No. ME16C00151
MEDWAY FAMILY COURT 
Anchorage House,
47-67 High Street, Chatham.

26th January 2017

B e f o r e:-

HIS HONOUR JUDGE SCARRATT

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

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL
Applicant
v

M & O

Respondents

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

Transcription by:
Audio and Verbatim Transcription Services
10 Herondale, Haslemere, Surrey, GU27 1RQ : 
Telephone: 01428 643408 : Facsimile: 01428 654059
Members of the Official Tape Transcription Panel
Members of the British Institute of Verbatim Reporters

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

MISS JAQUELINE JULYAN of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Local Authority.
MISS LUCY SPRINZ of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Mother.
MR STEVEN ASHWORTH of Counsel appeared on behalf of the 2nd Respondent Father.
MR PHILIP McCORMACK of Counsel appeared on behalf of 3rd Respondent Child.
MISS SHELLY GLAISTER-YOUNG of Counsel appeared on behalf of the 4th Respondent, D.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR JUDGE SCARRATT: 
1.	This is the matter of Kent County Council v O and M.  The parties in this case are the child, A, who is one year old tomorrow. The mother of the child is B.  The father of child is C.  The child is represented by his Guardian, Mr. Rob Cooper. D, the aunt, has put herself forward to be the Special Guardian.
2.	The matter goes back some time because the Local Authority issued proceedings in this case following the birth of A. An emergency protection order was granted on the 29th January 2016.  The mother and A were placed in a mother and baby placement in London.  The parents signed a Written Agreement not to have any contact with each other at that time. Subsequently the mother and A moved back to Kent in or around early February of last year. The matter came back to Court and an interim care order was granted on the 5th February. The Local Authority’s case is that following the move back to Kent the mother spent significant periods out of the placement with the child and sometimes did not return to the placement overnight.
3.	These matters came to Social Services’ attention because going back a week or so prior to the birth of A, in fact the 18th January, there was a domestic incident of some seriousness at the family home. The father had set fire to clothes and he had self-harmed with a Stanley knife. The father was taken to the Police Station and was upset and aggressive.  
4.	Following the arrest the mother made various disclosures or allegations about the father’s previous behaviour and domestic violence that had occurred at the home. At the time the father admitted to misusing drugs. He was in fact at that time taking legal highs. The father was, and is, a Schedule 1 Offender, having been convicted of a violent rape of an adult female and that is something that I have had to look at, namely that conviction, during the course of the evidence. He has a significant criminal history. Both the parents certainly have had very difficult childhoods. That is a brief history of how the matter came to the attention of Social Services.
5.	During the course of last year therefore these proceedings were ongoing. The matter has taken longer than would normally be the case because I adjourned the final hearing so that a very full assessment by an independent social worker could be carried out in respect of D, the aunt.  There had been an initial assessment undertaken by the allocated social worker which was negative, but the Court required, supported by the Guardian, an independent social worker to look at the matter because of course at the end of the day, if at all possible, children should be kept within the family even if the birth parents are unable to care for the child.  So in my judgment at the time the delay in these proceedings was very necessary.
6.	In fact the matter came back for final hearing in December and the matter was adjourned over the Christmas holiday so that it was only in mid-January when the full assessment of the aunt was available that the Court was able to consider the prospect of the aunt becoming a special guardian for D. 
7.	To save Court time in December the Court used the days set aside for the final hearing to hear the medical evidence in the matter, the social work evidence, and indeed the important evidence from the parents. In the last few days I have heard the Guardian’s evidence and submissions from the parties.
8.	What are the parties’ positions? They are as follows. The Local Authority has changed its care plan. Its original care plan was for adoption by a third party, “stranger adoption”, as it is often called. After the filing of a very positive Special Guardian report in respect of D, and no doubt heeding the Guardian’s recommendation for Special Guardianship in this case, the Local Authority amended its care plan and its care plan is that the child be placed with the aunt.
9.	The parents’ case – and the parents present as a couple – is that first and foremost A should be returned to their joint care.  If that is not possible their case is that A should be looked after and cared for during the course of his minority by his aunt, D. The Guardian’s position is, as I have already set out, that the child should be cared for by his aunt pursuant to a Special Guardianship Order, the Guardian considering it being too unsafe for the child to be returned to the care of his parents.  That of course is the Local Authority’s case as well. 
