CASE NO: RG15C00856
THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT READING
Before Her Honour Judge Owens
9th MAY 2016 TO 13TH MAY 2016 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RBC v I & G
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms Quinn, Counsel, for RBC
Mr Purss, Counsel, for the First Respondent Mother, DI
Ms Rai, Solicitor, for the Second Respondent Father, KG
Mr Casey, Counsel, for the Third Respondent Maternal Grandmother, DaI
Mr Elgadhy, Counsel, for the Fourth Respondent, PI, acting through his Children’s Guardian

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

Judgment
Introduction

I am dealing with applications for Care and Placement Orders in respect of PI aged just over a year old.  His mother is DI and his father is KG.  DI has one older child, LR (aged 11) who lives with her maternal grandmother, DaI, under a special guardianship order.  DI is pregnant with her third child.  KG was released from prison in February of this year after serving a sentence for breach of a restraining order made to protect DI and for breach of his licence.  PI is his first child.  PI has never met his father.  

DaI was joined as a party to these proceedings on 10th February 2016.

 I have read all of the evidence contained in the Court Bundles, considered various additional documents handed in, and heard from various witnesses during the course of this final hearing.

Background, parties’ positions and evidential summary

The application for a Care Order was made on 29th April 2015, shortly after PI was born.  The Placement Order application was made on 27th April 2016.  The Local Authority final care plan is one of adoption. The parents and the maternal grandmother all oppose the applications but the Guardian supports the making of Care and Placement Orders in this case.  DaI seeks a Special Guardianship Order for PI to live with her.  The parents support this but the Local Authority and Guardian do not agree that this is in PI’s best interests.

DI and KG were in a relationship from August 2013.  They both admit that there was violence within the relationship.  DI describes very serious physical abuse including KG assaulting her whilst she was pregnant, strangling her until she nearly passed out, sexual assault and threats to stab her and their unborn child.

In January 2015 a referral was received from A&E.  DI made allegations that KG had tried to strangle her, pushed her over a chair and made threats to kill her and the unborn child.  At the time she was 25 weeks pregnant with twins.  PI’s twin did not survive the pregnancy, unfortunately.

KG is recorded as having a history of abusive relationships and was graded as being high risk (information which was shared at MARAC) (H 10).  Probation also assessed him as being a high risk of harm to an adult and his unborn child (H29).  KG was charged with two assaults upon DI and sexual assault and remanded in custody.  DI said that she would no longer continue her relationship with him.
On 3rd February 2015 an initial Child Protection Conference was held.  DI’s unborn child was made the subject of Child Protection Plan under the category of neglect (H31 -44).

On 12th February 2015 KG was released from custody with bail conditions not to contact DI and a restraining order to protect her.  On 13th March 2015 DI told the social worker that KG had been in touch with her by text and via Facebook.  The police report at I8-12 records that DI and KG were communicating with each other.  That same day, KG was arrested for breach of bail but subsequently released.  Following his release, DI resumed her relationship with him.  On 8th April DI told BWA that she was seeing KG a lot, she felt safe with him and wanted him to be present at the birth.

On 13th April 2015, KG was arrested for breach of the restraining order and remanded in custody.  This was his first offence of breaching the order, though it later came to light that he also breached it by telephoning DI from prison.  KG reacted in a violent and racially abusive manner when arrested.  On 14th April 2015 DI attended court with KG seeking to remove the restraining order.  KG was remanded in custody and was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment for breaching the restraining order.  He was released from custody on 30th August 2015 but recalled to prison on 22nd September 2015 for breach of that licence.  He was released from custody again on 26th February 2016 but was arrested in the early hours of the first day of this hearing for allegedly breaching his restraining order.  He was charged and appeared before the Magistrates’ Court on 10th May where he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four months imprisonment for breach of the restraining order.
Shortly after PI was born in late April 2015 the social worker conducted a viability assessment of DaI (C29-45 dated 29th April 2015).  This recommended a full family and friends assessment.  On 29th April 2015, DaI and her friend Hayley orchestrated the removed of PI from hospital.  PI was not ready for discharge and they removed him extremely late at night (around ten minutes to 11pm).  The police were called and exercised their powers of protection to ensure that PI was returned to hospital.  The care application had been made the day that PI was removed.  

An interim care order was granted on 30th April 2016 and PI was placed in foster care.  

A viability assessment of the paternal grandmother, AH, was conducted in September 2015 and was negative (C124).

Dr Williams and Dr Harrison jointly conducted a psychological and psychiatric assessment of DI and DaI in July 2015 (E11).  Their report concluded that they both needed to participate in joint therapy and DaI in individual therapy to ensure that DaI could “show she can make substantive and maintainable progress towards achieving protective parent/child boundaries between herself and her daughter” (E60).  The report noted some real positives in relation to DI, namely that she was engaging well with treatment services, demonstrating insight into previous concerns of professionals regarding her care of LR and overall noted that she had improved in presentation and behaviour. Thereafter, Services for Children were permitted to undertake a jointly instructed parenting and social work assessment of DI’s capacity to care for PI in the community.  The outcome of that assessment was positive (E72).

On 21st September 2015 the SGO assessment of DaI was completed (C67).  The outcome of that assessment was negative.  It identified some positives in relation to DaI but on balance the negatives identified in that assessment led to the recommendation that PI should not be placed with her.

In November 2015 the Local Authority plan became one of rehabilitation of PI to his mother’s care.  On 16th November 2015 the Court approved this plan and PI moved to his mother’s care shortly afterwards.  The case was timetabled to an IRH on 11th February 2016.  Unfortunately, on 5th December 2015 DI was admitted to hospital having suffered a miscarriage.  PI and her partner at the time, AC, went with DI to hospital.  DI had not disclosed to the social worker that she was pregnant said she had only found out on 2nd December 2015.  She denied being in a relationship with AC but later admitted that they had been in a relationship for about five months.   DI struggled with her mental and physical health from this point and is currently pregnant by a new partner.  She has made the very difficult decision to accept that she will not be able to care for PI within his timescales and is therefore not asking for him to be placed in her care.  Her case is that PI is best placed with DaI.  KG also supports PI being placed with DaI.

