Carmarthenshire County Council v Constance Dorothea Marten & Ors

The court is concerned with A, who was born in 2017. A’s mother is Constance Dorothea Marten and their father is Mark Gordon. The parents are not legally married but father has parental responsibility. The local authority, Carmarthenshire County Council, made an application for a care order and the care plan invites the court to make no order. A’s guardian, Karen Walton, disagrees with the local authority plan and considers that there should be a supervision order.

The local authority is represented by Mr Jones. At the commencement of this hearing mother was represented by Mr Gilbert, but overnight after the first day's hearing mother ceased to engage him and appeared unrepresented yesterday and today. Father was represented by Miss Sultani on the first two days of the hearing but she asked for her attendance to be excused today and indicated she would make arrangements for someone to attend. I am told that Alex Bennie is en route but has not yet arrived. The guardian is represented by Miss Clarke.

Since discharge from hospital A has been in the care of the mother in five different mother and baby placements but they have recently moved into her own accommodation in the Llanelli area. Father has been having contact twice weekly on a supervised basis and
has been committed to that contact.

Up until this final hearing the parents disputed that threshold had been met, although they accepted some of the particulars contained in the initial threshold document. The local authority had produced a composite threshold document last week. At the outset of the final hearing the parties asked the court for time as Miss Sultani had only just met with father and was going through the threshold document with him.

Mr Gilbert, on behalf of mother, indicated that she accepted threshold and it was likely that a threshold document could be agreed, and at that stage Miss Sultani was querying why the local authority was pursuing threshold when the plan was no order.

At the parties’ request the case was put back and extensions to the initial time given were granted. Immediately prior to lunch the court called the case in and Mr Gilbert reaffirmed that mother accepted threshold but would not accept para. 4A(i). Miss Sultani indicated she was making considerable progress but there were two paragraphs which needed fine tuning. She was particularly concerned that para. 4A(viii) should reflect that this was an isolated incident. At that stage she had not yet clarified whether threshold had been crossed.

The court allowed until after lunch for further instructions to be taken and when the hearing commenced the parties outlined their position and the court confirmed with them and noted that the only outstanding issues with regard to threshold were paras. 4A(i), (iii) and (viii). It was agreed that these could be dealt with by way of the written evidence and hearing submissions. The parents and advocates invited the court to consider whether it was proportionate to deal with these outstanding issues, or whether to accept the agreed elements contained in the document produced by Mr Jones headed “Proposed Agreed Threshold Document”, particularly in light of the substantial concessions that the advocates indicated the parents had made.

The court had expressed a view that this should never have been a threshold case and it was agreed that the main issue was what order, if any, the court should make. The parents’ advocates went on to make submissions with regard to the proportionality of litigating matters and were inviting the court to decide the case without hearing evidence on these considerably narrowed issues. The guardian indicated that the social worker’s analysis was not up to scrutiny and maintained her stance that a supervision order was required.

Having heard the submissions the court took the view that the outstanding issues with regard to threshold would be dealt with as had been discussed earlier, but with regard to welfare and, in particular, what order, if any, was required, it was necessary to hear from the allocated social worker and the guardian as to why they had reached the conclusions they had and to explore their analyses. It was indicated that the social worker's statement highlighted a number of ongoing concerns and the court would need to know how it was planned that these could be managed, and likewise the guardian had understood that mother had not moved into the community at the time when she has completed her analysis, which was factually incorrect.

The court indicated it would be helpful to these professionals and the court if the parents were to clarify their future plans as the evidence which they had filed gave little detail. The court was content to put the matter back for full instructions to be taken, but the advocates were content to set out the plans. They indicated that mother planned to remain in her current tenancy in Llanelli until the expiration of her tenancy in about four to five weeks’ time. It was not intended that father move in immediately and that he would first complete his counselling sessions which he hoped could be achieved in the next four to five weeks. The parents planned to move to London and ultimately to purchase accommodation there from mother's trust fund. They would be happy to communicate any proposed move to the local authority.

By that stage in the proceedings it had reached the close of the first day's hearing time and the case was adjourned overnight to resume after the 10:00 hearing in another matter had concluded. At the commencement of yesterday's hearing the court was informed that mother had parted company with Mr Gilbert and had sent emails to the other parties and the court at 1:03 a.m, albeit that it had not been received by myself. In the email she had indicated she did not accept threshold had been met and disputed the particulars.

Father's counsel indicated that although he accepted certain of the particulars contained in the document he did not accept that that amounted to threshold having been crossed. Mother outlined her displeasure with regard to her representation and considered that she had not been consulted and had never agreed the position adopted by Mr Gilbert. Miss Sultani indicated that it had been a confusing day and that she had concerns in relation to the pursuit of findings and did not recall saying to the court that threshold had been met. She felt there may be merit in adjourning for a fully contested hearing in four to five weeks’ time. By then father should have completed his counselling and mother would have had the opportunity to be legally represented.

I outlined my understanding and the note I had made at the previous day's hearing, which accorded with the representatives of the local authority and the guardian. The guardian was particularly concerned that there be any suggestion of an adjournment, bearing in mind that we are on week 35, this is the ninth hearing, and these parents have previously been litigants in person out of their own choice.

The court was not prepared to grant an adjournment as that would not be in A’s best interests and A’s welfare is the court's paramount consideration when undertaking the balancing exercise with regard to the position of the parents. Mother had chosen to be unrepresented and her issues with her own counsel was a matter between them. Father had chosen to instruct another counsel, shortly prior to this hearing, and the court had allowed enormous latitude in enabling her to use valuable court hearing time to take instructions. The first day's hearing was taken up with parties dealing with matters that should have been addressed at the IRH and certainly long before the final hearing.

