A Local Authority v XYZ (No 2)

I have been hearing care proceedings and an application for a placement order in relation to a young boy, Y. He is coming up to seven months old.

I gave an interim judgment on 1st July 2015 on a discrete issue following a fact finding hearing. This judgment must be read in conjunction with that earlier judgment.

Y’s father is Z, (hereafter “the Father”). He is aged 33.

Y’s mother is X (hereafter “the Mother”). She is aged 30. She has a chronic history of substance and alcohol misuse, although she is making a significant effort to sort out her problems. She has been free of heroin for some years. She takes the heroin substitute, methadone and is gradually reducing her dosage. Unfortunately, she has recently had some liver problems which are being investigated but have caused her further ill-health.

An application was made for a care order on 10th December 2014. An interim care order was made on 15th December 2014 and Y remains in short term foster care albeit having supervised contact to both his parents. A subsequent application was made on 4th June 2015 for a placement order for adoption pursuant to section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

The Father made an application on 26th May 2015 for a declaration of parentage and a residence order.

The Local Authority seeks a full care order in relation to Y. It also seeks a placement order for adoption. The Final Care Plan is dated 2nd June 2015. The Guardian supports the Local Authority in relation to both applications.

The Mother has taken the very brave decision that she is not in a position to care for Y within his timescales given her own difficulties as outlined above. With great reluctance, she too supports the making of a final care order and a placement order for adoption.

The Father does not support either the making of a full care order or a placement order. He seeks an order that Y reside with him. By closing submissions, Mr O’Sullivan was not seeking an immediate placement of Y with the Father but was asking me to continue the interim care order to enable there to be a psychological assessment of the Father. No Part 25 application has been made, although I am clear that I should not refuse the application on that basis but should deal with it on the merits. Mr O’Sullivan indicated that two suitable psychologists could report by mid-August or early September.

It is accepted that the threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 is established in this case. In other words, Y is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given if the order is not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give [Children Act 1989, section 31(2)].

This does not mean that a care order will automatically follow. Before I can make such an order, I must consider the welfare of Y, reminding myself that Y’s welfare during his minority is my paramount consideration (section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989).

I must have regard to section 1(2) and the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. This must now be combined with the requirement to conclude care proceedings in a maximum of twenty six weeks unless there are exceptional circumstances.

I must next consider the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and the “no order” principle in section 1(5). In this case, it is clear that I must make an order. Indeed, all parties urge me to make orders, albeit different ones.

Turning to the application for the placement order, I can only make such an order if the child is subject to a care order or I am satisfied that the conditions in section 31(2) of the Children Act as to threshold are met. As already noted, it is agreed that this is the case and I have satisfied myself of that.

A court will only make a placement order if it is justified having given paramount consideration to the child’s welfare “throughout his life” (section 1(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002). Again, I must bear in mind that delay in coming to the decision is, in general, likely to prejudice the child’s welfare [section 1(3)]. I must have regard to the checklist set out in section 1(4) of the Act. I specifically remind myself that this includes consideration of matters that do not feature in section 1 of the Children Act 1989, including the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person. I must further consider the relationship which the child has with relatives, including:-

Section 1(6) provides that the court must always consider the whole range of powers available to it (whether under the 2002 Act or the Children Act 1989) but must not make any order under the 2002 Act unless it considers that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so.

Section 21(3) provides that, in the absence of parental consent, I can only make a placement order if I am satisfied that parental consent should be dispensed with. Pursuant to section 52(1), I need to be satisfied that the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with. This is to be done in the light of the current circumstances (see McFarlane LJ in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 813 at Paragraph [13]).

Mr O’Sullivan, who appears on behalf of the Father, rightly reminds me that I must be satisfied as to the evidential basis for any order that I make. The burden of proof is on the Local Authority. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

In Darlington BC –and- M [2-015] EWFC 11, the President said at Paragraph 10:-

“The second practical and procedural point goes to the formulation of threshold and proposed findings of fact. The schedule of findings in the present case contains…allegations in relation to the father that “he appears to have lied” or colluded, that various people have “stated” or “reported” things and that “there is an allegation”. With all respect to counsel, this form of allegation, which one sees far too often in such documents is wrong and should never be used. It confuses the crucial distinction, once upon a time, though no longer, spelt out in the rules of pleading and well understood, between an assertion of fact and the evidence needed to prove the assertion…..The relevant allegation is not that “he appears to have lied” or “X reports”. The relevant allegation, if there is evidence to support it, is that “he lied” or “he did Y”.

He further reminds me of the wise words of Hedley J in Re L [2007] 1 FLR 1050 to the effect that children are, in general, best brought up within natural families. He said:-

“It follows inexorably from that, that society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others will flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting; in any event, it simply could not be done.”