Relevant legal considerations

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 with regard to threshold, and the welfare checklists contained in section1 of the Children Act 1989 and section 1 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002, I have also had regard to the cases of Re B-S,  Re H (A child), Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal), Re G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation), Re A (A Child), Bournemouth Borough Council v ZL (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), PL, N, P (N, P by their children’s guardian), and Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent).  I have also reminded myself that the burden of proof is on the Local Authority in respect of their case that PI cannot be cared for by his Maternal Grandmother, DaI and the standard of proof is on balance of probabilities.  

Findings

At the outset of this case it was very clear to me how much PI’s mother and maternal grandmother love him and wish for him to be cared for in his family.  I note that threshold is not in dispute in this case and a final agreed threshold document is appended to this judgement.  Based on the evidence contained in the care proceedings Bundle, I find that threshold is met in this case and adopt that agreed threshold document as my threshold findings.

Both parents in this case have separately made the very difficult and child-focused decision that they cannot adequately parent PI within his timescales.  I commend them for putting PI’s needs first in this regard.  I would also say that I was impressed by the real dignity with which DI gave me her evidence, despite having to deal with some very difficult and traumatic issues from her past. 

The real issue in this case is whether placement with DaI in some form is in PI’s best interests, or whether nothing else but adoption will do for him.

The various assessments of DaI which I have seen in the course of these proceedings do show some distinct positives in relation to her care of LR.  She clearly has a very close bond with LR and her relationship with DI does seem to have improved somewhat.  She is noted as providing a very warm, loving and nurturing environment for LR and is noted to be the same in her interactions with PI during supervised contact.  None of the professionals involved with her dispute this.  She has also, despite her own considerable difficulties in parenting DI in the past, taken on the task of parenting LR.  As was noted by the Guardian in her evidence to me and is accepted by the Local Authority, LR was placed with DaI when LR was around two and half years old.  LR would therefore have experienced some two years of parenting from DI and her father BL and there is no doubt that LR suffered significant harm as a result of that parenting.  That would have left LR with some issues as a result – the Guardian summarised it very well when she said that LR would not have therefore been a “blank canvas” at that point.  Much time has been spent by all involved in the course of this case in relation to LR, but that has not been the sole focus of these proceedings.  My paramount concern is PI’s welfare, which must be analysed not just in relation to the Children Act welfare checklist but also in relation to the Adoption & Children Act welfare checklist.  

Dr Jenner had conducted a psychological report about DaI in the course of the proceedings concerning LR.  That report is contained in section E of the previous proceedings bundle.  It records Dr Jenner’s opinion that DaI’s “parenting style is of a very sensitive, nurturing, stimulating, containing, responsive and protective type (E128).  The Review Child Protection Conference in March 2015 also recorded that “LR’s basic needs are being met and she is living in a very nurturing environment” (M142).  

In the current case, Dr Williams’ opinion about the possible placement of PI with DaI was that “placing PI with DaI would be a high risk strategy, and one that I could not support.  Although extremely regrettable, I support the Social Worker’s Care Plan for adoption for PI” (E167).  Mr Casey has submitted that the expert evidence in this case is inadequate.  I have taken paragraph 15 of his submissions to be saying that Dr Williams is not able to comment appropriately on this placement option because he has referred to an independent social worker assessment of DaI when there was no such ISW assessment and that there may be some gap in the expert evidence in this case.  It does seem to me that Dr Williams assessed both the mother and maternal grandmother carefully as he was instructed, albeit that his initial instruction was on the basis that mother was seeking for PI to be rehabilitated to her care.  Whilst he may have inadvertently referred to an Independent Social Worker assessment, it also seems clear to me that he was in fact referring to the exhaustive and very balanced assessment of DaI conducted by CW from the family and friends team.  I simply cannot see that there is any evidential gap in this case and no additional expert evidence is necessary for me to resolve the issues in this case.   

There are some very real concerns identified in relation to DaI and not just in relation to her parenting of LR which merit careful consideration when I am carrying out my welfare analysis.  The past is important in this case as it does provide  evidence of her ability to meet the needs of two children in her care at different times and in different circumstances.  She was working full-time when caring for her daughter and has given up work to care for her granddaughter.  The past also enables me to consider the extent to which she accepts the issues with her past parenting and has addressed those issues. 

DaI’s parenting of DI led in no small part to DI being voluntarily accommodated.  DI told me very fairly that she did not entirely blame her mother but it was clear to me that she did feel abandoned by her mother and that for much of her childhood she was not given adequate routines and boundaries by DaI.  DaI herself does seem to accept that she made some mistakes in relation to her parenting of DI (C155 para 36) but the extent to which she fully accepts responsibility is questionable, I find.  I will return to this later but in essence it seems to me that she was seeking to place most of the blame upon other people and the fact she had to work rather than accepting that her parenting played a significant part.  

DaI’s parenting of LR has resulted in significant Local Authority involvement for a number of years after the SGO was granted in 2008, albeit not initially.  For over three years LR was subject to a CAF – this is recorded in the BFC papers at M8.   Despite this, concerns around LR’s school attendance and emotional and behavioural issues led to an initial Child Protection Conference (CPC) being held in January 2014.  The record of that CPC is at M6 onwards and shows that LR had missed significant amounts of schooling through being either late or absent.  The process of child protection continued until the case was down-graded to a Child in Need Plan.  As part of that process, in July 2015, Dr Kimber-Bidlot was instructed to work with DaI to assess her ability to change in various respects including accepting advice from professionals and getting LR to school on time every day.  That report is at F10 and concluded that DaI needed to identify specific routines and boundaries and then consistently manage them with LR, as well as DaI needing to consider the full impact of her own behaviours on LR (F18).

