Case No: OX14C00083
In the Family Court at Oxford, sitting at Bicester
26th January 2015 to 29th January 2015 
Before 
Her Honour Judge Owens

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OCC v M
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OCC represented by Mr Andrew Leong, Counsel
Mother represented by Ms Nicola Martin, Counsel
Father represented by Ms Monica Payne, Solicitor
Paternal Grandparents represented by Mr Edward Kirkwood, Counsel
The children and the Guardian represented by Mr Matthew Hellens, Counsel

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Introduction
I am dealing with public law proceedings in respect of CM aged 2 years and OM aged 22 months.

I have read all of the evidence contained in the Court Bundles and heard from various witnesses. 

Background

In this case both parents were involved with social services prior to the start of proceedings.  SM has a substantial criminal history, in particular relating to domestic violence and harassment and which was a feature of other relationships as well as his relationship with NB.  Despite reporting SM to the Police, NB refused to pursue criminal charges against him. There is an accepted incident when NB reported that she held CM in front of her to stop SM from hitting her. SM is currently serving a custodial sentence for committing serious offences of violence against another woman with whom he had been living since the start of these proceedings.  Due to the concerns about domestic violence and the vulnerability of NB, first CM and then OM were made subject to Child Protection Plans under the category of Physical Abuse prior to their births.  When OM was only 9 days old, a health visitor attended the home and found it to be very cold.  She attempted to advise the parents that this was not suitable for a very young baby.  SM refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the issue.  Four days later OM was admitted to hospital with a dangerously low body temperature (33.8°).  

In May 2013 the parents were offered a new flat to enable them to move from the maternal grandmother’s property.  Neighbours reported shouting and arguing coming from the flat, culminating in NB stating that she wanted SM out of the property at the end of October 2013.  On 13th December 2013 SM attacked NB in front of the children and the Police were called.  The paternal grandmother took the children from the mother against her will after this incident although the paternal grandparents state that they removed the children due to their concerns about the conditions in the home.  Based on a statement from NB which is at F95-100 the Police issued harassment warnings against the paternal grandmother, paternal aunt and SM two months after this incident.  SM pleaded guilty to common assault and battery in relation to this incident, but NB gave in to pressure from SM and the paternal aunt at court and told the court that a restraining order was not necessary.  Around this time conditions in the home also started to deteriorate with professionals noting quite appalling conditions including faeces stains on the back of the front door, faeces on the floor in the children’s bedroom and stale food ground into the living room carpet.  As a result of the home conditions and the risks to the children, this application was issued on 13th August 2014 on a non-urgent basis.  All parties agree that the relevant date for the purposes of threshold is 14th February 2014 when the Local Authority commenced child protection measures. 
The application was listed for an urgent contested interim hearing on 20th August 2014 at the instigation of the Guardian who felt that it needed urgent consideration given the conditions that the children were living in.  The Local Authority sought interim care orders for both children with interim care plans of placement with foster carers.  After dealing with the case on submissions only, the court did not approve the interim care plans and placed the children with the paternal grandparents under a child arrangements order where they have remained.

Threshold

The Local Authority alleges that the criteria are met on the basis of a final schedule of findings at A15-17 relating to poor conditions in the home, neglect of the children’s developmental needs, lack of consistent engagement with offered support services, domestic violence between the parents and mental health concerns relating to NB and drug and alcohol abuse by SM.   Threshold is not challenged by SM and there are limited threshold concessions by NB at A9a to A9c.

Parties Positions

The Local Authority seeks Special Guardianship Orders to the PGPs; SM, PGPs and CG all support these orders being made.  NB opposed them and at the commencement of this hearing was seeking the return of the children to her care.  After hearing all of the evidence she changed her position to one where she accepts that the children cannot return to her care but she disputes the appropriateness of the orders sought by the Local Authority, submitting that some form of Child Arrangements Order supported by a Supervision Order is necessary to meet the needs of the children.

