Amy (A Child) (Welfare Hearing), Re

I am asked to make a final welfare decision with respect to a child, Amy (born in January 2025) with the realistic options under consideration being: (1) that she continues to live with her mother supported by a 12-month supervision order or (2) that she lives with her maternal great-grandmother (“MGGM”) under a special guardianship order (“SGO”).

The applicant local authority (“LA”) and second respondent children’s guardian (“CG”) contend for the second option whereas the first respondent mother (“Ella”) argues for the first option. In default she would suggest consideration of a shared care arrangement with the MGGM but in default of either would accept the making of the proposed SGO.

Threshold is agreed as being crossed in this case, but the terms of the threshold are not agreed.

Contact is not agreed albeit as the LA put their case Ella will likely have generous contact with Amy under provisions of the SGO.

The case is now in week 51, with a long and complex history. I am hearing the case sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court with the permission of MacDonald J. There has been judicial continuity throughout these proceedings, and I have conducted each of the 8 hearings to date.

The feature of complexity that has pervaded these proceedings is the death of the Ella’s oldest child, Peter, in 2018 when in her care. The mechanism surrounding the death has not been clearly determined. At that point in time Ella was herself a child.

This final hearing was effectively heard over 3 days, and I had signalled when listing the hearing that I would likely be required/want to reserve judgment.

In reaching my conclusions, I have regard to the evidence contained within the substantial hearing bundles (Footnote: ¹), the live evidence heard during the final hearing (Footnote: ²) and the submissions of the legal representatives. It is neither necessary nor practical to reference all this information within this judgment, but I continue to keep it in mind.

In this judgment I refer to the first respondent by her first name. No discourtesy is intended.

Amy ’s father’s identity has not been disclosed by Ella and as such he has played no role within these proceedings. There has been no suggestion Ella remains in a relationship with the father.

The full procedural history can be found in the case management orders contained within section B of the main hearing bundle. I will highlight the key features.

I pause to summarise the route Ella and Amy have taken within the proceedings.

I take this background summary from the expert report. It draws on a social work overview which whilst fairly sets out the concerns of the LA that underlay this case – albeit many of the features and opinions expressed are not agreed by Ella.

There is good evidence of Ella suffering neglect and significant harm as a child in the care of her mother. The features were broad ranging and included chronic neglect, substance misuse, domestic violence, physical and sexual abuse. This impacted Ella with poor attendance at school and challenging behaviours.

In 2018 Ella had her first child. There was professional oversight and assessment. The LA had concerns around drug use, Ella’s mental health, decision making and ability to meet and prioritise Peter’s needs. The process concluded Peter should be placed into the care of the MGGM and Ella and Peter moved into the home of the MGGM. Sadly, Peter died shortly afterwards. In the following years his death was investigated and a police and coronial process followed. No criminal process was pursued and the coronial process concluded as set out in the judgment cited above.

Ella continued to receive support as a looked after care leaver. Concerns continued as to her mental health; Ella having received a diagnosis of complex PTSD with psychotic features. Cannabis misuse remained a concern and there was a referral to RISE (substance misuse support team). Ella had declined community mental health services although she had engaged with bereavement counselling.

These concerns came to the fore when she fell pregnant with Amy. In the pre-birth period, she was said to have declined support from peri-natal mental health on the basis that she had no symptoms of concern but would engage once the child was born. The LA were concerned that whilst the wider family were offering support for Ella, they did not understand the concerns held by the LA. The LA were also concerned as to Ella’s engagement and issues around hostility in her presentation to professionals.

In summary, the LA were concerned as to mental health issues and the impact the same would have on Ella’s ability to meet her child’s needs; drug misuse and her willingness and ability to work with professionals in a meaningful and child focused manner.

Amy’s welfare is paramount. I will have regard to section 1(3) Children Act 1989 in considering her welfare needs. The LA do not seek an order dependent on the crossing of the legal threshold (but I am asked to determine threshold and the proposal for a supervision order would necessitate the same). The test is whether Amy was suffering significant harm when proceedings were instituted as a result of the care she was being given and that such care was not what the court would reasonably expect from a caregiver or that she was likely to suffer significant harm as a result of the care likely to be given to her if an order were not made. This case is about prospective harm not actual harm.

If there is a dispute as to factual matters, then it is the responsibility of the party making the allegation (here the LA) to prove the allegation. It will do so on the balance of probabilities by showing the event was more likely than not to have occurred as alleged. If this is shown, the allegation will be treated as a fact. If not, it will be disregarded. It is not for the other party to disprove the allegation or to provide an explanation to the Court. All evidence will be relevant, and the Court can have regard to inherent probabilities. The evidence of parents will always be a matter of central consideration.

Case law sets out the care the Court should take in assessing allegations and evidence in general where a party has been shown to have lied in some regards. It is not appropriate to use the established lies as a foundation for disbelieving all the evidence of that party. The Court must examine the lie and reason through its probative value to issues in dispute. At all times the Court must keep in mind that people may lie for various reasons, many of which are not related to seeking to avoid the truth of allegations placed before the Court. As Peter Jackson LJ observed (Footnote: ³):

Once the factual matrix is established or agreed the Court will examine all the evidence, apply the paramountcy principle and consider the lowest form of intervention required to adequately safeguard Amy’s welfare. In doing so, the Court is recognising that Article 8 rights are engaged and that each family member, and the child has a right to respect for private family life. This means any intervention, and a care order is a significant intervention, must be proportionate, necessary and reasonable.

The Court must be mindful that there are many different styles of parenting of children throughout this jurisdiction. There is no model of parenting let alone an approved model of care. Parents have significant freedom to raise their children in the manner they see fit so long as this does not cause the children significant harm. It is not for the Court to impose on any family a style of parenting and the Court must accept parenting, which is inadequate, idiosyncratic, and at points harmful. The test for me is as to whether the mother can provide ‘good enough parenting’.