Dr Kimber-Bidlot’s report makes very interesting reading as it goes to the heart of the concerns about DaI identified by the professionals in this case too.  It records that DaI is able at times “to demonstrate brief insight into her contribution to the issues around LR’s behaviour and her school issues…She was able to acknowledge ‘I’m quite late for things and I don’t get up on time either.  If I can’t do it myself, how do I make LR do it?’” (F11).  Dr Kimber-Bidlot goes on to note that DaI “had a tendency to blame LR for being late to school and for being responsible for managing her own behaviour” (F11).   Dr Kimber-Bidlot also felt that DaI “may be able to focus her attention and reflect on the impact of her own behaviour on LR’s issues.  She seemed engaged and interested in trying to change her own behaviour” (F12).  However, she goes on to record “when we were meant to finalise a plan together, DaI failed to come prepared to work.  Instead, DaI reverted to talking about herself and her daughter DI and avoiding LR’s needs.  She began talking about taking on the responsibility of caring for her daughter’s unborn son.  She was unable to consider the impact of caring for a newborn baby may have on her ability to continue to care for LR, or whether LR would be adversely affected by the introduction of a younger sibling into her home” (F12).  Dr Kimber-Bidlot also noted that DaI “ultimately seemed to find it difficult to focus on LR, take advice or consider strategies to change her own behaviour which would assist in changing LR’s behaviour.  She presented as more and more chaotic as the process went on” (F12).   I do note that DaI does take issue with the contents of Dr Kimber-Bidlot’s report and denies that she was aware of the purpose of the meetings or any preparation that she was expected to do.  This is in direct contradiction to what Dr Kimber-Bidlot has recorded (see for example F16 with regard to DaI being told in one session that the next would focus on a plan of action to solve getting to school on time).  It simply doesn’t seem credible that Dr Kimber-Bidlot would have mis-recorded matters to such an extent.  By far the most important conclusion that I draw from Dr Kimber-Bidlot’s report is that DaI appears to have had no clear routines or boundaries in place for LR and that this is the underlying cause for LR’s difficulties with getting to school on time every day.  

I have been told by OS in the course of her evidence to me that LR has missed in total a year of schooling due to late attendance and absences.  This quantity of time lost is extremely concerning for any child, let alone one that is clearly exhibiting the level of behavioural difficulties which LR is on the face of the BFC papers. In passing, I note that the majority of the concerns in the BFC papers are not actually disputed by DaI so it was somewhat surprising to receive Mr Casey’s written submissions on her behalf in which (paragraph 7) he suggests that I do not have all the right, relevant evidence before me because I do not have recent, direct or primary evidence from BFC before me.  I find that I do have that recent, direct and primary evidence from BFC as to the extent of their involvement with DaI and LR and do not need to make any finding as to whether or not LR is suffering or has suffered significant harm in the care of her grandmother.  LR is not the child whose welfare concerns are paramount for me as PI is the subject child for the proceedings I am dealing with.  The relevance of the BFC paperwork and issues in relation to LR are the extent to which they corroborate the Local Authority concerns in relation to DaI’s capacity to parent PI to a good enough standard.  

I agree that it is concerning if LR does have some as yet unidentified learning difficulty but, as seems clear to me from the BFC paperwork and the evidence of the Social Worker and Guardian, the school are putting in appropriate support for LR and the child-focussed approach to the issue is to ensure that she attends school on time every day to enable her the opportunity to catch up what she has missed before seeking to assess her formally in relation to the extreme possibility of an Educational Health Care Plan.  I agree with the Guardian’s conclusions at paragraph 19 of her final report in this regard (E177) that the concerns arising from LR’s access to education appear consequential to her poor attendance and her own reluctance to participate in school life.

I find that the issue of LR’s lateness for and absence from school is actually the manifestation of a deeper concern around DaI’s routines and boundary setting for LR.  There is much undisputed evidence in the various documents before me to show that DaI struggled to set and consistently implement boundaries for DI in her childhood – see for example C98 previous proceedings.  I find that this pattern is being repeated with regard to LR’s childhood and accordingly it does not appear that she has addressed these underlying issues in relation to her parenting.  

DaI’s acceptance of her role in this appears to fluctuate.  She is noted to have told professionals at various times both in previous and current proceedings things which suggest that she was blaming others when in reality the lack of routines and boundaries appear to be the main issue.  DaI accepts that she made some reference to having found letters/notes written to DI by the boy who sexually assaulted her when she spoke to CW but she disputes saying what CW has recorded at C95, namely that DI “may have been the instigator of what happened”.  When I asked DaI why she mentioned the letters/notes at all, she said it was a “flippant” remark in response to a question from CW about the incident.  This is not the first instance of DaI not accepting what is recorded as being said by her when she has spoken to social workers.  She also took issue with certain parts of the BFC papers in relation to what she was recorded as saying during the various child protection and child in need meetings.  She also disputed that what she is recorded by Dr Kimber-Bidlot as saying at F11 in relation to her being unable to get up in the mornings etc was actually said by her. Each point that she took issue with tended, I find,  to be one which showed her either seeking to blame someone else for the issue or accepting her own failing in some form.  Frankly, I did not find her credible that there would be so many instances of her being incorrectly quoted by so many professionals at different times over such a variety of documents.  CW was very clear in her evidence to me that DaI did say what she recorded about DI “may have been the instigator of what happened” and that she “found papers that makes it look like she planned it”.  In addition, DaI (as the Guardian also noted in her evidence to me) gave me evidence where she referred to DI being involved with inappropriate peers.  

