[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> London Borough of Tower Hamlets v P & Ors [2024] EWFC 416 (B) (11 July 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/416.html Cite as: [2024] EWFC 416 (B)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN EAST LONDON FAMILY COURT

		Courtroom No. 1 6th and 7th Floor 11 Westferry Circus London E14 4HD
		11th July 2024

MS RECORDER PICCOS:

SUMMARY

i. I am going to give a summary of my decision before I read my Judgment in full, so that Ms P doesn't have to wait any longer to know what I have decided. Ms P as you know I am being asked to decide if the children should return to your care or remain with their current carers in the Local Authority's care. To make this decision I have read the evidence and listened very carefully to what you, the Social Worker, the Children's Guardian and the lawyers have said to me this week.

ii. In order to make the care orders the Local Authority are asking for, I have to be satisfied the threshold criteria is met. I will explain what this means later in my judgment, but I do find this met, you agreed it was in many respects, but not all, in your response document. 

iii. I then have to decide where I think the children should live and what orders I should make. When I make these decisions the children's welfare is the most important matter for me to consider. You clearly love the children and they love you and you have tried very hard to have them returned to your care, but I am sorry as I know how hard this will be for you, but I have decided that the children should not be returned to your care and that they should remain in the care of the Local Authority under final care orders. 

iv. I have decided this for many reasons which I will explain in my Judgment, but in summary I am concerned that you lack insight in relation to your alcohol use and that you are vulnerable and place yourself in risky relationships. Your recent mental health crisis and lack of therapy to address all of these issues mean I don't think you can safely care for your children. There have been nearly three years for you to have addressed these concerns during these court proceedings. By doing the work and engaging with resources that were found for you. You have not done this, or you have not been able to do this to the level needed. Your children need a final decision and they cannot wait any longer for you to do this work and gain insight about your difficulties and make the improvements that would be needed for you to safely care for your children. 

JUDGMENT

1. These are care proceedings brought in relation to M, a boy aged 13; N, a girl aged 12 and O, a boy aged 6. The children are represented through their Children's Guardian, Rosemary Bolton, who is represented at court by the children's solicitor, Ms Day.
2. The mother is Ms P who attended the hearing remotely on day one, but at the Court's request, has attended the remainder of the hearing in person. I am grateful to the Local Authority for funding Ms P's travel and accommodation costs to allow this to happen. Ms P has been represented by counsel, Ms Folkes.
3. Mr R is the father of M and N and his whereabouts are unknown, so he has not attended the hearing, nor is he represented. Mr Q is the father of O. He has also not attended the hearing and due to a lack of instructions being provided to his solicitors, he is no longer represented in these proceedings.
4. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets, who I will call the Local Authority in this judgment, have been represented by Ms Diaz, save for today when Mr Swift and Ms Begum, who are the Local Authority's solicitor and his assistant, have attended. I released Ms Diaz for the delivery of my judgment as she is part-heard on another case.
5. The applications before me are the Local Authority's applications for care orders which were issued in November 2021.

The position of the parties

6. The Local Authority seek care orders in respect of all three children. They seek that M and N remain with their respective foster carers, both in London. I confirm that the foster carers know each other, which allows for frequent sibling contact between the two of them. O was moved due to a placement breakdown of his foster placement in May 2024, to his maternal aunt and uncle's home. They are called Mr and Mrs T and they have been assessed positively as special guardians for O. In fact, they do not wish to care for O under a special guardianship order and so, the Local Authority have sought a final care order in respect of O, with him remaining placed with Mr and Mrs T. The Local Authority confirmed they could prepare an updated transition plan following my decision, should the Court decide the children could return to the care of the mother. The Local Authority seek the Court make findings in respect of the parts of the composite threshold document which are not agreed.
7. The Local Authority's position was supported in its entirety by the Children's Guardian. The Children's Guardian and child solicitor visited the two older children last week. The solicitor for the children confirmed that neither of the two older children are competent to provide instructions to their solicitor directly, which is a view the Children's Guardian agrees with.
8. Mr R, as I have said, is the father of the two older children and his whereabouts are unknown. I am satisfied the Local Authority have taken the necessary steps to try to locate him, but have been unable to do so. Therefore, he has not participated in these proceedings.
9. Mr Q, again as I have said, was not present at this final hearing, nor represented. I am satisfied that the Local Authority had ensured he was served with notice of this hearing, and that they sent him the bundle, which includes the updated composite threshold document, which contains particulars relating to him in it and the notice of the hearing. That was in an email sent to him in June 2024 and is in the bundle.
10. The mother sought to have all three children returned to her care. The mother disputed three parts of the composite threshold document. In the event that the Court makes care orders in respect of the children, she does not oppose the care plans proposed by the Local Authority and endorsed by the Guardian.

