IMPORTANT NOTICE
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for an anonymised version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child and members of his family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: LS16C00779
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LEEDS

IN THE MATTER OF X, A CHILD

Date: 6 April 2017

Before :

HHJ Lynch

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

Between :

	Wakefield MDC	Applicant	
	- and -		
	    The Mother (1)

    The Father (2)

    The Child
(through her Children’s Guardian) (3)

Respondents	

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

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

Anne McMullan for the Applicant
 Neil Murphy for the 1st Respondent
John Worrall for the 2nd Respondent
Lynn Crabtree for the 3rd Respondent

Hearing dates: 4 – 6 April 2017

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

JUDGMENT
Introduction
1.	In these proceedings, I am concerned for X, aged five months old. She is the child of the mother (M) and the father (F), M’s sixth child and F’s first. The local authority had thought from a conversation the social worker had with F that he had an older daughter but he now says in fact that that child is not his, though he initially was told she was.  F is not named on X’s birth certificate so does not have parental responsibility for her. None of M’s other children are in her care. Her eldest child is cared for by her father under a residence order and M does not currently have contact with her. The middle three children were the subject of care proceedings which I dealt with which concluded in June 2014 with the making of care orders in respect of all three children and placement orders in respect of the younger two, those two having since been adopted. Her last child, J, was made subject to care and placement orders in May of last year, proceedings I dealt with, and he has been placed for adoption. 
2.	The local authority issued these proceedings soon after X was born and an interim care order was made the same day, which has remained in place ever since. X lives with foster carers and has contact with her mother, although her mother’s commitment to attending regularly has slipped in the last month or so. She has not met her father as he has been in prison throughout her life and she has had some health issues which meant the social worker and guardian felt being taken to the prison would not have been in her best interests. 
3.	Within these proceedings both parents have been assessed by the local authority and there has also been a psychological assessment of the mother. She had been assessed in previous proceedings but that psychologist was unavailable to assess the mother again and so a new psychologist was instructed. There is also been hair testing of the mother for drugs as part of the evidence gathering in this case.
The Issues for me to Determine
4.	In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter, including documentation from the previous court proceedings regarding the mother's older children. 
5.	Prior to this hearing commencing, I had understood that both the mother and father wished the evidence to be tested, neither of them agreeing with the making of care and placement orders. However, on the first morning I was told that the mother had met with her solicitor and decided that, while she did not agree with the plans for X, she did not wish any evidence to be called. The father did and so I heard evidence from the social worker, the father and the guardian. I should also say that after the first day of evidence the position of each of the parents changed somewhat. Going into the hearing they had said they were a couple, despite the father still being in prison, and that their plan was to live together as a family. They sought the placement of X with her mother until the father’s release, the father joining them then. This was despite the fact the social worker had filed a statement just before this hearing saying there was some reason to think the mother might be pregnant and clearly F could not be the father. Towards the end of his evidence on the first day, the father’s certainty about the couple’s relationship seemed slightly shaken and things he said clearly distressed the mother. She came to court the next day in the company of her new boyfriend and admitted that she was pregnant. She then decided not to give any evidence at all and did not return to the hearing, for understandable reasons. The father’s position then solidified into one where he invited the court to continue these proceedings for the foreseeable future, making further interim care orders in respect of X until he could come out of prison and start the process of proving himself as a potential carer for her on his own.
6.	For the local authority to seek a care order, it needs to establish what the situation was when the proceedings began which it says put X at risk of significant harm, what is known as the threshold criteria. After discussions at the end of the first day, it proved possible to agree the aspects of the threshold criteria which related to the mother and one of the two which relates to the father. The wording and relevance of that final paragraph I have to determine. I then must determine what placement would be best for X for the rest of her childhood as neither parent agrees with the view of the professionals that X should be adopted. 
7.	Much of the draft threshold as I say is agreed between the parties, after some rewording, and appears at the end of this judgment. The last paragraph of the draft threshold which was not entirely agreed in relation to threshold referred to an incident of violence between the parents early last year. F gave evidence about this incident and Mr Worrall on his behalf made submissions that, whilst it might be factually accurate, the wording of it and in particular the last sentence gave it the appearance of something more than it was. This is something to which I shall return later in this judgment. 
The Local Authority and Guardian’s position