Expert evidence

Dr Kimber-Bidlot, Psychologist, was instructed to prepare a report upon NB.  Her full report is at E50-81 and her responses to permitted further questions are at E95-100.  Her conclusions and recommendations were that NB required therapeutic input as a prerequisite to the children returning to her care, and would have needed to have engaged in therapy for 3-6 months to illustrate her commitment to therapy prior to any reunification.  She concluded that NB was unable to prioritise the needs of the children, having demonstrated a disregard for their welfare by remaining in contact and sustaining a relationship of some kind with SM.  She was also concerned that NB’s history of being offered assistance and then being unable to commit to sustaining any changes made was an indicator that she would be unable to maintain any changes for the future.  In her evidence to me, she was very clear that NB had told her that she was no longer in a relationship with SM and had no desire to see him or contact him.  She was therefore extremely concerned that NB had continued to see him and this is what had led to her revised conclusions in the answers to additional questions.

The CG, whose reports are at E6-15 and E84-94 concluded that, whilst NB has made some changes to her home, she was not convinced of her capacity to maintain such changes and did not feel confident that NB would be able to protect the children from further harm if they were returned to her care.  In her evidence to me, she confirmed that nothing had changed her recommendations.
The Bundle also contains reports from various Health Visitors (E1-5, E49 (a)-(b), E81a-b), progress reports from CM’s nursery ((E49(c) and E104), Speech and Language report regarding CM (E102-103) and Permanency Medical reports on both children (E105-113).  These detail the developmental delays suffered by both children and the improvements made in relation to their development since moving to their current placement with the PGPs.

There are also hair strand test results for SM at E27-49.  Given his acceptance that he continued to consume drugs, these simply corroborate a fact which is no longer in issue.

Other professional evidence

In addition to her statements, care plans and reports contained in the Bundle, I heard evidence from the allocated Social Worker in this case, MF to the effect that despite attempting to provide NB with support over the two years of her involvement with the family, NB has struggled to make positive changes and to maintain them.  She was not therefore confident that NB would be able to make sustained changes so that the children could safely be returned to her care.  She also concluded that the PGPs, despite her earlier negative conclusions in their Viability Assessment, could adequately protect the children from SM and would facilitate positive contact between the children and NB.  It was therefore her opinion that placement under Special Guardianship Orders with the PGPs was in the best interests of the children.

I also heard evidence from ST, Supervising Social Worker in the Family Placement Fostering Team, who was the co-author with MF of the SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP ORDER report at C151-197 and the two addenda SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP ORDER reports at C225-226 and C273-274.  ST was also the author of the SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP ORDER support plan at C215-224 and updated plan at C257-269.  In her evidence to me, ST was clear that she believed the PGPs had moved from naivety about SM to understanding what he has done in relation to his abusive and violent behaviour and that, in her opinion, the PGPs would positively support and promote contact between the children and their Mother.  She also gave evidence about the support that she would be able to provide to ensure that this contact did take place in a way that is positive for the children if Special Guardianship Orders were granted by the Court.

Mother’s, Father’s and Paternal Grandparents’ evidence

SM chose not to attend throughout the full four days of this final hearing but was called to give evidence on the second day alone, having previously filed a statement which is at C51.  His evidence was brief but to the effect that he adamantly denied any contact between himself and the children since they have been living with his parents.  He also told me that NB had continued to contact him and he to contact her and that they had been shopping, to the pub, out for meals and gone for walks since the children went to live with his parents.  He said that they saw each other most days during the week and not after 6pm. He had not known that she was still with her boyfriend at this point and only found out from her sister later on.  He accepted that he had written to her since he had been in prison but said that his last letters to her were good-bye letters.  He also said that he would accept it if his parents told him that he couldn’t have contact with his children and would not go round to their house to try to see them.

NB has filed statements at C54a and C235. In her evidence to me NB accepted the poor conditions in the home in general terms but was unable to remember the specifics of how faeces came to be present, indicating that she washed the children’s bedding daily.  She also told me that whilst she had had contact with SM after the children were placed with the PGPs, she had done this to try to get him on her side.  She accepted that this was a risky action for her to take.  In relation to her alleged reluctance to get an appointment with her GP to start the referral process for therapy, she indicated that she had had earlier appointments but only wished to discuss it with her own GP and had problems getting an appointment with her own GP.  She did describe an appointment in early December when she saw her own GP but forgot to take a copy of Dr Kimber-Bidlot’s report to explain what she was asking for, so was told to make another appointment.  She said that she was willing to participate in mediation whether or not the children were returned to her care.