He relies on Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 where the President said at Paragraph 29:-

“It is the obligation of the local authority to make the order which the court has determined proportionate work. The local authority cannot press for a more drastic form of order, least of all press for adoption, because it is unable or unwilling to support a less interventionist form of order. Judges must be alert to the point and must be rigorous in exploring and probing local authority thinking in cases where there is any reason to suspect that resource issues may be affecting the local authority’s thinking”

The Judgment continues at Paragraph 40 by making it clear that sloppy practice must stop, adding that “it is simply unacceptable in a forensic context where the issues are so grave and the stakes, for both child and parent, so high”. In fairness, I should make it clear that it is not alleged that resource issues have played any part in the Local Authority thinking in this case.

Finally, he reminds me of the requirement set out in Paragraph 34 of Re B-S that the court must have proper evidence before it. I return to the detail of this when I consider the law on making a placement order. At this point, I merely note that, if the evidence is not available and the court is not properly equipped to decide the issues, an adjournment must be directed, even if this takes the case outside the twenty six weeks (Paragraph 49).

I accept all these points. I do, however, note that I have been robustly case managing this case as is required by Paragraph 49 of Re B-S. I will return to this aspect in due course.

I now turn to the appropriate test for making a placement order and dispensing with parental consent. In relation to dispensing with consent, Wall LJ said in Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2 FLR 625 at Paragraph 126:-

“Section 52(1) is concerned with adoption – the making of either a placement order or an adoption order – and what therefore has to be shown is that the child’s welfare “requires” adoption as opposed to something short of adoption. A child’s circumstances may “require” statutory intervention, perhaps may even “require” the indefinite or long-term removal of the child from the family and his or her placement with strangers but that is not to say that the same circumstances will necessarily “require” that the child be adopted. They may or they may not. The question, at the end of the day, is whether what is “required” is adoption.”

The case goes on to set out that “required” in this context means the connotation of the imperative. It is what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable. It is a stringent and demanding test. The court should begin with a preference for the less interventionist rather than the more interventionist approach. This should be considered to be in the better interests of children unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary (Re O (Care or Supervision Order) [1996] 2 FLR 755 at 760.

Adopting a child is a draconian order. It is an extreme order, only to be made as a last resort when there is no other order compatible with the child’s long term welfare (Re B [2013] UKSC 33). In short, nothing else will do (per Lady Hale at paragraph [198]). I entirely accept that this is because the interests of the child self-evidently require his relationship with his natural parents to be maintained unless no other course is possible in the child’s interest (Lord Neuberger at Paragraphs [76] to [77]). Cutting off all contact and the relationship between the child and his family is only justified by the overriding necessity of the interests of the child (Lady Hale at Paragraph [198]).

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the application of Re B in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and re-emphasised the stringency of the welfare test when considering whether to dispense with parental consent. The President, Sir James Munby, said that there is a necessity for a “holistic” and rigorous evaluation of all placement options before coming to a decision. I remind myself that Article 8 of the ECHR is engaged.

The President stated that the Court of Appeal had real concerns about the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption both in the materials put before the court by both local authorities and guardians and in too many judgments. He said it was time to “call a halt”. The evidence placed before the court must address all the options which are realistically possible and must contain an analysis of the arguments for and against each option and, in particular, the nature and extent of the risk of harm involved in each of the options (Paragraph [34]). The need for analysis of the pros and cons and a full reasoned recommendation was essential if the exacting test set out in Re B and the requirements of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention are to be met (Paragraph [36]). There must be adequately reasoned judgments (Paragraph [43]). The court rejected a linear approach whereby each option other than the most draconian is considered and rejected in isolation. Instead, a balancing exercise is required in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives. Each option should then be compared, side by side, against the competing option or options (Paragraphs [49] – [50]).

It is not sufficient merely to pay lip service to adoption being the most draconian order without engaging with the detail of the option as to do so would be nothing more than “formulaic window dressing.”

It is also right to remember that an adopted child is treated in law as if he had been born as a child of the adopters (section 67 of the 2002 Act). The parental responsibility of the birth parents is extinguished (section 46). An adoption order is irrevocable except in exceptional circumstances.

I have already considered part of the history of this case in my fact finding judgment. I propose therefore to be brief. Y has three older half-siblings. These are the Mothers’ children by her relationship with T.

Final care orders were made in relation to all three children as recently as 10th June 2015. Again, courageously, the Mother consented to the making of the orders.

A fourth sibling, R was born in 2012. He tragically died in 2013 whilst in the Mother’s care. The cause of death was unascertained and an open verdict was recorded by HM Coroner. In the fact finding hearing, I found that the Mother could not be excluded from the pool of potential perpetrators of a broken rib suffered by R a couple of months before he died. The other person in the pool was R’s Uncle, U.