Background

11. The family have been known to Children's Services since 2009, after concerns arose with regards to Ms P's oldest son Jamal's exposure to domestic abuse in the home. In May 2021, the Local Authority received a referral from a member of the public in another country who had apparently witnessed Ms P being assaulted by her boyfriend, Mr S, on a live stream social media site. It is understood the three children were at home at the time of this incident.
12. In May 2021, the police received an abandoned 999 call from the home address, during which a child could be heard crying. It was alleged that Ms P hit Mr S with a metal implement and a beer bottle after they had both consumed alcohol. Ms P informed the officers that her relationship would now end.
13. An initial child protection conference took place in the summer of July 2021 and the children were made subject to child protection plans. In Autumn 2021, the Local Authority received a number of sexually explicit images. These images were not provided to the Court and a finding about this incident was not pursued by the Local Authority at the final hearing.
14. In October 2021, the police, in response to a report from a member of the public, stating a female was being held hostage at Ms P's address, noted no concerns on their arrival. However, a police Merlin report indicated Ms P and Mr S were drinking from 5.00pm one evening in October 2021 until the early hours of the following day. The couple had a verbal argument which escalated into a physical argument; both had minor injuries. The children were in the home and were seen in their bedrooms, sleeping. The police report stated a large number of alcohol bottles were seen in the property. The police considered both parties were intoxicated.
15. Later in October 2021, an allegation was made by a member of the public to the police that there was a video of the older child being sexually abused by Mr S. M denied this happening and Ms P stated it was a malicious allegation. There is no proof of this video to date. The police took no further action in respect of this allegation.
16. Mr Q has a significant criminal history. He received an eight-year custodial sentence for firearms offences in 2011. There are concerns around his drug use and violence towards Ms P.
17. These proceedings commenced almost three years ago. The first hearing took place in November 2021, at which interim care orders were made in respect of all three children.
18. In the summer of 2023, the mother was the victim of a violent attack from Mr S. The Local Authority had concerns about this incident. After the attack, the mother denied she had a partner. The mother, from this attack, sustained approximately seven haematomas on her head and face. She had bruising to the left side of her ribs, hands and arms. The mother failed to give evidence in the criminal trial and the case is therefore believed to have been discontinued for this reason. This incident changed the structure of the case. The Local Authority asserted at this time, the mother had not been honest with professionals throughout proceedings and that she remained extremely vulnerable in her relationship choices and had not embarked on the work needed to remove the risks from her life.

Evidence

19. No party required the parenting assessors, Dr Clark-Dowd or Dr Enerberi to give oral evidence. Therefore, the oral evidence I heard was as follows.

Allocated social worker

20. The current social worker has been the children's allocated social worker for the past year. She hopes that if the Court decides that O is to remain in his current placement, that Mr and Mrs T may reconsider and apply to be special guardians for him at some point in the future.
21. The social worker outlined all the referrals she tried to make or made for the mother, including a further referral to Reset, which is a drug and alcohol support service; a referral to Solace, which is a domestic abuse support service and a referral to Sanctuary which provides practical support, including counselling. Ms P sadly would not agree to engage with any of them. The social worker confirmed the mother has not done any work since the incident that took place with Mr S in August 2023. The mother did say that she had done previous work with Reset.
22. The social worker confirmed the children were very loyal to their mother. She did not think it was in any of the children's best interests to be cared for by their mother. The older two children do not want to change schools or move to U (another part of the jurisdiction), although she accepted that N's views ebb and flow in terms of where she would wish to live. She said both of the older children have friendship groups and enjoy the activities they are engaged in in London. She said there has been a long period of uncertainty. The children need to have final decisions made about them.
23. When asked if she had any confidence that the mother has the capacity to safely care for the children, she replied that she has not seen anything in Ms P's evidence to show her ability to be able to care for them. The older children, at present, do not want to engage with therapeutic support.
24. The social worker was concerned about the mother's drinking, that she uses it as a maladaptive coping mechanism. She said that the mother can drink up to half a bottle of vodka and that alcohol has usually been consumed when the incidents of domestic abuse have taken place. She is concerned about the mother's mental health and her history of being the victim of domestic abuse in her relationships. She explained how it looked like the mother was gaining insight in April 2023, but the severe domestic abuse incident in August 2023 when the mother had said she thought she was going to die, had shown that she lacked insight into the issues that concerned the professionals.
25. She said when she was cross-examined by the child's solicitor that the mother needs to address her concerns, that the heart of this is Ms P's lack of insight into her substance misuse, leading to the kids not being with her and what that has meant for them. She said and I quote "I am not hearing change in insight and what would be different for the children and what would be different in her choices." I found the social worker to be a fair witness, who appeared to have given careful consideration to the case and her answers to questions.