NB also called her sister, the maternal aunt (NBMA) and whose statement is at C231.  She gave me evidence about the conditions in the home in August last year (she described it as “dismal” and not somewhere that was appropriate for children) and her attempts to provide NB with support.  It was clear that, whilst she was willing to support her sister, NB had not kept her fully informed about continuing to see SM and had not felt able to take her advice about remaining apart from him.  She also did not agree that CM had no speech at the point that he was placed with the PGPs.

I also heard from the PGPs, JM and then very briefly DM and their statement is at C227.  JM was very clear that she and her husband were shocked when they found out the extent of SM’s behaviour and that their priority would be the children.  She was also clear that she would promote contact between the children and their mother and had not and would not allow any unauthorised contact between SM and the children.  DM was only called to be asked if he had been present when the contact shown in the photographs at C253-5 were taken and as he had not been, there were no other questions for him.

Relevant legal considerations

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 with regard to threshold, sections 14A and 14B of the Children Act 1989 and with regard to Special Guardianship, and the welfare checklist contained in section1 of the Children Act 1989, I have also had regard to the case of Re R.

Threshold Findings

In this case, as I have already noted, SM does not dispute threshold as far as it relates to him.  I therefore adopt the final threshold criteria at A15-17 in relation to him.  In relation to NB, she accepts overall that threshold is met in this case but takes issue with some of the details in the final threshold schedule.  She accepts A15 1a) and 1b), 2 b) and d), 3a) and c) and 4a) to c) so I adopt these as my threshold findings in relation to the home conditions, neglect of the children’s developmental needs, and domestic violence.  In relation to 5a) to c) it is submitted on her behalf that these do not directly go to threshold.  I do take the point that her neglectful childhood with a mother who had difficulties with alcohol and her own history of self-harm and depression does not itself go to threshold per se, however the Local Authority have clarified that they say this goes to risk in terms of the children being placed with her and the circumstances that the children were living in at the relevant time. I accept that this is the case and that, although the final threshold could have been drafted more clearly to reflect this, I therefore also need to consider these in relation to threshold. She does not accept that she was not taking the children to the Children’s Centre (2a), or that at the time protective measures were taken CM had no speech (2e) and that she consistently declined to engage with support programmes offered (3b). 

I have therefore considered the evidence in this case as it relates to the remaining disputed threshold criteria as they apply to NB and make the following findings:

	Neglect of the children’s developmental needs
The evidence in the Bundle is quite clear, and MF reiterated this in her evidence to me on the first day of this final hearing, that assessment of CM’s development in June 2014 was that he had communication, personal/social skills and problem solving skills at the level of a 12 month old.  At the time he was 27 months old.  At the relevant time, CM also had no true speech.  This is evidenced at C8 and C10 in the Bundle.  There is also evidence at C9 and C10 that NB did not take the children to the Children’s Centre, there was no cot for OM, no high chair or baby seats and no bath mat in the bath.  The various reports of the Health Visitors and other medical professionals and nursery manager contained in section E also corroborate the developmental delay suffered by both children whilst in the care of their Mother.  NB herself accepts that there was no cot for OM, but said that this was because she had moved into a bed.  She accepted the absence of a high chair, baby seats and no bath mat and did not dispute that the CM was assessed as being at a 12 month level when 27 months old.  She disputed that CM had no speech, but accepted that he would benefit from assistance from speech and language therapy.  The weight of the expert evidence in relation to CM’s lack of speech is compelling, coming as it does from a variety of professional sources. There is therefore ample evidence to satisfy me that this threshold ground is proved and I find that it is.

NB has not always engaged with support offered

There is also ample evidence in the Bundle (and confirmed by the evidence of MF to me) to show that NB failed to consistently engage with support services.  In particular, as detailed at C6 and accepted by NB in her evidence, she declined to participate in various support programmes offered, including the Oxford Parent Infant Project, Parents Under Pressure or a Family Support Worker.  NB also failed to consistently engage with her local Children’s Centre, despite its proximity to her house, telling MF that she did not enjoy it and, as MF told me, being apparently unable to understand why her children might benefit from it.  She was also offered an independent domestic violence adviser and an officer from Thames Valley Police Domestic Abuse Investigation Unit but accepts that she stopped engaging with both of these in the Spring of 2014 (C7).  In relation to this aspect of threshold, I therefore have more than enough evidence to satisfy me that at the relevant time NB failed to consistently engage with support programmes and I am therefore satisfied on balance of probabilities that this ground is made out. 