The Mother met the Father in December 2013 on Facebook. They commenced a relationship. He visited her for two weeks and the Mother got pregnant. He says he was over the moon by the news. Y was his first child. He says the Mother was not happy. The Father returned for a further visit in 2014 but says that the Mother was very “offish”. He complains that she refused to visit him at his home. It is agreed that the relationship finished in July/August 2014. He says the Mother acted in an aggressive manner towards him. He says he was aware of her problems with drug abuse and she was consuming large amounts of alcohol. In his first statement, he says that his step-father was violent to him during his childhood.

I directed an assessment of the Father. It is dated 26th May 2015 and was prepared by the Local Authority Social Worker, S. It sets out some of the background including that the Father attended a Special Needs School. Mr S says that, at times, the Father presented as forceful (even angry). Mr S was concerned he may have a dominant/controlling personality. He presents in a loud and agitated way and is unable to appreciate appropriate social behaviour. There were concerns in relation to a number of his previous relationships. One woman, H, had a ten year old daughter, W. The relevant Local Authority (“T Local Authority”) had concerns that he posed a risk of a sexual nature to children. It was said that he had an “unhealthy fixation” with W. There was a quote that purports to come from the Father himself saying that he and W were “very close; when we cuddle, our bodies are like hot boxes generating heat which went inside each other.” It is alleged that this resulted in them falling asleep together. The T Local Authority told the woman that, if she did not end the Father’s contact to W, they would apply for an Emergency Protection Order. There were allegations of the Father kicking down a bathroom door during an argument.

There is no doubt that the Father has never cared for a child before, let alone a baby. It was regrettable that it took some four months to complete the paternity test but, when he was proved to be the Father, he was introduced to Y in April 2015. Contact was supervised. Although there were initial concerns in relation to the Father failing to follow advice, there were many positives. The Father is registered disabled following accidents to his hand at work. I will have to return to this in due course.

Mr S was concerned that the Father had relationships with at least three vulnerable women and had no effective support network. The assessment argues that many of the issues identified could have a detrimental impact on the Father’s ability to raise Y in a safe and nurturing environment. Whilst Mr S postulated that this could be further explored in a psychological assessment, without such, Mr S considered it difficult to recommend that the Father be allowed to parent Y. He added that this was sad given the effort the Father had demonstrated.

I have already indicated that the final care plan is dated 2nd June 2015. The Local Authority states that it has ruled out rehabilitation to either parent. The timescales for Y are not compatible with either parent achieving sustained change. It proposes placement for adoption with contact to be gradually reduced to once per week for two hours for the Mother and fortnightly for the Father until a farewell contact following the identification (matching) of the adopters. A decision had been made not to introduce Y to his siblings until there was certainty as to his future and that there was no merit in doing so now. There should, however, be indirect letterbox contact post-adoption.

The issue of a psychological assessment of the Father has been considered by the Local Authority, the Guardian and the court as well as by the parents’ advisers.

On 15th May 2015, I made a case management order dealing with experts. At Paragraph 12, it reads:-

“There were no further applications for experts to be instructed at this hearing. However the Local Authority and the Guardian are concerned that it may be necessary for the court to have a psychological report on the Father in view of matters mentioned in the Police disclosure on the Father and the Father’s presentation when interacting with social workers and the Guardian. The Local Authority has not been able to obtain disclosure relating to the Father from T Local Authority…If following disclosure of that material…it is decided to seek permission to instruct such an expert, a practice direction compliant application shall be filed with the court electronically, if possible, agreed by all parties but, if not so agreed, with concise written submissions from any party opposing the instruction of the expert. The application is to be filed not later than three clear working days after receipt of the disclosure from T Local Authority.”

The disclosure was received on 22nd May 2015. The Local Authority sent an email later that day to all parties that it considered that a psychological assessment would be the most appropriate way to explore the issues. I believe the Guardian was present at a meeting prior to that decision being taken and I was told the decision was unanimous that such a report was required.

Thereafter, further consideration was given and the Local Authority and the Guardian both changed their minds. On 28th May 2015, the Local Authority sent a follow up email to all parties. It said that the social work assessment had been completed and the view was taken that an expert report was not necessary. The solicitor for the child had been informed. The same day, the Mother’s solicitor sent an email stating that it was thought that the Father would have difficulty in pursuing his application in such circumstances. Nothing further was heard from any party. No application was made to me for such a psychological assessment of the Father.

The Father filed a second statement on 3rd June 2015, primarily dealing with the criticism made of him in the parenting assessment. He said he was willing to engage in a full psychological assessment. He said that being inquisitive as to what is happening does not indicate that he is controlling. He is very house proud. He was slightly annoyed that Mr S turned up early for his visit to the Father’s house. He accepted he was loud and that he may express an opinion more forcefully than he intended. He did say that the Local Authority “need to keep on the right side of me” as he was feeling frustrated. He apologised for staring at a female support worker who had felt uncomfortable as a result.