CW was not the only professional to note that DaI seemed to blame DI or others for things which were at least partly due to her parenting.  Dr Kimber-Bidlot noted a tendency to blame LR for the school attendance issue (F11).  When OS and CW spoke to her on 2nd February 2016 to get an update on her views they both note that it was apparent to them “that it is LR’s responsibility she does not get up on time to go to school rather than her responsibility as the adult to make sure that this happens (C222).  Drs Williams and Harrison also noted a tendency to absolve herself of responsibility when things went wrong “this even extended to putting the responsibility for LR being late to school on LR herself”.  

I also have the troubling incident of PI being removed from hospital by DaI.  DaI said in her statement at C325-326 that she was asked by DI to pick up PI from the hospital and “when my friend Hayley suggested I care for him myself on a Residence Order with LR, whilst DI convalesced in hospital it al made perfect sense at that time.  Obviously I regret this decision now and on reflection should have discussed it first with the LA.  I had all PI’s things are mine, clothes, cot, nappies and baby formula as DI was coming to mine for support in his early days.  He was not subject to a court order and I intended to obtain a RO the following morning then a private SGO.  DI was very distraught at the LA decision on 28/04/15, in a private meeting at the hospital where she was not allowed to have any support, to not allow her to keep her child as she was not in a relationship with KG…So I stepped in to assist as I have an SGO for his sister, full DBS check and plenty of room in my house.  I believe I was prioritising PI’s needs and rights to remain in his birth family”.  

DaI also told me in her evidence that the suggestion to remove PI came from Hayley and she went along.  I did not gain any real sense of regret from her for her actions.  Her written and oral evidence both sought to lay the blame largely at the door of Hayley and to somehow argue that what she was doing was ultimately in PI’s best interests.  She also continued to suggest that what she was doing was not done in full knowledge that the viability assessment of her was negative in terms of her being approved to care for PI in the interim, despite also admitting that she was aware of the outcome of that assessment via a telephone call from her solicitor before she went to the hospital.  It is clear to me that PI had not been discharged from the hospital at the point that he was removed, and that he was due to undergo at least one further scan so that his removal was therefore something which potentially placed him at significant risk of harm.

The other troubling aspect of her removing PI from hospital is that it echoes her actions in relation to LR when she failed to return LR to her foster carers in 2007 during the previous proceedings.  The fact that she did this is not in dispute, though she told me that she did it because a stranger came to collect LR from her at the end of weekend contact.  It seems that she was not aware that LR had temporarily moved to respite care while her foster carers were on holiday.  Even if she were unaware, it does seem that she did not seek to clarify the position until the Monday morning.  Again, I was left with the distinct impression that DaI still does not think that her actions were really wrong and that the blame lay with social services for not telling her in advance rather than any acknowledgement for her actions causing a significant hiatus in LR’s routines (as was noted by Dr de Taranto in his psychological report in the previous proceedings bundle E85).

It seems more likely than not to me that DaI does have a tendency to blame others for issues that are at least partly due to her actions.  It goes even further than this, I find, and she still does in some way blame DI for what happened to her during her childhood, even for such a serious matter as the sexual assault which DI suffered, and this is indeed a pattern which has continued in relation to any issues with regard to her parenting of LR.   Underlying issues were noted at the conclusion of the proceedings in relation to LR as requiring further work – for example as Dr Jenner noted “In order for LR to safely remain in the permanent care of her grandmother…DaI must show she can make substantive and maintainable progress towards achieving protective parent/child boundaries between herself and her daughter DI” (E128 previous proceedings).  That report also recommended therapy, both jointly for DaI and DI and individually, as well as for DaI to attend a parenting course.

It is apparent that DaI has undertaken various parenting courses and is very familiar with the theory and terminology in her evidence to me.  However, what seems to be lacking is her ability to consistently implement those strategies in relation to LR.  When she does set clear routines LR gets to school on time and it seems that the behavioural and educational concerns in relation to her also diminish – this is evidenced by the short period in 2014 when LR is noted to have attended school regularly on time and was beginning to make excellent academic and social progress (M119).  However, as the school attendance records for the period 2nd September 2015 to 25th March 2016 show, LR’s attendance is only 82.38% so it seems as if that early positive period in 2014 has not been maintained.  Indeed, LR is now working with an Education Welfare Officer as a result of continued concerns in this regard.  I was told by both OS and CW that this was a prelude to prosecution if attendance does not improve.  

In addition to the concerns in relation to LR which I have noted above, the Local Authority also contend that DaI does not respond to professional advice, does not co-operate with professionals and is defensive.  I do have many instances in the past and current papers of DaI responding to professionals, and I can see that elements of her personal style may well make her appear defensive when dealing with professionals.   Despite her criticisms of the content of Dr Kimber-Bidlot’s report, she told me that she had been using a wall-chart to reward LR when she complies with clear routines.  This is positive news and seems to indicate that she is implementing at least one of the parenting course strategies which she has learnt (she made specific reference to the Webster Stratton course techniques).  She also initially engaged with the Family Intervention Project. However, she stopped engagement with them before the work had run its course.  The precise reasons for this remain somewhat unclear from her evidence, but it is recorded at M10 that she told the initial child protection case conference in January 2014 that it was because she wanted to spend more time doing things with LR.  

