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:  MI13C10118
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT MILTON KEYNES

Courtroom No. 1

351 Silbury Boulevard
Witan Gate East
Central Milton Keynes
Buckinghamshire
MK9 2DT

Monday, 16th March 2015

Before:
HER HONOUR JUDGE VENABLES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN THE MATTER OF C, L AND M  (  Care order at home)

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

Transcript from a recording by Ubiqus
61 Southwark Street, London SE1 0HL
Tel: 020 7269 0370

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

JUDGMENT
HHJ VENABLES: 

1.	This is a sad and difficult case which concerns three sisters: C, who is now seven, L, who is just five, and M, now 14 months.  C and L are the children of N and D.  M’s father is O.  C and L have been in foster care under a Section 20 agreement since 5 December 2013.  M has remained in her mother’s care since birth on 25 January 2014.  All parties have been ably represented.  It is noteworthy that O did not attend for any of this final hearing, albeit that his advocate was fully instructed.  D attended for one and a half of these five days we have been in court. He attends today to receive this extempore judgment.
The Position of the Parties
The Local Authority
2.	The Local Authority seek care orders for C and L with a plan for them to remain with their current carers as a long‑term foster placement.  The Authority proposes there be contact to each parent four times per year.  The Local Authority seek a care order and a placement order for M with a plan of adoption.
N
3.	N recognises she cannot give C and L the care they require and does not oppose the Local Authority’s plan for their placement.  She seeks contact six times per annum.  Insofar as M is concerned, she opposes M’s removal from her care and the proposed plan of adoption.  She would not resist M’s placement continuing under a full care order.
D
4.	D opposes the Local Authority plan for C and L and seeks their immediate return to his care.  In the event the children remain in foster care, he seeks monthly contact.
O
5.	He supports the mother in her wish to care for M.  In the event M remains in Mother’s care, he would seek as much supervised contact as is practicable.
The Guardian
6.	The Guardian supports the Local Authority’s applications concerning all three children.
Evidence
7.	I have read the court bundles and heard evidence from: Dr Stephenson, Forensic Psychologist; Dr Connolly, Mother’s treating psychologist; Joy Vincent, Senior Social Worker; Samantha Finch, Social Worker; Arlene Major, Senior Family Support Worker.  I have heard from D, N and Mr Slade, the Children’s Guardian.
The History
8.	N met D approximately 11 years ago when she was around 17 years of age.  Mother is reported to have suffered seizures during her pregnancy with C and diagnosed as suffering from epilepsy when C was two months old.  The diagnosis of Dr Jackson, Consultant Neurologist, was epilepsy with generalised tonic-clonic seizures.  A CT brain scan and EEG were normal.  She remained on anticonvulsants until the summer of 2012.  She has not had a seizure for more than four years.
9.	The family has been known to Social Care since 2007.  There has been concern around the use of drugs, physical neglect of the children’s needs and their environment, failure to engage with professionals and attend general medical appointments, and domestic abuse.
10.	There has been historic concern about Mother’s mental health, including episodes of self‑harm and depression.  In the summer of 2011, Mother fled to Derby alleging domestic violence from D.  Derby Social Care were actively engaged in supporting her.  The case files record she was prescribed medication for epilepsy, insomnia and depression.  The mother was provided with support through the agencies in Derbyshire.  Case files record concern about the impact of Mother’s medication affecting her functioning and her ability to cope with the demands of two young children, presenting as lethargic and with poor memory recall.  Her early life in Derby is characterised as chaotic and disorganised with limited consistent engagement with agencies.  A file recording of the NSPCC headed ‘Summary of Concerns’ at J197, dated 16 November, noted:
‘(1) Very poor physical conditions within the home with dirty nappies and clothes left about the property; (2) The property smelling damp and dirty; (3) L awake, left wearing an obviously dirty and wet nappy, whilst Mother and partner appeared passed out; (4) C covered in yoghurt and smearing it over the furniture; (5) The children appearing hungry and there being little food in the house; (6) The mother extensively using cannabis; (7) The children presenting with multiple bruising from lack of supervision’.