In this judgment I am not making my decision based on what Ella has done but more so on the worries as to how she might behave in future having regard to her conduct to date, and what this would mean for Amy in her care were this to occur. Circumstances of this sort are commonly found in care proceedings and indeed the section 31 threshold requires the Court to consider such risks. This assessment requires the Court to work through a series of questions before reaching a conclusion which justifies state interference in family life: (1) The Court must first identity the type of harm that might arise; (2) The Court must then assess the likelihood of that harm arising before considering; (3) The consequences for the child should that arise, i.e. the likely severity of harm to Amy in such circumstances, and; (4) risk reduction and mitigation that might be offered / put in place in the light of the above and the prospects for the same being effective. I take these principles as restated in N (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2025] EWCA Civ 1541. These points made in the context of a placement application remain relevant where the intervention is set at a lower level, indeed it might be felt where the issues are finely balanced and the risk lower the scrutiny must be more careful so as not to intervene and reshape family life disproportionately just because the actual interference is of a lower form.

Within this section I will consider the question of whether the threshold is established through the prism of the key factual disputes in the case. These are (a) substance misuse; (b) issues around engagement, and (3) mental health. I appreciate these items cannot be simply considered in a linear fashion as they interact and I will keep this in mind.

In the initial threshold attached to the application form the LA asserted:

At §5 of the final threshold the LA assert:

Having considered the evidence there is no doubt Ella consumes cannabis and as such the allegation as to usage is made out. Ella agrees she consumed cannabis during her pregnancy and placed Amy at risk of suffering significant harm and that she tested positives for cannabis at two points during her period of pregnancy. Whilst not directly pleaded there is clear evidence of longstanding cannabis use back into her teenage years.

Within proceedings I have two hair strand tests (HST) taken in March and then December 2025. At the time of the first test Ella declared she had been smoking three joints a day as of January 2025. The results show usage categorised as being at a high level in September and October 2025 falling to a medium level from November 2024 through to February 2025. I have some reservations as to the categorisation used (although no questions were asked of the laboratory) given that a reading of 0.07ng/mg is assessed as being a medium reading notwithstanding the cutoff point (below which a positive reading cannot be safely concluded) is set at 0.05ng/mg. I find it difficult to accept the low category is thus restricted to 0.01ng/mg. Experience tells me each category has a broader range. In any event this categorisation is a function of the dataset of tests undertaken by that laboratory and are not set independently. Again, I have familiarity with other cases in which the figures categorised in this case as medium would be otherwise viewed as low.

The first test showed a positive result both for Cannabinol and THC. The second test was also positive for THC / THC-COOH. THC is the main psychoactive substance found in the cannabis plant and is responsible for the majority of the psychoactive effects of cannabis. In short it is why most recreational users of the drug use it. The readings were diminishing but positive during the period August to December 2025 and within the medium category (but see above). Taken together (and irrespective of the categorisation) they suggest a broadly similar level of use through the period in question. Ella in evidence accepted she had been smoking cannabis at the time of the earlier results but now vaped THC. It was pointed out to her that this remained illegal and simply was her digesting the extracted psychoactive component of the plant in a different manner. She accepted this. In this way it can be seen she did not actively dispute the allegation raised by the LA.

During this period, Ella had engaged with substance misuse support (RISE) and had been discharged from support from the service after a conversation in which Ella had stated ‘she had learned the main tools for healthy coping strategies to manage her emotions without using cannabis’ and would use the drop-in services should she need further support to ‘maintain her cannabis reduction’ (my emphasis). The point is made that she in fact continued to use cannabis. Given the quote above it is not clear these two circumstances are in conflict.

On the evidence I accept the account given of a change from consumption by smoking cannabis to vaping THC. As to impact upon Ella this makes little difference and to the extent this is a concern it is a continuing concern. I accept that by vaping Ella is removed from the street purchase route and the risks associated with the same. However, vaping as with smoking continues to leave open risks around the drug containing additional harmful components.

Having made this set of findings the real issue for me is the impact the consumption has on Ella. Plainly there will be a level of correlation between the level of consumption and impact with a lower level likely being associated with a lesser impact. I bear in mind I have received no direct evidence separately supporting consumption within the home, e.g. the presence of a pungent smell on the multiple attendances, but I also bear in mind that through vaping the smell produced would likely reflect the flavour associated with the vape rather than the smell associated with conventional smoking. So it may be that Ella has been smoking in the home, but the smell has been misunderstood. She denies the same.

The position with respect to the evidence of effect of cannabis consumption on Ella is more complicated and I will return to it below. But in summary, the LA seek to link drug usage with negative mental health presentation and consequent/associated poor engagement. Viewed in this way, I need to assess whether the issues I will turn to have been contributed to or exacerbated by the established drug use. In doing so, I have an open mind. I accept in principle that proof of cannabis use is not without more, evidence of significant harm to Amy. It is entirely possible for a low level of usage to be occurring in conjunction with good enough parenting just as good enough parenting can arise in conjunction with moderate alcohol consumption. As with all threshold allegations a causative relationship needs to be established.

My summarised conclusions are as follows. (1) There is good and reliable evidence of long standing cannabis use by Ella; (2) This has changed in form albeit continued during the proceedings; (3) At the commencement of proceedings the HST suggests a high level of consumption; (4) The level of consumption has fallen during the proceedings but has not ended; (5) It is an open question as to whether this made out or contributed to the threshold at commencement of the proceedings; (6) It is an open question as to the extent to which this remains a matter of significant ongoing concern at the end of proceedings.

Within the initial threshold the LA asserted:

In final threshold the LA assert (by reference to the expert report):

Ella has experienced, and acknowledges, a very difficult childhood. The death of Peter rests on top of this and amounted to a significant impact on Ella irrespective of the exact circumstances of his death. It would be surprising if these factors in combination had not had a material impact upon her with the potential to impact on her, her decision making and responses to external stimuli.

Ella entered the proceedings on the understanding that she had a diagnosis of Chronic PTSD with psychotic features. Ella accepted the diagnosis of PTSD but denied experiencing related symptoms at that point in time. She did not accept psychotic features. Within these proceedings Ella has met with Dr V who has reached a conclusion that Ella has a borderline personality difficulty (this is equivalent to what might otherwise be viewed as borderline personality disorder or EUPD) and has provided recommendations based on the same. Dr V does not consider the PTDS diagnosis is applicable or that Ella is showing psychotic features, indeed on my reading Dr V questions the diagnosis around psychotic features altogether. Importantly Ella does not accept Dr V’s diagnosis. This is said to be an important factor for me to weigh in my determination. Dr V made clear she was reliant on a combination of her meeting with Ella; Ella’s available medical records and the evidence and reports arising both before and during the proceedings in formulating her conclusions.