DaI also engaged with professionals in relation to the other aspect of concern in relation to LR’s wellbeing, namely emotional abuse resulting from her contact with her parents.  The records in section M do show that, despite some difficulties with her managing contact between DI and LR, she engaged with professionals to set up and participate in a Family Group Conference to resolve issues around LR’s father and his contact with LR.  That particular aspect of the concern no longer seems active at present.  In relation to DI, it does seem to me as if the therapeutic input which they both had in the course of the previous proceedings (records of which are in section E of the previous proceedings bundle) did help to improve matters.  Added to this, DI did strike me as genuinely reflective in relation to her past difficulties when she gave me her evidence.  I have no doubt that her desire to address her own issues is genuine and that she is making good progress, albeit that she accepts she has more work to do and that it cannot be done in a timescale for PI’s needs.  This maturity and progression by DI is bound to have positively affected the relationship which she has with her mother, I am sure.   Aside from this, it is alleged that DI still remains vulnerable to inappropriate influence from DaI.  The evidence about the text message or messages sent in November 2015 from DaI to DI is another area of dispute in this case.  The Local Authority allege that DaI was angry that she could only have contact with PI supervised at a contact centre and that she sent a text refusing to do that, saying “don’t worry I don’t wish to see my grandson at a contact centre so will leave it Reading are too disorganised to arrange it anyway…I shall make LR aware that she won’t be able to see him”.  The social worker, OS, was very clear that in her view this text was angry and designed to emotionally blackmail DI.  She told me that she had been asked by DI for contact not to take place at her house (this was during the attempted rehabilitation of PI to his mother’s care) and asked DI how she would like this information to be conveyed to DaI.  OS told me that DI said that she would tell her mother about the arrangements.  Whilst I do not necessarily think that this was destined to work well given the history between DaI and DI, I can understand a social worker trying to work sensitively with DI at a critical point in the rehabilitation process.  It is not disputed by DI that the text which she received was “angry” (C181).  She denied interpreting the message as attempting to blackmail her when she was questioned about this.  DaI also denied that the message was sent in an attempt to blackmail DI about contact arrangements.  Whilst DaI took issue with the interpretation of the text, she did not seem to dispute the general gist of the message and sought to justify her actions in making LR aware that she was not going to have contact with PI, from which latter point I took it that she accepted she was going to tell LR that she would not have contact with PI.  I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that that text was sent when DaI was angry and that she did so without thought for how it might be received by DI.  At the very least, this is acting without thinking first about PI’s and LR’s needs and is evidence of the point made several times in the Local Authority papers in these and past proceedings that DaI gets angry and frustrated and allows that to influence her actions, sometimes into sending something which may well influence the way her daughter responds, I find.

In addition, there is the alleged incident at the contact centre shortly before Christmas last year.  OS and CW both told me about this incident and it is detailed in their written evidence at C201-202 and C227-228 respectively.  OS was present for the actual incident, having agreed that LR could join the contact that day.  She was very clear that she did not agree for DaI to join the contact.  However, DaI attended and OS told me that she became impolite and argumentative in front of the children.  OS had to ask a manager to assist her and DaI became very rude and verbally abusive, objecting to being told to leave.  It appears that she was angry about not being told in advance about the contact.  OS was very clear that other children and parents were in the centre at the time as it was a very busy time.  She also noted that LR seemed unconcerned about her grandmother’s behaviour at the time, suggesting that this may mean this is normal behaviour.  DaI did eventually leave.  DaI told me and said in her statement at C245 that she “may have, on occasion, come across as confrontational or challenging to one particular individual in Reading. I don’t mean to.  I believe that I put across my view in an assertive but respectful manner”.  In contrast to OS’s evidence about 23rd December, DaI said in her statement at C249 para 48 that it was OS who shouted at her and that she (DaI) did not shout or raise my voice.  I am afraid that I do not find DaI to be particularly credible about this incident.  She acknowledges herself that she becomes angry and frustrated at times, and can become confrontational.  Though she did not tell me who the particular individual was in Reading whom she referred to in her statement at C245, it is also recorded in the SGO assessment by CW (C94) that DaI told her that she did not like OS.  DaI denied saying this as it is yet another example where she says the record is incorrect.  CW was very clear about this and, as I have noted earlier, it does seem incredible that there would be so many instances of mis-recording what DaI herself has said and where she only takes issue with them if they corroborate what the Local Authority are saying.  I infer from her comment to CW (which I find was made, on balance of probabilities), that the individual with whom she admitted she could be confrontational was OS.  It therefore seems more likely than not that DaI did become angry at the contact centre and behaved in the way which OS described, without thought for the children and others exposed to her angry outburst.  I find that this is evidence of her being unable to put PI’s needs first as she should have prioritised LR having contact with PI in both of the children’s interests, rather than exposed them and others to the consequences of her becoming angry and frustrated with OS.

DaI made it part of her case that she had not had sufficient support offered to her after the SGO was made in respect of LR.  She referred in particular to not having had any foster carer training when she gave me her evidence.  Apart from this, it seems clear that she has undertaken various parenting courses as was recommended after the last proceedings.  She also submitted through Mr Casey, that she has worked well with the various professionals involved in supporting LR.  It seems to me that there is a contradiction in her position.  She simultaneously seems to be saying that she has not had support but at the same time refers to the considerable support which she has had through the CAF, child protection and child in need processes.  LR has received play therapy and counselling and remains involved with an Education Welfare Officer.  DaI herself did not identify to me any other support or training which she felt she needed, beyond the fostering training.  As the Guardian commented, DaI is clearly a very intelligent woman who is well able to research and identify a wide range of resources, as well as accessing those resources in relation to other aspects of her life (for example help with her housing), and I find that that she and LR have had considerable support from BFC, so it is surprising that she now claims not to have had the necessary support.  I simply do not find that her issues in parenting LR arise from lack of support.  It seems more likely than not that they stem from her inability to set and consistently maintain routines and boundaries.  This may well be unintentional as she does seem genuinely motivated to care for LR and PI, as the Guardian told me, and I accept that this is the case.

