.
406.	I am therefore satisfied that I must make care orders with respect to all five children to Hampshire County Council.  I approve the plans for their placements as they are the plans that will promote the children’s welfare throughout their minority and protect them from significant harm.  I am satisfied that no lesser intervention or order can achieve this aim due to the parents’ inability to work with professionals, in particular the LA.  
407.	Contact
408.	I have considered the LA’s amended care plans with respect to contact.  I recognise that contact presents challenges given the ages of A and B and the proximity of D and E to the parents.  I would urge all those involved with the children to put their interests first no matter how hard that might be for some and to make sure that the contact plans work. 
409.	I accept the principle that there needs to be a reduction in contact for the younger 3 in order to give them more time with their foster carers so that they come to understand that they will be living with them for the foreseeable future. 
410.	I appreciate that as FC3 lives so close to the parents keeping to the contact plan will be difficult.  However, the plan is a necessary one in my judgment and I believe that FC3 can and will stick to it.  I hope that the parents will support their children by not seeking contact outside the plan.  If they do it will place FC3 in a very difficult position and if FC3 makes the wrong choice, risks the children being removed from them.
411.	I also accept the principle that A and B’s contact should be broadly similar given their ages and should be broadly led by their wishes and feelings.  This recognises their increasing autonomy.  The social worker allocated to them will need to work hard and closely with A and B in order to achieve a balance between their desire to see their family and their need to establish themselves as individuals within their foster placement and the community.  
412.	I am therefore satisfied that the contact plans are appropriate for the time being but there needs to be a proper and pro-active review process to take into account changes in circumstances in particular any improvements in the parents’ abilities to co-operate with professionals.
413.	The parents and the future
414.	I know the parents will be disappointed and possibly angry at my decisions.  However, I hope that they will support their children by not doing anything to undermine their placements and the progress they have made.  Further, they should not think that this is an end to their involvement in their children’s lives.  They will be seeing a lot of their eldest two and frequently see their younger three.  The offer of therapy is still there from the LA and if they engage fully with it I believe they could over time demonstrate real progress and ultimately be able to have much more involvement in their children’s lives than is currently planned.
415.	Other issues
416.	I was reminded by the parties that the parents and children have outstanding damages claims for the breaches of their Human Rights.  As I indicated at the beginning of the hearing I have agreed with Hampshire’s DFJ that he should hear this part of the case.  I will direct as part of the order arising from my judgment that a directions hearing be listed before him at his convenience.
417.	I was concerned to learn that the three social workers who I previously criticised had not apparently been subject to disciplinary proceedings.  I direct that my December judgment and this one be sent by the Director for Children’s Services to the Director of Social Services, Ofsted and those social workers’ supervisory bodies with a view to them considering whether further action against them is required.
418.	Finally, I wish to record my thanks to the advocates for their hard work on this case.  They have represented their respective clients exceedingly well and done all that could be done for them.

His Honour Judge Mark V Horton			18 November 2015

ANNEX B to JUDGMENT OF 18 DECEMBER 2014
AGREED THRESHOLD CRITERIA

1.	This document has been prepared taking into account the responses provided by the mother, dated 15th August 2013 and the father dated 16th August 2013 to the Local Authority’s Initial Threshold Document and the oral evidence of various witnesses.  

2.	The Local Authority commenced protective procedures in respect of the children on 11 July 2013, when proceedings were issued. This is the agreed date the Court must be satisfied that the threshold criteria pursuant to s.31 Children Act 1989 was established. 

3.	The Applicant asserts that at the relevant date the children were likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care likely to be given to them by their parents, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. 

4.	The Local Authority relies on the following matters, which are agreed by the parents, to establish that the children were likely to suffer significant harm, and that harm and/or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care likely to be given by their parents:

Neglect

a.)	The children had been made subject to child Protection Plan under category of neglect since 4 October 2011. 

b.)	The parents accept they have been unable to sustain all the changes suggested in the Child Protection Plan.  

Education

c.)	The parents failed consistently to engage with professionals concerned with the educational welfare of the children.

d.)	On 28th June both parents were convicted of their children’s non- attendance at school pursuant to s7 Education Act 1996. A Parenting Order was made. 

e.)	Parents attribute partial non school attendance to poor health of the children. They do however accept that they have been fearful of the effect of bullying on A and B and that they have not been able to be consistent with the children in order to ensure school attendance.

f.)	Mother accepts that that the children’s failure to attend school/pre-school limited their social interaction outside of the family home.

Health

g.)	All five children at the time of issue were termed medically obese. Two of the children termed morbidly obese. The parents accept that they have not been able to ensure that the children’s food intake has been appropriately limited and they have had trouble with the older children snacking at will. 

h.)	The younger 3 children were significantly delayed in receiving their immunisations but all 3 children were up to date with their immunisations by 2 July 2013.

Home

i.)	The Local Authority asserts poor home conditions to have been noted since 2008. Father accepts that at times the home was cluttered and untidy.

j.)	Father accepts the property was overcrowded and that electrical wiring was exposed at ceiling height.  

Hampshire County Council
9 December 2014