The parents had been present in court when their advocates had outlined the position to the court after lunch. These parents have been present at many hearings where I have witnessed them taking active roles and passing messages forward to their representatives and ensuring that their instructions were carried out. The court was not prepared to delay a final decision being made for A by reason of the parents' conduct and I gained the distinct impression that they had reflected, subsequent to the hearing, and had gone back on an agreed position with their advocates.

The court therefore proceeded with a final hearing on the basis that threshold, as a whole, would be considered on the written evidence and submissions from the parties and the court would proceed to hear oral evidence, as planned, from the social worker and the guardian. The local authority indicated they were content to proceed on the document headed “Proposed Agreed Threshold Document” rather than the initial composite threshold document. Mother's position was that she disputed the threshold document in its entirety; father's position was that he accepted paras. 4A(ii), (v) (vi) (vii) ,in part, (viii) in part and (ix), but on the basis they were facts and not that they amounted to threshold. Both parents agreed that if the court is satisfied that threshold has been met, that there should be no order and they oppose the guardian's view that there should be a supervision order.

This has been a protracted case which is largely due to the parents' inconsistent engagement in the process. The local authority became involved as a result of a referral from the hospital due to concerns they had with regard to information provided by these parents. They had given false names and indicated they were not in a relationship and because the hospital could not trace mother they made the referral and reported the matter to the police.

Following A’s birth A remained in hospital for observation and mother continued to provide inaccurate information. The local authority was aware of a national alert for a couple potentially fitting the parents' description and the police attended. While speaking to father he pushed one of the officers and a struggle ensued and he was arrested. The police found the parents' passports in father's possession revealing their true identify. Enquiries continued and mother indicated she had been intending to purchase a home from a trust fund but it had been stopped by her father because he disapproved of father. Her family had been tracking her and had stopped her access to the trust fund when they found out she was pregnant. She was aware that father had a criminal conviction but that he had not given her the full picture. The local authority obtained the police disclosure whereby father had been sentenced in the USA to 40 years’ imprisonment and was a registered sex offender, which did not cause mother any concern.

The local authority spoke to mother with regard to her plans following discharge from hospital and she did not appear to understand the concerns and did not consider father was a risk. She indicated she intended to find bed and breakfast in Cardiff where father was in prison and refused to contact her own family. The local authority expressed their concern with regard to the proposed arrangements and indicated they needed to be satisfied with regard to accommodation and preparations for the baby and her financial support, as it had transpired that she had been living with father in a tent by Tesco’s supermarket in Carmarthen immediately prior to the birth. In view of the concerns about the arrangements and with regard to father, and fears that mother may abscond, the local authority issued these proceedings on an urgent basis.

During the course of these proceedings the parents have attended every court hearing and have been active participants in those hearings, but otherwise have not engaged well with professionals and have not fully co-operated with regard to assessments. In relation to the parenting assessment, they indicated they would participate but initially neither did. Mother subsequently made up the missed sessions, but father ultimately only attended two out of a possible 12 sessions. Neither parent attended the sessions with regard to possible issues of coercion and control in their relationship. There were three separate applications for an independent social worker, which were refused.

The court also ordered a psychological assessment considering that expert evidence was necessary and neither parent attended the initial appointment but they both attended the rearranged appointment. Dr Redding considered that father was very guarded during the assessment and she had to add a caveat to her opinion due to a lack of information about father's history and offending and her inability to access his medical records. Father was extremely late in complying with the direction with regard to his medical records, which were only produced shortly before this final hearing.

The local authority experienced difficulties in carrying out assessments of family members. Mother's position with regard to whether she was presenting as sole carer or joint carer had to be clarified on a number of occasions. She put forward various family members but changed her mind. The parents have been directed on a number of occasions to provide information about their future plans, and although there has been some compliance the information provided lacks detail and their advocates had to provide the court with the information at yesterday's hearing.

As a result of the parents' non-compliance and lack of engagement regarding assessments ordered, these proceedings had to be extended beyond the 26-week timetable thereby delaying the decision-making process for A. Mother has remained in a mother and baby placement up until her recent move into the community on 21 June. There have been a number of changes of placements and it is accepted that it is not easy for any parent to live in these restricted conditions, and mother has been committed to remaining with A for what has been much longer than the usual 12 weeks, or so, in a placement. Father has been committed to the contact arrangements. Although there have been issues raised with regard to certain breaches of contract of expectations, it is recognised that these parents have a loving relationship with A, mother has demonstrated that she can provide good enough parenting, and the quality of contact with father has been good.

It is clear that these parents have struggled to accept that there has been court and social services' involvement in their lives and have failed to appreciate the concerns that the authorities have had and their non-cooperation in the process has exacerbated those concerns. They have had numerous changes of legal teams and on occasions have both been unrepresented, which has also resulted in advocates attending court having to catch up on a case which has had far more than the standard three to four hearings and being at a disadvantage as a result.

At the final hearing Miss Sultani had to familiarise herself with a substantial background in a very short period, and, as I indicated earlier, had to utilise court hearing time to take instructions. Once again mother discharged her advocate in the course of the hearing, which has caused this court to have to undertake a difficult balancing exercise with regard to ensuring a fair hearing against the welfare interests of A in making final orders well beyond the 26-week timescale.

This court has informed these parents, on numerous occasions, of the necessity for them to comply with orders and to engage in the process, and despite verbal assurances at court on each of those occasions they have rarely done so. The court has also urged them to focus on the relevant issues. On the first day of this hearing the court was informed that the parents were taking a realistic stance with regard to threshold, but unfortunately that proved not to be the case and, if anything, the issues widened.