In relation to her ability to work with professionals, again, this does not seem to me to be motivated by any deliberate refusal to work with them.  What comes across from her evidence (both written and oral) is that she can and does question something that is put to her as advice.  This is not necessarily a bad thing as it suggests that she does not have an unquestioning acceptance of what she is told.  However, time and again in these proceedings I have instances of her not implementing advice in relation to her care of LR (primarily in relation to boundaries and routines but also to some extent protecting LR from an inappropriate awareness of the proceedings).  She has also questioned the advice about how to feed PI during contact.  In itself, this is not necessarily a significant issue.  C83 of the SGO assessment records CW being present when DaI was clearly told about PI’s feeding regime in light of his medication needs.  Unfortunately, despite that advice DaI had not fed PI by the time the foster carer came to collect him.  CW’s evidence is that DaI said that she had forgotten to prepare the milk in time for it to cool and that it took PI some 24 hours to settle back into his routine because he was so distressed.  DaI denies that it happened in this way but her evidence to me about this was extremely confused.  She seemed to be saying that CW was making up the feed and did not know how to do this.  What she didn’t tell me was why CW was making up the feed.  It seems more likely than not that she was doing so because DaI did not feed PI.  I am afraid that this is yet another instance of DaI denying that she has said something when it supports the Local Authority case, in this example her admission that she forgot to make up PI’s feed.  The importance of this small but significant detail is that it makes up part of what the Guardian called the jigsaw puzzle of her parenting capability, in particular her ability to accept and act upon advice in the best interests of the child concerned. 

DaI also appears not to have worked well with the social work assistant who was working with LR.  This is recorded at C87-88 of the SGO assessment.  Again, DaI denies that she said what is recorded but did say that she thought the social work assistant brought toys that were too young for LR.  DaI was extremely vague in her evidence about whether or not LR was encouraged by Hayley to communicate through her, but she did accept that Hayley was present and seemed to be saying that she was not paying attention rather than it did not happen.  I find that the description of her not working well with the social work assistant is credible and compelling and it is telling that LR appears to work better with her away from the house (C88).  

Finally, there is the issue of DaI not telling social services about DI being in a relationship with AC.  DaI seemed to accept that she knew something about this when questioned by Ms Quinn for the Local Authority.  She very clearly said that she was present when DI first met up with AC and that he was someone DI had known for a number of years.    She also accepted that she met him again on Christmas Day 2015 as CW has recorded in the SGO assessment at C225.   She also told CW and OS during their visit to her in February 2016 that she knew about the pregnancy.  Whilst DI herself denied that her relationship with AC was clear (saying that it was not a real relationship as she was “not that into him”), I do find that DaI could and should have at least supported DI to tell the social workers about her involvement with AC and the pregnancy as this was clearly something that had the potential to impact upon PI and DI’s ability to care for him. 

As noted by the Guardian in her report at E176, I agree that DaI “has struggled to follow the advice of professionals and accept constructive criticism.  It appears to me that DaI is caught up in a perpetual cycle of fighting against what she perceives as the oppressive barriers being imposed by the authority.  DaI disregards professional concerns she opposes, this is then proceeded by criticising the integrity and professionalism of those who do not validate her perspective and agree with her views”.  The extensive evidence in relation to her persistence that LR’s needs to be assessed for some form of learning difficulty or dyslexia is evidence of this, I find.   

Conclusions in light of Findings and in relation to the welfare checklists under section1 of the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002

I am very clear that for a child to remain with his birth family if it is safe for him to do is the preferred option in cases such as this and adoption is a draconian step which is only to be sanctioned if nothing else will do.  No party really takes issue with that broad summary of the law from the submissions made to me.  I have to undertake a “global, holistic and multi-faceted evaluation of the child’s welfare taking into account all the negatives and positives, all the pros and cons of each option” (Re BS).
I am equally clear that I am looking at whether PI could receive good enough parenting if he were to be placed in his maternal grandmother’s care.  I am mindful of Munby P’s words in Re A (A child) reiterating Hedley J’s “wise and powerful words” in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) “society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent”.

In relation to PI’s wishes and feelings, he is clearly too young to be able to articulate these for himself.  It is not disputed that he appears to be a happy and contented child in the care of the foster carer.  He would no doubt wish to be placed with his family if that is a safe option and would wish to maintain some form of contact with or understanding of his birth family if that is not.

His particular needs are such that he is currently catching up with his physical development and has formed a good attachment with his current carers.  His adoption medical at B6 does note that he is at increased risk of mental health issues and learning difficulties.  He will need his formal educational needs to be met as he grows older.

The likely effect upon PI throughout his life of having ceased to be a member of his birth family and become and adopted person is the next relevant heading.  Adoption is a draconian step as I have already noted.  It results in a severing of a child’s relationship from their birth family.  LR has been able to remain in the care of her grandmother and has spent the majority of her childhood now in that placement.  PI will therefore undergo not just the loss of his relationship with his birth family, a form of bereavement in itself when he becomes old enough to understand, but will also in particular lose the opportunity of a sibling bond.  It is now universally accepted that sibling bonds can be the most enduring of birth relationships because they will persist long after the death of a parent.  However, in this case I have to balance the impact upon PI of placement with his grandmother where there are ongoing concerns about her ability to care for LR adequately as well as current concerns about her ability to care for PI as well.  The evidence for this latter point comes from LR’s own social worker, DM, albeit via CW.  At C218 their conversation on 18th January 2016 is summarised and recorded.  DM is recorded as saying “I do feel that it would be detrimental to both LR’s and PI’s welfare should PI live with DaI as the areas of practical management she struggles with would be likely to have a greater impact on LR if caring for a baby and DaI may struggle in the longer term to manage all the practical needs caring for a baby would bring about” (C219-220).  In essence, this is also part of the conclusions drawn in the SGO assessment of DaI.  The negative impact upon PI of having his relationship with his birth family severed and becoming an adopted person can be significantly ameliorated by proper life story work as OS, CW and the Guardian told me.  In addition, he would be in a placement where his needs would be likely to be met, including his emotional needs in relation to understanding and coming to terms with his being adopted, I find.