The mother, Ms P

26. I was really pleased the mother attended court to give her evidence. It is abundantly clear how much she loves all of her children. She has engaged with professionals in the assessments in the case and she needs to be commended for that. It is also commendable that she has sought help, leading to her voluntary admission to hospital in April 2024 for around two weeks, when the mother says she reached a crisis point with her mental health.
27. The mother explained how she plans to care for the children in U. She explained to me that she had previously engaged with Reset, but she did not see the point in doing so again. She has done various courses in the past but she accepted she has not engaged with Reset recently, nor had she engaged with Solace or Sanctuary or with the CBT therapy she needs.
28. She has not yet approached any schools for the two older children or made any plans for housing for herself and the children. She said she can remain with her parents and the children until she has resolve this, should they be placed in her care. She said the house in London is being repossessed and she is in significant debt. She explained she has complied with her mental health medication but, in the past, has weaned herself off antidepressants without medical support or advice.
29. She was asked about the incident in August 2023 and her decision making to go out with Mr S and allow him in her taxi home. This had placed her at risk. It was put to her she had not prioritised the children, especially at a time when, at that point, it was planned that the children may return to her care. The mother seemed to think that the issue was whether she was still in a relationship with Mr S. She did not seem to appreciate that spending time with him was a potential for harm to come to her.
30. She also minimised the effect of the domestic abuse on the children, saying they were not there, or they did not witness the incidents. She lacked the insight about how her being the victim of domestic abuse has had an impact on her ability to parent her children. She accepted she did not tell the parenting assessor she had used cocaine at a party in around March 2023. I found the mother tried her best to answer questions. She was cooperative with the Court and the advocates, and her answers to questions appeared genuine.

Children's Guardian, Rosemary Bolton

31. The Children's Guardian had prepared a very detailed and helpful final analysis to the Court in advance of the final hearing. She is clearly concerned that the children have waited a long time for a permanent decision about their future to be made. The Guardian said that sadly, in her view, Ms P is unable to care for the children.
32. She gave evidence to the Court about speaking to the mother in May 2023. She said that Ms P had told her that she understood she needed to engage with services before the children were moved back to her care. When the Guardian was asked which services they had discussed, she said that these included counselling, therapy, engaging with Reset, domestic violence services and work around safe relationships to keep her and the children safe.
33. The Guardian is concerned if the mother was to resume care of the three children, she would become overwhelmed again, especially given concerns about the mother being at crisis point only recently in April 2024.
34. The Guardian is concerned that the mother is not seeking the support from her family that she could. She does not consider the mother as showing the insight she needs to parent the children safely and she did not think there was any package of realistic support that would enable the mother to safely care for the children. The only support she could envisage was that of daily support, which she did not consider would be in the children's best interests.
35. The Guardian accepted the mother's hair strand test did not demonstrate chronic excessive alcohol use, but she did consider the mother misused alcohol. She said in response to a question from the mother's counsel, that the mother's alcohol use had not been tested to be excessive, but that the mother reports drinking alcohol. The incidents are when alcohol is involved. The Guardian said the mother's judgment is impaired by making choices which are a risk to her, and that is also a concern for me. She was concerned that the mother had admitted using cocaine in 2023.
36. The Guardian has observed contact between the mother and the children. She said that she observed them to have a loving and warm relationship, that the mother wants the best for her children, but she does not always understand what her actions mean for her children.
37. I found the Guardian to be a very helpful witness, who clearly weighed up the mother's love and commitment for the children, with her concerns about their long-term welfare needs, need for certainty and for these proceedings to conclude.