It is in the nature of a diagnosis of this nature that it flows from identifying the range of features normally associated with the condition against the presentation of the individual under consideration, before reaching a diagnosis. As I pointed out without disrespect to the expert, we are not considering a broken bone or other medical condition where a differential diagnosis is confirmed by an x-ray or blood testing. An Orthopaedic Surgeon is for instance able to state with certainty a bone is broken and can predict with a high level of confidence what will happen should treatment not be given. Here, one examines the evidence and reaches a determination on the evidence as to whether a person appears to be presenting with a disorder or difficulty. A diagnosis of this sort must be caveated with a degree of uncertainty as a result, because many of the factors identified as establishing the diagnosis are individually found in many individuals within the community without diagnosis. Furthermore, in the case of a personality disorder or difficulty, the person is bound to sit somewhere on a spectrum in terms of the impact of the condition on their daily life. Not all people will be equally affected and act out equivalently. Each person will differ, and the evidence of development and positive change, including through maturation, will also differ. In short, the diagnosis is not a one-size-fits-all diagnosis. This means that one cannot simply state on balance that Ella, if the diagnosis holds, will act in a certain manner when subject to a given stimulus. She may or may not respond in such a manner and the nature and extent of her response will be variable. The essence of the diagnosis will be around vulnerability, likely triggers and expected responses. But there is a margin to be applied, and real care must be taken to subject the diagnosis to the available evidence and particularly so when one is considering the questions I must go on to answer when assessing proportionality.

The expert identified the following relevant circumstances as holding and thus generating the diagnosis. As I have made clear, this derived from what Ella said, what the expert read in the medical notes and what others reported. To the extent the latter element was not correct, this would of course impact on the confidence one could attach to the diagnosis. The expert reported:

As noted, I will have to grapple with the contradictory evidence / alternative account which if accepted has the potential to undermine a number of the factors relied upon in reaching this conclusion above. The question for me will be, if I find this to be the case, whether what is left is a basis for accepting the conclusions reached.

Dr V was then provided with the residential assessment report leading to her addendum report. Her updated conclusion was:

In live evidence, to the surprise of the parties, it became apparent the expert had in fact made a diagnosis of a personality difficulty rather than simply identifying vulnerabilities. Dr V told me:

The expert identified possible triggers as being new relationship breakdown, family disagreements and possibly challenges arising from Amy as she becomes increasingly independent. She felt the MGGM may be able to provide auxiliary support with regards to mentalisation and commented there was uncertainty as to the impact of cannabis on mental state although it might elevate paranoid patterns. As to the plan for separation of mother and child she observed:

She was asked to think about how her views would change if in due course the Court found that the evidence which she relied upon was not reliable. She questioned whether this would impact on her conclusions and felt the observations of others fitted with her own assessment of Ella. But she agreed if all the reactive factors were ‘wiped out’ things might be different. She recognised the relevance of developing maturity to her diagnosis and felt there was some evidence of this being in play on the facts with Ella showing greater capacity but still remaining easily disrupted. In summary she commented ‘we are looking to achieve ordinariness, to remove drama and help her relax and enjoy family life.’ She was clear child placement decisions were outside her remit and that her diagnosis didn’t mean Ella could not be a parent to Amy, she wanted to move away from the idea that diagnosis means an individual can’t parent. She was asked as to whether therapy was consistent with caring for Amy at the same point in time and told me that can happen as these are not destabilising treatments and are geared towards increasing stability. If Ella could form a therapeutic alliance with the therapist, that would be positive, and it is positive that the social worker has developed a positive and co-operative relationship with Ella.

The counter from Ella included a challenge to the amount of direct consultation time undertaken to reach this conclusion and the conflict with the previous diagnosis. I recognise these points but consider they are less weighty. The time provided was not unusual in such an assessment and the Court is very familiar with diagnosis changing over time as circumstances develop and clarity is obtained. In addition, Ella has grown older, and I suspect her mood and character may have settled into a normal pattern (for her) allowing a clearer insight. However, Ella raised a series of more focused points. A central argument was that far from exhibiting behaviour over the year which supports the diagnosis she had instead conducted herself in the most challenging of circumstances without the breakdown in behaviour that the diagnosis might have suggested. Further, many aspects of the reporting leading to the conclusion of hostility were incorrect or lacked balance and thus were apt to cause misunderstanding. Further, in contrast to the assessed inability to build relationships, she does have strong and supportive relationships and has been able to maintain professional relationships with several individuals. In making this point, she drew a distinction between professionals who were working with her collaboratively and those who focus and purpose was geared towards removing Amy from her care. I note the reference to emptiness as a feature, but note the report has Ella denying this feeling, and I question whether an element of emptiness would be almost inevitable given her life history and experience with Peter.

Before moving on, I should set out that Ella agrees she can be difficult indeed rude and has been difficult and rude in her engagement with a number of the professionals in the case. She puts this down to her passion and the situational context in which this took place. She cites the conduct of the professionals as contributing to these circumstances. She argues the challenges she has had with the litigation professionals does not provide a good predictor of the likely relationship she will have with professionals outside of litigation. I turn to this issue.

I accept Ella has a real challenge in this regard. Each of the professionals or professional teams engaged in her assessment / monitoring have highlighted a real difficulty in engagement with her. Any outcome reached by me must assess and understand the dynamic in play and what it likely tells me as to the care Amy will receive were to remain in Ella’s care. The interactions are only relevant to the extent they shed light on the assessment of Ella’s need to provide good enough parenting for Amy .

In its threshold document the LA assert:

Ella was assessed in the residential unit. The final report is dated 30 April 2025 and did not support Ella returning into the community concluding as follows:

The report highlighted the challenges working with Ella throughout the period and her perceived hostility in her interactions. It noted Ella describing herself in similar terms to the self-description she gave me in her live evidence of her:

These concerns are detailed at length at §15 of the report. I have considered this with care. I have also noted in contrast the very positive evidence of the care she gave to Amy within the unit. She is described as ‘adept in the dispensation of all care tasks’, ‘meets all…basic care and physical needs independently’, ‘provides good verbal, tactile physical and sensory stimulation’, ‘there is a strong bond between mother and baby’, ‘no shortage of emotional warmth’, ‘offers hugs, comfort and kisses’, ‘is emotionally responsive’, ‘…and has a positive attachment’.