I mention these matters to set the context around the nature and level of historic concerns for the children.  I make no finding as to the reliability of the records but note the consistent themes of physical and emotional neglect.
11.	The mother remained with the children in Derby until the summer of 2012.  Over time, her engagement with the agencies improved and, by February of 2012, Derbyshire Social Care considered that she had turned things around.  She is reported to have acted upon advice and able to meet the children’s personal care needs and assist in enabling them to develop age‑appropriate skills.  However, by late summer of 2012, Mother felt that she was not coping and thus decided that C and L should go back to live with their father, D.  They remained in his sole care until around October of 2013 when Mother returned from Derby, heavily pregnant with her third child, fathered by O.  She was separated from O by the time of her arrival.  It is unclear as to the status of Mother’s relationship with D in the weeks before the children’s removal in December, albeit that Mother moved back into the family home.
12.	The Local Authority allege that D has a significant problem with alcohol and drugs and has had such throughout his adult life.  He accepts that he is still struggling to manage his use of prescribed drugs.  Test results for the period October 2013 to January 2014 show a decreasing use of mephedrone and ketamine over that period, and  use of cocaine in the period to mid‑December 2013.  Test results for August 2014 indicated a high level of mephedrone use and some cocaine use.  More recent tests results for January 2015 reveal a reducing use of cocaine and no cocaine usage in December 2014/January 2015.  The tests further show a reducing use of ketamine and none in the period December 2014 to January 2015; however, the results show a continuing use of mephedrone, moving from high to medium‑level usage in the period November 2014 to January 2015.  Mother’s drug test results show some low‑level cannabis use in the summer of 2014 but no drug use detected from September 2014.
13.	The mother says that D was aggressive, controlling and manipulative.  She describes the relationship as one within which there was often shouting and screaming with pushing and shoving by the one against the other.  D accepts that he has slapped the mother but says he has no recollection of the events of 5 December 2013, which resulted in the ultimate removal of C and L.  The police report of the incident describes Father as appearing to be intoxicated and unsteady on his feet.  The social work visit to Mother and the children in the hours following D’s arrest raised concerns about Mother’s ability to meet the children’s needs.  An unnamed man was present in the property.  He appeared to be under the influence of a substance.  A window to the property was broken by a person understood to be the paternal aunt, even whilst the duty social worker was in the house.  The mother did not feel safe.  The children were present in the upstairs of the property.  They were removed to foster care by agreement of the mother.
14.	The Local Authority issued an application for an EPO in respect of C and L on 12 December 2013.  They have remained in care under interim care orders.  M was born on 25 January 2014.  The Local Authority issued care proceedings on 31 January.  The Local Authority, quite appropriately, did not pursue an interim care order, as M was being provided with good enough care.
15.	Proceedings were consolidated on 17 February.  The case was listed for two previous final hearings which were delayed as a consequence of a further expert and alternative care assessments.  Two of the family assessments put in train in August 2014 were in respect of relatives in Australia.  The matter came before this court for the first time on 4 September.  In light of the positive viability assessment of the Australian family, the Local Authority were given permission to seek counsel’s advice on immigration issues.  At a subsequent case management hearing, it was confirmed that there was the potential for significant delay in regularising the children’s immigration position in Australia unless their placements could be effected as adoptive placements.
16.	The timeframe for the adoption assessments was put at six to nine months with no certainty as to outcome on the immigration issues nor suitable alternative forms of placement.  The court directed that the CFAB assessment of the family should be progressed without delay, to run in parallel with the care proceedings, which were timetabled to afford progress in the international assessments.
17.	For reasons that remain unclear, neither set of relatives made an application to the Western Australian authorities as quickly as anticipated.  Mr and Mrs R formally requested assessment on 12 February of this year.  Mr and Mrs S, so far as I am aware, have not applied at all.  The Local Authority has received advice through the Australian Fostering and Adoption Service that adults who already have children are generally not considered suitable for adoption.  
18.	The Local Authority does not invite the court to consider placement of any of the children with the maternal relatives.  Furthermore, the Guardian does not invite the court to delay the planning for any of the children in circumstances where there is such inbuilt delay and uncertainty of outcome. It is noteworthy that seven earlier family assessments  all proved negative.
Assessments - C and L