The law

38. The Local Authority bring this case, and it is for them to prove their case. In deciding any disputes of fact, I remind myself the tests I need to apply. I have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities and that the burden of proof rests with the person making the allegation. I am required to consider the evidence as a whole, which I have done. I have considered the relevant law in respect of this case under the Children Act 1989.
39. Before considering whether to make any public law order, I have to consider whether the threshold criteria is met, subject to section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. This sets out that a Court may only make a care or supervision order if it is satisfied (a) the child concerned is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and (b) that that harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to (i) the care given to the child or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him or (ii) the child being beyond parental control.
40. When considering likelihood of harm, this means no more than a real possibility it will occur, but a conclusion to that effect must be based on a fact or facts established on the balance of probabilities as set out in Re B [2013] UKSC 33.
41. It is important to bear in mind the need for rigorous analysis of the threshold, as pointed out in Re A [2015] EWFC 11 which sets out two fundamental principles which must be borne in mind in doing so. Namely, the first is the Local Authority, if its case is challenged on some factual point, must adduce proper evidence to establish what it seeks to prove. The second fundamentally important point is the need to link the facts relied upon by the Local Authority with its case on threshold. The need to demonstrate why, as the Local Authority asserts facts A plus B plus C justify the conclusion that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm of types X, Y or Z.
42. There is not, in this case, a complete dispute about threshold. The mother has accepted some parts of the threshold are met. I will come to threshold later in my judgment in terms of the findings the Local Authority sought, which were not agreed.
43. In determining what orders I should make, I have borne firmly in mind the welfare of the children and that that is my paramount consideration under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 and that I need to consider the factors set out in the Welfare Checklist under 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, which I will go through later in my judgment.
44. I must therefore weigh up all the realistic possibilities in this case and identify and analyse the harm which may flow from each plan, as well as the benefits, before coming to my decision. I must analyse whether any harm I have identified could be reduced or mitigated. In this regard, I must also consider what resources the Local Authority could make available to enable the family to meet the child's needs. I have to be satisfied there is no practical way of the authorities or others providing the requisite assistance or support, before I make a care order.
45. In Re O [2001] EWCA Civ 16, it is stated it is the duty of everyone to ensure in those cases where a supervision order may be appropriate as a response to the risk presented, that a supervision order can be made to work, as indeed the frames of the Children Act 1989 have always hoped. The Local Authority must deliver the services that are needed and must secure the other agencies, including the health service, to play their part and the parents must cooperate fully.
46. My task is to evaluate all the realistic options for the children and weigh them up, side by side. This was considered in the test in Re BS Children [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. It is also the case as set out at paragraph 29, that there is a need for me to be vigorous in my exploring and probing the Local Authority's thinking in cases where there is any reason to suspect that resources may be an issue affecting the Local Authority's thinking.
47. In considering the evidence, I have also reminded myself of the case of R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 which although was a case heard in the criminal courts, is nonetheless one I can rely on. This case reminds us that just because a person may have lied about one thing, it does not automatically follow they are lying about everything. The more recent decision in the Court of Appeal in Re A, B and C Children [2021] EWCA Civ 451 sets out the three reasons when I must consider it. Namely, it is a deliberate untruth; it relates to a significant issue or thirdly, we were not told the reason advanced, such as shame, humiliation, loyalty, etc.
48. I have also considered the test identified by Sir James Mumby in Re S [2014] EWFC in terms of evaluating the capacity of demonstrating change. This case was a case in the drug and family alcohol court, but I still found it helpful to consider.
49. I have been mindful of practice direction 3AA in respect of the mother's mental health vulnerabilities. The Court had the benefit of considering the contents of the psychological report of Ms P. No intermediary was recommended in this case. However, I have ensured there have been regular breaks for the mother to assist her in participating in the final hearing. I also requested she attended in person, so that she could provide instructions and listen to the evidence more easily. I consider that this allowed her to participate more effectively than it would have been via video link.
50. I have also had regard to the overriding objective in Part 1(1) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and in particular, that sets out I must deal with this case justly, fairly and quickly.
51. Throughout this judgment, I have considered the parents' and children's right to a fair trial and family life under Articles 6 and 8 of the Human Right Act 1998. I must bear in mind the need for the Court to adopt the least interventionist approach. The Court should only interfere with those rights if it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
52. Lastly, I must only make orders if I consider these orders are necessary, just and proportionate.

Threshold

53. The mother filed her response to threshold at the start of this final hearing and subject to a brief alteration to paragraphs one and five of the composite threshold that is in the bundle, it was agreed by the mother, save for paragraphs eight, nine and ten. The Local Authority and Children's Guardian have invited me to make findings about these paragraphs and in relation to paragraphs eleven and twelve, which relate to Mr Q. Mr Q, as I have said previously, was sent this threshold document, but he has not responded to it.
54. In my welfare analysis later in my judgment, I detail my concerns about the mother's lack of insight, but I do make the findings as set out by the Local Authority in paragraphs eight, nine and ten of the proposed composite threshold, as I find those proven.
55. In respect of Mr Q, what is recorded in the composite threshold document about him at paragraph twelve is based on evidence in the case that was not disputed by Mr Q in his statement. Therefore, I also make those findings.

Welfare

56. The way in which I must carry out my holistic evaluation of each of the options is the Welfare Checklist. I am mindful of the President's guidance as set out on 29 November 2022 which relaunched the public law outline and is set out in the Family Procedure Rules and in Practice Direction 12A and in section 14 of the Children and Families Act 2014. These require the Court to draw up a timetable with a view to disposing of an application without delay and in any event, within 26 weeks.
57. The children's case before me has now been running for two and three-quarter years. I agree with the Children's Guardian and the social worker that the children need a decision now and it is not in their best interests for a final decision for them to be delayed any further.