10.	There is a very positive report, as I have already said, in respect of D by an independent social worker, Miss Moatti. I have read a transitional plan and that is before the Court.  
11.	The question for the Court is essentially this.  Can the parents be ruled in as carers for their son? It is perfectly understandable and human that they would want to care for their own son if at all possible. There is some very relevant medical evidence before the Court.  I will deal with that now before I come to the decision.
12.	Dr. McDermott is a psychiatrist.  She concluded that mother has a personality disorder and has difficulties in personal relationships and inter-personal relationships with others. Her social functioning she opined was poor. Dr. McDermott mentioned more than once the mother’s very poor background in the sense of the problems she had when she herself was brought up. This has led to the mother having a limited insight into her difficulties.  She does not or cannot acknowledge the risk she poses to herself and thus to A.  This was Dr. McDermott’s main concern in her oral evidence to the Court.  As she said:
“It is all right to have difficulties. What is important is to know what they are and be able to help and advise.”
Dr. McDermott opined that the mother requires “significant” therapeutic intervention and that this would take 12 to 18 months, possibly longer.
13.	Dr. McDermott was also of the view that it is very likely that the mother would not be accepted on a suitable programme of therapy because at the moment she does not recognise her difficulties, that being her current state of mind. That was the doctor’s oral evidence.
14.	The doctor continued:
“Even if she is accepted on the programme she would require significant support especially if she was parenting the child, A, at the same time as undergoing the therapy.”
15.	In cross-examination Dr. McDermott emphasised the enduring nature of the mother’s difficulties.  She disputed that she was swift to rush to judgment, bearing in mind mother’s circumstances at the time, that is, having an infant son and moving shortly after his birth. Notwithstanding the mother’s self-referrals to Insight Mental Health Dr. McDermott thought there had been little change. She had not seen the mother for nine months she accepted, but she had read the papers and reports she told me and she was as up-to-date as possible.
16.	Dr. Aslan, the psychologist, gave evidence. He felt that the mother was suffering from a complex trauma, having been exposed to multi-trauma from an early age.  Again, this medical expert referred to the mother’s quite shocking upbringing. He opined this led to the mother’s self-harming addiction, depression and anxiety. He opined that care should be taken to understand whether mother’s symptoms were characteristic of post-traumatic stress disorder or whether mother had what he called “co-occurring trauma and personality disorder”.  He, as did the other experts, recommended therapy which might mean treatment for years.  Some, he said, might complete it within six months.
17.	Dr. Aslan thought that the mother had a good insight into her problems.  He did not necessarily agree with Dr. McDermott on this point.  His view was that there was a risk to the mother and A from the father in the sense of the risk of assault. He was also sure that the father minimised the concerns of others in respect of his rape conviction.  Again, in his report Dr. Aslan said that was very concerning.
18.	In oral evidence he said that he considered the father to be on the cusp of a personality disorder, having strong traits of anti-social personality disorder. He felt that both parents could care for A whilst undergoing the recommended therapeutic intervention.  Dr. Aslan considered the mother to be very vulnerable and the father to be manipulative.  
19.	In cross-examination by mother’s Counsel Dr. Aslan accepted that he did not consider mother to suffer from a personality disorder.  Traits, yes, but they were insufficient for a clear diagnosis.
20.	He still disagreed with Dr. McDermott even after a telephone conference with her.  Dr. Aslan thought the mother was keen – his words – to continue with whatever therapy or treatment was offered.  He also thought the father required further therapeutic intervention even after hearing of the father’s reduction in substance abuse following treatment. 
21.	I heard from Dr. Lyall, the psychiatrist, who had examined the father.  He concluded that the father’s personality pathology, substance abuse, and his abusive behaviour to partners, were significant risk concerns, especially to the mother in this case.  He thought that they may well cause emotional harm to the mother. There were also some risks of him being aggressive to a young child and of self-harm. 
22.	In his oral evidence Dr. Lyall opined that the father sits on the borderline of what he called a “dissocial personality disorder”. Whilst Dr. Lyall thought it laudable for the father to have engaged with the local drug team, the fact that he had disengaged now Dr. Lyall thought suggests a lack of insight on the part of the father into the chronic risk factors, as he put it, which are present.
23.	Other positive factors in the father’s life, such as his accommodation, were identified.  Dr. Lyall thought therapy would be “much harder” if the father cannot accept the basis of his rape conviction. He thought that the therapy recommended would last at least 12 months and possibly longer.