19.	Dr Jo Stephenson, Clinical Psychologist, undertook an assessment of C and L in June 2014.  She found the children to both suffer global developmental delay and post-traumatic stress symptoms.  She described the children as survivors of neglectful parenting.  She considered that L displays features of a child on the autistic spectrum but was unable to define the cause.  She was unable to formally assess L’s cognitive functioning, as she did not have the necessary aid to complete the assessment of the child, but the child’s presentation was closer to two years than to her chronological four years at the time of the assessment.
20.	In the period since reception into foster care, L has gone up one to two dress sizes.  Her speech delay is improving.  A geneticist’s report of 23 December 2014 noted the concern about L’s autistic features but considered her features as most likely secondary to the social, economic and environmental factors that she had been exposed to during pregnancy and first four years of life, in light of her physical, emotional and educational progress in care.
21.	Similarly, for C, the night terrors, self harming, anxiety and obsessive behaviours around food have begun to abate.  She has gone up two to three dress sizes and has made considerable educational progress in the years since her removal.  She still vomits on distress, including to and from some contact.  All professionals working with C and L are agreed that both girls have suffered very significant harm and present with a high level of need that will require careful and reparative parenting.
D
22.	The hair strand test results show a fluctuating use of ketamine, mephedrone and cocaine.  He has struggled to engage with SMART to manage his substance misuse.  The CAS parenting assessment conducted by Sheila Newlands concludes that his obvious love and commitment to the girls is undermined by his continuing battle with substance misuse and his inability to accept that he has contributed to the harm sustained by the girls.  The conclusion of the assessment is that he does not have the emotional skills, understanding and insight to meet their need for reparative care.
O
23.	O has not been present throughout these proceedings, and he does not attend today to receive this judgment.  He has however provided instructions to his advocate throughout.  The initial CAS parenting assessment concluded that his engagement was superficial and his ability to understand M’s needs to be kept safe limited.  A subsequent assessment was much more positive, albeit that his commitment to contact and to abstinence was untested.  Very sadly, it would seem that his relationship with his current partner has broken down.  A domestic violence incident of 5 February 2015 has been reported.  He has failed to provide an updated sample for hair strand tests.  He has not taken up recent contact with M.  He did not attend the IRH before this court on 23 February.  He has acknowledged his own difficulties and withdrawn himself as a potential carer of M.
N
24.	N was referred by the Local Authority’s Junior CATCH team to the NHS‑funded service called ReConnect in January of 2014.  The lead clinician working with N is Dr Nicola Connolly.  She has prepared three reports and written two letters.  The basis of her initial involvement in the proceedings is somewhat unclear, but her first report of 1 April 2014 was written in response to an emailed instruction issued by the Local Authority.  ReConnect is a newly‑established pilot service set up to treat to most vulnerable children from nought to two years in the Authority, who are at risk of developing a disorganised attachment.  Dr Connolly makes clear that she prepares her reports as a professional witness on the basis of clinical need, and not with specific reference to the court proceedings.  In her first report, Dr Connolly makes clear that Mother is not fully engaged in the assessment process and raises concern about her ability to fully engage with the programme.  She was not prepared to offer a place to Mother within the parenting group until she had committed to the parent child work and completed the assessment phase.
25.	The Local Authority invited Dr Connolly to provide an update on Mother’s engagement.  Her response of 18 June 2014 presented a changing picture of Mother’s engagement.  Subsequently, Dr Connolly was invited by the Authority to provide an addendum report pursuant to an order of the court.  Her addendum report of 23 July was positive.  She considered Mother was engaged and had sustained her level of engagement.  She reported Mother was engaged in two treatment programmes, the first being individual work using mentalisation‑based therapy and the second being an MBT‑based parenting group.  Observations of Mother’s care of M were assessed, both formally through videotaping interactions, and informally through observation in one‑to‑one sessions and in group attendance and at the crèche.  The informal and formal observations of interactions were recorded as positive.  Dr Connolly noted that the unit was seeing a number of positive indicators with evidence of capacity to promote a secure attachment in M.  Mother was recorded as managing her emotional arousal and developing an ability to attune to M and to reflect.
26.	Dr Connolly was provided with a bundle and asked to confirm whether the documents caused her to change her view.  Her response remained positive.  In her view, there were a significant number of positive indicators as evidence of change, which she records at E140 as follows:
‘(1) Evidence of parenting sensitivity; (2) Evidence of high levels of positive regard for M; (3) Increasing capacity to manage her emotional arousal; (4) Increasing capacity to think about how she presents to others and to take on board their response; (5) Evidence of insight with her own childhood neglect and  desire to want a different outcome for M; (6) Evidence of her resilience in managing to stop the sexual abuse of her uncle; (7) Evidence of her ability to abstain from drugs and alcohol and self‑harm’.