Concerns in respect of NB’s mental health etc

As clarified by the Local Authority in closing, the relevance of her neglectful childhood and difficulties with self-harm and depression is in relation to the assessment of any risk that she poses to the children if these issues are not addressed.  Even on NB’s own case she does seem to now accept that she needs to undergo the therapy identified by Dr Kimber-Bidlot as a necessary prerequisite.  That therapy is required in no small part because of her own past issues; without that therapy she is assessed as still posing a risk to her children in relation to her ability to assess risk and therefore to protect them. She does not dispute the problems with her own childhood and mental health issues and therefore all I need to consider is whether this does go to threshold in the way that the Local Authority submit.  Given the very clear evidence of Dr Kimber-Bidlot I find that this does indeed go to threshold in the way submitted and therefore these grounds are also proved.

In relation to the toys, as submitted by the Local Authority and in light of the threshold criteria found, I have not felt it necessary to make any finding about these.

Options in this case and analysis of these options – advantages and disadvantages 

Given the change in NB’s case after hearing evidence in this matter, although there were two options at the outset (either to return the children to their mother’s care - NB’s former case, or for them to remain with the paternal grandparents - the Local Authority application, supported by all other parties), the reality is now that I have one option before me which is for the children to remain with the Paternal Grandparents.  The issue remaining is therefore what form of order I should make to achieve this placement.   However, I have still looked at the advantages and disadvantages of the children returning to their mother’s care in some form because my conclusions in relation to this will inform my decision about the type of order required in their best interests.

In relation to return to their Mother, the advantages are that they would be returning to the care of the parent with whom they were living prior to these proceedings.  NB had been their primary carer and there is no doubt that she loves her children and they love her.  As has been highlighted by the Guardian, it is greatly to NB’s credit that she has attended every single contact with the children on time and that the contact has progressed to the point where Dr Kimber-Bidlot assessed it as “useful” to the children and therefore beyond simply maintaining a connection. 

The disadvantages are that this potentially risks returning the children to the same risk of harm which they faced before, namely poor conditions in the home, neglect of their developmental needs and risk of exposure to domestic violence if NB is not able to avoid relationships with a risk of domestic violence.

In relation to placement with the paternal grandparents, this is a kinship placement and therefore has the advantage that they are remaining within their birth family with ample scope to see their mother on a weekly basis, as well as to see their father in the future albeit this will need to be carefully supervised by the paternal grandparents.  The children have thrived whilst in the care of their grandparents and have almost caught up on the developmental delay previously identified.  The disadvantages relate to the concerns about whether the paternal grandparents do fully understand the risks that SM poses so as to enable them to manage those risks in a way which puts the children first, and whether they are able to work constructively with NB to ensure that contact is positive for the children.  It is relevant therefore for me to consider as part of this analysis whether SM had unauthorised contact with the children after they were placed with his parents as NB alleges.