8.	The local authority is of the view that X cannot grow up in the care of either of her parents. In relation to the mother, the social worker says that she is herself too damaged to give a child the care it needs, evidenced by the removal of all her older children. M and her siblings were removed from the care of her parents as young children. M disclosed serious harm by adult members of her family, offences for which they were not convicted but professionals believed the children. She seems to have made a clean break from them now but the harm they caused her is still evident according to the local authority, particularly evidenced by the two psychological assessments. 
9.	There were two sets of care proceedings concerning the four of the mother’s children and in those proceedings I found that threshold was met. In relation to the older children, this was on the basis that M had allowed her daughter to have contact with the maternal grandparents despite being aware that they posed a risk to the child and to herself; that she was unable to meet the children’s emotional needs due to her own mental health and personal difficulties; and that she had failed to supervise the children who had had a number of minor injuries. Those matters were also part of the threshold findings in relation to J but in addition I found the mother had been the victim of a sustained assault by J’s father during which she suffered significant injuries. He served a custodial sentence because of this incident but the mother nonetheless continued a relationship with him, including visiting him in prison. I was satisfied therefore that J would be at risk of significant physical and emotional harm because of the domestic violence in the relationship between the mother and his father. 
10.	Much weight is also placed by the social worker and guardian on the assessment by the psychologist in these proceedings. That psychologist was new to the case and the mother had the benefit of someone taking a fresh look at her and the impact of her past on the kind of parent she would be. As it turned out, for the most part the psychologist agreed with the findings of the psychologist who assessed the mother back in 2014. The psychologist said that the mother continued to be affected by her past and needed intensive work to address that. She said the mother was likely to seek out actively situations in which she was hurt by others as she could not envisage a life in which she was settled and happy. What she had experienced as a child reinforced her sense that she only deserved punishment and pain. The psychologist said: “It is (the mother’s) way of relating to others, as well as her own abusive experiences as a child, that mean she has little understanding of what it is like to have healthy relationships and to promote her own emotional needs in a positive manner. As she cannot do this for herself, she is highly unlikely to be able to do this for others. She is vulnerable to seeking out further relationships in which domestic violence is a feature and will not be able to fully protect herself from this without significant psychological change which has not occurred. Without this it is difficult to see how (the mother) can make any emotional and psychological progress towards being able to meet her own needs and that of any child in her care.” [E85]
11.	The psychologist was asked to consider whether the mother still needed the work the first psychologist had recommended, given that she has engaged with support through a local project. The psychologist said: “Unfortunately, in my opinion, whilst (the mother) has clearly shown some improved understanding of what domestic violence is and has engaged slightly more with therapeutic services, she has not completed the recommended work. In my opinion, (the first psychologist’s) recommendation remain highly valid. She also made an additional recommendation of intensive parenting classes which also do not seem to have been undertaken. It should be made clear that both interventions would need to be undertaken for (the mother) to have the best chance of a possible outcome. It is also worthwhile noting that even with significant input, (the mother) may never be able to make the changes required. Whilst it would be hoped that she could, she had endured horrendous trauma both as a child and adult and may not be able to fully repair the psychological damage.” [E85] The psychologist said even if the mother now accessed appropriate interventions immediately this would not be in X’s timescales. The work needed would be a two-year period of psychotherapy on a weekly basis with an experienced clinician, not just seeing a counsellor. The psychologist also pointed out that given the mother’s lack of motivation to access and engage with such interventions previously, the chance of a positive outcome was minimal.
12.	The local authority also carried out a parenting assessment, looking at the possibility of the parents caring together but also of each of them as separate carers. The assessment of the mother was negative. The local authority noted the mother had still not addressed the many issues from her past. The social worker had concerns about the mother’s housing situation, her inability to prioritise attendance at contact, and hair strand testing showing cocaine use between the end of November and the end of February, something the mother had denied. Later testing had also shown evidence of ecstasy in December. The social worker expressed concerns about the mother’s relationship history as well as her relationship with the father. The social worker perceives that relationship to be a controlling one, having witnessed the mother receiving numerous calls from the father during their sessions and on one occasion overheard a call where he was demanding money from the mother and changing his tone, in a way which caused the social worker to feel he was being emotionally manipulative and coercive. The mother had talked the social worker of being scared of the father because he had a short temper and of his frequent calls to her.