27.	Dr Connolly confirmed Mother would continue to attend the parenting group until mid‑January 2015 on a weekly basis and to receive ongoing fortnightly one‑to‑one sessions.  She expressed the view that Mother’s insight into her own behaviour and into her own neglect of her children would increase over the subsequent three months, and that the progress achieved in other areas enhanced.  Her final report to the court is dated 15 February at I126.  The report is again positive.  It records that Mother has made significant progress within the therapeutic programmes and shifted from a position where she considered she did not require therapy to a willingness to engage in the next step in her individual therapy and undertake more in‑depth work into her childhood and the parenting she offered C and L.
28.	In her oral evidence, Dr Connolly confirmed that Mother will continue to receive individual therapy for as long as is necessary.  The service is to be recommissioned, although the NHS provider is yet to be determined.  Other therapeutic needs will be reviewed after four to six months and the next stage of therapy tailored accordingly.  Dr Connolly was confident that Mother was now sufficiently attuned to M’s needs, and sufficiently able to reflect on the impact of her behaviour to engage in the next stage of therapy with M in her care.  The positive assessment of Dr Connolly is not echoed in the work of the CAS team, nor the observations of the social work team or the family support worker, Arlene Major.
29.	Dr Stephenson, Forensic Psychologist, expresses caution and is not optimistic about Mother’s ability to safely parent through the therapeutic process.  Sheila Newlands is a very experienced member of the CAS team.  N did not engage with the first assessment programme offered by her.  A second assessment undertaken in light of the extended proceedings and Mother’s continuing engagement with ReConnect proved more positive.  N, however, attended two out of the four sessions.  The two cancelled sessions were in consequence of Mother’s ill health.  Ms Newlands last saw Mother on 28 August and reported on 3 September.  Ms Newlands observed that Mother had only a limited understanding of the needs of C and L and did not demonstrate an acceptance of her role in the harm the children had suffered.  She found Mother quick to blame others and obsessed with her own needs.  She noted a failure to pick up M’s cues for comfort, food and sleep.  It is noteworthy that food and basic nurture have been a point of concern in Mother’s historic care of C and L.
30.	Arlene Major is an experienced family support worker.  She saw Mother on about 20 occasions over the summer of 2014.  She last saw her as part of that work in September, albeit that she saw Mother with a social worker to share the Local Authority’s plan in February.  She found Mother to be self‑absorbed, lacking in insight as to the level of harm suffered by C and L, or to accept responsibility for it.  She observed that N was fearful of O and D’s extended family, and had limited social support networks.  An important matter of note in her assessment was her observation that M could be slow to engage with her, and sometimes took several minutes to respond to cues.  This observation is shared by the current social worker and was noted by the Guardian on his penultimate observation of the child in January 2015, when she was with the childminder.  It is not shared by Dr Connolly, the health visitor, or members of the ReConnect team.
31.	Samantha Finch, the current social worker, was allocated in October 2014.  She has established a very positive rapport with C and L and is clearly very troubled by their presentation and the manifest harm they have experienced.  She has visited Mother on a fortnightly basis since October, in line with the statutory minimum requirements.  She acknowledged that M was receiving good enough care at the moment but was concerned about Mother’s very limited insight and acknowledgement of her role in the harm sustained by C and L.  For Ms Finch, the issue was that of future risk to M.  She does not consider that Mother will be able to meet M’s needs in the future until she addresses her own historic childhood difficulties or how things went so badly wrong before.
32.	Dr Stephenson’s written report on Mother of January 2015 contrasts with the reports of Dr Connolly.  It notes that Mother had a termination in the 48 hours leading up to her first session.  The decision to have the termination was made by Mother after speaking to her treating psychologist.  This decision was founded on Mother’s wish to focus on her current child.  Dr Stephenson was concerned Mother had made herself  available to be assessed so shortly after surgery.  In her summary of conclusions at E206 Dr Stephenson writes:
‘N is a survivor of childhood and adult trauma.  As a result, she presents with complex mental health needs, insecure attachment‑style and personality disorder traits.  Although she has commenced interventions regarding her difficulties and their negative effect on parenting, she is not considered to be able to safely parent C and L.