I am very familiar with this case having been involved in it from the outset. At this final hearing the court has had the benefit of reading the court bundles and documentation on the portal, to which the parties made reference, including documentation uploaded by mother during the course of the hearing. Unfortunately, neither parent filed final evidence as ordered by the court, although father did so on the morning of the final hearing.

The court heard oral evidence from the allocated social worker, Miss Patient, and the Cafcass officer Mrs Walton, together with submissions from the advocates and mother. The court has had the benefit of expert evidence from Karen Redding who undertook a psychological assessment of both parents, which is contained in her reports dated 17 May 2018. In relation to mother, she describes her difficult relationship with her family and how mother strove for detachment from them whilst still feeling financially reliant. She found there to be clear patterns of pushing against the feelings of control, which could be seen in the lead up to the current predicament. She opined that mother does not present with traits consistent with a diagnosis of personality disorder; however, she can behave in an impulsive and irresponsible way on occasions. This can be punctuated throughout her life.

She noted there was a history of common mental health difficulties and found that presently there are some ongoing low-level depressive symptoms and some issues around her self- esteem, and that the current situation is likely exacerbating this. Mother described herself as feeling embarrassed by her current living circumstances and with the involvement of social services, and this has added to her isolating herself from others to some degree.

Mother told the expert that she accepts father committed a serious sexual offence and that she has to be vigilant for any possible warning signs of risky behaviour. Dr Redding found it concerning that she was not aware of father's history until she had spiritually married him and become pregnant; however, it was her opinion that mother is confident enough to recognise risk and make informed choices to protect herself and her child from any such risks. She described her as an individual who fights against feeling controlled and this includes any authority, and in some respects this protects her from being in a situation where a partner can control her as she is likely to rebel against this.

Dr Redding felt that mother would benefit from more support from friends and family and there would need to be some mediation with family members for her to be able to access support and have some form of positive contact. She felt it would be good for mother to reconnect with her friends who have babies, and that it is very important that she does not remain isolated with just the support of father. She did not recommend therapy but felt it would be beneficial for mother to read the assessment and consider the changes she would like to make for herself; for example, thinking carefully about the decisions she makes and the possible consequences not just for herself but also to others, including her child. She also wanted mother to work in an open and honest way with those in authority so that she can continue to achieve the best outcome for her and A.

In relation to father, the expert was unable to complete a proper assessment. She added a caveat stating there is a lack of information with regard to his history and offending. She found him extremely difficult to engage with during the assessment process and remained guarded throughout. She needed further information with regard to his previous sexual offending, his relationship and employment history and also access to his medical records in order for the assessment to be more thorough, and that information could impact upon her conclusions.

On the basis of the information she had, she did not find that he presented with any symptoms of major mental illness or significant anxiety or depression. She attempted a psychometric assessment but the results were invalid due to his response style. He presents as quite secretive and she felt that he had avoidant traits to his personality and is likely to be extremely sensitive to negative evaluation by others. He therefore avoids those individuals and situations that may provoke those feelings, and his main coping mechanism is to try and avoid the fear of stimuli.

She noted he had a historical sexual violent offence but knew little of the background, but he has a more recent offence of violence towards the police. She felt it was clear that this was not driven by violent attitudes but was in response to a stressful situation. It was not helped by the stages of poor decision-making on his behalf which had led to the police being called to the hospital. It must be borne in mind that stress could well trigger incidents of violence in the future. Father has the capacity to act in a violent manner. There is no information to suggest that as an adult there has been any sexualised violence, although she added a rider to that.

She felt there was some protective factors in place that helped mitigate against risk. If he were to act in a violent manner this would likely be spontaneous and in response to stress. There was no indication that he would act in a violent way towards a child, but again she would have found it helpful to have information about his previous relationship and contact with his child. She concluded that the risk of violence towards mother and A is likely to be low. She opined that father feels an incredible amount of shame linked to his previous offences of sexual violence; he's worked hard to move away from being that person; and she felt it would be beneficial, but not essential, for him to engage in compassion-focused therapy to produce a further reduction in risk. She recommended that father is helped to understand the benefits of working with professionals in an open and honest way. At present he is fearful and suspicious of the intentions of professionals, which means it is difficult to develop respectful professional relationships where they can be open and honest. She felt the social worker in this case would be best placed to do this through regular discussions with both parents. Other factors that would help protect against risk would be to have a stable living situation and being in meaningful employment.

The oral evidence, which I heard, related to welfare issues and I will deal with this later on in this judgment.

I firstly deal with the issue of threshold. The local authority invite me to find that threshold is met in accordance with the proposed agreed threshold document which was handed into the court on Wednesday. The parents accept that 15 November is the relevant date, but do not accept that as at that date A was likely to suffer significant harm and such harm is attributable to the care which they had received, and which they were likely to receive, from the respondent parents not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. The court is therefore dealing with the issue of risk of harm rather than actual harm.

In para. 4 the local authority sets out that the harm that A was likely to suffer, had the protective measures not been implemented, arose from the impairment of their physical, social, emotional and behavioural development and/or ill-treatment on the basis that the parents had inadequately prepared for the birth of the child placing them at risk of physical harm and neglect due to having their basic and medical needs neglected and have itemised nine particulars. The first of these relates to missed antenatal appointments leading up to the birth of the child resulting in a referral being made to Kensington and Chelsea Social Services Department and alerts given to hospitals about mother. This is not accepted by either parent as mother had attended three midwife appointments, two scans and a heartbeat monitor in London before moving to Wales.