24.	I heard from the social worker, Ms A. She admitted prior to the playing of a recording of a conversation that she had informed the parents that a christening which they wanted might reduce the pool of possible adopters. This is when of course the care plan was for adoption.   She told the parents that it would hinder adoption if the child was christened into the Christian faith.
25.	In addition she had mentioned to them an East Enders’ plot involving murder and domestic violence.  I do not think it was an East Enders’ plot.  It was an East Ender actor who in fact murdered his children.
26.	Furthermore, she accepted that she had not visited the parents at home since about June 2016, many months ago.  In cross-examination she said it was July, but changed it to June later in her evidence. She informed the Court that she had seen the parents since then but at contact sessions.
27.	The social worker accepted that contact had gone well and that the parents and A enjoyed the sessions and that the parents were committed to contact.  That I might add was the Guardian’s evidence as well. 
28.	She pointed out and emphasised, as she did in her written assessment of the parents, her concerns about the mother recognising domestic violence and the mother’s ability to take protective steps in respect of domestic violence.
29.	She opined in her oral evidence that the mother needed to attend the Freedom Project as soon as possible. 
30.	The social worker denied in cross-examination that she was focussed on adoption rather than the standard of the parenting of the mother and father in respect of A.
31.	Ms A was very concerned about the parents’ seeming non-acceptance of the father’s very serious conviction for rape. That is clear from the written assessment of the parents when she spoke with them.
32.	She was also concerned about the serious domestic violence committed by the father in January 2016, his own self-harming, and his use of so-called legal highs.  She accepted in cross-examination that the father had produced negative tests in respect of drugs, but had abstained and continued to abstain as far as the tests are concerned.
33.	I listened to another recording of an interview made by the father where the social worker said in her report that the father was interrupting, aggressive and intrusive. That, I have to say, was not borne out in the recording. The social worker in cross-examination said that father was interrupting and not allowing mother to answer questions put to her.
34.	The social worker was very concerned that the therapeutic intervention recommended by the experts would take the case outside of A’s timescales and also that the parents were not accepting of the concerns of the professionals involved in the case.  This was her view, having written the assessment, and having spoken to them at a number of contact sessions.  She told the Guardian as much in cross-examination.
35.	Ms A did accept that the father had approached an agency to obtain mental health assistance, but that he had not fully engaged with intervention for drug use having attended once and disengaged because of a negative test.  She opined that this demonstrated a lack of engagement and insight into his particular problems. 
36.	I then heard the parents give oral evidence.  The mother told the Court about her employment and accommodation as well as her contact with A.  She told me she was happy to engage with the therapy recommended by the experts in the case. She thought that Dr. McDermott was wrong to focus on her past and therefore she did not accept her diagnosis. She thought Dr Aslan to be fairer as he had spent more time with her and got to know her and her family better. I heard evidence about her self-referral to a community mental health team.
37.	Mother did not consider the father a risk to herself or to A. That was her position having read all of the expert reports and the report of the meeting between Dr. McDermott and Dr. Aslan.  She placed weight on the fact that the father was no longer taking drugs as to the risk he posed to her and A.  The mother thought that the father had been controlling, but that that was in the past. She accepted that the way the father had acted in January 2016 was not justified and that she now knew him better than the experts and professions and that she knew he was not a risk to her and/or A.
38.	Although she said in cross-examination that she accepted the father’s conviction for rape she did not think he was a threat to her.  She appeared to accept the conviction but not the actual fact that the rape occurred:
“I was not there and so I cannot tell either way.”
39.	The father told the Court how he and the mother got along very well. He accepted he was controlling when he was taking drugs but that the situation was much better now that he was off drugs.
40.	I heard about his employment and accommodation and attempts he had made to come off drugs and engage with Dr. Gardiner.
41.	He told the Court that he would engage with therapy as recommended by the experts.  He accepted that currently he is awaiting trial for an alleged assault on a minor.  He did not accept his conviction for rape save “in the eyes of the law”. 
42.	He fairly accepted in cross-examination by the Guardian that if he was taking drugs he might be a risk to mother and to A. He pointed to the period of time since the January 2016 incident when there had been no reported incidents of domestic violence.  He appeared to accept that he had anger management difficulties and when asked by the Guardian whether there was anything about him that needs to change he then went on to say:
“I wouldn’t say anything is wrong with me. Far from it.”
In answer to a question from me he said:
“I am not saying that I need help. I am just saying that if the professionals tell me.”
The father commented several times that if the professionals considered that therapy would assist him he would engage.  He accepted that he had lied to Visa (?) re the mother’s pregnancy. He was fearful that the baby would be removed. He did not accept Dr. Aslan’s description of him as a “skilful manipulator”.  As he said:
“Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.”
43.	Finally, I heard evidence from the Guardian, Mr. Cooper.  He did not alter his views set out in his very full report that A should be placed with his aunt pursuant to a Special Guardianship Order.  He recognised that the parents loved their son very much. They showed much warmth to him at contact sessions. Their basic parenting skills were concerning.
44.	The Guardian also accepted that the father had dealt with his drug abuse on the evidence available to the Court.  The parents had complied with assessments and had been respectful to him throughout.  These were he said the positives in the case.
45.	He considered the evidence before the Court that it was right for the Local Authority to alter its care plan from one of stranger adoption to one of Special Guardianship. The Guardian opined that the Independent Social Worker’s report of D was very positive. I remind myself that the Guardian himself supported the adjournment of the case originally so that a full report might be obtained following the initial positive assessment of the aunt by the Independent Social Worker.
46.	Mr. Cooper considered that he sets out in his report that a transitional plan was necessary in the event that A went to live with his aunt.  He agreed with the plan that was put before the Court by the Local Authority.   He also thought that protective measures and a supervision order for 12 months were essential. 
47.	He considered that he had spent sufficient time with the parents to prepare his evidence properly as he had taken over as Guardian from the previous Guardian during the course of the proceedings.
48.	Mr. Cooper outlined his concerns, both in his report, and his oral evidence, in respect of A returning to the care of his parents.  The concerns were three-fold.
49.	 One, the diagnosis of, and need for, considerable therapy by both parents.  This would take time, probably outside of A’s timescales, and there was no guarantee that it would be successful.  Dr. McDermott he said was especially sceptical.
50.	Two, the risk posed by the father to the mother and to A, especially his non-acceptance of his conviction for a violent rape for which he received a prison sentence of 10 years. The Guardian pointed out that no work had been done thus far with the father in respect of this.  Father’s acceptance was basically the fact that he had “done his time”. They were the words he used to the Guardian.  No spousal abuse work had been undertaken since the domestic violence incident in January 2016. The Guardian continued that there was a long history of criminality in respect of the father.
51.	The Guardian concluded on the evidence before the Court that neither parent in fact accept that the father posed a risk to mother and to A.
52.	Three, the capacity of both parents to work openly and honestly with professionals.  He emphasised the fact that the father had not disclosed the pregnancy to Visa, the difficulties set out by the social worker in her evidence, and the problems with the Written Agreement at the beginning of these proceedings, amongst others.
53.	In cross-examination it was put to the Guardian that both parents have engaged in some on-line services, the mother with mental health services, the father too.  Nevertheless, the Guardian remained of the view that both parents had failed thus far to address their various difficulties as set out by the experts in this case.
54.	He especially pointed to the evidence of the father’s “low tolerance to frustration” as identified by the expert.  He concluded that a return to the parents and a safeguarding supervision order were not appropriate because the concerns surrounding the parents were too significant. 
55.	There is no argument as to threshold in this case.  The Court has to apply the Welfare Check List set out in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, the welfare of the child being paramount.  I have that Check List at the forefront of my mind.  I have regard to the fact that there were two options before the Court, a return of A to his parents, who would agree to a supervision order for 12 months, or the placement of A with his aunt, D, pursuant to a Special Guardianship Order. 
56.	I have to make a welfare decision based on the specific facts of this case.  That is the evidence before the Court. The Local Authority is no longer considering adoption as the plan for A and so I do not have to consider the competing advantages and disadvantages of that particular option.
57.	This case has not been straightforward.  Indeed, it is a difficult case, especially when the initial care plan for adoption was amended to one of Special Guardianship.  I must base my decision on the evidence before the Court, written and oral. If I do not mention parts of the evidence in this Judgment it is not because I have forgotten or ignored it, but that other parts of the evidence in my judgment are more important and/or more relevant.