N has made some progress in her life to date, but is considered to be a vulnerable adult with a limited support network, and has commenced a relatively new relationship with a new partner.  It is recognised that her care of her third child, M, has progressed well to date, but caution is required regarding her longer‑term stability and ability to maintain such progress’.

Her report was thus a cautious endorsement of Mother’s ability to care for M.
33.	In evidence, Dr Stephenson stepped back from that position.  She acknowledged that Mother was working well with Dr Connolly and that overall M appeared to be thriving.  The principal issue between herself and Dr Connolly, however, was the risks attendant on Mother’s undertaking the remaining therapeutic work with Dr Connolly whilst M was in Mother’s care.  She considered that Mother needed at least a year’s therapy, and she later revised that to 18 months, to enable Mother to address the significant issues of her childhood and the failings in the care she provided to C and L.  She considered there was a risk of disengagement from therapy and posited that the challenges posed by M’s developing independence with her increasing mobility, self‑awareness and cognition could not be met by Mother unless she was emotionally available and able to prioritise M’s needs.  She was pessimistic about Mother’s ability to protect M from her own responses to therapy.
34.	Dr Stephenson was particularly concerned about the support systems available to Mother if she continued to care for M and the ongoing need for effective social and professional integration.  Dr Stephenson considered that her concerns as to professional integration would be ameliorated by the making of a full care order with the child at home, whilst reflecting that she remained concerned about the timescales for M.
35.	Dr Stephenson noted that Mother’s partner had been assessed as low risk and a protective factor, albeit that he demonstrated limited insight into the historic concerns.  She expressed the view that social networks would need to be established. She recommended a family group conference for J and his extended family to underpin a programme of support for the short and medium term.
36.	J, Mother’s new partner, has not given evidence.  He and his family have written letters to the court to confirm their willingness to participate in such a family group conference.  However, it is important to record that the wider family are unknown to the professionals and there has been only limited contact with J.
37.	The Guardian has many years of experience both as a guardian and as a social worker.  He made clear that, so far as the plans for C and L are concerned, he endorses their current placement in the long term.  He echoes the observations of the other professionals as to their very high level of need.  They have both been very damaged by the care they received from their parents.  They require reparative care to help them heal.  C and L are both very young and their wishes and feelings cannot be determinative, but the Guardian notes that C very much wants to remain with her current carer, where she is settled and thriving.
38.	Insofar as M is concerned, the Guardian acknowledges that he has wrestled with his recommendation but concludes, on balance, that M should be placed for adoption.  He is not confident that N will be able to sustain change.  He is cautious about her level of developing insight and remains sceptical about her ability to safely parent whilst engaging in a challenging therapeutic programme.
39.	Mr Slade accepts that M is currently thriving in Mother’s care but, like the social worker and Dr Stephenson, he is concerned about the very high level of damage C and L sustained in parental care and considers the prospect of history repeating itself to be high.  Under cross‑examination, he acknowledged that M’s continued placement with her mother could be secured by the making of a care order but he did not consider the option of such an arrangement to be viable.
Discussion and Analysis
40.	Where issues of fact are disputed, I shall apply the civil standard of proof in determining whether an event occurred or did not.
Threshold
41.	The Threshold has been agreed by both N and O.  It is founded on actual emotional harm to C and L and risk of future harm to M.  D continues to deny that the harm exhibited by C and L is attributable to his care.  In his evidence, he accepted that he had slapped the mother twice and that there had been pushing and shoving between the adults.  He was unable to recall what he had done to the mother on the occasion the children were removed.  Mother recalls that he slapped her.  She says he was behaving bizarrely and appeared intoxicated, a presentation which accords with the police records and those of the hospital.  Further, C had spoken to her foster carer about Mum and Dad arguing, identifying, ‘If you are in the way, you might get hurt’.  In her account to the foster carer of the contact on 17 November, when D arrived late and reportedly smelling of alcohol, she said that she had been scared and had done whatever her dad had wanted.  She added, ‘He was happy, but he wouldn’t let us all leave, and he might have hurt the contact worker like he hurts Mum sometimes, so we stayed a little longer’. Such comments capture the children’s perception of event within the parental relationship.
42.	I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that C and L were exposed to domestic abuse perpetrated by D against the mother which in turn contributed to the children’s emotional harm.  Furthermore, whilst D accepts that he is still addressing his addiction to drugs, particularly mephedrone, he claims that he manipulated his use of drugs around the care of the children.  The test results reveal a fluctuating use of drugs over a 12‑month period.  In evidence, he candidly acknowledged that he last used mephedrone some four weeks ago at a party.  It seems improbable that D, whose addiction to substances is longstanding and significant, was able to protect the children from exposure to his taking of drugs, or to protect them from the impact of his use.  Indeed, after the same contact on 17 November, C is recorded as telling the foster carer, ‘Dad smelt poorly, like he had been with his friends, and he looked like he had eaten too many grownup sweets’.  Such unprompted and childish accounts are entirely consistent with and probative of the child’s exposure to D’s use of illegal substances, and I have no hesitation in making such a finding.
The Welfare Evaluation for C and L
43.	N acknowledges that she cannot meet the very high level of need of C and L.  Dr Stephenson’s assessment of C and L of 1 June is very challenging reading.  It is to N’s credit that she now acknowledges she cannot meet their care.  This has been a huge decision for her and one that involves a tacit acceptance of responsibility, even though it appears unlikely that she understands the magnitude of her contribution to the harm they have suffered.
44.	Dr Connolly made clear that Mother has not yet begun the in‑depth work required to look at N’s role.  In her sessions with Dr Stephenson, N  provided an account that:
‘…showed a lack of insight regarding her own responsibility regarding their experiences.  Her understanding of parenting omitted aspects of managing young children’s behaviour, boundaries, safety and a number of other aspects of parenting.  N also reports a lack of insight regarding the practicalities of parenting C, L and M as a safe parent’.