My welfare analysis

58. My evaluation of the mother's ability to care for the children is as follows. It is clear from my reading of the papers and the evidence I have heard, the strength of love Ms P has for her three children and how they enjoy their time together in contact. She has a good emotional bond with the children and has the skills and experience to meet their basic care needs. The concern is whether she can consistently do that with the difficulties she has, and without having done the work I identified she needs to be able to do to safely care for the children at all times.
59. Ms P is clearly committed to the children, and she has tried very hard and engaged well with professionals and cooperated with the many assessments in the case. The professionals in the case have acknowledged Ms P's love for her children and theirs for her. They believe she is currently compliant with her mental health medication, but this has not always been the case in the past.
60. In terms of the written evidence I wish to highlight, it is as follows. During these proceedings, there have been assessments by Dr Clark-Dowd of Mr Q and the mother. There has been parenting assessments by the Eva Armsby Family Centre of both Ms P and Mr Q separately and there was also a psychological assessment of the children by Dr Enerberi.
61. Dr Clark-Dowd did not assess the mother to have a personality disorder. At E101, she says the following issues are relevant for Ms P in the context of her difficulties to date.

(i) Borderline intellectual function in impaired working memory.

(ii) Ms P is motivated to be seen well, (social desirability or what other professionals refer to as disguised compliance) if she wants to be.

(iii) Vulnerability to substance misuse.

(iv) Compulsive histrionic and antisocial personality influences.

(v) Vulnerability to emotional fluctuation including depression.

62. She comments that "Ms P will need to be strongly driven to make and sustain any changes needed", but she is also likely to require ongoing support and this will need to be continual for the mother, whether through family and friends or professional assistance. That is to make sure the standards accepted are seen consistently and long-term, because of the factors that make her vulnerable.
63. She goes onto say that substance misuse will be associated with instability for the family and will exacerbate limitations in Ms P's parenting, functioning and resources. Ms P is aware she should refrain from substance misuse (but does not consider that she needs to particularly). She cited "domestic abuse, education and engagement with talking therapies to be ways of appeasing professional concerns", although Dr Clark-Dowd then said, "I am unsure how genuine she is about wanting to make changes, rather than reduce professional oversight. Changes in parenting, in my view, are most likely to come from insight and acceptance of professional concerns, as well as motivation to make and sustain change".
64. Dr Clark-Dowd also provided a psychological assessment of Q, which she completed in the spring of 2022. She suggests Mr Q's response when annoyed suggests he is likely to experience and express angry feelings, both internally and externally and that his profile suggests he may benefit from anger management work. She also said he may be vulnerable to anxiety. Mr Q acknowledged to her his misuse of crack cocaine in the past 34 years in response to losses and reported using cannabis but did not commit to an amount. He did not provide his medical records for the assessment.
65. The Eva Armsby Family Centre undertook a parenting assessment of the mother in April 2022. At the time of the assessment, Ms P was said to have shown limited insight. It was said that Ms P's adult life has been chaotic, and she needed a lot of support with her mental health. It did not recommend the children were returned to her care. There was then a further assessment by the Eva Armsby Family Centre which was negative and that was followed by another addendum assessment in April 2023. The latter assessment said if the children were placed in her care, Ms P would return to live in U where her family are available to support both her and the children. The addendum assessment recommended Ms P engaged in face to face training regarding domestic violence with the Positive Change service and engage in therapy. The assessor concluded with the opinion that on her own, Ms P would feel overwhelmed and would struggle to meet the children's needs and that she needs intensive support to parent her children.
66. The parenting assessment of Mr Q was negative. This was due to, in part, his ongoing substance misuse and the history of his relationships are characterised by domestic abuse, a lack of commitment and he had limited understanding and insight into the impact of this on his availability to a child. They said he appeared ambivalent about Children's Services expressing frustration with his belief that Children's Services had failed him, and he only attended six out of the sixteen sessions offered.
67. Dr Enerberi completed a psychological assessment of the children, that is dated June 2022. She concluded that the children present with difficulties in some aspects of their psychological functioning. She said M presents with social/emotional difficulties in the home and low cognitive functioning. It is likely many of his social difficulties are reflective of his sense of identity. It was noteworthy to me that during the evidence, it was said that M was not presenting with the same level of difficulties in foster care. Dr Enerberi said N presents with internalising and externalising difficulties and low cognitive functioning. O presents with difficulties, however, most of those were felt to be within the normal range. Dr Enerberi completed an addendum report dated March 2023, and she considered that those caring for the older children would benefit from therapeutic parenting support.
68. Dr Enerberi noted the completion of online self-taught courses and attending therapy sessions in and of itself would not mean Ms P had made the necessary changes. Dr Enerberi considered the addendum parenting assessment had some reservations regarding Ms P being in a position to care for her children.
69. The last hair strand test undertaken in the proceedings is in the bundle dated January 2024. The testing period covered the start of June 2023 to the start of December 2023. The results detected cocaine in the four-month period from the start of June to the start of October 2023 to a reducing level. It was not possible to determine the source of the detected cocaine and the results. It was said, it could be consistent with Ms P's declaration of use of cocaine at a party in around March or April 2023. As I have said already, none of the hair strand test results support Ms P having consumed chronic, excessive alcohol.
70. I think it is useful for the rest of my judgment to focus on the three areas the professionals have identified that the mother needs to address. These being her mental health issues, alcohol misuse and her vulnerability to domestic abuse. In relation to all three areas, professionals are concerned about the mother's lack of engagement with the work identified and her lack of insight in respect of how these issues affect her ability to parent. This is significant because in my evaluation, this affects the mother's ability to care safely for the children and within their timescales.