Given the long and sorry history of involvement with social services in relation to NB and SM, the concerns about returning the children to NB’s care are significant and do go directly to the issue of what orders I should make as I have noted.  I accept that NB has made some positive changes, namely she has seen her GP to request referral for the therapy identified as necessary by Dr Kimber-Bidlot, she has also made some improvements in the condition of her home and she is saying that she will participate in mediation to resolve issues between her and the PGPs.   However, the fact that she remained in frequent, almost daily, direct and then indirect contact with SM (despite telling Dr Kimber-Bidlot and other professionals that they were no longer together) does cause me to believe that she has a long way to go before she fully understands the risk that he or another violent partner may pose to her or the children.  Dr Kimber-Bidlot described her behaviour as “risky” and even NB herself accepted that this was the case.  NB even seemed to say at one point in her evidence to me that she needed the children with her because without them she was alone and that would mean she was at risk from SM, somehow suggesting that the children being with her would prevent him from harming her.  Given that he has assaulted her in the past with the children present, this is a very odd and concerning perspective from her and demonstrates yet again how much work she still has to undertake to keep herself safe, let alone her children.  Her evidence to me also showed that she has not yet fully separated herself both physically and mentally from any connection with SM.  She repeated several times that when she saw SM after the children were placed with the PGPs that SM was “vulnerable” and “had no-one”.  She did try to explain that this had led her to try to “get him on her side” but I do find her evidence about this unconvincing.  On her own case, this is someone that has abused her physically and mentally and I think it simply betrays how conflicted she still is about the nature of her relationship with SM and apparently unable to understand what steps she needs to take to ensure her safety and that of her children.  On the one hand she says that she fears him, yet on the other she is actively seeking contact from him (her letter to him dated 11th December 2014 is something which is clearly inviting further contact from him) and describing him in terms that suggest she almost feels sorry for him such as “vulnerable” and “having no-one else”.  Despite completing the Freedom Programme and the Recovery Toolkit, this alone is clearly not enough to help her understand the risks that someone like SM poses to her and the children.  As identified by Dr Kimber-Bidlot, she needs to have some form of therapeutic input to assist her with making sustained changes in this regard.  I therefore find that until she starts this therapy and demonstrates a true commitment to it as recommended by Dr Kimber-Bidlot, there remains a significant risk of her exposing her children to further domestic violence, whether with SM or with another abusive partner.

I also find that there is still a significant risk to the children of their developmental needs being neglected by her.  NB does not seem to fully appreciate her role in the neglect that the children suffered.  Her evidence about the faeces was revealing in that she is vague about whether she recalled the faeces which professionals had seen in her home on more than one occasion.  Her suggestion that she washed the children’s bedding daily and any faeces around the home was an isolated incident due to soiling while CM was struggling with potty training is frankly not credible, given the evidence of the Health Visitors and MF of the state of the home in July and August – MF describes the flat in summary at C16 as “it smells, is dark, cold and bleak”.  Although she did accept in her evidence to me that the condition of the flat was her responsibility, this does appear to be a rather late and perhaps grudging acceptance after she was asked more than once if it was her responsibility.  Her written evidence and response to threshold focuses more on the issue of the mould in the home, actions required by the Housing Authority to tackle the mould, and CM sometimes having toileting accidents in the bedroom.  She was given repeated advice by professionals about ventilating the home and letting light in to try to help tackle the mould issue and did not follow that advice.  I can understand how her own neglectful upbringing and innate distrust of professionals makes it very hard for her to understand and accept what she needs to do, but Dr Kimber-Bidlot felt that she was able to understand what she needed to do when she understood the rationale for it.  However, despite that rationale being supplied by professionals, most strikingly by Dr Kimber-Bidlot for example in terms of using transparent curtains or blinds at the windows to ensure privacy but allow light and air into the house and the potential ways in which therapy could enable her to improve her ability to safeguard herself and her children, NB seems to be reluctant to act on that advice.  I accept that her finances are limited and therefore she cannot afford to make all of the required changes to her flat at once.  However, as submitted by the Guardian, some form of transparent curtains as recommended by Dr Kimber-Bidlot would not be expensive and she has had since November to gradually purchase these.  She does not appear to have asked either Social Services or her Connexions worker for any assistance with this either.  Some months after the removal of the children from her care, her house is still described by the Guardian as “freezing”, has a dirty living room carpet, and also still does not have curtains which both let in light and preserve her privacy.  It therefore seems to me that it is still not in a condition that would be appropriate for the children and perhaps her acceptance that the children cannot return to her full-time care is some acknowledgement of this.  It is also by no means clear to me that the improvements which have been made would be sustained since she has previously demonstrated that she can maintain acceptable home conditions for a few months, only to allow the conditions to deteriorate when things get on top of her.