Returning to the planning meeting on 17 April 2025 it is clear Ella was informed the plan was at that time for her to return home with Amy. The social worker confirms this. The LA then received the final report which changed direction. As cited above this was related to ‘erratic presentation and emotional dysregulation thereafter’ (§ 21.7.1). Evidently, this must have arisen in the two weeks after the meeting. It can be seen at 17 April the concerns around engagement were sufficiently balanced by the positives to support a return home.

This begs the question what happened by way of erratic dysregulated behaviour in the period? In the statement of the social worker from 21 May 2025 it is observed

I am not sure questions were ever asked of the unit. If they were I cannot find them within the bundle. They were not referenced before me. I note the psychiatric report is dated only 2 days prior to the placement meeting and I wonder whether the thinking post-meeting was affected by receipt of the report. It is clear the thinking was impacted by worries about a future fact-finding process which I refused in the following month. I have naturally considered the placement logs for this period (17-30 April 2025). In a conventional way they each have a summary which enables the log to identify any concerns arising during the period. These are extensive. None of them identify a concern in the concluding section. At most they identify Ella’s growing anxiety over what was going to happen next. So, I am left wondering, as the social worker did, as to the basis for the change. Plainly any weighing of the concerns in the assessment needs to be evaluated having regard to the positive found elsewhere in the full report. The earlier position balanced these favourably to Ella.

Ella then stayed at the unit for a further 2-months before moving first to a mother and baby placement and then home for her reverse assessment. The reverse assessment is negative and also references difficulties in engaging with Ella. To an extent, which is understandable, it references back to the earlier assessment and the views of Dr V. To the extent it does the former this must now be seen at least in the light of my views above. This report is also critical of Ella in a number of ways. It was this assessment which generated an urgent strategy meeting on 3 October 2025. I have the Strategy document which identifies the following concerns, and which advised a return to Court to address the same:

This then led to the separation hearing which I ultimately refused. With hindsight, this was plainly the right decision; however, in the moment this was a much more balanced decision. The LA had the benefit of a history as detailed above and a host of concerns expressed within the bullet points set out above. Standing back and looking at the issues in the round it appeared things were going seriously wrong and that action was required. Ella was very well served on that occasion by counsel, Ms Badejo, who urged me not to accept the general points but to step into the detail. On doing so, matters appeared far less clear. I recall the hearing well. I turned to counsel for the guardian who was firmly supporting the LA and to the LA and asked them each to identify the documents that actually bore out the concerns raised. They were unable to do so. I refused the application.

I have now heard the evidence regarding much of this and it raises real concerns over the evidence placed before me to justify removal. I note the following points by way of illustration:

I turn to a specific instance which was raised by the ISW and considered in some detail during the hearing. On 15 October 2025 the ISW attended as part of her assessment and reports Ella being in a heightened emotional state and distracted from the purpose of the visit being engaged in telephone calls in an upset mood.

The facts of what had taken place are not in dispute. Prior to the visit a friend of Ella’s had attended the property in an angry state. It appears information had been supplied to the friend which caused her to suggest Ella had been inappropriately involved with a male known to the friend. Ella denies all of this, and no-one challenges her denial. Ella called the police, and they appear to have attended, and the friend was removed. All professionals agree Ella’s decision making on this occasion as correct. It was shortly after this that the ISW arrived. Ella says she was on the phone when the ISW arrived and was next on the phone after the ISW left. She provided a phone record to prove this. The ISW said Ella was on the phone during the assessment and suggested this was to a significant level but was unable to provide any idea of what this amounted to. The ISW reported hearing Ella in an emotional state arguing with family members (not the MGGM or aunts) over what may have been said to the friend.

It is clear this occurred but it is less clear to me what this means for Amy’s future care. This event was out of the ordinary and did impact Ella, but it did not impact her to an excessive extent. Of course, its timing at the point of the assessment meeting was unhelpful and negatives are drawn from the inability of Ella to ‘park’ what had happened and focus on the meeting. I accept that point as far as it goes. However, some sense of reality is required, and this criticism should be tempered by the way Ella resolved the issue. She did not become dysregulated in the moment (as one might have postulated from the expert evidence) by directly and unhelpfully engage with the friend. Instead, she acted maturely by calling the police. I accept she then became heightened with family members, but this is within the norms of behaviour in such a situation and does not provide evidence of Ella having a response outside the norm. I remind myself the Court is interested in good enough parenting, not perfection.

I bear in mind the balanced evidence from the social worker, which I accept, of the need for professionals to have a proper understanding of cultural norms when assessing Ella’s interactions. He was able to distinguish between a firm and robust level of engagement and abuse on the part of Ella. He was clear Ella could be challenging but did not find her abusive or meeting the description given by others. He had been able to establish and maintain a positive relationship. It is noteworthy that whilst Ella maintained some criticisms of this social worker she recognised and accepted the positive manner in which he had worked the case. Mr Irving is an experienced worker and was in no way overborne by Ella. It is clear to me he brought both professionalism and balance to their relationship with an important consequential positive working relationship. His evidence leads me to conclude that not all those working with Ella have shared his skill in this regard, and we have ended up with behaviours which are negative being overstated as to significance.

I am in little doubt that the majority of professionals in the case have had their approach to the case significantly skewed by the background history to the case concerning Peter. Whilst I understand a level of enhanced risk adverse response, I sense it has had a material impact on the conclusions they have drawn. They have come to the case with a degree of confirmation bias as to what to expect from Ella and have assessed everything they see in that light. I have no doubt Ella has not helped herself in this regard. She is undoubtedly someone who stands her ground and expresses herself with what could be described as passion or truculence depending on individual position and viewpoint. But the evidence is clear she has not been verbally abusive as alleged nor has she at any point allowed her frustration to develop to the point where her emotions become uncontained.