Mental health issues

71. The mother suffers from mental health difficulties which, at the present time, we are told is depression. There is no written evidence from the hospital about the mother's admission in April 2024, but she has told the Court she felt overwhelmed and was at crisis point and that since release from hospital, she has been on antidepressant medication.
72. I have already read the conclusion of Dr Clark-Dowd in respect of the mother's mental health difficulties and the need for her to have therapy to address long term issues. We know that cognitive behavioural therapy is hard to access on the NHS. It is disappointing the mother has not engaged with agencies which may have been able to help her access this therapy, such as the Sanctuary, Solace or Reset. Whilst the mother has taken some steps to try to secure therapy, that does not change the fact that there is still a real need for it to happen, both for her benefit and the benefit of the children. The mother guardedly accepted in her evidence that she needs to access therapy. The following is stated by Dr Clark-Dowd:

"The mother became overwhelmed and there was a deterioration in her mental health. It is therefore significant in April 2024 that the mother reaches the crisis point where she herself, and she is to be praised for that, recognised that she needed help and took herself to Mile End Hospital. She described how she had hit rock bottom, to the point that she felt unable to talk".

73. The mother's mental health crisis appears not have not been picked up by her family. They were unable to support Ms P around this time in April 2024. It is noted she has thirty family members, but I was sad to hear that none had visited her in hospital. It was also said that perhaps Ms P's family may be able to pay for her to access therapy, but Ms P told the Court she does not like to ask her family for help. The mother's hospital admission was just three months ago and sadly, with the exception of two phone calls, the mother has not engaged with outreach services. We were also told by her that she has made no attempts to contact mental health services in U to obtain outreach support there, now that that is where she is living. The mother, I am told, is taking her medication, but she accepts in the past, she has been non-compliant. She accepts that she has weaned herself off medication previously without supervision. It was submitted on behalf of the Local Authority that showed a lack of insight by her into how to manage her mental health condition.
74. In conclusion, whilst it is positive the mother sought help with her mental health in April 2024, this is a recent admission. She is in the early stages of taking her current medication, which she has not in the past been compliant with. The underlying mental health issues that the mother needs to address have not been addressed, despite these proceedings having now been ongoing for almost three years. The mother has not accessed therapy, nor is she accessing community mental health support services in U.

Alcohol issues

75. The five hair strand tests do not test positive for the mother consuming chronic, excessive alcohol. However, this is not a case where the Local Authority are pleading the mother abuses or is addicted to alcohol. Instead, they submit the mother uses alcohol as a maladaptive coping mechanism. For example, she used alcohol when her grandparents died and during the Covid 19 lockdown. This is a case where there are significant incidents of domestic abuse and where Ms P's judgement calls, her decision making and choices appear to be impaired because alcohol has always played a part in them. The mother calls it social drinking. She says she can drink from a double shot of vodka to half a bottle when she is out socialising.
76. The concern about the mother's drinking was echoed by the Children's Guardian, who said in her evidence, "The mother reports incidents are when alcohol is involved. The mother's judgment is impaired by making choices which are a risk to her and that is a concern to me". The fact that mother has mental health issues which she is taking antidepressants for and is also using alcohol, the professionals consider impacts on her ability to keep herself safe from risky relationships. That is a view I agree with. The mother is not the perpetrator of domestic abuse, nor is she being blamed for it. However, she is a parent, and she needs to safeguard her children and to do this, she needs to have insight about her alcohol use and avoid the unsafe situations she finds herself in.
77. I agree with the professionals from the evidence I have read and heard, I am concerned that alcohol plays a role in the mother's poor decision making and her vulnerability to domestic abuse and hence, it impacts on her ability to parent the children and that exposes them to harm.