He said that his first girlfriend had self harmed when the relationship was over. The second woman, H was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He says that all the accusations of him acting in a sexualised way to her daughter came from H and were totally untrue. He specifically denies the alleged comment about his and W’s bodies becoming hot and presumes this was made up by H. He does say that he once fell asleep and woke up to find W cuddled up beside him on the sofa, leaning against his back. There was no domestic violence and he never kicked down a door.

He accepts he used inappropriate words with Y but will not do so again. Given his inexperience with children, he said he was bound to make mistakes. He goes on to add that the abuse he suffered as a child has made him more determined that he will be a better parent. He has a new relationship with a woman called L. He was not controlling towards the Mother, who was very “in your face” to him. He did contact the Jeremy Kyle Show as he wanted to arrange DNA testing to prove he was the father of Y.

The Local Authority’s application for a placement order is dated 4th June 2015. It says that Y’s welfare requires the consent of both parents to adoption to be dispensed with. There have been negative parenting assessments of both the Mother and the Father and, as there is no other prospective permanent carer, adoption is the only possible outcome. The Mother has recently nominated a sister as an alternative carer but this came very late in the day. The Mother had been specifically asked for such nominations even before the commencement of proceedings and had been warned that a late nomination would not be acceptable. An attempt will, however, be made to contact the sister. It is argued that long term foster care does not offer appropriate permanency, stability and certainty for Y. The current foster carers do not put themselves forward in the long term to care for him.

The Mother’s statement as to the applications that I am dealing with is dated 9th June 2015. She says she believes that she is on the way to beating her addictions. Her children mean the world to her. She is feeling ill at the moment due to problems with her liver function. She is suffering from chest pains, weight loss and her hair is falling out. She is low and despondent.

In a document dated 25th June 2015, the Mother concedes the threshold is established although she specifically denies the rib fracture and drinking alcohol to excess whilst caring for R. Her position statement of the same date explains that this has been an extremely difficult decision for her but she recognises that she is at the start of a very long process to recovery. She has sadly concluded that she is not likely to be in a position to care for Y within his timescales. She has serious reservations about the Father and does not support placement with him or any further adjournments.

The Cafcass Report of G is dated 19th June 2015. It confirms that the Mother loves her children very much and wants what is best for them. She has worked hard to make changes and has engaged with assessments and is making significant changes but decisions must be taken without delay.

The Father can be dismissive of advice. She is concerned about the information from T Local Authority and, in particular, the relationships the Father has had with several vulnerable women over the years and the controlling behaviour that has been witnessed. There are too many uncertainties.

Her recommendation was for care and placement orders leading to adoption and indirect contact. To place with either parent would place the child at risk of significant harm. The negative assessments undertaken by the Local Authority conform to her own view. She commends the Mother for the significant steps she has taken but her problems are so entrenched and longstanding that proving sustainable change is outside Y’s timescales. She sets out the advantages and disadvantages of all the potential orders and comes down firmly in favour of placement for adoption. She ends by saying that she does not find this a finely balanced decision.

After the hearing had commenced, the Father’s medical records became available. He was cross-examined extensively on them. There is no doubt that the records raise a number of significant issues.

First, it is clear that the Father suffered a very unpleasant injury to his left hand when he was aged only 16. The hand was crushed between two skips. He showed me his hand which is deformed. I entirely accept that it has, over the years, caused him considerable pain. Having said that, I don’t for a moment think that it would stop him caring for a baby or an older child if that was otherwise appropriate.

The issue, however, is whether or not he has become addicted to pain killing opiates and, in particular, codeine and/or dihydrocodeine. It is also alleged that he has lied to medical professionals to secure excess doses of the drugs. If he has, historically, taken excess doses, what effect does that have on him? I should make it clear that the concerns as to excess use of the drug do not feature recently in the medical notes. Secondly, the medical records show a history of quite significant depression. Again, it is not suggested that depression itself excludes him from caring for a child, although the effect of the depression may be relevant. He did not, though, disclose either of these matters to Mr S, when he was undertaking the parenting assessment.

Some of the entries do not show the Father in a good light. It is clear that the doctors did not believe many of his explanations for why it was that he needed new prescriptions. It is also clear that they considered him to be addicted to opiates. I will have to make findings of fact.

I heard from three witnesses. The first was the Local Authority Social Worker, S. The second was the Father. The third was the Guardian, G. The Mother had given evidence during the fact finding hearing. No party required her to give evidence at this welfare stage of the proceedings. I consider that was entirely right and correct.