13.	The guardian agrees with the social worker’s position in respect of the mother. She was involved with the two earliest sets care proceedings and commented how she was struck by the similarities between what the mother was saying now and what she said in the proceedings regarding J. That of course became even more obvious just before the guardian gave her oral evidence when the mother admitted she was once again pregnant by a new partner whilst her previous partner was in prison. 
14.	The guardian’s view was that the mother would not be able to meet X’s needs for the same reasons that she could not meet the needs of her older children, and that what was required was for her to engage in the recommended therapy. What was needed was much more significant than the therapeutic support the mother was getting now, which the guardian said would not address the fundamental problems she has. 
15.	Looking at the father, again both the social worker and guardian are of the view that he is not able to meet X’s needs, certainly not within her timescales. He is on remand in prison and his trial has been put off until the summer. His criminal record is extensive, running to forty-five pages of the bundle and including fifty-one theft and kindred offences and ten drugs offences. Both the guardian and the social worker point out that he has spent most his adolescence and adulthood in prison. Ms McMullen in her submissions identified the prison sentences he has served as an adult and in his latter years there were few years when he did not receive a custodial sentence. The father was unable to identify to the social worker how, when he is ultimately released, he will remain out of prison and stop engaging in criminal activity, other than to say that being a father has refocused him and given him a purpose. Reference was made to the fact that his last conviction, for which he received a custodial sentence, was committed after the mother had become pregnant with X. Both professionals say that this is simply not a basis on which one could plan for X’s future. They say she cannot wait for him to make the necessary changes and for sufficient time to pass for people to be confident that those changes have been made and embedded. It would not just be a question of him coming out of prison, he would need then to evidence over a significant period that he was not going to commit further offences, even if assessment of his actual parenting skills were begun whilst he was in prison. Both professionals, whilst not doubting the genuineness of his commitment, say this is well outside X’s timescales.
16.	The professionals do have other worries about F, the social worker seeing his behaviour on occasions as aggressive and coercive. A member of housing staff had told the local authority he had been aggressive at times in their office in respect of the mother’s tenancy. The social worker had her own experience of him being aggressive and abusive to her at the start of her first assessment session, a scenario when she acknowledged he had reason to be annoyed but nonetheless his behaviour was excessive, resulting in another member of staff joining them. She was quite clear in her evidence that his behaviour was aggressive and his language abusive, whilst accepting he had calmed down and they had had a constructive working relationship since. There was also the phone call she overheard between him and the mother. Her view was that what she heard was manipulative and aggressive, and she saw the state to which it reduced the mother after the call ended. The social worker in her evidence accepted the father was in an agitated state in the call, but she disagreed with the father’s version of events that he just wanted money to buy things in the prison shop. She was adamant that he had told her he needed the money because he was being threatened by the mother’s ex-partner.
17.	The social worker and guardian in their concluding evidence look at the options for X. Both say that the option of placement with either of the parents is not a realistic one given the weight of evidence. Equally they both conclude that if X is indeed to be placed long-term away from her parents then the option of adoption would greatly be preferred to the possibility of long-term foster care, given X’s age and the need for her to have a permanent secure family in which to grow up. Their final evidence sets out their reasoning in detail but in essence it is that which judges hear in all cases involving such young children, that growing up in long-term foster care does not provide security and comes with a degree of stigma for a child, the only benefit being the potential for a long-term relationship with the parents with whom she cannot live.
The Mother’s Position
18.	M does not accept the local authority's plans for X, although she has chosen not to challenge any of the professional evidence, including the social work and psychological assessments of her, and did not herself give evidence. Through Mr Murphy she has acknowledged that the truth of her situation is very much as it was at the conclusion of J’s proceedings, that she has not engaged with the right sort of therapy and that once again she finds herself pregnant before she has addressed her issues. I have a sense that she sees the inevitability of what I must conclude about her given the evidence before me, but she nonetheless invites me to consider placing X in her care rather than approving the plan of adoption. She has offered no view on the possibility of X being placed with her father.
The Father’s Position
19.	F’s position has changed over the course of the hearing, at least in part responding to events as they developed. In his final statement the father explained that he and the mother were in a relationship and their plan was to live together on his release. He wished them to parent X together, X to be placed with the mother until his release. He spoke in his statement of how their relationship was a strong one. In his statement, he made no reference to anyone’s concerns about the mother and in his evidence he said he thought she would be a good mother.