Vulnerability to domestic abuse

78. The mother has a sad history of being the victim of domestic abuse in relationships. It had been hoped she had gained insight in relation to this when the third parenting assessment was completed in April 2023 and was positive to the mother caring for the children if she moved back to U to obtain family support. However, sadly, it is now believed that there had either been disguised compliance by her in those assessments, or simply that the mother had been unable to maintain the insight needed to keep herself safe in the long term. The mother does not seem to understand that she does not have to be in an intimate relationship to be at risk of domestic abuse. It was sad to hear that N had begged her mother not to reconcile with Mr S, suggesting the impact that domestic abusive relationship was having on N too.
79. Dr Clark-Dowd, when asked to assess whether the mother is likely to refrain from domestic violence within her relationship in the future says, "The issues are documented to be long-term. It is unclear to me why Ms P would be motivated to make changes now. She does not acknowledge features of her own profile or functioning that would increase her vulnerability to relationships. She may be better able to after she has had some experience of psychological intervention and if she engages meaningfully with such."
80. The mother's evidence about the violent attack she suffered in August 2023 demonstrated how significant that incident was. She said she thought she was going to die. It is clear why this incident changed the trajectory of the case, given that before that incident, there had been a plan for the mother to resume care of the children. The incident was almost two years into the care proceedings and sadly, demonstrates the mother's poor decision making about her ability to keep herself and in turn, her children, safe. It demonstrates the professional concerns about the mother not having gained the insight she needs to be able to provide the children with consistent and safe care.
81. Both the social worker and the Guardian consider the mother had sadly gained no further insight into risky relationships and the role her consumption of alcohol has in her decision making given the incident in August 2023 and no improvement has been demonstrated since.
82. In terms of this incident, Ms P was aware Mr S was going to be present at a night out with friends. She could have asked her friends not to invite him or she could have decided not to go. Instead, she relied on her friends telling her that it be would okay. She then, on the way home in a taxi, saw Mr S in a fight with other men. He had his shirt off. Instead of calling the police or taking no action herself, she invited Mr S, who you have to assume was agitated because we were told he was getting into a fight with other men, into her taxi. The events that followed are clearly not the mother's fault. Mr S took her phone; he banged on the door until she let him in. I am then told that he seriously assaulted her. I was so sad to hear that she thought she was going to die. She suffered incredibly serious injuries, including a number of haematomas to her head. This incident sadly demonstrates the lack of insight and the limited learning the mother has done to ensure that she can keep herself safe and that is, of course, a crucial lesson if she is going to be able to parent effectively, consistently and keep herself and children safe.
83. My conclusions in respect of the mother's ability to care are that there are significant issues in relation to her mental health which caused her recent hospital admission. Her relationship with Mr S has highlighted the concerns about her vulnerability to domestic abuse. She does not yet have insight nor is she in-tune with the triggers and the negative impact of her alcohol use and the effect that can have on her ability to provide emotionally consistent and in-tune care for the children. There is sadly no recent evidence of engagement with resources, despite the multi-faceted and sheer number of services that have been offered to her in these proceedings. There is no evidence from her of clear, substantive or maintained change.
84. It did look in April 2023 that there was a shift in the mother's insight because of the change in recommendation by the parenting assessor. However, the mother said in her oral evidence that she does not fully accept the children have suffered harm from domestic abuse. She said, "Maybe emotionally they did, but they did not witness anything, but maybe they did". When asked about whether they have suffered neglect, she said, "Neglect was a strong word and means I did not care". When asked about whether the children were safe in her care, she said, "A little bit, no". The Local Authority submitted that the mother just said in the parenting assessment in April 2023, what she thought the professional wanted to hear. I accept the submission there was no real understanding demonstrated by the mother at this final hearing of her ability to understand the concerns and accept the role that her mental health, alcohol use and lack of engagement with services have had on her ability to parent.
85. Time has shown that sadly, Ms P has not been able to implement the professional advice or undertake all the work identified to parent the children safely in their timescales. The mother says she will have the support of her family, and this may be so. There is evidence in 2023 of them acting protectively towards the children in telling social services when they thought Ms P was again in a relationship with Mr S. The evidence to date raises though concerns about the ability of the mother to ask for that support, such as asking for their help to enable her to attend this final hearing. They also appear to have taken no action to support the mother when her mental health was deteriorating in April 2024 and none of them visited her in hospital. It is simply not guaranteed the mother would get the family support she would need to care for the children.
86. The Children's Guardian said if the mother was to resume care of the children, she would need daily social services support. Whilst this would allow her to gain the help she needs, it would not resolve the three areas of concern that I have identified, those being domestic abuse, vulnerability, her mental health issues and alcohol use and the mother would need to address these for there to be any change in her ability to care for the children. That level of daily support, the Guardian did not consider would be in the children's best interests. It was also said by the Local Authority, that it would be hard to know how that would ever stop because we have been in proceedings now for almost three years and there has been no improvement. The mother has had the opportunity to undertake the work, and she has not done so.
87. The children's welfare means they need a final decision made about where they will live. I do not consider it is in the children's best interests for these proceedings to be adjourned for the mother to undertake any further work, nor was an adjournment something I was asked to consider.
88. For all of these reasons, I conclude that the mother, with or without family support, would sadly not be able to meet the children's needs, due to her not having undertaken the work identified or gained the insight required for her to safely parent the children. She needs to engage with therapy to assist with her emotional and mental health difficulties, undertake the work identified around keeping safe from domestic abuse and also understand the impact her alcohol use has on her decision making.
89. I realise how devastating this judgment will be for the mother to hear, given how much she loves the children and wants them in her care. I know how hard she has worked to have them returned to her but sadly, she cannot meet the needs of the children, either together or separately in the short, medium or long term. There is no realistic support package that can be put in place to address the concerns about the mother's ability to care for them.