In essence, the cross-examination of Mr S by Mr O’Sullivan involved Mr O’Sullivan suggesting to Mr S that each of his individual criticisms of the Father in the parenting assessment was either unfair or insignificant, such that it was not a reason for ruling out the Father. I am prepared to accept that some of the criticisms were indeed minor (such as the exact number of jobs the Father had applied for locally are certainly not causes for significant concern. Others, however, were far more significant. Moreover, cumulatively they presented a disturbing picture, although I entirely accept that I will need to make findings of fact as to the various matters that are in dispute. It was not until the Father himself gave evidence that the reasons for a negative parenting assessment emerged clearly.

Mr S made proper and fair concessions where they were appropriate. He conceded that the Father had co-operated throughout and had shown a high level of commitment to Y. He accepted that contact had, by and large, gone well. It was put to him that he should have requested a psychological assessment of the Father. In effect, he responded in two ways. First, he said that the result of the parenting assessment was so decisive against the Father being able to parent Y that there was no point. Second, he said that, even if the result of such an assessment was to suggest ways in which the Father could change to enable him to parent safely, the time that this would take would simply not be within Y’s timescales.

In answer to Ms Lloyd for the Guardian, Mr S said that he had been aware that the Father was on medication but he had not been aware of the detail. The Father had not disclosed the issues he had in relation to codeine, nor in relation to his episodes of depression.

I considered Mr S to be a thoughtful and careful witness. I accept that he has undertaken the parenting assessment conscientiously and carefully. He started with an open mind but, by the end, was convinced that the Father could not provide safe care for Y.

The following are my findings of fact. I entirely accept that the Father is a loving and devoted parent to Y. He has shown a great commitment to Y in the last few months, particularly given the distance between where he lives and where the Mother lives. He is entitled to great credit for that. He is equally entitled to have Y’s birth certificate corrected to show him as the Father. This will give him parental responsibility. If it did not, I would have given him parental responsibility. Recently, he has obtained a job involving servicing televisions in a local hospital. I am sure that this is good news for him. I very much hope that he is able to maintain this employment which should build his self-esteem and help him in many ways.

Having said that, I heard him give oral evidence for around half a day. It soon became abundantly clear to me why it was that he failed the parenting assessment and why it is that the Guardian says that the outcome in this case is, in her view, clear and not finely balanced. I regret to have to say that I found much of his evidence hard to accept. I was simply unable to believe a good deal of what he said. His evidence was, unfortunately, very unimpressive.

Many of the points made against him are not in any way his fault. He has clearly had a terrible upbringing by an abusive and controlling step-father who treated him appallingly. He was regularly subject to serious assaults from a young age, including the use of implements. His thumb was broken. He bears terrible emotional scars from these assaults. He was not in a position to defend himself. He has had the worst possible template for good parenting. It may have contributed to him having to attend a special school and have a statement of special education needs.

At the age of sixteen, he was kicked out of the home unceremoniously and forced to live on the streets for some six months. It is very difficult to understand how terrible this must have been. Entirely in consequence, he has suffered from flashbacks, panic attacks, serious episodes of depression and even black-outs. None of this is his fault at all. His step-father is entirely responsible for having done this to him but his mother should have protected him and so she too bears a heavy responsibility. The effect on him has, however, been traumatic.

It did not end there. He found a job involving skips. Very regrettably, his left hand became wedged between two skips and he suffered lasting damage and terrible pain. It has led to the problems he has had with codeine. He is entitled to be upset about what has happened to him. It has scarred him both physically and emotionally. I accept the statement in the parenting assessment that he presents as “forceful, possibly even angry”. I consider his upbringing has compromised his ability to enter lasting mutually supportive relationships and has led to the difficulties he has encountered in his adult life.

There is no doubt that he has had a number of relationships with vulnerable women, including the Mother in this case. He has met a few of them online. He has been accused on a number of occasions of being “controlling” in these relationships. I find the description to be accurate.

None of the relationships, apart possibly from one, has lasted more than a few months. He does not appear to have had a committed stable relationship at any point. His first relationship of note appears to have been the longest but he told me that this woman, E was raped repeatedly by a mutual friend, which must have been traumatic for her. The relationship appears to have broken down and then started up again. When it finally broke down, she became hysterical and started self-harming including cutting herself and attempting to slash her wrists.

He subsequently had a relationship with H, who had a daughter, W who was aged 10 at the time. This relationship lasted for a few months in 2010. It was clearly not a stable relationship. The Father accuses H of suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He told me he diagnosed this condition himself, although he said the doctors later confirmed his diagnosis. I do not know whether or not this was correct. It is the excuse he uses for the many serious allegations she made against him. Although he says that it was totally unjustified, the simple fact of the matter is that T Local Authority said that, if H continued to allow the Father contact to W, it would apply for an Emergency Protection Order. This undoubtedly shows how seriously the Authority was taking the matter.