45.	In her oral evidence, N went much further in accepting her contribution to the harm C and L had suffered.  She acknowledged that what had happened to the girls was awful.  She accepted that, as a consequence of her epilepsy, the medication she was taking left her lethargic and incapable of putting the children’s care first.  She further acknowledged that she smoked cannabis on occasion and that this impacted on her parenting.  It was noteworthy that N was unable to accept the more challenging elements of the Local Authority’s case as to C and L’s historic care.  She could not accept that her practical care of the children was extremely poor and that they were dirty and grubby.  Her account is at odds with the file records of Derby Social Care, the NSPCC and the NHS.  Nonetheless, her decision not to pursue her wish to care for them is both significant and realistic.  Further, her decision to seek a termination in December 2014 appears motivated by an implicit awareness of her actual limitations and her stated desire to safely care for her remaining  child, namely M.
46.	Turning now to D, it is clear he loves his children very much.  He has been committed to his contact with the girls and the contact sessions have been largely positive, but positive contact provides but a small window on the inter‑family relationship.  It cannot found a plan for a child’s care.  In this instance there are only two realistic placement options, either D or long‑term foster care.  It is fortuitous that C and L have been in the same placement since they were removed.  They are clearly delightful little girls and they are thriving in their placement.  Whereas in June C was seeking to return to her mother’s care, she is now clear she wishes to remain where she is, together with L.  The option of remaining where they are on a long‑term basis is now confirmed and the carers, fortuitously, are committed to care for the children through their minority.
47.	Whilst a placement with D would enable the children to remain in the family, the evidence is that the children were significantly damaged in their father’s care.  The children’s welfare is paramount in the decision of this court.  It is clear that D has an ongoing dependence on illegal substances.  His dependence has an ongoing negative impact on his emotional and practical availability.  Furthermore, his lifestyle and lack of any insight as to the impact of his historic care of the children serves to confirm that he is not currently able to meet the children’s high level of emotional, social or education need, and is not likely to be able to do so within the children’s timescales.
48.	Insofar as contact is concerned, I am of the view that the principal objective in placement must be for them to further develop their attachment with the carers.  The girls currently see their parents fortnightly.  That will reduce to four times a year under the proposed plan.  Such contact reflects the children’s need to have meaningful, regular contact, but allows the carers to manage the adverse behavioural reaction which still surrounds contact with sickness, night terrors and bedwetting.  The children will remain subject to LAC reviews and the Local Authority have confirmed a clear commitment to conduct a robust review of contact on a regular basis in line with their statutory duties.  I thus make full care orders in respect of C and L and approve the current care plan as drawn.
The Welfare Evaluation in respect of M
49.	The Local Authority seek both a care order and a placement order.  The court must then consider the question of M’s welfare throughout her life and the checklist under the Adoption and Children Act 1989 in conjunction with the relevant elements of the checklist under the Children Act.  M is now almost 14 months old.  She has lived with her mother since birth.  Her father no longer puts himself forward as her carer.  Australian family members, Mr and Mrs S, have not sought to pursue a formal adoption assessment through CFAB.  Mr and Mrs R have six children of their own.  They put themselves forward for formal assessment as recently as 12 February.  The process has not yet begun, and it will take at least six to nine months to conclude, with no certain outcome and very little prospect of success in consequence of the ages of the couple and the Western Australian Adoption Service’s stated caution about approval of adopters who have existing children.  Thus, it is not an option promoted by the Local Authority, nor the Guardian.
50.	O opposes an international placement.  Mother has historically endorsed such a placement but now makes no representations with regard to such placement in the context of this hearing.  While such a placement would have the advantage of keeping M in the wider family, the court could not endorse such a placement where the assessments have barely begun, where the outcome is so uncertain and where the delay in planning so elastic as to be inimical to M’s welfare.
51.	The Article 6 and Article 8 Convention rights of the parents and child are engaged.  It is trite law that a child should remain in its family for so long as the placement is consistent with the child’s welfare, and the court should adopt the least interventionist approach when considering whether to make an order, and, if so, what order.  It is clear that the court can make a care order with a placement at home where it is both necessary and proportionate.
52.	N accepts that the court may consider the only basis on which M can remain with her is under a care order.  M has been in her mother’s care since birth.  She has not been the subject of any orders but remains the subject of a child protection plan, which began prior to her birth on 28 November 2013.  The most recent update as to M’s wellbeing is provided in the statement of health visitor, Dawn Smith, which is dated 27 February 2015.  Ms Smith has been involved with M since 18 December.  She has observed a secure attachment between M and her mother, positive interaction between mother and daughter.  On each occasion, she observed Mother meeting M’s emotional and physical needs.  She noted that the home was warm and tidy with age‑appropriate toys available.