Mother states there is no legal requirement for any woman to access and use the antenatal services and that women have the right to make their own choices about how they manage their pregnancy and birth. Mother also indicates that she ensured she ate healthy food and acted appropriately during her pregnancy; once born the baby's medical needs were attended to and it is the obligation of the local authority to provide housing as the child was a priority need.

Father supports mother in her stance and indicates that the unborn baby's needs were met, as evidenced by the fact that A was born healthy and had there been any necessity to seek medical advice during the pregnancy he would have ensured mother did so.

I have read the entries on the portal showing that mother first attended an appointment on 27 June 2017 as a late booker and had not previously accessed any antenatal care as she had been travelling around South America. She did not attend two follow-up appointments but did attend without an appointment and was advised to attend the following day. A referral was made in light of mother's poor antenatal compliance and the medical professionals noted concerns regarding medical neglect due to mother's chaotic lifestyle and that mother had travelled in an area where there is Zica virus concerns. Home visits were attempted but mother was not known at the address given and the case was closed as mother was untraceable but alerts issued to all hospitals. Kensington and Chelsea planned to complete an assessment should mother give birth within that authority's area.

It is therefore the case that the fact that appointments were missed is undisputed but it is the parents' case that it was not necessary, it did not place A at risk of harm and neglect, and that A’s basic and medical needs were met. It is right to say there is no statutory obligation to attend antenatal appointments but it is recognised that these are beneficial to mother and child as regrettably things can go wrong during pregnancy and at birth. Due to mother being out of the country she had not accessed any medical advice and assistance until she was four to five months pregnant, and the medical professionals were concerned to monitor the situation because of the issue of the Zica virus.

It is unusual to read that professionals were going to the lengths of endeavouring to trace mother and were sufficiently concerned to put a national alert on the system. It is most fortunate that they did so as this was the only means by which the local authority was able to establish the identity of these parents in the hospital at the time of the birth.

As with other aspects in the case, there is the right of the parent but also the rights of the child, and the court is concerned with the child. This is a case where mother, with the support of father, made a decision that she would access medical assistance as and when she felt it was needed, but did not engage properly with the professionals which undoubtedly heightened their concerns with regard to the perception of a chaotic lifestyle. She says she knows her own body and that she knows best, but there was an unusual feature in this case with regard to where she had travelled, and from A's point of view, as an unborn baby, there was a potential risk to them that needed to be monitored by medical professionals. This, to a large extent, echoes the way in which mother has presented during the course of these proceedings.

Dr Redding noted that mother has rebelled against feeling controlled by others and commented that mother needs to consider changes such as thinking carefully about the decision she makes and the possible consequences not just to herself but also to others, including her child. This was mother's first pregnancy and it appears that she took the view that she knew more than the medical professions and although, as an adult, she is entitled to make decisions about her own medical health, when pregnant this impacts upon an unborn baby. Fortunately A was born fit and healthy but during pregnancy that was not known and her failure to have the pregnancy properly monitored with the risk of the Zica virus gave rise to a risk of significant harm, and I find the fact proved.

Both parents accept factually para. 2 of the particulars, that they did not have any items for the baby save for five baby grows. They do not see this as a problem and mother, in particular, indicated that they would have bought more items in due course and prior to court mother had applied for the Start Maternity Grant.

The parents were living in a tent next to Tesco’s store in Carmarthen and it seems from father's evidence that this may have been for approximately a month. It seems that they had made plans with regard to purchasing accommodation elsewhere but they had fallen through and they did not have a contingency plan. It seems they were awaiting A’s birth before commencing preparations and were totally reliant on local authority assistance but had not made contact with them in advance of the birth.

The court is used to hearing about lack of preparation from parents who have limited intelligence and lack of funds, but these parents do not fall into that category. The arrival time of a baby is unpredictable and these parents did not have any proper arrangements in place with regard to meeting A’s needs. If they were going to rely on local authority’s assistance with regard to accommodation or funds, they should have made contact with them long before arrival at hospital. This is a clear example of neglecting A's basic needs for clothing, and I find the fact proved.

Paragraph 3 relates to there being no practical or stable plan for how they would meet A's needs and failure to have basic arrangements, such as accommodation, which I have touched upon in relation to the earlier paragraph. In response to threshold, mother indicates that her plan was that she would activate emergency housing and benefits under the false name of Isabella O'Brien but hadn't instigated this before she had gone into hospital because she was scared of getting caught, and that was also why she had not tried to claim benefits. She states that she naively thought that if she waited until she went into labour Glangwili Hospital could contact emergency housing and ask them to help. They were also planning on getting an emergency cash loan from the job centre in Carmarthen and in that statement she apologised for not being honest and expressed regret.

In mother's recent email she adopts a very different tenor and criticises the local authority and states that they prevented her from getting emergency accommodation and lied to the court. She outlines the steps that she took when in hospital and indicates that the local authority did not fulfil their duties.

Although in his statement father indicated it was his firm belief that they could seek support from the local authority and had this not been available the maternal step grandfather would have provided support to mother and the child, he accepts that more firm plans could have been put in place in advance of A’s birth and had they done this it would have clearly demonstrated their ability to meet the baby’s needs. He accepts that he failed to demonstrate this but confirms there was no chance that A would ever suffer harm as a result of the care that they receive from himself or mother.

It therefore appears that at the time of filing their parental responses these parents accepted that there were no plans in place and that the plan which they had formulated was that they would present at hospital and seek emergency help and support, and if that was not forthcoming fall back upon mother's family with, it appears, a recognition that the support would only be available to mother and child.

Mother's change of stance in her recent response is somewhat disingenuous, bearing in mind that she criticises the local authority for lying to the court without providing detail as to what lies they have told, when the whole premise of her plan was based upon her maintaining a false identity. She had a far more conciliatory attitude in her earlier statement with the benefit of legal advice and it may be that she never genuinely accepted that.