All of this has occurred in a very challenging environment for Ella which should not be overlooked if one wishes to fairly assess Amy’s welfare. Both the LA and CG in this case have made no secret of their position with respect to Peter and the need for fact finding. Any objective observer could not but conclude they are concerned Ella killed Peter. When I rejected fact-finding, they first appealed to the Court of Appeal and then, when rejected, sought to appeal to the Supreme Court. This was their right, and I take no personal slight from their having done so. But my feelings are irrelevant. Here I am considering the impact this has had on Ella and her ability to work with the very same professionals who are actively expressing these feelings whilst ostensibly assessing her. From her perspective, these relationships have been shaped in a furnace of suspicion and mistrust. This was never a good foundation on which to build.

At the end of the residential assessment, Ella was told she was going home, she had been waiting for the moment for many months. Days later she was told this would not happen yet the rationale for the change in mind whilst expressed was never clearly evidenced (see above). Instead, she remained in the unit under continuing observation for a further two months before travelling to the other side of London away from her support network. I remind myself that all of this occurred merely yards from her own home to which she could not return.

When she returned to her home it was subject to a reverse assessment at her request. Yet she told me frankly she had really only sought this so she would be able to go home. This was not a good foundation for the assessment. But this problem was compounded by the terms on which the assessment commenced. The team required Ella to always have two workers in the house due to their assessment of risk. I judge this risk continued to be led by the history and fears around Peter. Ella had expected she would be able to spend time unsupervised in the community, yet this was called into question. During this hearing it was suggested she should have been permitted the continuing opportunity for unsupervised time to which the guardian suggested this was requirement of the assessment and was sanctioned by me when I ordered the assessment. I had to point out this was not right and that the order from the hearing made clear I had in fact sanctioned unsupervised periods (which the guardian had challenged) so long as the same did not impact on the assessment. It should have been clear to all this meant Ella could not exempt herself from the property if to do so would get in the way of the assessment, but it said nothing about her ability to continue unsupervised periods, as she had previously enjoyed, at other times. Yet this was imposed.

In the ultimate assessment I am clear that Ella has not helped herself at times. I recall addressing her on at least two occasions at hearings and urging her to reflect in the face of the criticisms. I am not at all confident she followed through on this advice. But I am very concerned that sight has been lost of the positives that exist and are found within the extensive logs throughout this period. There are multiple accounts of good, warm and loving care offered to Amy. Indeed, this is the clear and strong impression which I take from the logs viewed fairly and comprehensively. I am not persuaded I have in fact been shown any meaningful evidence of Ella acting inappropriately towards Amy throughout this almost year of close scrutiny. The ISW reported an occasion when Ella was said to be ‘snappy’ to Amy but could not adequately detail the event and her report provided no assistance in explaining what she was talking about. The guardian went further and referenced Ella being ‘very snappy’. However, the logs she referenced did not use the word snappy at all and were not at all clear as regards inappropriate behaviour. Indeed, it took a subsequent summary of logs to raise points which had not been detailed in the same way in the contemporaneous logs. For his part the social worker denied there was any evidence of Ella suddenly changing presentation without warning. He was clear the behaviours complained of all arose within a context that justified consideration before a critical conclusion was reached.

Having assessed all of the evidence it is very clear to me this case raised a profound need for a balanced assessment. It was not appropriate to note the negatives whilst paying lip service to the positives. Here, I have a year of high scrutiny which undoubtedly would have caused Ella the most extreme stress and anxiety. Throughout this period there was a risk of losing care of her child. She faced the suggestion she would be investigated for the death of Peter. All the evidence tells me this is likely to be a matter of the highest sensitivity for Ella. Applications were made to remove Amy. She was presented with reports which were, in material regards, incorrect to justify the same. And in response, she was undeniably both rude and hostile. But in a case in which I am urged to conclude Ella has vulnerabilities which are likely to lead to behaviour which is significant child impactful and dysregulated I wonder why is more not being made of the simple fact that she has contained her response for over a year notwithstanding these extreme stresses. Isn’t that perhaps more important than the instances of limited but contained hostility? Isn’t the absence of a significant negative response more important that the negatives noted? In my view, this is crucial evidence and yet it appears to have been overlooked in favour of a focus on agreed negative but relatively contained behaviour. I cannot understand why this is the case and again I am left wondering whether it flows from the underpinning concerns in the case.

What is more important these aspects have fed into the assessment as to borderline personality difficulty and have shaped the ISW assessment. There is a danger in this case of a narrative being shaped which unduly impacts the outcome out of proportion to its actual relevance on the facts. As noted elsewhere, there is a risk of confirmation bias as behaviour is understood through the prism of a prevailing narrative and contrary evidence is either ignored or inadequately balanced in the assessment.

Cannabis use: Hair Strand Test shows high-to-medium THC levels into February 2025; self-reported heavy use. Cannabis use affects emotional regulation, responsiveness and safe infant care.

I find at the commencement of proceedings Ella was using cannabis at a level which was likely to negatively impact on her parenting when taken in conjunction with the matters set out below. This level of usage if it had continued would have likely caused significant harm to Amy by its impact on Ella and her likely engagement with professionals. This harm is best categorised as emotional in form.

Since that time her cannabis use has moderated. Whilst I would prefer this usage to stop, I am satisfied it is not currently having an impact on Amy that would meet a threshold standard. It has the potential to negatively impact Ella’s parenting but at a lower level and the current evidence does not establish any meaningful continuing impact. I accept the evidence of Dr V that one cannot automatically link use and mental health and particularly so at the levels of use which I find to be at the lower end of usage.

I accept the general observation that cannabis use can affect emotional regulation, responsiveness and safe infant care. But this is a general statement and has no place in a focused threshold document. On the facts I am satisfied at a continuing high level such usage would impact Ella such that her emotional regulation and engagement would likely be significantly impacted with a direct consequence for Amy. However, at this time and through the proceedings I am not satisfied her infant care has been compromised in fact or as a result. Her care of Amy has in fact been consistently focused and of a high quality. I turn to her engagement and emotional regulation below. I am not satisfied these features are materially impacted by the cannabis usage during the proceedings.

I find threshold crossed as set out above.