53.	In the core group minutes of 22 January, the health visitor confirmed that M scored 100% on a health assessment and appeared developmentally thriving.  Her one‑year developmental check recorded that M had met all her developmental milestones and there were no areas of concern.  ‘She has gained weight steadily and is on the 50th centile’.  Mother was noted to engage meaningfully with all professionals in the minutes.  The minutes of the core group for 26 February record the health visitor as stating that she had noted nothing but positive in Mother’s parenting and was unable to identify any negative points in her parenting.  ‘M is now able to walk independently and has several clear words’.
54.	The issue for the professionals and for this court is whether Mother can sustain change as M develops, sufficient to adequately parent her through her minority.  Unusually, in this case, N is actively engaged in therapy through a pilot project designed to support the children at highest risk of parental neglect.
55.	Dr Connolly and Dr Stephenson are both experienced clinical psychologists who have an expertise in working with children who have experienced significant neglect and trauma.  I caution myself that, so far as Dr Connolly is concerned, she is a treating clinician who has a professional relationship with Mother.  She has made clear that she reported to the court pursuant to the court’s direction on the invitation of the Local Authority on the basis of clinical need, and not with reference to the proceedings.  She has extensive knowledge of the child, who she has seen regularly at her clinic with Mother, and received regular updates on the child’s presentation and progress through the specially‑trained crèche staff.  Dr Connolly has had access to the court bundle but has had no professional dealings with either C or L.
56.	Dr Connolly uses a therapeutic model based on partial acknowledgement as a building block to develop a parent’s ability to reflect and attune to their child’s needs.  Her clinical assessments of the mother have been anonymously peer reviewed by the Anna Freud Centre and accord with her analysis that the mother is attuned to M’s needs and has developed the ability to reflect and hold M’s needs in mind.  She is optimistic about Mother’s engagement to date and her capacity and commitment to engage in the future.  Significantly, she considers that N will be able to continue the more intrusive work around Mother’s own childhood and her deeper responsibility for the damage to C and L with M in her care.
57.	Dr Connolly was clear the programme has not worked for all parents; some families have been referred back to social care.  She recalled that, in the parenting group, Mother’s peers considered that she had grown the most.  I acknowledge the Children’s Guardian is very concerned about the unequivocally positive response of Dr Connolly to the risks for M in Mother pursuing further therapeutic work with the child in her care, but looking at Mother’s actual progress between June of last year and March of this, Dr Connolly’s optimism to date has been borne out.
58.	Dr Stephenson is the forensic psychologist who provides a professional overview.  In her written report, she expressed caution about the possibility of M remaining with the mother, but, on balance, was minded to support the placement.  However, her position changed after reading the updating documents and hearing the evidence of Dr Connolly.  Her principal concern was the fact that the mother had not yet begun the in‑depth therapeutic work, albeit that Dr Connolly expressly stated that the next stage of work would begin through art therapy.  Dr Stephenson made clear that the principal difference between her and Dr Connolly’s assessment was as to Mother’s ability to manage therapy and the care of M over the course of the next 18 months.  She noted Mother’s current complex mental health needs and personality profile.  She observed that Mother’s history may suggest a recurrence of stress‑induced associative seizures.
59.	Under cross‑examination, Dr Stephenson accepted that Mother is not currently presenting with complex mental health needs.  She further accepted that there was no formal diagnosis of borderline personality traits.  There is such a thing as dissociative seizures but these are distinct from epileptic seizures.  In this case, the only diagnosis is of epileptic seizure.  There is no diagnosis of non‑epileptic seizure.  The formulation of Dr Stephenson that under pressure the mother may experience dissociative seizures is not founded on any medical diagnosis before this court, and must therefore be treated with considerable caution.  Thus, having critically examined the principal planks underpinning Dr Stephenson’s increased caution, I am not persuaded by her revised assessment of the level of risk when considered against the totality of the evidence.
60.	This is a very difficult and finely‑balanced case.  The harm suffered by C and L casts a long shadow.  The Guardian, having acknowledged the difficulties in the case concerning M, is unable to support M remaining in Mother’s care.  I have considered the written and oral evidence very carefully.  On balance, I am persuaded that there are sufficient positive indicators of change and capacity to further change to conclude that M should remain in her mother’s care.  I recognise that in reaching this view I have rejected the recommendation of an experienced and sensitive guardian.  I do so with the greatest respect to him and to the social work professionals who have given evidence to this court, and I recognise that they feel very deeply about the harm that they observe in both C and L.
61.	However, I do not follow their recommendation because of the following factors: 
(1) M is thriving in her mother’s care and has reached all her developmental milestones; 
(2) Dr Connolly and the crèche staff see Mother and M each week and observe a positive interaction and secure attachment; 
(3) The health visitor observes a positive interaction and secure attachment; 
(4) M has remained in her mother’s care since birth during which time the mother has engaged in meaningful therapy from June 2014 to March 2015; 
(5) Mother has never had the benefit of therapy before; 
(6) In depth therapeutic support is available for as long as necessary; 
(7) Mother is beginning to develop an insight into the impact of her behaviours and is committed to engaging in more intrusive therapeutic work; 
(8) The mother is engaged in a supportive relationship with J who is assessed as low risk and considered a protective factor; 
(9) Dr Connolly is optimistic about Mother’s ability to engage in the ongoing work and to parent M, and her optimism to date has been borne out in the progress Mother has made; (10) Mother has demonstrated some insight into her contribution to the harm suffered by C and L and her limitations in meeting their needs, and now seeks to care for only one child; 