I accept that many of the allegations come from H and I have not heard from her. There are though disturbing allegations that the Father had an unhealthy fixation with W. I will merely make findings as to the matters of which the Father spoke. The records say that he said he was very close to W and, on one occasion, he had a cuddle with her and their “bodies were like hot-boxes generating heat which went inside each other”. It resulted in them falling asleep together. I have already noted that the Father denied saying this in his second statement. He argued that it was another wild allegation from H. But when he was cross-examined on it more closely, he accepted that he had said this. He explained it on the basis that it was a hot day and both he and W were very hot and, in effect, making each other hotter by cuddling. Whatever the position, what he said was deeply disturbing. He accepted that H found W curled up sleeping next to him the next morning, although it appears to have been in the living room. He should never have let this happen. It explains the Local Authority concern.

At the end of the relationship, he wanted W to live with him. He told me that she was old enough to decide. He said he thought it was appropriate at the time although he now thinks it was not. I do not accept this. It was never appropriate. The records say that the Father was reported by W’s school to be dominant. The school had to remove him from their text messaging service. He told me that he was only on the service as H had lost her telephone or it had stopped working. He said that he asked for his telephone to be removed from the list but I do not accept that. At the very least, he was taking on a parenting role very quickly. At worst, he was trying to usurp H’s position.

H said she was scared of him and that there were arguments. He admitted the arguments although denied that he kicked the bathroom door down. W told the Local Authority that she frequently heard her mother and the Father arguing. He initially denied this but then accepted it, saying he told H to stop until W was in school. He said he did his best to keep the arguments away from W but he clearly didn’t succeed. Indeed, he said that W was upset as he had had a “massive argument” with her mother and she was scared. At another point in his evidence, he told me that he would ensure that Y did not experience the terrible childhood that he had but he was not able to prevent W from experiencing that sort of behaviour. He was either unable or unwilling to protect her. Eventually, the Mother and W were taken away by the Local Authority. The Father told me that she kept contacting him thereafter. He did admit that the Local Authority considered him to be the problem, rather than H.

In 2011, he had a relationship with a woman whose child was in care. He told me he did not know about this until later. The relationship ended after about five weeks. It appears that they both received a harassment warning from the Police.

In 2013, he had another brief relationship with a woman. He had met her through an on-line bingo site. She was pregnant when they met. It appears her former partner got upset by the relationship but I don’t have the details. The relationship broke down shortly after she gave birth. He said he didn’t know why she ended the relationship.

He then commenced his relationship with the Mother. Her vulnerabilities are well known and need not be repeated. They met on Facebook. He commenced a relationship with her notwithstanding the physical distance between them and she became pregnant on his very first visit to see her. He says he was “over the moon” to hear she was pregnant whereas she was not happy. I realise that this was his first child but, given the Mother’s problems with alcohol and drugs and the fact that her other children were in care, he should, at the very least, have had some apprehension as to the future. It does not appear that he did so at all.

Yet again, the relationship was over almost as soon as it had started. He says that, on his second visit, he gave her the ultimatum to come and visit him at his home or the relationship needed to end. He says this was selfish of him.

He has since commenced another relationship with a woman he met in a hospital. He was unwilling to give any details or information about her to either Mr S or the Guardian during the assessment process. He has done so in his second statement but it was too late for her to be assessed. I do not know if this was because he did not want her involved in this case or whether he was concerned that she would also present as vulnerable. It does, however, show just how little understanding he has of the process involved.

I conclude by accepting the Local Authority concerns as to this aspect in their entirety. Y needs stability. He does not need vulnerable women coming in and out of his life at regular intervals. Perhaps the new woman, L is different but, if so, the Father has not allowed the court to find this out.

I turn now to his experience with children. Of course, a court cannot hold it against a father that he is a first time father and lacks experience. All fathers are first time fathers once. But this Father told Mr S initially that he would have no trouble in parenting Y because he had so much experience in caring for children. This was simply not true. He later accepted that he had much to learn. His only experience has been babysitting.

When going through the medical notes, there emerged an occasion when he went to the GP complaining of pain, having been kicked in the testicles. I asked how this occurred. His answer was extremely concerning. He told me he had been looking after a couple of kids aged 9 and 13 and that they had repeatedly kicked him there. He said they thought it was funny. I asked him why he didn’t stop it. He said he was able to stop it at times. He added that it was up to the parents to stop it. I found this the most disturbing aspect of his evidence. He was badly hurt by this. Yet he was unable to stop a nine year old and a thirteen year old from doing it to him. Why were they doing it in the first place? This is not normal behaviour at all. It shows a complete inability to ensure that children in his care respect proper borders. In short, he was unable to control them.