58.	Dealing with the evidence, as I have outlined earlier in this semi ex tempore Judgment it is regrettable in my view that the social worker was forced to accept in the witness box and at the last minute that she had indeed acted as the parents stated she had, discouraging the christening because it might hinder adoption, and the mention of the East Enders’ actor, and murder, and domestic violence.
59.	I find too that the social worker can be criticised for not visiting the parents at home more.  It is inexcusable in my judgment that she had last visited them in May, prior to a final hearing in December 2016.  It is not good enough to say that she had contact with them on occasions when they were visiting A and she was supervising the contact session. I am not remotely surprised that the parents felt, when the care plan was one of adoption outside of the birth family that the social worker was gunning for adoption, if I might put it so crudely, rather than taking a more balanced view with parents who want their child returned to their care.
60.	Furthermore, I find that whilst the father may have interrupted more often than he needed to in the secretly recorded meeting between the social worker and the parents I do not find that he was overly angry as described by the social worker in her statement.  He was frustrated, I have no doubt, and a little more voluble than was necessary, but that was it.
61.	Having said that about the social worker’s evidence I accept her evidence of her concerns surrounding the risk posed by the father to the mother and A and her concerns that the therapies recommended by the experts may well be outside of A’s timescales.  
62.	I also accept her concerns in respect of both parents working with professionals in the future, especially if there was to be a supervision order, and they were undergoing difficult therapies.
63.	The social worker was very concerned that neither parent appeared to her to accept the father’s conviction for what was a very serious rape.  In my judgment that was and is a very proper concern. She sometimes rather begrudgingly it has to be said gave credit to the parents for what they have done in the past 12 months. For example, the father dealing with a drug habit and the mother seeking out some assistance on-line.
64.	I have looked very closely at the medical evidence of Doctors McDermott, Aslan and Lyall. I much prefer the evidence of Dr. McDermott and Dr. Lyall. Where it conflicts with Dr. Aslan’s evidence, I prefer their evidence. Whilst I would not go as far as the Local Authority in describing Dr. Aslan as “an abysmal witness” he was not as clear or as thoughtful as the others.  He refused to answer some questions in a direct manner and in others he was rather confusing. Therefore, I adopt the evidence of Doctors McDermott and Lyall.
65.	The parents were honest witnesses on the whole. They clearly love their son and contact has been very beneficial to A and to them.   I have no reason to doubt whatsoever what the Guardian has said about the parents’ warm relationship with their son. 
66.	I give the parents credit too for what they have done to help themselves in the year since A was removed from their care and I was addressed in detail by their Counsel in this regard in submissions.
67.	I also bear in mind the background that both these parents come from. The father submits that his changes are significant and impressive. I agree that abstinence from legal highs is significant when one considers his background and the length of time he had been taking drugs. I balance that with Dr. Lyall’s evidence that father’s swift disengagement with the drug’s management team shows a lack of insight into the chronic risk of such drug taking in the future.
68.	He has completed some courses which he told Dr. Lyall about.  Nevertheless, Dr. Lyall opined that he presented a risk to mother, and perhaps to A, and thought that therapy would be very difficult if he could not accept the reality of the rape conviction. Therapy would take at least 12 months, if not longer.  I note that Dr. Aslan too concluded in his report that there was a moderate risk of spousal violence in the future.  The father did not accept the need for professional help in his oral evidence. He told the Court that if the professionals advised it he would comply.
69.	Neither in my judgment did the father accept the seriousness of the rape conviction.  He had “served his time”, as he put it, and that was it.   He did not consider he was a risk to the mother.  I find this flies in the face of the medical evidence of Doctors Lyall and Aslan.
70.	I find that the mother too was not actually accepting of the fact that the father has committed a very serious rape, or that he was a risk to her, and perhaps to A. That was her evidence.  It was a view that she has held throughout these proceedings and communicated to other professionals in various assessments, the social worker included. Neither did she accept the diagnosis of Dr. McDermott that she has a personality disorder, with a limited insight into her difficulties, borne out in her oral evidence that she did not consider the father to be a risk to her.
71.	I have listened very carefully to the submissions of the parents in respect of them being able to care for A whilst they undergo the various therapies recommended by the medical experts in this case.  All of the experts are of the view that such therapies will not be easy for either parent and indeed Dr. McDermott, as I have already mentioned, was of the view that following assessment – that is an initial assessment – the mother may not even be able to commence that which is recommended, such is her situation and history.