This brings me onto the other aspect of concern about whether there is a risk of harm to the children if they are returned to her care.  Dr Kimber-Bidlot was very clear that NB needs therapy and parenting support to enable her to address her own issues stemming from her childhood and to enable her to identify risks to the children.  She recommended that NB approach her GP to seek a referral for some form of psychodynamic therapy as the most suitable for her needs and that recommendation was made in her first report in early November.  Despite that clear recommendation, and MF explaining what NB needed to do on at least two occasions after that report, including providing NB with a further copy of the report on 8th December 2014, NB did not see her GP about this and achieve the referral until 12th January 2015.  NB told me that this was due to difficulties in making an appointment with her GP.  It seems to have been a combination of her choice to only discuss these sorts of issues with her own GP rather than any doctor at her surgery, and a lack of organisation on her part which led to this delay.  Her surgery operates a system (which is not uncommon) whereby patients seeking appointments on the day have to ring after 2pm.  This does not guarantee an appointment with her own GP but would have enabled her to see a doctor on the day.  Her own evidence was that she did see other doctors for other matters in the period between receiving the psychologist’s report and seeing her GP on 12th January 2015.  However, as I have said, she has chosen to only discuss this sort of issue with her own GP.  She did in fact see her own GP before Christmas but forgot to take the psychologist’s report with her.  Consequently the GP does not appear to have been able to assist her without information about what was recommended by the psychologist.  NB then seems to have been put off making another appointment there and then and lists several issues including concerns about discussing why she needed to see her own GP with the receptionist and the fact that her GP needed to keep social services informed about her health issues.  As the Guardian commented, it is by no means clear exactly why it took so long for her to make the appointment.  Most surgeries in my experience will ask if a patient is willing to indicate why they need to see a particular doctor to assist the receptionist with gauging the urgency of the appointment, however to protect patient confidentiality they do not insist upon this and a patient could also ask to discuss the matter in private so that it is not overheard.  NB seems not to have at least explored these options and also not to have immediately sought help from MF in relation to obtaining an appointment.  It does suggest that she was rather easily put off from quickly making an appointment, does not understand why social services need to be kept informed about her health, and tends to add weight to the case put by the local authority that she is actually reluctant to progress this.  Even if she is not consciously reluctant, her inability to progress matters in a prompt fashion does not bode well for her being able to demonstrate that she can not only make positive changes but also sustain them in a timescale that meets the needs of her children.  Dr Kimber-Bidlot recommended that NB needed to have not just started her therapy but to have been some way into that therapy to demonstrate that she was committed to it before the children could be returned to her care.  At this point in time, the sad fact is that she has not begun that therapeutic input and is unlikely to do so until at least the spring of this year.  Her children need certainty now, after spending most of their young lives with her in an abusive relationship and with their needs being neglected.  Put simply, I accept the views of MF and the Guardian that they cannot wait any longer to be in a safe permanent placement that meets their needs.

Dr Kimber-Bidlot also recommended that NB needed parenting support to enable her to parent her children to an appropriate standard.  NB’s own evidence about this is quite revealing in terms of her lack of understanding of the work that she needs to undertake.  She was specifically asked about this by Mr Leong and her answer was that she would need someone to ‘kick her in the right direction’, that MF did not push her enough and that she would need some form of support to help her keep the house clean.  Yet she has had ample opportunities for such support, she has been offered various programmes and MF has pushed her repeatedly, both before and during these proceedings and despite this she has not engaged with that support or participated in programmes beyond the Freedom Programme and the Recovery Toolkit.  

All of the above leads me to the conclusion that not only can the children not return to her full-time care as she accepts, but that it would not be in their best interests for me to make a child arrangements order.  It was submitted on behalf of the Guardian that the children need someone with parental responsibility plus to enable them to make decisions and that only Special Guardianship Orders will provide the children with the permanency and certainty which they require.  I agree with that conclusion.  These children have spent too large a part of their young lives with their needs not being met by their parents and need to know that they now have a safe permanent home with their paternal grandparents.  A Child Arrangements Order would create a situation where four adults have equal parental responsibility for CM and OM.  This creates the potential for disagreement about exercise of that parental responsibility, a very real risk, I find, given the lack of trust which NB clearly feels in relation to the PGPs.  Special Guardianship Orders will confer enhanced parental responsibility upon the PGPs and enable them to make the ultimate decisions in exercising that PR if the parents are unable or unwilling to agree.