20.	Towards the end of the father’s oral evidence he was being asked questions by the child’s solicitor and the recent drug test results were put to him. For the first time he started to suggest that possibly because of that the mother should not have care. The following day it became clear that there was in fact no relationship ongoing between the mother and father, given what we were told that day, and his position through Mr Worrall then became one of saying that X should remain in foster care and interim care orders until his release.
21.	The father accepts that he may not be released from custody for a while. He has changed solicitors which resulted in his trial being adjourned to this summer. He believes he may be able to apply for bail once his legal aid is sorted out but in any event he is confident he will be acquitted at that trial. F says he is extremely motivated to remain out of prison not to offend again now that his daughter has been born. He says he has demonstrated that he can make change earlier in his life, when he managed to stop using heroin at the age of twenty-six after fourteen years of using. He says this shows that he can make significant change and maintaining it and that the court can rely on that, despite his extensive criminal record.
22.	Whilst acknowledging that he is an untested father, F points out he has done courses in prison both before and after X’s birth. If on his release it was felt that there needed to be further assessment of him or if it was felt support was necessary, he would be happy to accept this.
23.	The father is aware that issues have been raised regarding his aggression. He denied being domineering and controlling of the mother, saying the frequency of his phone calls was only because he wanted to know that she was all right, and he disagreed with the social worker’s account of his phone conversation with the mother. In terms of his dealings with the housing officer, he denies being aggressive although accepted he might be a bit demanding. Similarly, with the social worker he denied using any expletives as described by her, but accepted he might have an aggressive tone to his voice and could be loud but he did not mean to be aggressive. In both scenarios, he emphasised that he had reason to be annoyed with the person who perceived him as aggressive.
24.	F says that right thing is for X to grow up in her family. Given his final position that he would be the only potential family carer, he invites the court to continue to make further interim care orders until the conclusion of his criminal proceedings and then to place X in his care, if necessary after whatever assessment is felt appropriate.
Decision
25.	I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of X.  All judges know that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family.  The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare.  In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders are “very extreme”, and should only be made when “necessary” for the protection of the child’s interests, “when nothing else will do”.  The court “must never lose sight of the fact that (the child’s) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at least one of them” and adoption “should only be contemplated as a last resort”.  
26.	It is not for the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering is not permitted.  In YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 967 it was said : “Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and….everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family.  It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.”
27.	I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (above) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the options for X, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer. 
28.	In reaching my decision I have reminded myself that X’s welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration and also that I should make the least interventionist order possible. I must consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and the children as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. I am very conscious that any orders I go on to make must be in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of X’s rights and be proportionate. 
29.	A placement order is sought by the local authority in respect of X.  The court cannot make a placement order unless a parent (which in this context means a parent with parental responsibility, so the mother but not the father) has consented or the court is satisfied that the parent’s consent should be dispensed with.  A court cannot dispense with a parent’s consent unless either the parent cannot be found, or lacks capacity to give consent, or the welfare of the child “requires” consent to be dispensed with. In that context, I am conscious that “requires” means what is demanded rather than what is merely optional.  
30.	I am also conscious that I must have in mind the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of a child, something which is very relevant in this case. 
31.	The question I must ask myself is whether X should be placed with her mother now, whether she should wait for his father’s criminal trial to conclude and then for him to have time to prove that he can make the changes he acknowledges are required, or whether she should be adopted. I must balance the pros and cons of each of those options being presented. McFarlane LJ in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 said “What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.” In addressing this task, I have considered all the points in the welfare checklists contained in both the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and propose to consider the evidence in the light of those factors. 
32.	As in so many cases of this nature, the most significant factors in that list are those relating to the harm X is likely to suffer and the capacity of her parents to meet her needs.  Looking first at the question of any harm which X is at risk of suffering, I am satisfied that the local authority has proved the threshold criteria in relation to both parents and that X would indeed be at risk of significant harm were she to be in the care of either of her parents.