Inability to work transparently with professionals: The mother experiences routine oversight as intrusive or persecutory, leading to resistance and withdrawal (preventing safe monitoring of Amy ’s care). Unsafe care and night-time concerns: Professionals observed unsafe sleep practices, refusal of overnight monitoring, obstruction of the baby monitor, bottle-propping and late-night visitors. These expose Amy to physical risk, particularly at night. Breaches of the Working Together Agreement: The mother repeatedly refused visits, declined monitoring, cancelled oversight and obstructed safety checks, preventing safeguarding professionals from assessing risk. Hostility and volatility during assessments: Observed hostility, aggression, rapid dysregulation and inability to sustain reflective thought, resulting in inconsistent capacity and difficulty maintaining safety agreements. Withdrawal from all professional oversight: Repeated refusals from 10 Oct–3 Nov 2025; no professional sight of Amy since 3 November 2025. This creates un-assessable risk to an infant.

I find Ella has found it very difficult to work with professionals in the course of these proceedings. However, this arises in a context which significantly explains this difficulty. Nonetheless, this has been a failure on her part. I am more confident as to her ability to work successfully with professionals outside proceedings in a collaborative and open manner. In this regard I have good evidence of her ability to do so when the individual is charged with supporting rather than questioning Ella’s ability to raise Amy.

I find the oversight in this case was understandable but was certainly not routine. Indeed, it was significant and highly intrusive. Whilst I recognise Ella struggled with this it was not routine and tells me little about her ability to work with oversight set at a normal expected level consistent with support rather than monitoring. I find she has been able to work with the social worker and other professionals such as RISE and the perinatal team. Their intervention is more consistent with routine engagement.

I am persuaded threshold was crossed at the commencement of proceedings as a result of the substance misuse which was high at that time taken in conjunction with at that time poor engagement and the emotional presentation which was challenging at times. I should record Ella does not dispute the principle of threshold. I consider the threshold is crossed but not in an extreme manner.

I accept Ella has had a sense of persecution if this is intended to convey the meaning that she feels the LA and other professionals are geared towards removing Amy from her care. I accept she has struggled to engage with the idea that Peter’s death may have relevance to these proceedings and this has fed into this sense. But this has not been helped by the LA’s focus on pursuing findings and the extent to which decision making has been based on allegations which have not had substance as set out above. This is a great shame because on the ground Amy has received good social work support from the allocated social worker. However, if this is intended to convey a higher state of mental health difficulty I would not agree. Ella’s views in this regard are entirely understandable in context. I would have preferred her to step back and view this objectively as I do but this is expecting too much in the circumstances, and I can empathise with her response to the proceedings as I explain above.

I agree this has led to issues with engagement, but the disengagement was not complete, and I do not find this has led to withdrawal at a level which prevented appropriate safeguarding. I bear in mind the social worker has been granted access on all occasions and as he reported Ella was more than willing to reach out to him seeking advice or support when required. In reaching this conclusion I bear in mind that from the time of the residential unit the LA permitted Ella significant unsupervised time with Amy. For the avoidance of doubt this was an appropriate child focused and safe decision. I later approved it when it came under challenge. But when considering access and risk from obstruction of the same one must keep in mind this was a situation in which on any case Ella was to be having significant unmonitored time with Amy. I also bear in mind the position reached at the placement meeting on 17 April 2025 which would, it appears, have endorsed a much lower level of monitoring as being safe. I have set out the difficulty I have had in understanding the change in position thereafter, but I keep this in mind when I assess risk.

The point I make is then brought into focus by the identification of features such as co-sleeping which have not been proven. In reality, we could not have the access we sought, and this was in the context of unsafe practices which meant Amy was at risk. I have rejected the latter point and find Amy was receiving good care throughout. I accept there have been occasions (at the unit) when co-sleeping was noted but I am satisfied Ella responded appropriately to this guidance. I have not found proven any items of behaviour outside engagement with the professionals that would warrant a direct threshold finding. I find no evidence of impulsiveness during the period and whilst there is some low-level evidence of occasional frustrated words in the presence of Amy and on occasion referable to Amy these are not such as to fall outside a band of expected behaviours of any parent. They certainly go no way to shifting the balance of evidence which strongly favours the conclusion that Ella has provided a high level of attuned care to her daughter. I do not accept the suggestion Amy has in any way demonstrated becoming desensitised to inappropriate behaviour. The evidence does not support such speculation.

I agree Ella has breached the working together agreement. If the evidence of her good care for Amy was not so clear to the Court, she may well have suffered a consequence out of this decision making. I have expressed understanding of her position, but it has not helped her advance her case before me. It does raise the suggestion she may not be able to work with professionals into the future but this fear must be tempered by the reality that no professional will be approaching her from the perspective found within the proceedings.

I accept Ella has demonstrated a hostile and rude countenance on many occasions. My strong sense is that this became her mode of operation when dealing with the family support workers during the period of the reverse parenting assessment. She resented their presence in her home, and this fed into her willingness to work with them. However, from her perspective these workers were not providing family support. Rather, they were simply monitoring her care and supervising her. They were an extension of the 24/7 monitoring that had occurred at the unit. I accept if a working relationship had been established that this had the potential to be supportive in addition, but I judge it never reached that point. It was not helped by the incorrect reporting noted above or the inappropriate criticism also noted. It was not helped by commencing on the basis that Ella must be supervised at all times not withstanding my clear direction to the contrary. Fairness dictates I have regard to these points when considering criticism of Ella as to her engagement.

This may have been a missed opportunity. I have closely observed Ella at a number of hearings. She presents as closed and defensive. She gives little away, even when the Court has made decisions (e.g. not to sanction removal) which might have been expected to generate an emotion. I sense this approach flows from her life history and if I am right this is understandable. With this in mind I was very interested to see how she would present when giving evidence before me. I considered there was a real possibility her attitude would simply confirm all the criticisms made in the case.

Yet I found her presentation in the witness box revelatory. The first question of her sought a description of Amy. For the first time, I saw Ella light up with her smiling in pride as she described her daughter. I simply had not seen this side of her over the last year. Thereafter she presented as an articulate and intelligent woman who has a clear and strong view. She gave me the impression she can stand her ground and make a case for what she is arguing for. She is plainly passionate so far as Amy is concerned. I can readily see how these attributes (which are all positives) may have made engagement with her ironically more challenging when the professional comes into conflict with her. I sense with the right professionals she could develop an enduring and positive relationship. I am in no doubt this would likely need to be largely on her terms but I do not see her as being incapable of listening and learning approached in the right way as suggested by the social worker.