It was also submitted that the high level of proposed contact for NB under the Special Guardianship Orders (once per week), meant that Special Guardianship Orders were not appropriate because this was not normal for Special Guardianship Orders.  I have dealt with a variety of Special Guardianship Orders and seen countless variations in contact arrangements – it ultimately depends on what is in the best interests of the children concerned.  I therefore reject this submission entirely.  In fact, I find that the high level of contact being proposed is a very positive indicator that this placement under Special Guardianship Orders would meet the needs of the children to maintain a “useful” relationship with their mother (to quote Dr Kimber-Bidlot), as well as demonstrating how committed the PGPs are to this contact and working with NB in the best interests of the children.  I also find that overnight staying contact for the children with their mother, whether at her house or at the house of NBMA, would also not be in their best interests at present.  The evidence of Dr Kimber-Bidlot was very compelling on this point.  As both she and the Guardian have pointed out, the children have not been in a permanent placement with the PGPs since August and therefore their permanency runs from my deciding this case.  They will clearly need a period to settle into what will now be their permanent home and to introduce staying contact will create confusion and uncertainty for them.  Both Dr Kimber-Bidlot and the Guardian were very clear about this being the case and I can see no reason to reject their opinions.  There is also the concern about NB’s ability to parent the children safely and appropriately in light of my conclusions and therefore it is also too soon to consider staying contact with her until she has begun her therapy and changed her thinking as recommended by Dr Kimber-Bidlot.  It was submitted on behalf of NB that overnight staying contact could take place at NBMA’s house but, aside from the concerns that I have about the confusion this would cause to the children while they settle into their permanent placement, I am also concerned that so many adults and children in her current house would mean very cramped and unsuitable conditions for them.  I would expect that contact would be kept under review as described by ST and that, if NB makes the required progress in addressing her issues, overnight staying contact can be looked at when she and the children are ready for it – as emphasised by Dr Kimber-Bidlot.

In relation to the disputed issue about whether unauthorised contact took place between SM and the children after they were placed with the PGPs, as was commented by Ms Payne for the Father, I have no doubt that NB herself seems to believe that this happened.  The photographs at C253-5 do show SM with the children but there is nothing within them to enable an objective assessment of precisely when they were taken.  The explanations given by JM for the clothes that OM is wearing, SM’s length of hair and CM’s hairstyle were all credible and compelling.  It may indeed be the case that SM told NB that he had been seeing the children, but I am not satisfied that unauthorised contact took place as alleged and am inclined to accept that if SM told her this, it was simply part of their volatile and complex relationship and not credible evidence that he had seen the children.  JM herself was very clear that she follows rules and I accept that she would not have allowed unauthorised contact and will not do so in the future.

Ms Martin submitted that a Supervision Order is required to give a clear role for the Local Authority to guide the PGPs to the right decisions. Given the evidence of ST about the support that she will be offering under the Special Guardianship Orders to not only the PGPs but also to NB if she asks, I cannot see what a Supervision Order will add in this case.  Unlike the PGPs who do genuinely seem to wish to follow the recommendations of the Local Authority without a public law order, NB’s stated distrust of professionals, coupled with her history of poor engagement with them, also means that she is also unlikely to easily accept any guidance from any professional involved with the family. In light of this, I was struck by the evidence of MF that it may in fact entrench the positions of those involved and find that therefore a Supervision Order is not only unnecessary and disproportionate, but that it may be positively harmful to the children in placement if it prevents the development of the relationship between the PGPs and NB which needs to happen.  Clearly, as is accepted by both the PGPs and NB, there is work that needs to be undertaken to improve their relationship.  All of them tell me that they are open to participating in mediation and this can take place without the need for a Supervision Order.  Similarly, ST also told me that she would assist in sign-posting the PGPs to any necessary support and education services, particularly to assist them in understanding domestic abuse.  I would encourage them work with ST to do this.  It would enable them to better understand the risk that SM poses and the difficulties that NB encountered in her relationship with him.  I think that will also help to build bridges between the PGPs and NB.

Conclusion

I will therefore grant Special Guardianship Orders to the PGPs, JM and DM, in respect of CM and OM and will not make a Supervision Order.