It is clear on the evidence that these parents had not made any proper plans for their child following the birth and were relying on emergency assistance based on false premises when it was completely unnecessary. They did not know what would be available to them as they had not made any enquiries in the days and weeks leading up to the birth, and it was a completely avoidable set of circumstances showing complete disregard for the welfare of their unborn child. The parents show a lack of insight in their failure and it shows neglect of the child’s basic needs. I therefore find that this particular is proved.

The fourth paragraph relates to the issue of whether the parents were homeless at the relevant time and/or not residing in suitable accommodation when they presented at hospital. The parents dispute this on the basis that although they had been residing in a tent in November that it was only temporary and the plan was to seek emergency accommodation from hospital, and mother had researched this when in London.

Whilst at hospital arrangements were discussed with social services and mother contacted a Carmarthen housing officer; therefore, it is difficult to see how the parents can dispute that they were homeless or in unsuitable accommodation as and when they presented at hospital, as the only accommodation they had available to them was the tent, which I believe both of them accept was not suitable for A. They had not requested housing until after admission to hospital and therefore factually they were homeless seeking emergency accommodation. They consider contacting the local authority and housing options as answering the point, but I disagree.

It is well-known that emergency housing is rarely ideal accommodation and it is in short supply. The request should have been made well before mother went into labour in order that it could be planned properly and the appropriate items for A purchased and put in place. This is another example of these parents lacking insight in their failure to meet A’s basic care needs, and I find the fact proved.

The fifth particular relates to the parents’ failure to present with any local authority to secure financial support and accommodation for the child once born, and the issues mirror those that I have dealt with earlier. The parents maintain that they accessed this support whilst at hospital and that was sufficient, and in accordance with my earlier findings I disagree and find the fact proved.

Both parents accept the sixth particular with regard to father's conviction as a teenager and that he is still subject to reporting requirements, and this is therefore an agreed proven fact.

In relation to particular 7, the parents accept that father breached his reporting requirements and absconded but deny that they purposely evaded the police, although father accepts that he made a poor decision by not complying with his reporting requirements. Neither parent accepts that father poses any risk. It is not clear upon what basis the parents contended they were not evading the police as mother had ceased involvement with health professionals in London and was considered untraceable; they were living in a tent initially in Swansea and thereafter Carmarthen; mother states in her initial response document that she had not instigated any benefit or housing application as she had planned to do it in a false name and was scared of getting caught; and on presentation to the hospital gave a false name and disguised her accent.

It is accepted that the parents were endeavouring to evade the private detective employed by mother's family, but by the same token they both knew of father's reporting conditions, as he had complied with them up until then, and therefore were necessarily having to avoid the police. In his response document father expresses regret as to his choice of actions and the consequences and the impact that it had on his ability to parent A. This action resulted in the police attending the maternity ward following on from A’s birth and an extremely unpleasant incident taking place there, which undoubtedly caused stress to all those present.

These parents made the decision without considering the consequences for A. This is another illustration of Dr Redding’s view that mother can act impulsively and not always consider the consequences upon others. This action on behalf of the parents placed A at risk of harm, and there is a risk that it may happen again if these parents rebel against the authorities in the future. I accept there is not a history of breaches of reporting conditions by father but nonetheless find this fact proved as pleaded.

Mother accepts para. 8 and father accepts the incident took place but wishes this to be put in context and does not wish to be portrayed as a volatile and violent person. There was much discussion with regard to this on the first day of the hearing and the local authority had amended the wording but not to the satisfaction of Miss Sultani. She was at pains that it be emphasised that this was an isolated incident whilst father was under stress. I expressed the view that on a strict reading of the paragraph, as pleaded, it does not suggest that father is a volatile and violent person and merely refers to this one incident on 12 November; however, I accept that I have been involved with the case for many months and I am aware of the background, and this document may at some future date be read by someone else who will not have the benefit of my background knowledge. I therefore find the fact proved but the first line should be amended to read:

“The Second Respondent exhibited volatile and violent behaviour on an isolated occasion, namely 12 November 2017.”

In relation to para. 9, I believe that this is factually accepted by both parents. I therefore find this fact proved and in doing this the parents were hampering the professionals in being able to properly assist this family, who had presented at hospital with extremely limited preparations for their baby.

I had been invited by the parents' advocate to consider whether it was proportionate to deal with threshold at all in view of the local authority's position, and, if so, whether it should be done on the basis of accepting the agreed paragraphs and deciding whether they met threshold, rather than dealing with all paragraphs including the contentious ones. I considered at the outset that it was important that the issues that existed at the relevant date were properly recorded, whether it be by agreed recordings in the preamble of an order or a threshold document. The parents' reluctance to accept any deficiencies on their part, which is perhaps understandable in the light of Dr Redding's assessment, meant that threshold was the only option. I also formed the view that for A’s sake it was important that all issues were addressed, particularly where these parents do not appear to recognise there were any deficiencies on their part at that time. Mother, in particular, has sought to rein back from concessions which she made in her parental response.

I have now made my findings with regard to the particulars pleaded by the local authority and have to consider whether these satisfy the threshold test. The parents state they do not and the local authority and guardian disagree. Taking, for example, the issue of five baby grows in isolation, it does not appear to be significant, but it is the local authority providing an example of lack of preparation which existed at that date. The court has indicated to the parents for some time that as at the relevant date the facts speak for themselves and fortunately we are in a very different position now. It is regrettable going forward that they cannot see that the local authority had genuine and understandable concerns with regard to risk for this child where two parents present at the hospital giving false names, false information, are evasive and have found to have been living in a tent with no proper preparation for their baby. Through their own enquiries the local authority ascertained the identity of the parents and found that the father is in breach of reporting restrictions and has a concerning historical criminal conviction; he reacts violently to the police officers in attendance resulting in an arrest and a period of imprisonment.