72.	It is, I find, not at all clear that either parent will be able to cope with the demands of a very young child, and the types of therapies recommended, leaving aside the point as well that such therapies will in the end always be successful. I note too the length of time the recommended therapies will take.  Twelve months appears to be a minimum period on the evidence and there is evidence that they may take much longer following initial assessments.
73.	In my judgment accepting the medical evidence of Doctors McDermott and Lyall, and the evidence of the Guardian, and social worker, as I do, and adopting the Welfare Check List, as set out by the Guardian, I have reached the conclusion that in fact it would be unsafe for A to be returned to the care of his parents.
74.	I place considerable weight on A’s timescales, the fact that there is no guarantee of success after a considerable period of time in therapy for each of the parents, and the parents’ evidence that the father’s very serious conviction for rape is not in fact accepted. The mother I find takes what father tells her at face value.  The father has taken the view that he has done his time in prison and now can move on with little or no reference to this serious offence. There is father’s view that he will undertake therapy if that if what he is told to do, showing in my judgment a lack of insight into his difficulties of what he needs to do to help himself. There is the mother’s lack of insight into her difficulties as set out particularly by Dr. McDermott. 
75.	Neither am I satisfied that the parents would work openly and honestly with professionals, as they would have to, to ensure A’s safety and well-being.  Even taking into account their distrust with the current social worker, whom I have criticised in part, it was not apparent when they gave their oral evidence in my judgment that they wholly understood the importance of so working with professionals and being up-front all of the time.
76.	I take into account too the evidence that the parents have tried to help themselves since the serious incident of domestic violence in January 2016, not least the father abstaining from drugs.   They are to be commended for this.  I hope they continue to access all therapies and courses offered and made available to them. This will assist them if they wish to parent any further children in the future.
77.	Sadly, though, I find that A would be at risk of significant harm if he was to be placed with the parents now. The Guardian could not have set out the risks more clearly in his report and especially in his oral evidence.  I adopt whole heartedly his evidence in reaching the decision that I have.  
78.	In reaching this decision I have taken account of the advantages to any child, and the right, of being brought up by his birth parents, and the parents and A’s right to a family life as enshrined in the European Convention. 
79.	I have taken account too of the fact that A’s contact to his parents will be curtailed if he is not brought up by them. Therefore, having ruled the parents out as potential carers for A, the only realistic option before the Court is for a Special Guardianship Order to D.   This is of course supported by the Guardian and is the subject of the Local Authority’s amended care plan. In my judgment, and on the evidence, this is the best option for A now and in the future.
80.	Whilst he will not live with his birth parents he will be brought up within his birth family by his maternal aunt. This is a positive factor.  I have already dealt with the negative factor of not being brought up by his birth parents.  Adoption and foster care are not realistic options and therefore I do not deal with the competing advantages and disadvantages of adoption and foster care.
81.	In these circumstances, therefore, I approve the Local Authority’s care plan.  I therefore make a special guardianship order in respect of A to D.  I entirely agree that in the circumstances of this case a supervision order is required and I will make one for 12 months to Kent County Council.
82.	A new social worker is to take over. This is very important as I find that the parents have lost confidence in the current social worker and indeed I have made some criticism in my Judgment of the social worker in this matter.
83.	It will be a matter for the Special Guardian to organise contact.  The order should state that contact shall be twice per year as set out in the care plan. That is in the preamble.  
84.	I agree with the Guardian though that this is for, as the Guardian put it, “starters”, and I very much hope that the Special Guardian will see fit to increase this, as and when.  The parents can of course help themselves by engaging with professionals and pursuing the recommended therapies.
85.	I sincerely hope that the parents will not be too disappointed by the Court’s decision.  I have already stated that both have made some good moves to improve themselves in a number of ways.  I commend them again for that.  
86.	At the end of the day the Court’s job is to ensure that A is safe, and cared for well, in a risk free environment. The Court is very grateful to D for agreeing to be the Special Guardian ensuring that A remains within his family for the remainder of his minority.
87.	That is the Judgment of the Court.