I do not find she has been aggressive to professionals or that there has been ‘rapid dysregulation’. I was not taken to a piece of evidence establishing this allegation. I am not satisfied this has resulted in inconsistent capacity if, as I assume, this is a reference to parenting capacity. To the contrary a consistent feature of the evidence is good quality parenting albeit in a challenging setting. I have already accepted a significant degree of disengagement with oversight. But it would be wrong to suggest this was a complete withdrawal with no oversight given the clear evidence of the social worker that he was on no occasion obstructed in his access to the home and to Amy and indeed visited at a higher level than would otherwise have been expected because of the difficulties in engagement with the support workers. It is important to make clear that the social worker reported no direct concerns for Amy out of these regular visits,

Absent 24/7 monitoring there will always be an element of un-assessable risk. In simple terms the LA cannot know or assess what is happening out of their sight. But this challenge is commonplace in proceedings of this sort and a LA is both expected and does assess risk based on the evidence and observations open to them. In this way they are expected to draw on what they see and what they are told to reach broader conclusions as to the likely care being given at all times. In this case the LA have a sustained period of high-level observation followed by a diminishing level of observation. The former period confirmed good quality care, albeit surrounded by engagement issues. The second period reinforced the engagement issues but continued to show good care being given. It is inn this context that risk is to be assessed. The real question is as to why it is felt that difficulties in engagement suggest risk to the child where the care of the child is demonstrated as good throughout the period. A different question would be to consider whether the answer is to reduce the monitoring on the basis this is in fact the issue causing the problem in the case. In reality, this is what has factually happened. Amy on all the evidence appears to have continued to receive good care. There are none of the concerns that would normally arise in a case of this sort.

It is clear I have found this element of the threshold far less persuasive and much of it is not proven. However, reflecting back on the commencement of proceedings and at a time of higher drug use I am on balance satisfied that poor engagement at that point when taken in combination with the drug use created a likelihood of emotionally significant harm, however the evidence is not static and the case has moved on. I would not reach the same conclusion were the case to start today.

(1) Emotional dysregulation / hostility towards professionals: The mother presents with affective instability, hostility, mistrust and volatile mood changes (impacting ability to regulate behaviour when caring for an infant). (2) Inability to work transparently with professionals: The mother experiences routine oversight as intrusive or persecutory, leading to resistance and withdrawal (preventing safe monitoring of Amy ’s care). (3) Inconsistent parenting capacity: The mother can provide warmth at times but cannot sustain safe, predictable care without intensive oversight. Stress triggers dysregulation and withdrawal, exposing Amy to risk.

It is noteworthy I am not being asked to make a finding as to borderline personality difficulty. For my part I am not persuaded the same is necessary and further there are features which undermine such a conclusion (see above).

This does not mean I reject the expert advice on a wholesale basis. I agree Ella has vulnerabilities arising from her life history and I also agree she would benefit from support, likely through therapy, which would assist her to understand how this history has impacted on the manner in which she engages. This would be worthwhile work which would assist both Ella and indirectly Amy. It would work to enable reflection, understanding and permit change. I suspect if this is approached other than through a diagnosis then it may be work that Ella finds more tolerable and work with which she engages. There is evidence of her engaging with supportive work in the past around bereavement and PTSD. I bear in mind the same work may be harder to obtain without a diagnosis.

I have already accepted the description of Ella as hostile and mistrustful in her presentation. It appears she may accept the same although differential labels are attached to such presentation. I have noted the situational context and the relevance of the same to future prediction.

I am not satisfied Ella has demonstrated volatility and certainly not volatility which has impacted Amy to a material level during the proceedings. I accept the records may evidence historic behaviour fitting this description. Within the proceedings her behaviour has been difficult and challenging but I do not agree it has been volatile and certainly have no examples of perceived volatility outside an explicable context. The evidence supports the conclusion that she provides settled and expected behaviour when directly caring for Amy without outside interference.

I reject the suggestion of inconsistent parenting capacity. It is not clear to me where Dr V reaches this conclusion. In contrast to the suggestion that Ella ‘can provide warmth at times’ her report actually notes ‘there is no shortage of emotional warmth’ [§9.3.1]. I suspect the LA have mixed this up with the reporting from the residential unit. In an earlier position note this report was referenced as the source for the quote used in the threshold. In any event it does not chime with the clear evidence to the contrary. Ella has not required intensive oversight to maintain good parenting; she has provided the same irrespective of the level of oversight. This is why the LA agreed to permit unsupervised time. There is a reasonable argument for concluding the intensive monitoring has if anything acted as an obstruction to parenting on the facts of the case.

I once again repeat the point that the dysregulation, passion or whatever label is applied in this case has arisen in the most challenging circumstances. In that context the nature of the same has been relatively contained and not materially impactful on Amy.

I am not satisfied the LA separately established threshold under this heading save that at the commencement of proceedings and whilst using drugs at a problematic level Amy was at risk of significant emotional harm by reason of Ella’s personality presentation and likely disengagement.

I find threshold proven on this basis. These are plainly balanced and limited findings and any assessment (whether by others or this Court should / must proceed from this foundation basis having regard to the extent of the findings but also the very positive features identified within this judgment. This is not a case in which the established concerns are at such a level that the Court requires compelling evidence to reach a safe conclusion in relation to parental care.

Amy is too young to express any wishes and feelings. Her needs are no different to any child of her age. It is for her caregiver to provide her with settled and stable care which is consistent and predictable. Her needs would not be met by erratic, unpredictable or dysregulated behaviour. But she is, as with all children, likely to be sufficiently resilient to accept a level of parental dysregulation within a reasonable band. She needs to have her physical needs met as with all children. She needs a parent who can advocate for her and sensibly and reliably engage with professionals. It would harm her were her parent to find all relationships a matter of conflict and challenge. This would fetter her ability to make the developmental progress required to thrive. I have had regard to her age which raises issues around her vulnerability and entire dependence on her care giver. I also reflect on the fact that these early developmental years are central in setting down the attachments that will assist her as she travels through her life. A failure in this regard and at this time has the potential for lifelong implications. I have regard to her cultural background and have no doubt this will be both respected and promoted through family connections whatever decision is reached.