The particulars that are pleaded, and I have found to be proved, provide examples of this behaviour and there is more than sufficient evidence to satisfy me that threshold has been crossed. I accept the threshold document subject to the amendment I have asked to be made.

I now must go on to the welfare aspect of this case and in doing so the Children Act 1989, which sets out the guiding principles applicable to these proceedings. The court must also apply the principles set out in the Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act 2014 with the welfare of the child as my paramount consideration. The court is required to assume, unless the contrary is shown, that the involvement of parents in the life of the child concerned will further the welfare of the child. The court must have regard to s. 1 (3) of the 1989 Act, the welfare check list and to take into account s. 1 (5) where the court shall not make an order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all. The court is to be mindful that there is an obligation to make the least interventionist type of order commensurate with the need to protect the child. Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 must be properly considered by the court, and there must be a global holistic evaluation of the options available for the child's future’s upbringing before deciding which of those options best meet the duties can afford paramount consideration to the child's welfare.

In addition to the written evidence the court heard oral evidence from the allocated social worker, Miss Patient, and the guardian, as each had undertaken an analysis of the welfare check list and permanence plans and had come to a different conclusion. The parents supported the social worker’s view there should be no order.

I first heard from Miss Patient who has been the allocated social worker since February. She has prepared the parenting assessments of both parents, the final care plan, a rehabilitation plan and an independent living agreement. She indicated she had carried out a parenting assessment, albeit with difficulty in relation to father, and had taken on board the psychological assessments and was of the view that mother's care of A is very good and that basic care has never been an issue. She is satisfied that mother can provide good enough parenting.

Mother has a range of resources at her fingertips and always has had. Her family will assist if she lets them and she has the financial resources to purchase a house and wishes also to finance an au pair.

She considered that mother was intelligent and has an ability to problem solve, although she can be impulsive and does not always make good decisions. She felt she could protect A from risk and if she ever felt that father presented as a risk she could extricate herself from the situation quite easily because of her financial circumstances. She recognised that father has a capacity to act violently but immediately volunteered that the incident on 12 November was induced by stress and that he normally takes active steps to avoid stress. He presents as a low risk of violence towards A and the mother.

She had looked at the range of options and there were no family members who were willing to care, and therefore it was either a continued placement with mother or adoption. The latter is a very extreme option and mother's care was good enough, and therefore the adoption threshold was not met. She thought it was helpful that father had sought therapy, but it was unfortunate that he had not informed her in accordance with the agreement. She had been unaware of mother's plans to remain in her current tenancy until this hearing and indicated that this would enable the care and support plan to be put in place. This would enable the authority to monitor that A was in a stable home and was in a good routine with their health needs met. She felt that the authority could assist in making more links with the community and the visits would likely be more frequent than six weekly initially as mother had only recently moved into the community.

She indicated she understood the guardian's view and whilst it was not an order that the local authority sought they would not oppose it if the court were to order it. She considered the goals would be very similar. She has no issues with regard to father's supervised contact and now felt it was unnecessary for the local authority to supervise and mother should do so until father completes the therapy. She felt that father had reached a sensible decision in living separately until after the therapy had finished. She has some concerns about father but nothing to prevent the parties living together, and there is no evidence that he would present a risk to A.

When questioned by father she accepted many of the positives and confirmed that mother's current accommodation is very suitable and there had been no difficulties during unannounced visits. Mother has recently enrolled A in a nursery and has kept health appointments. She outlined minor criticisms of mother's care and the condition of the room in foster placements.

If there were to be a supervision order and the parents moved to London they would have to attempt to transfer to a London Borough, and there may be a three-month delay before they accepted the case. With a parenting support plan they would also notify any relevant London Borough.

She accepted the continued involvement from social services would possibly increase the anxiety and stress, but on the other hand felt it could offer support. She indicated that mother has reacted better since being in the community and has responded well to the plans. She had been present at unannounced visits late at night, whereas there had been difficulties with her abiding by curfews and placements. She felt that taking some stress away has been beneficial. She felt it was unfortunate that mother had not actioned moving into the community sooner.

She agreed the parents had been very difficult to work with under the care order and she had doubts with regard to the effectiveness under the supervision order. Father had recently not provided a telephone number and she has doubts whether visits will be maintained and whether the parents will listen. She felt it could be managed under the care and support plan.

Father feels local authority involvement to be very intrusive and an unwarranted process but has made it clear to the social worker it is not personal. She has had a great deal of contact with him and has found him to be readily available for everything other than parenting assessment. Father finds his past conviction dominates conversations. She has always tried to reassure that this is a small part of the local authority's concern and she would not judge him and has always talked on other issues. In response to questions from mother, she indicated that on Tuesday the maternal grandfather said he was unwilling to pay for rent in London and also he was unhappy about the father living in the household with mother. She had been unaware of mother's current plans.

In response to questions from the guardian, she indicated there had been a consistent theme that the trust fund would support mother but were unhappy with father and did not wish to have anything to do with him. The trust fund had been frozen when mother was eight and a half months pregnant and her aunt had told her to get a job and earn money.

The social worker had been expecting mother to produce a tenancy to her showing stable accommodation. She had drawn up the agreement after the last hearing, which the parents had agreed verbally, and it had been sent to them but it was never signed. In relation to the living independently agreement, the parents had not fully complied with this.