33.	Looking at the draft threshold, the mother accepts the findings as drafted. The father accepts the first one which relates to him but says the final threshold finding, whilst factually accurate, gives the impression that there was more violence in the relationship than there actually was. In relation to that finding I have looked back at my judgment in the proceedings regarding J as I heard the mother’s version of events then and made a finding about it. I did not believe the mother’s version then and I do not believe F’s version now. Even on his version the mother grabbed him by the neck intentionally, whilst he claims the head-butting was an accident as she fell. I am afraid I do not believe that given the statement he gave to the police then and the concerns the witnesses had who called the police. I found in the previous proceedings that theirs was a relationship within which there had been violence and that remains my view, albeit it was just on this one occasion. The finding I am therefore satisfied is accurate and one that I can make, but I have chosen to simplify and shorten the finding. 
34.	If I address then another of the factors in the welfare checklist, how capable each of the parents is of meeting X’s needs, I am afraid the answer is that neither of them can. Both parents have problems which go back to their childhoods and are not of their own making. They both however have much to do before they can parent a child. I do not doubt for one moment the genuineness of each of their assertions that they could but I am afraid that is not enough. Love for a child is not sufficient. 
35.	In terms of the mother, I am afraid there is no question of X being placed with her. She is an extremely damaged person who is not capable of giving good enough care to a child. I must emphasise this is not her fault. She has had the most appalling start in life and it is hard to imagine anyone getting over that without help. She seems willing to tackle issues which are on the surface but unless she can go much deeper, as both psychologists identified was required, those changes which are needed will not happen or will not be sustained. When I look back at the papers in relation to the three older children who were the subject of the first proceedings I dealt with, it is very evident how M’s inability to parent had an effect on those children, and sadly the reality is that X would have the same experience were she to be in her mother's care. 
36.	I have considered whether there is any support which could be offered to reduce the risk of harm to X and enable M to give her appropriate care. I have also considered the mother’s proposal as mentioned in her final statement that she live in a residential unit with X, whilst being conscious she has made no application for this and has not provided details of any unit which might accept her and X. The reality is that unless and until M engages in the therapeutic work which she needs, nothing can be done to avoid a child in her care suffering the same harm that her older children did when she brought them up. The cycle she seems to be engaged in, of entering relationships and immediately getting pregnant seemingly without thought for the consequences, is one that only she can break and to do that she needs significant therapeutic help. 
37.	F too has had a terrible start in life. Unsurprisingly he did not engage in school and became caught up in what has become an extensive life of crime. I have no reason to doubt his assertion that he has managed after many years to give up drug misuse and is now on a reducing methadone dose. That is very much to his credit but that has not stopped him offending. Believing, if only for a short time, that he was a father to another child did not stop him offending. M becoming pregnant with X did not stop him offending. I look back at his extensive criminal record, at the amount of his adult life he spent in prison, and I know that X cannot wait to test out if he will give up that lifestyle. I am afraid I am pessimistic about the likelihood of him making the changes he needs to as and when he is released. I would certainly require a period of a year or more with him being charged with no offences before I could begin to think he would keep out of prison. And that I am afraid is not in X’s timescales.
38.	There are other matters which worry me about F which would need to be assessed were consideration to be given for him caring for X. I entirely accept that the fact that he is a new parent is not in itself a reason for X not to be in his care. He has been sufficiently motivated to do parenting classes and his practical skills could be assessed. His aggression though as shown to the social worker, the housing worker and the mother does concern me. He clearly does not see how he is perceived when he feels he has reason to be annoyed but it seems evident that as a minimum his voice becomes louder and his style becomes aggressive. That may not prevent him being a parent but it is something that would need to be assessed in future if there were a question of a child being in his care.
39.	I am also conscious that the weight of the written evidence was extremely clear as to why a child could not be in the mother’s care, and of course F knew she had had all her other children removed. Despite that his case until almost the end of his evidence was that he wanted X placed with her. It seems to me his entirely understandable desire to be part of a family blinded him to the mother’s many problems. That neediness would also need to be part of an assessment, as it would be relevant to his ability to protect X from the risks the mother or any other future partner of his might pose.
40.	Looking at other factors I need to consider, I am conscious that X has all the needs of any small baby, to be kept safe and secure, to have all her day to day needs met, to have a carer who is attuned to her needs and knows what is required and how to meet those needs. She also needs a “forever family” as soon as possible so she can get on with making the necessary strong bonds with those carers. 