The next relevant heading relates to any risk of harm that PI has suffered or is at risk of suffering.  PI has suffered significant harm as the threshold findings show.  Placement with either parent is therefore not an option given the risk of significant harm which that would expose him to and this is accepted by all parties.  In relation to placement with his grandmother, I do find that he is at risk of harm if DaI were to be unable to prioritise and meet all of his needs (not just his physical care needs which it is accepted she would be capable of meeting).  

With regard to the relationship which PI has with relatives including the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so, the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives…to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise meet the child’s needs, and the wishes and feelings of the child’s relatives, it is abundantly clear that DaI genuinely wants to care for PI together with his sibling LR and this is supported by both of his parents.  Unfortunately, DaI’s care of LR has led to extensive Local Authority involvement over a number of years and which continues to this day.  That involvement goes beyond the expected support which one might expect under an SGO support plan, I find.  It has resulted in a CAF process for over three years, then a child protection plan, followed by a child in need plan (to which LR remains subject) and has current involvement of the Education Welfare Officer.  DaI has consistently minimised the importance of LR’s school attendance issues, referring to the lateness as only being a matter of minutes and seeking to blame LR for getting up late, “faffing with her hair and clothes” before leaving the house and at one point telling me that LR “refused to go to school”.  As I have found, the issue here is not so much the school attendance per se as the underlying issues it exposes with regard to DaI’s capacity to adequately parent LR and therefore any other child in her care.  I do acknowledge that PI has currently some form of relationship with both his mother and grandmother, as well as with LR.  However, I do have to balance his need for security and permanency in placement against the significant concerns identified in relation to DaI’s ability to care for him throughout his life, not just now, as assessed by the SGO assessment and updates, as well as the other social work evidence and opinion of the Guardian. 

I have also carefully looked at the relative merits of a Placement Order and other orders.  In particular, I have asked myself whether there is anything which could and should be provided to DaI by way of support to enable her to adequately parent PI.  There are undoubted positives to PI being placed with his maternal grandmother and the Local Authority and Guardian acknowledge this.  The assessments of her and the social work evidence is very balanced as it clearly records these.  It would enable PI to maintain and develop his relationship with his birth family.  A Supervision Order, as suggested by DI through her advocate Mr Purss and Mr Casey for DaI would place a statutory duty on the Local Authority (probably BFC though their views about this would need to be sought if this is an appropriate disposal) to monitor, assist and support the family for up to 12 months initially.  A Care Order would also allow he Local Authority to share parental responsibility but would require them to agree to amend their final care plan.

The weaknesses in relation to placement with DaI are also clearly evidenced before me.  There are historic and ongoing concerns about her ability to parent a child to a good enough standard.  Despite extensive and ongoing professional intervention and support by BFC the issues remain of such concern that LR is still subject to a child in need plan.  Improvements do seem to have been made in relation to LR’s school attendance recently, but this has required the involvement of the Education Welfare Officer and it is too early to tell if DaI will be able to maintain these changes.  Past history suggests that her ability to sustain change is not good, I am afraid.  Adherence to clear routines will be essential for a young baby, particularly one who may have additional needs such as PI, I find.  DaI has clearly struggled with setting and maintaining clear routines for both of her children and I have no evidence that she has improved her ability to do so now.  In fact, rather the opposite as her own admissions to various professionals in the course of these proceedings and the ongoing issues in relation to LR demonstrate.

I do find that there is a real risk that if PI is placed with her he will be exposed to a chaotic childhood such as was experienced by DI and has now been experienced by LR.  Whilst it was suggested at one point by Mr Casey that DaI could meet PI’s needs now, I have to look not just at his physical needs but all of his needs including his emotional and educational needs now and in the long term.  Sadly, I find that DaI would not be capable of consistently meeting all of his needs in the long term.  He is therefore at risk of this placement breaking down and his being removed.  It was telling that the Guardian commented that LR would have been removed from a foster carer by now if she had been in such a placement with such a high level of concern about her.  It does seem clear to me that the difference between PI and LR is that LR was placed with her maternal grandmother at two years old and she has now been with her for the majority of her childhood. The considerations in relation to her removal balanced against her attachment to her grandmother are therefore different to PI who has no such lengthy relationship with DaI but who would be exposed to a risk of harm in her care as I have found.  Ultimately I have to conclude that the level of support which DaI would require to care for PI as well as LR goes far beyond that which could and should be provided to him, as noted by the social workers and Guardian in this case (see particularly the Guardian’s report at E187).

Adoption is the other realistic option for PI in this case.  The positives in relation to an adoptive placement would be that he has a sense of permanency and belonging, and a placement with a family who will have been matched as able to meet his needs.  It would provide him with stability and security in a way which placement with his maternal grandmother would not, as I have noted above.

I am equally clear, however, that adoption is not a panacea as Mr Casey suggested it could sometimes be taken to be.  Adoptive placements can and do sometimes break down.  It does sever PI’s relationship with his birth family who clearly love him dearly.  Direct contact may be problematic in this case if his birth family are unable to come to terms with his being adopted and PI may therefore only have limited or indirect contact with them.  In particular, as the Guardian notes at E187, he may struggle to understand why he has been separated from his half-sister.

On balance, I find that the negatives in relation to his potential placement with DaI outweigh the positives.  PI needs security and stability now and in the long term.  He is likely to experience all of his needs (physical, emotional and educational) not being met if he were to be placed with DaI and this exposes him to a risk of harm if placed there, that harm potentially amounting to significant harm if he were to suffer the same issues as those experienced by DI and now LR in relation to her emotional and educational needs. I therefore find that there is no other option but adoption for him and that this is therefore a necessary and proportionate step in his welfare interests.   I therefore also conclude that his welfare demands that I dispense with his parents’ consent to adoption and will grant both Care and Placement orders in this case.