I now turn briefly to his medical notes. There is much here that is almost as concerning. It is abundantly clear that there was a significant period when he was attempting to obtain prescriptions for codeine on numerous occasions when he had already been given sufficient amounts of the drug for the maximum safe dose. The various GPs he saw undoubtedly took the view that this was the case. He denied it to me forcefully. He told me that there were “possibly more than ten occasions” on which he had left his medication behind by accident when away from home. He asserted that there was a lodger of his that was stealing his medication and he did not realise for many months. On one occasion, a prescription had been altered. He told a GP that he had lost it in the street but had later found it again. Some unknown person had in the interim altered the date and he hadn’t realised. Frankly, this was a “cock and bull” story that no sensible person could possibly believe. It did him no credit that he was not prepared to accept that to me.

The Father wants me to place a vulnerable baby in his care. A responsible parent might, on perhaps one occasion, leave his or her medication behind whilst away. A responsible parent would not do so on ten occasions. A responsible parent should realise within days that medication is being stolen from them. It should not take months. I do not believe the Father’s evidence to me in this regard. I find that, at times, he was taking excess doses of codeine. Having denied it initially, he did eventually accept that he had historically had a problem with codeine and that he “would take more than I should as I was in so much pain”. The concern here is that he is asking to parent a young baby. What is the effect on him of taking excess codeine? I find that doing so would endanger a young child.

There are also references in the medical notes to him at times being in excruciating pain and, when having insufficient pain killers, “snapping at everyone”. He accepted that an increase his anti-depressive medication made him snappy but he denied that he got aggressive. I cannot accept that denial.

I have also noted that the medical notes show persistent depressive illness. I accept his evidence that he only takes anti-depressant medication when he feels the symptoms coming on and that he is at present clear of any difficulties. My concern, however, is that these problems arise from his childhood problems. The medical notes indicate that he has been offered both Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Counselling. The notes say he rejected these offers of assistance. He accepts that he rejected one. He says that he accepted the other offer of help although he was not clear which one. This does not, however, assist as he says he only went to see the counsellor, Dave, once. He claims he did not receive notification of a second appointment. Even if true, it shows that he has not chased up such an appointment. I consider this aspect serious. Given everything he has told me, he desperately needed such help but he has either not been prepared to do so or has failed to follow it up. He says that he is now prepared to do so but it is well known that such treatments take a considerable time and can be very painful experiences.

There are numerous lesser concerns outlined in the parenting assessment. I propose merely to highlight a couple. It is said that the Father was, at least initially, reluctant to accept advice. He denies this but there are two incidents of concern during contact. The first was when he placed Y on a worktop and held him with one hand whilst preparing a bottle. The worktop was slightly higher than the tables in court. This could never be appropriate when dealing with a baby. The second was when he was carrying Y on his forearm facing downwards, as though Y was flying like Superman. Three people present in the room advised him against this but he would not accept their advice. He told me this was because Y was comfy and happy and it was ok if you know you have him well held. This is how accidents happen. It was quite wrong of him not to accept advice.

He was asked about his support network. He said he has many friends who will be very supportive but he has no family who live close at all. They live approximately 78 miles away. The one friend, who he has specifically relied on, V, is an elderly gentleman who is not in good health. He told me Mr V has had ten heart attacks. I have not heard any medical evidence but I very much doubt that anyone could have ten heart attacks and survive. The Father is exaggerating. He did, however, accept ultimately that on a day to day basis, the care of Y would just be him.

Finally I heard from the Guardian. She told me she was entirely in agreement with the Local Authority plans. She told me that the Father can be overbearing but she had not had the experience of him being difficult to deal with. He could be clumsy in his language. He has had a difficult history. Although there are concerns as to his learning disability, these are not matters that would prevent him parenting Y. She accepted that, if possible, a child should be brought up by his birth family. She also accepted that, if placed with the Father, he would have a greater knowledge of his paternal family and, indeed, his maternal one.

Nevertheless, having made these appropriate concessions, she stuck to her recommendation without wavering. She said it was not “far too early” to form a view. The court does have sufficient information to make a decision. She accepted that she too had at one point considered a psychological assessment but, as more information came in, she decided it was no longer necessary as there was more than sufficient to make a decision.

Mr O’Sullivan is realistic enough to realise the difficulties that his client faces in relation to an application for an immediate order that Y be placed with his client. Indeed, he further accepts the difficulty in asking, at this stage, for a phased return. He pins his colours firmly to the mast of a proper psychological assessment of his client. He says it was wrong that one was not obtained and, given the draconian nature of the order sought, it would be wrong to proceed to a final decision without such a report.

He has undoubtedly made this submission attractively. He compares the lack of assessment of his client to the assessments undertaken on the Mother. I accept that there was a psychiatric assessment of her as well as a report by an Independent Social Worker. The circumstances do not, however, equate. First, these assessments were also provided for the other proceedings involving her three elder children. Second, it is a simple fact that she had cared for these children for a significant number of years which is very different to the position of the Father in this case.