Miss Patient then confirmed certain of the areas of concern with regard to mother and placement, such as the state of her room; bottles of wine; prioritising father over A. She also indicated that despite local authority trying to promote community links, mother had continued to isolate herself. In relation to A's health needs, she had not arranged the six-month health check and had to be reminded, and it had been arranged a few weeks later. She also indicated that there had been several recent breaches of the placement agreement.

Father's probation officer has not been able to complete the ARMS assessment which would have been helpful to her; although he is meeting with her he is not engaging and that has been the position for a number of months. The probation officer has been waiting for father to give her an address in London when he plans to move.

Whilst in the community there has been a recent issue whereby mother was seen out without A. The social worker was of the view that she left A alone in the flat and she had been evasive in her responses. She had also been concerned that the parents may not have returned on one occasion and had undertaken a morning and late evening visit. In the morning mother had been perfectly pleasant but on the second visit there was a delay in answering the door, and there appeared to be clattering in the kitchen rather than a delay due to mother getting dressed. Mother had been very hostile and very assertive on that occasion.

The social worker indicated that foster carers had been too afraid to write things in the diaries because of the allegations mother made, and she was of the view that mother made complaints as a tactic to move into the community. She indicated that the foster carer diaries may not be totally accurate because of the fear that mother instilled.

Recently father had been late for contact and an issue arose with regard to him stating he had been getting medication. Despite several attempts to ascertain the position father has failed to provide the local authority with the information as to what medication he has taken, which has given rise to concern that he does not appear to be registered with the GP.

Miss Patient fully understood the concerns of the guardian if there were no statutory obligations and that engaging with these parents has been very difficult. In her analysis she had indicated that the parents were unlikely to work in a meaningful way but accepted that priority should be A. She did query whether an ongoing battle would take away from A. She accepted that the positive assessment is not a benefit, as stated in her analysis, but rather a reason. She felt that both plans had merit and there were some similarities, but the difficulties in engaging with the parents was a problem.

Mother then asked her further questions dealing with specific issues with regard to basic care, which the social worker indicated was not a problem. She did not agree that it was reasonable for mother and father to spend as much time together to the detriment of A, and mother's trip to London had been specifically against her instructions. She also indicated that mother had taken some time to register A with the doctor, despite advice that a temporary registration was not good enough.

Miss Patient gave her evidence well and, although it is clear that she has had a very difficult time working with these parents, presented the position in a very even-handed way and, if anything, emphasised the positives more than the negatives. The written statement outlines a number of concerns. In her final analysis of the realistic option she gives an analysis of rehabilitation to the care of both parents and the concerns stated are the inaccurate assessment of father; disregard of the legal system by the parents; father's capacity to react in a violent manner and his poor decision-making skills; the parents' isolation; the likelihood of a transient lifestyle; mother’s decision-making abilities being affected by father, who she prioritises over A; and it is highly unlikely that the parents will co-operate with any plan.

When dealing with the options of parents having care under no order, she outlines the benefits of A living with the parents without ongoing involvement of the department; father's assessment indicates no direct risk to A, and there could be ongoing support and assistance, if necessary, under the care and support plan; but she limits the concerns to the possibility that the parents will not make good decisions in regard to A’s safety and will continue with the same historic issues which brought the case to these proceedings, which are far less than her concerns I outlined earlier.

In relation to a supervision order, she sees the positives of the local authority having a statutory basis, but the concern is that the parents are unlikely to work in a meaningful way or be open and honest. It was a constant theme that the social worker had had great difficulty in engaging with these parents, as had other professionals. Until questioned by the guardian a very rosy picture had been painted, particularly of the recent move into the community, but under closer scrutiny there were some concerns. The social worker did not appear to trust the parents as she double-checked whether they had returned from a visit, and I gained the impression that the social worker, along with others, is a little intimidated by these parents. There was no doubt she considered that A should be within the family and these parents show A a great deal of love and affection. There seemed to have been an acceptance by Miss Patient that there should be some ongoing involvement; because of the difficulties that she had experienced she felt it would be easier for it to be a care and support plan.

Finally, I heard from Mrs Walton who confirmed her final analysis. She explained that the factual inaccuracy with regard to moving into the community was because of the filing of her report coinciding with a period where she had had leave and then the social worker, and despite endeavouring to make enquiries she had not been updated with a change of circumstances. As with the social worker, she had no doubt about the loving relationship which exists between these parents and A, and her concern has never been about care but rather the lack of engagement by father in particular. She felt that if more effort had been made in being open and honest, rather than avoidant, it would have been a very different picture, and this a sentiment with which I agree. She understood the position, to some extent, but was concerned that the parents have hijacked many meetings with regard to their rights being infringed by a care order, and she has had to remind them that the case is about A.

A care and support plan did not allay her concerns. She described the case as being like snakes and ladders; very few plans have come to fruition and there is a likelihood that these parents may disappear; and she considers it unlikely that they will be in this area in six weeks’ time. The only continuity with the family is probation and that officer has been failing miserably to engage with father. She is of the view that the parents will once again seek to evade authorities.

When cross-examined by the local authority she accepted that any supervision order would look very similar to a care and support plan but without a supervision order these parents would not agree to any intervention. A number of contracts have not been signed and have been ignored and very little has been done when they have chosen not to engage. She considers it is not A’s fault that the parents have not engaged. She indicated on occasions mother has taken her eye off the ball but she is no different to many parents. Her firm view throughout her evidence was that there should be a low-level statutory involvement and she would not be swayed from that. She felt it could have been a finely balanced case but she has not been able to get a straight answer or a plan from these parents and felt that she was no further forward than she had been at the outset.