(11) The progress she has made in Buckinghamshire must be considered against the progress she made over time in Derby, which is qualitatively and quantitatively different; her effective engagement in Derby appears to have begun after the involvement of the NSPCC in November 2011 and ceased by the summer of 2012 when the children were placed with D.  Her significant therapeutic needs were not addressed.  In Buckinghamshire, she now receives social work statutory minimum visits every two weeks. Earlier additional supports provided at the beginning of last year have largely dropped away.  She regularly attends therapy, both group and individual sessions, and participates by choice with children’s centre activities.  She has received three unannounced visits since October.
62.	I weigh in the balance the evidence of Dr Stephenson, Ms Finch, Joy Vincent, Sheila Newlands and Arlene Major, and note the fact that the work of Sheila Newlands and Ms Major ceased approximately five and a half months ago.  I am mindful that the Guardian saw M with her childminder on 21 January of this year and was concerned about the delay in her response of some minutes.  I take into account the observations of Ms Finch of M’s subdued response and the theory posited that this may be a consequence of poor stimulation, which is not shared by Dr Connolly or the health visitor.  I am also alive to the untested nature of N’s relationship under social structures.  There is reason to be concerned about the wider social network surrounding D’s wider family and associates.
63.	I have  been referred to, and considered, the authorities of Re B‑S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625 and the established case of Re C & B (Care Order: Future Harm) [2001] 1 FLR 611.  Ultimately, considering the totality of the evidence, I consider that the risks to M in her mother’s care can be managed for the reasons articulated above.
64.	Dr Stephenson considered that a care order with continuing agency coordination would ameliorate the level of risk.  I agree there is a risk of future harm, but I consider that such risk can be managed proportionately by an appropriate care package, and I would invite the Local Authority to address the level of risk by: (a) continuing social work visits tailored with the therapeutic programme.  At the moment, they have been fortnightly.  Dr Stephenson suggested that they need to move to weekly during phases of the therapy, and be reduced as necessary.  (b) Unannounced and announced visits.  (c) The calling of a family group conference to bring together J and his family.  They have confirmed their willingness to participate. 
65.	 I will direct that a copy of this judgment is made available to J.  It is apparent that he does have an overly‑simplistic view of Mother’s history and if, as I anticipate, his information comes primarily from her, he will need to understand that N failed to provide the level of care C and L needed, and that she bears a significant amount of responsibility for the harm they experienced.  (d) Respite care has not been examined, but I would like to invite the Local Authority to consider such a programme to give Mother and child some breaks from each other during the course of the next stage of the therapeutic intervention as required.
66.	The court has conducted its risk assessment in line with the guidance of Rider J in Re W (A Child) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1227, the Local Authority must now put in place the resources required to address the risk to enable the court to adopt the least interventionist approach and leave M in her mother’s care.  I propose that the order of this court will include within it recitals drawn in accordance with the guidance of Baker J in the case of Re DE (A Child) [2014] EWFC 6, as approved by the President.  This authority sets out a clear mechanism to protect against inappropriate pre‑emptory removal.  Furthermore, the enhanced role of the IRO will ensure that the package of care and support this child needs will be delivered.  It also is important to record that in the event a convention‑compliant removal followed the Local Authority could of course renew its application for a placement order.
67.	Thus, so far as the Local Authority’s applications are concerned, today I grant the application for a care order subject to the revision of the plan.  I refuse the Local Authority’s application for a placement order.  This court has considered M’s lifetime welfare and does not accept that the child’s lifetime welfare requires the consent of her parents to be dispensed with.
68.	Insofar as contact is concerned, I am alive to the fact that there is consensus that contact with O will be the subject of review and will be determined by his reengagement in work with the Authority.
69.	I have, in draft, the recitals that I  propose to invite the Local Authority to record in the order.  Would that help ?
MALE COUNSEL:  Your Honour, yes.
JUDGE VENABLES:  Okay.
	(1) The Local Authority agrees to give not less than 14 days’ notice of removal of M from Mother’s care, save in an emergency.  
(2) In the event the Local Authority is considering changing the plan and removing permanently from Mother’s care, it shall have regard to the fact that permanent placement outside the family is to be preferred only as a last resort where nothing else will do, and it will and must rigorously analyse all the realistic options, considering the arguments for and against each option.  It must further involve Mother properly in the decision‑making process and ensure that she has the support to understand the process.
	In the event that the Local Authority, having given notice of its intention to remove the child from Mother’s care under the care order, is given notice of an application for discharge of the care order, the Local Authority will consider whether the child’s welfare requires immediate removal.  Furthermore, the Local Authority will keep a written record demonstrating that it has considered this question and recording the reasons for its decision.  In reaching its decision on this point, the Local Authority will again, inter alia, consult with the mother.  The immediate removal of M from Mother’s care must only be considered and undertaken in circumstances where her welfare demands require immediate removal.
	
End of judgment.

________________________