The test for granting a psychological assessment of a parent is that a report is “necessary” to the determination of the issues in the case. Such an assessment is most definitely not required in all cases. Indeed, it has repeatedly been made clear that social workers and guardians are experts in this field. I have been impressed by both Mr S, who is after all, a Senior Practitioner in the Family Intervention Team and by the Guardian, G.

The law has changed to impose a maximum period for dealing with care cases of twenty six weeks subject to an exceptional circumstances escape clause. In fact, this case is already marginally over six months, solely due to my availability. I further remind myself that I am dealing with a baby, for whom time is very much of the essence.

I accept that, in a suitable case, it would be right to extend the twenty six weeks further for a short period, even in the case of a baby, if necessary evidence was not before the court. The evidence must however be necessary. There is no point in ordering such further evidence if there is no realistic prospect that it will alter the conclusion of the court. Is there, in this case, a realistic, as opposed to fanciful, prospect that such a report would lead to my being able to conclude that the Father could parent Y safely, bearing in mind the observations of Hedley J?

I have come to the sad but clear conclusion that there is not such a realistic prospect. It is entirely fanciful. Indeed, I would discount it completely. The fact that no-one has made such an application to date is not, of itself, a reason for discounting the prospects of success. I do, however, consider that there is a good reason why no such application was made. The Local Authority and Guardian have done what I have done in the last few days. They have looked carefully at the Father and his case and have come down firmly against placement with him. I regret that I have come to the same conclusion. It is of some, albeit limited significance, that the Mother has reached an identical position.

Although I recognise Mr O’Sullivan has put the case as attractively as he could, it is, in essence, the “leave no stone unturned” submission that no longer finds favour. Given the findings of fact that I have made, I consider it impossible that any psychologist could conclude that Y could be safe with the Father. Even if a psychologist was able to say that there were things that could be done with the Father, it is quite clear that any such work would be far outside Y’s timescales. It is not as though the Father did not have a chance to undertake Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. It was offered to him. I find that he refused to undertake it. Either he thought it was unnecessary or he thought it would be too painful. On the balance of probabilities, I find that it was the former. In this regard, he was wrong but it makes it quite clear that no judge could say it was indeed safe to place this young boy with this particular Father.

I have already indicated my great sympathy for him. It pains a court to come to this conclusion. I rule him out as a long term carer for Y. I urge him now to accept the help that was previously offered to him but spurned.

I must now look at the position in the round in accordance with Re B and Re B-S. I must consider the advantages and disadvantages of the various options holistically. I reiterate that adoption is a draconian order which can only be made if nothing else will do.

Mr O’Sullivan submitted to me that the Guardian’s analysis in this regard was inadequate. I reject that submission. It was postulated on the basis that she had rejected a supervision order without setting out her reasons at length. I consider that there was absolutely no need for her to do so when she had rejected a care order with placement with one or other of the parents, having conducted a full analysis. If a care order with placement with a parent is not appropriate, a supervision order alone will certainly not be in the running as a possible outcome.

Both the Mother and the Father love Y with passion. The Mother has taken the very brave step to acknowledge that she cannot care for Y and that he should be adopted. This shows her real love for him. She is entitled to huge credit for that. Y will know it in later life and be rightly proud that she put him first.

I have, with reluctance, ruled out the Father as well. It follows that there has to be a full care order. I have considered the advantages and disadvantages of a care order without a placement order. He is a baby. He requires permanence. He cannot drift in the care system. I accept that there would be a advantage of him being able to have some form of relationship with his parents and also his half-brothers and sister but it is massively outweighed by the disadvantages. He would lack permanence, security and stability. Whilst adoption means he will be treated differently to his half-siblings, the differences in their positions are huge. They are much older and have a strong attachment to their birth relatives. They have not even met Y.

In looking at the application for a placement order, I have to consider Y’s welfare throughout his life. He requires permanence. The only way he can get that is by placement for adoption. To her huge credit, the Mother recognises that.

The Father does not. It is, however, clear that it is overwhelmingly in Y’s interests for such an order to be made. Nothing else will do. It therefore follows that I must make the placement order and I must dispense with the Father’s consent.

I approve the care plan. Contact hereafter will be in the discretion of the Local Authority but I agree that it should be reduced as they propose. I further agree that there should be a farewell contact once the adoptive placement is identified as opposed to placement occurring. The introduction to the adopters is an important time. I consider it sensible to assume that the best way to achieve it smoothly and quickly is to terminate contact to the birth family before it takes place. I agree to the proposals for indirect contact.

I recognise that this has been a difficult case. I want to thank all professionals involved for the great assistance they have given to me. In particular, I want to commend the way in which the case has been conducted by counsel. Nothing more could have been said or done on behalf of any of the parties and, in particular, on behalf the Father.