Further judgment following submissions on 17th March 2017:
88.	The parents are very unhappy in respect of the way they feel they have been treated by the local authority.  They want their criticisms heard and this judgment to be published naming the local authority and the employees of that authority.
89.	They are unhappy with the response they have received in respect of their complaint concerning the social worker’s behaviour which I have set out in this judgment.  I have made comment on that behaviour.  I agree with the parents that the social worker was not candid with the court and was not going to be candid with the court until put on the spot (as it were) in the witness box.  I have made criticisms of her and I intend to leave it at that and leave it to an internal enquiry (see below). 
90.	The parents’ complaints during the course of the care proceedings do not appear to have been heeded by the local authority until after judgment.  The letter received very recently in response to their complaint was, I find, unacceptable.  It fails to set out a full response and only really directs them to other sources for complaint procedure.  The local authority is to send a full and comprehensive response to all complaints within 28 days of receiving this approved judgment.
91.	I find – in answer to complaints by the parents – that the ADM and the social work team conveyed messages orally and did not reduce them to writing.  This has been accepted as wrong by the authority.  Email messages (disclosed to the court on application) between the social worker manager and the ADM as regards adoption (or not) do not appear as wholly neutral or independent and, as the parents complain, appear to influence the ADM in favour of adoption.  
92.	I remind myself that the ADM should be and is meant to be an independent check on the local authority when it considers adoption of a child.
93.	Having read the emails and heard submissions, I am concerned that, as far as the parents are concerned, the perception of collusion between the social work team and ADM is manifest.  Certainly there does not appear to have been what has been described by the local authority in submissions as a “separation of powers”.
94.	I have considered the well-known cases of A v Ward and Re J dealing with the publication of judgments and naming employees of, in this case, a local authority.  Is there a compelling reason for publication?  I have to take into account the wider public interest.
95.	I find:
1	The apology was too late and inadequate; I have already said that the local authority must rectify this within 28 days of receipt of this approved judgment;
2	The social worker’s conduct (as dealt with in the substantive judgment) can be dealt with by an internal enquiry which should be commenced immediately and the findings and actions relayed in writing to both parents and, indeed, all parties in this case; publishing her name in a judgment will not assist anyone; 
3	There was – in this case – a perception of insufficient “separation of powers” as between the social work team/manager and the ADM; I do not find, though, that the ADM was unduly influenced having read the cohort of communications and, of course, her final decision; the local authority’s final Care Plan was influenced, unsurprisingly, by the very positive assessment of the aunt.  I understand totally, though, the perception of the parents in respect of this course of events.
96.	I deal with this local authority’s cases almost on a daily basis.  I have not come across this perception of insufficient “separation of powers” before.  I am – after much thought and understanding the parents’ very real concerns and perceptions -  going to deal with this as a “one off” although the matter is, following these proceedings, extremely well understood by the local authority and I (as DFJ for Kent) am to have discussions with senior personnel at the authority at my regular meetings.
97.	Taking all submissions into account as well as the findings made above, on balance – and noting the wider public interest – I do not find sufficient compelling reasons why employees of the authority should be named (and shamed).
98.	The judgment – anonymised – will be published. And I hope that the local authority will take to heart the criticisms of its practice that have arisen in this case.  I am confident that it will and, as I have indicated, I, myself, will take them up further in my regular meetings with the local authority.  Of the greatest importance is the provision of a full and complete apology to the parents who, I accept, may well have perceived that this very important matter affecting their child was not being dealt with correctly or fairly.

HHJ Scarratt
29th March 2017

AVTS REF: 6470/H5381