41.	The welfare checklist includes taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings. X is obviously too young for that to be done but I think it is a reasonable assumption that she would want to be in her birth family if that were possible.
42.	X will have to experience a change in her circumstances whatever I decide, whether she moves to her father’s care at some point or to adoptive carers. What is important is that that change, whichever it is, is the only one she experiences so I must be confident in the outcome. 
43.	I am required to consider the likely effect on X throughout her life of having ceased to be a member of her original family and become an adopted person. I entirely accept that adoption is the most serious outcome possible in a case of this nature, ending a child’s relationship with its birth family in any meaningful way and here that includes X’s older half-siblings, although there is the potential for a relationship of some kind with those who have been adopted. X has had fairly regular contact with her mother. She has not as yet met her father because of her health issues, but her situation has improved and she will shortly start contact with her father. I acknowledge the loss of that contact to X and I can only balance it against the advantages that adoption would bring.
Balancing the Options
44.	When I come to balance the options for X, I feel a horrible sense of déjà vu looking back at my judgment for J. The mother’s position is the same as it was then, and indeed X is in very much the same situation as J, with a mother with problems because of her terrible childhood and a troubled father in prison with no certainty as to his future. Looking at the options for X, I am afraid there is a certain inevitability to my decision. I have looked again at the analysis by the social worker and the guardian, their balancing of the options, and I would very much agree with them.
45.	Placing X with her mother means her needs would not be met she would be likely to suffer harm. There is the potential to her suffering harm were she to be in the care of her father and it is not in her best interests to wait to see if he can make the changes he needs to, particularly in relation to his criminal lifestyle. Everything we are told about child development emphasises the importance of children being in their long-term family at the earliest possible stage if they are to do well in life. X’s parents did not have that start but I must aim for something significantly better for their daughter. 
46.	The alternative, as there is no potential family placement for X, is adoption. If she is adopted, then I know X’s needs will be met and she will be safe and secure. She would have a permanent family throughout her childhood and beyond and everything we are told tells us that a child needs that stability. There may potentially be identity issues for X some point as an adopted child but any harm resulting from this can be lessened by life story work and adopters who are willing to be open about her origins. 
47.	The making of a placement order inevitably breaches the parents’ Article 8 rights but in my view it accords with X’s right to family life and X’s rights have to be prioritised. The making of such an order is proportionate in terms of its interference with the family’s Article 8 rights and is a necessary order.
48.	In this case, having carried out the balancing exercise that I must, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of X being placed safely in her mother’s care. I am also satisfied it would not be in her best interests were I to delay decisions to await the outcome of her father’s trial and any period of further assessment of him out in the community. X needs stability and permanence now, not at some indeterminate point in the future, and those needs can only be met in an adoptive placement. I am satisfied that the local authority’s final care plan for X is proportionate and (in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002) in her best welfare interests. I therefore approve the local authority’s care plan for X and I make a care order. I am also satisfied that X’s welfare requires me to dispense with the mother’s consent to placing her for adoption, the word “require” here again having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, “the connotation of the imperative”.  I therefore make a placement order authorising the local authority to place X for adoption. 
49.	I know from the local authority’s plan that contact will continue between X and her mother, albeit at a reducing level, until an adoptive placement is identified for her. I have also been told in court that contact is due to start between X and her father, which I think is going to be very important, not least for X in terms of life story work. I do not feel the need to make any orders about this, having heard the social worker’s commitment to this, but I emphasise I am doing so because I believe I can rely on her assurance that such contact will get up and running now.
50.	There is one further direction I wish to make.  I think it is hugely important for children who are adopted that they have information available to them, through their adoptive parents, so they can make sense of their early life.  This judgment, in setting out what I have read and my thinking when reaching my decision, gives at least a summary of that start. Whilst it will be placed in an anonymised form in the public domain it is important that it is easily available to those who will be bringing J up.  I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment must be released by the Local Authority to X’s adopters so that it is available to her in future life; that release however is on the basis that it should not be disclosed beyond them or any medical or therapeutic staff working with the child or family.  It is very important therefore that the judgment is passed on to the Adoption Team to give to them. I have written this not for the benefit of the adults but for the children and wish to be sure it reaches them.
51.	Finally, I also make an order reserving any future applications in respect of X to myself and for public funding assessment of the legal costs of all the respondents in this matter.