In this case I am asked to remove Amy from Ella’s care and place her with the MGGM. I recognise she has an established relationship with her MGGM, indeed Ella has made clear she continues to work with the MGGM and they share care to a significant extent with the MGGM having Ella between Thursday and Sunday so that Ella can focus on her college studies. This will not change if Ella maintains care of Amy. If care shifts to the MGGM then contact between Ella and Amy will continue at a high level and I suspect one might end up not so very far from the current reality. I keep in mind there will be no statutory orders and the SGO will pass to the MGGM all decision-making for Amy. I have no evidence to suggest she would not see a significant continuing role for Ella in her daughter’s life. Viewed in this way it appears there is a real likelihood any order made will have a limited impact on Amy. There is the risk that the SGO order will emotionally undermine Ella and I do keep in mind the potential for this has an unwanted but negative impact on the relationship she is able to maintain with Amy. I have regard to the risks as found within the established threshold. There is a risk of increased cannabis use which has the obvious potential to undermine the good care Amy might otherwise receive. There is the potential for problematic engagement continuing with impact on Amy.

I reflect on my decision as to scope of fact finding. Had I agreed to a fact-finding process I might, on the information given, be about to commence that hearing. As it clear from my earlier judgment, I considered the risk raised was not so much that Ella would act towards Amy in the manner she was feared to have acted towards Peter. Rather the risk was that such behaviour if established, was indicative of impulsivity which might play out in respect of Amy in different but harmful ways. The risk was not of a specific mechanism but of a category of risk with a range of possible actions. It was therefore noteworthy that when asked the social worker confirmed there had been no instance during the year of any identified impulsive action on the part of Ella which would fit within such a categorisation. In a case in which the LA raised a fear over impulsivity and in which the expert highlighted the same, Ella has not, in fact, acted impulsively despite the most challenging lived environment. I say no more.

As to capability as a parent if the test for this is the ability to work with professionals who are rigorously assessing you with a view to considering removing your child, then Ella has limited capability. If the test of this is the ability to provide focused and loving care, then she has demonstrated the capability. Plainly capability is a factor with broad-ranging components and is neither of the above exclusively. Here, there is good evidence of focused childcare. There is also evidence of an ability to work with professionals outside of proceedings. There is evidence of an ability to contain mood if not constrain hostility altogether. There is good evidence of support from family and a willingness to accept the same. Ella has many positive qualities, but she has deficits. In this regard, she is like many parents.

In this case, I have reached a clear conclusion in opposition to the professional evidence. This requires justification. The justification should be tolerably clear from the preceding paragraphs but in summary my reasons are as follows:

This conclusion follows from my conclusion to the questions raised in Re N:

I balance this outcome against the preferred outcome of a SGO in favour of the MGGM. It is unclear to me to what extent this would alter the position insofar as the worries held by professionals are concerned. It seems most likely that under this Ella would continue to have a significant relationship with her daughter including extensive unsupervised periods. The LA would pass to the MGGM the decision making but at this point in time the MGGM and Ella have a wholly collaborative relationship which is working for Amy. It is not clear to me this would ultimately change were a SGO made albeit the legal structure would. I am not persuaded this would have a material benefit for Amy. This is not suggested as a criticism of the MGGM. If compelled to do so she would undoubtedly provide good care supported by the aunts referenced in the evidence. This family has challenges within it but is a valuable source of support for Ella. The history of the family includes some real pain and there is a natural wish not to bring this into the open. But this does not mean these important people in Amy’s life are unable to put her first and assist Ella in meeting her needs. The evidence does not suggest Ella would do anything other than welcome such support.

I would like to recognise the work of the social worker in this case. He impressed me as a balanced and realistic professional. He had an open attitude to the case and was frank in his evidence. He demonstrated a real understanding of Ella, and this enabled him to build a good working relationship where others could not. He disagrees with my conclusion, but I respect his analysis, and my difference of view is in no way a criticism of the work he has undertaken. Indeed, his approach to the case has helped me make my decisions. Social work is an intensely challenging job. Every single decision made can be subjected to after-the-event criticism if something goes wrong and when something goes wrong, the social worker holding the case can be subject to extreme and unfair criticism. This encourages a cautious approach to decision-making. In a case in which I find others have been impacted by the history he has continued to show balance and professionalism. Ella is fortunate to have had Mr Irving as her social worker.

I also recognise the support Ella receives from family. This is invaluable. This is not to say she could not do it without this support, but she is undoubtedly a better mother to Amy as a result. I would be happy to see the MGGM and aunts at handing down if they wish to attend. Ella has been well served by her legal team from her solicitor, Mr Conway, through counsel, Mr Barnes and Ms Grief to Ms Badejo. They have fought her case fearlessly and with skill. At times, her case has appeared a difficult case to make. Yet their assiduous care has enabled me to reach the conclusions I have.

Finally, I would like to recognise the fact that this decision flows from my assessment of Ella herself. She can be a difficult person to work with, but her love for her daughter shines through. It should be clear that the evidence of her care for Amy and the way in which she has contained herself through the proceedings has permitted this conclusion. This outcome is a result of her action. Yet she could have made matters easier for herself. I hope she will reflect on this judgment. I do think the work suggested by the expert will help her be an even better mother to her daughter. I urge her to engage with this and if necessary, put to one side her opposition to ‘the diagnosis’. What she does from here on is not about ‘should she care for Amy’ but about ‘being the best carer for Amy’. Viewed in this way the prospects for engagement are higher.

I hope the LA will also reflect on this decision. I intend to make a 12-month supervision order in this case. I consider the same is a proportionate response to the circumstances. It is supported as an outcome by Ella. If this is going to be beneficial for Amy then the social worker selected (the case will transfer from Mr Irving) must (a) put to one side the historic worries and focus on the positives and (b) approach the relationship in the manner adopted by Mr Irving. This judgment draws a line in the sand and I expect the future relationship to be one which is intended to be collaborative for Amy’s sake.

The LA will need to file a supervision order support plan. There is much in Ella’s proposed plan that justifies consideration. I do not criticise the LA for the absence of a plan at the hearing. Much of what they might propose can, in any event, be found within the evidence. For the avoidance of doubt, the interim care order continues until the handing down but absent an intention to appeal this decision I would expect the LA to begin transition by reducing monitoring in anticipation of the hearing.