Turning finally to the issue of contact post adoption, I share Mr Casey’s concerns about the way in which the care plan was created in this case.  It should have been obvious to the Local Authority that their care plan was not only out of date at the beginning of this hearing, but also that it was not complete (it seemed in fact to have either missing words or punctuation at D16).  As a result, everyone else (myself included) was confused in relation to the contact proposals under the care plan, both pre and post adoptive placement.  I did then receive an amended final care plan which addressed the deficiencies but we all had to consider it in the course of the hearing rather than having it filed and served in advance.  I would ask that the Local Authority take note of my comments about this less than good practice and avoid it happening in future.

Regardless of my comments above, the final amended care plan does now clearly set out what is proposed.  The only issue in relation to contact raised by both Mr Purss and Mr Casey is that I give consideration to requiring the Local Authority to seek only prospective adopters willing to consider direct contact post adoption.  OS and the Guardian were both very clear that to do this would limit the potential pool of adopters for PI and may delay his placement.  I do find that the Local Authority should not rule out direct contact, particularly between PI and LR, but this does need to be subject to a consideration of its appropriateness at the time, including looking at the geographical location of his placement and the ability of DI and DaI to actively support his adoptive placement.  Similarly, the Local Authority will need to risk assess any exchange of photographs post adoption.  However, to require the Local Authority to only look for adopters willing to facilitate direct contact is not in PI’s best interests, I find.  PI needs security and stability sooner rather than later (he has been subject to proceedings for over a year due to the exhaustive and extensive assessments of his birth family and testing of rehabilitation to his mother’s care and is now over one year old).  I therefore do not make an order requiring the Local Authority to only seek prospective adopters willing to facilitate direct contact but do ask that they do not rule out the possibility of direct contact.

 APPENDIX – AGREED FINAL THRESHOLD

At the relevant date ( i.e 29.4.15)  PI born 24 April 2015, was likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm, or likelihood of harm, was attributable to the care given to him, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him for the following reasons:

1.	PI is likely to suffer physical harm 
At the relevant date the Mother had resumed a relationship with KG who subjected the Mother to serious assault on 11 January 2015. KG has subjected the Mother to attempted strangulation and threats to kill her and her unborn child. There was therefore a risk of PI suffering a physical harm through being caught in the crossfire of a domestic violence incident or deliberate injury.

2.	PI is likely to suffer emotional harm
a.	DI failed to meet the emotional needs of her older child by prioritising her relationship LR’s father over LR’s needs.
b.	DI has prioritised her relationship with KG.
c.	DI has a volatile relationship with her mother and LR has been exposed to arguments between them. There is a risk that PI may be likely to have similar experiences.

3.	PI is likely to suffer neglect
a.	DI presents as vulnerable and has a volatile relationship with her mother meaning that at times this source is affected.
b.	DI’s older daughter, LR, experienced neglectful parenting while in DI’s care.
c.	KG had a difficult childhood (exposure to domestic violence, his mother uses cannabis and his father misuses alcohol) and these have not provided appropriate models of good parenting.
d.	The family home is reported to be cluttered and DI and KG have been sleeping on a mattress in the living room due to mould in the bedroom.
e.	KG admits using cannabis in the past and self-reported that this ceased in January 2015
f.	DI admits past cannabis use.
 
4.	The parents have a history of mental health difficulties including:
a.	DI has a history of mental health difficulties including self-harm and a diagnosis of a borderline personality disorder which impacts upon her ability to form healthy attachments and make appropriate relationship choices. She has engaged with mental health services but the impact of the other identified risk on her mental health poses a risk of harm to PI.
b.	KG has a diagnosis of post traumatic disorder and has not, in the past, been consistently compliant with his medication. He reports that he has been taking his medication since August 2013.
c.	KG has previously attempted suicide on three occasions, most recently on 26 February 2015 when he took an overdose while in prison.
d.	KG misuses illicit substances including cannabis, cocaine and Mkat. KG self-reports that he has not used cannabis since January 2015 but that his paranoia has increased. He states that he has not used cocaine and MKAT since he was 21 yrs old.
e.	DI admits using cannabis until 4 years ago. 

5.	PI is likely to suffer harm through being exposed to domestic violence and/or abuse
a.	DI has been the victim of domestic violence in previous relationships:
i.	With BL who was convicting of assault DI including holding a gun to her head. DI later married him after he was released from prison.
b.	KG has a history of violence towards DI. His previous partner alleged that he had slapped her during an argument.
c.	KG violently assaulted DI on 11 January 2015 including kneeing her in the stomach, attempting to strangle her.
d.	KG attempted to strangle DI to the point that she passed out more than once on 11 January 2015.
e.	KG has contacted DI whilst he was in prison in February and March 2015.
f.	KG was considered at MARAC and was considered to be high risk in January 2015.
g.	KG and DI have continued to remain in communication and spend time together:
i.	They went shopping together for items for the baby in March 2015.
ii.	On 8 April 2015 DI informed BWA that she was seeing KG a lot; that KG makes her feel safe; and that KG was with her at her home while she called BWA.
iii. On 24 April 2015 while in labour, DI asked hospital staff if KG could attend the birth.  KG did not attend as he was in custody.

6.	The Mother & KG have not engaged consistently with professional support and have not used that support to make sustained positive changes:
a.	DI has engaged with a psychiatrist and CMHT worker but has not completed the Steps and Mentalisation Programme.
b.	DI missed appointments with BWA in November 2014 when prioritising her relationship with KG.
c.	DI continues her relationship with KG despite the involvement of BWA and completing the Choices programme.
d.	KG has a history of acquisitive offending and of violent offending. Although he has worked with probation and BWA he was violent to the mother following this work and has not managed to cease these activities despite professional support. 
e.	KG has breached his community order.

12.5.16