Welfare Checklist

90. In terms of the Welfare Checklist within section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, I consider from the evidence that I have heard that the children would, of course, wish to be brought up by their mother if that were safe. The issue for the Court is whether this can be done safely and in accordance with their best interests. I am also aware that the children would want to maintain a relationship with each other which is, of course, the plan. M and N have expressed a wish, at the moment, to stay in London and not move to U, although N can change her mind on occasion.
91. The children have all the needs you would expect. There is a need for them to be in a family where they can be kept safe, where their needs for emotional support and stimulation are met, where they can develop. All the children need access to education. M, I am told, is doing well at school and has more merit awards than any other child in his school. There are some concerns about whether N may have some learning needs, and they are being investigated. O is now attending school in U.
92. The Local Authority's care plans mean that the children would not change from their current placements. The interim care orders would become final care orders, and they would become looked after children. I am aware this would not be easy for the children. It will mean they will have social worker in the long term, LAC reviews and more intrusion on their lives than those children who do not have state involvement. However, these interventions have to be weighed up with the balance of the children being kept safe from harm.
93. In terms of the children's characteristics, M is a 13-year-old boy of mixed heritage. N is a 12-year-old girl whose ethnic origin is the same, mixed heritage. O is a six-year-old boy whose ethnic origin is mixed.
94. The children were at risk of harm when these proceedings were initiated. This harm is detailed in the threshold particulars I have determined today.
95. In terms of wishes, the mother wishes to care for the children but sadly, I have explained I do not think this is in the children's best interests. With the exception of Mr and Mrs T, who have put themselves forward to care for O, all other family members who were put forward to care for the children withdrew from their assessments. There were three in total.
96. The powers open to the Court include making no order, a child arrangements order with the children placed in their mother's care. There could be a child arrangements order or a special guardianship order for O to live with Mr and Mrs T, his father and/or other family members. Other family members could care for the older children but, as I have said, this is not a realistic option as there are no other positive assessments. To make a care or a supervision order for the children to remain living with their mother, is another option open to the Court, or a care order and the children remain living in foster care. In the case of O, living with Mr and Mrs T, that can also be done under a care order.
97. My analysis of these options is as follows. As I have just outlined, one option is for the children to be placed with the mother. This could be done either under no order, a lives with child arrangements order, a care order or a supervision order. For all the reasons I have outlined, I do not consider it is in the children's best interests to return to the care of their mother, as it will not keep them safe. Save for Mr and Mrs T caring for O, there are no other realistic family placements options for the children
98. Mr R could not be found, and Mr Q's parenting assessment is negative, and he is not now engaged with these proceedings since at least January 2024. All parties agree there are no alternative friends and family members that can care for the older two children. O is settled with Mr and Mrs T. He moved to live with them in May 2024. They were positively assessed as special guardians, but they wish to care for him under a care order.
99. Another option available to the Court is for the older children to remain in long term foster care. This would enable them to remain in their current placement where they both have frequent contact with each other, but they will remain looked after children, as I have set out above. The Local Authority, supported by the Guardian, sought that all three children are made the subject of care orders and remain in their current placements.
100. My paramount consideration, as I have said, is the children's welfare and I have borne that in mind throughout my welfare evaluation. I recognise Ms P would have dearly loved to care for the children again for the rest of their minorities but, as I have said, I conclude on the evidence, that the mother does not have the capacity to meet their needs and there is no other family member who is able to do so in respect of the older two children. These proceedings have been ongoing now for almost three years and they require a permanent decision about who they are going to live with. I do not consider there are any realistic support systems or safeguards which could be put in place to enable the mother to safely care for the children in the short, medium or long term.
101. In respect of arrangements for contact, should the children not return home to the care of the mother, the Local Authority's proposals are supported by the Guardian and the mother. I approve the Local Authority's contact arrangements because, as I have said, sadly, the children cannot be returned home. I do not consider the contact arrangements need to be ordered. I agree with the Guardian's suggestion that the Local Authority should seek to do a risk assessment of Mr Q should he seek contact with O in the future. Please can this be recorded in the order.
102. For all these reasons, I make the final care orders in respect of M, N and O as sought by the Local Authority. I am satisfied that the children's welfare requires I make these orders. The Local Authority's plan for the children is that O will remain with Mr and Mrs T and the older two children will remain in their current foster placements.
103. I want to thank all the professionals in the case for their hard work and careful consideration of what they considered to be in the children's best interests. I am grateful again to the Local Authority for enabling the mother to be here. I would also like to thank all the advocates for their hard work during the final hearing.
End of Judgment.