She was cross-examined at length by father and did not accept it was a punitive order but was necessary because of a lack of knowledge of concrete plans being put forward. The plans kept changing and there was no clear relationship plans which is exactly how the case started. She felt the evidence of risk now was this lack of clarity: there are gaps in what we know and father had gone to great lengths not to engage in the process. She accepted there had been some level of co-operation and that a supervision order could help these parents to move forward.

In the final analysis she expressed a view that permanence could be achieved within the birth family; that it has been difficult to objectively assess the viability due to continued lack of information and the inability of the parents to be open and honest and their family support or aspirations for the future . She considered them to be largely attentive parents but on occasion their own needs seemed to take precedence over A’s need for stability and routine. They have never actually lived together as a couple and there was little forward planning for the birth. There is no assurance that the trust fund will not let them down again. Despite many assertions that they intend to live in London there are no concrete plans, and therefore she recommended a supervision order to monitor and safeguard A's interest in a largely untested, unplanned and unassessed situation.

Mrs Walton came over as someone who had A’s best interests at heart and was very much prioritising those over that of the parents'. She recognised that they had an ability to provide for A’s basic care but had genuine concerns with regard to what plans they had for A for the future, despite these prolonged proceedings.

I have to undertake my own analysis but before doing so have to consider the welfare check list with A’s as my paramount consideration. I have to be satisfied with the local authority's final care plan. In view of the fact that it was accepted by the social worker that there would need to be a care and support plan, I asked for one to be filed, which has been done. In this case the local authority made it clear that if I consider that a supervision is required that they would not oppose the making of such an order.

The guardian makes a different recommendation. In view of her role in these proceedings if I disagree with her proposition I have to justify my departure from her recommendations. In reality, I have to undertake my own analysis of the options available. A is too young to be able to express their own wishes and feelings but undoubtedly, like any young child, would wish to be brought up by their parents provided that it is a safe and secure environment where they are able to thrive and meet all of their milestones. As a young baby A is totally dependent upon adults to meet all of their needs. The mother has demonstrated over a long period of time, in very difficult circumstances, that she is capable of meeting A’s basic care needs. I can understand her objection to the phrase “good enough parenting”, but that is the test that the court usually applies and she has satisfied that test.

Father has not had an opportunity to parent his child and regrettably did not engage in the parenting assessment to evidence his ability; however, he has been committed to contact and in contact has shown that he is able to provide for A’s physical and emotional needs. I have not heard any evidence that there are any concerns with his ability to meet the basic care needs. To his credit he has readily accepted the recommendation of Dr Redding and has accessed the therapy suggested.

There are some concerns that on occasions these parents prioritise their own relationship over A’s needs. I have expressed, on a number of occasions during the course of these proceedings, that the need for these parents to have a relationship has to be factored in, but I agree with the social worker that it was not taking into account A’s needs when mother was out of placement for six hours on the Saturday and the Sunday. There are occasions when the parents have prioritised their own issues over A’s, such as mother's trip to London and father missing contact for legal meetings when he has such limited time with A.

Mrs Walton's description of the parents focusing on their own rights and meetings, rather than A’s, is something that has been evident throughout these proceedings. This does not in any way detract from their obvious love that these parents have for their child. I fully accept that they have been unable to enjoy the first months of A’s life in a natural way, although they have, to a large extent, to look to themselves as to why that has happened.

They have been asked repeatedly during the course of these proceedings to set out their future plans and eight months on the court and other professionals are none the wiser. It is not known where they are going to live upon the termination of mother's tenancy and how they will financially support themselves and their child. I have found that they have failed to plan for A’s birth and made poor decisions and expected the authorities to provide emergency support rather than proceeding in a planned way. It was telling that the social worker was unaware that they intended to remain in Wales for the next few weeks, and their failure to be able to present to this court a properly thought-out plan causes concern with regard to how they will meet A’s physical needs.

Whenever a court is dealing with a local authority final care plan it scrutinises whether it provides for permanence and what are the contingency plans, and if the local authority were to present the parents' plan as a final care plan it is likely it would be rejected. Similarly when dealing with private law proceedings between parents the court addresses exactly the same check list that I am doing today, and I would not support a child arrangement order with a parent without knowing the basics, namely accommodation and financial provision. I consider it likely that these parents have the capacity to provide for A, as mother has shown by her temporary accommodation, and there are many positives, but it has to be balanced against their previous poor decision-making skills and the assessment of mother that she can act impulsively.

Whatever order that is made there will be no change in A’s circumstances in the sense that they will remain in the care of their mother. It is intended that father will move in in due course, and it is hoped that this will be done in accordance with father's sensible suggestion to await completion of his therapy. There is a likelihood that the family will move from this area and in itself, with a child of A’s age, this is unlikely to have any adverse effect upon them, unless it is not organised properly. There are concerns that I have already outlined, including registration at another GP in the new locality.

A is a baby who has been born in Wales but neither parent is of Welsh heritage. Fortunately A does not have any health problems and has been thriving in the mother's care. A has not suffered any harm, but my findings in relation to threshold are that they were at risk of suffering harm at the relevant date. Those findings include poor decision-making on the part of these parents, and sadly their failure to plan remains an issue.

Mother has been able to demonstrate that she has capacity to meet A’s basic needs, and father has demonstrated this through contact. At present the parents have not been able to demonstrate that they are able to effectively plan for their child’s future, albeit that they have been the subject of care proceedings throughout their life. They have been given every opportunity to set out their intentions but have chosen not to do so and have been obstructive in this regard.

Taking into account the welfare check list I agree with the professionals that A should remain in the care of their mother in the full knowledge that they will be brought up with both of their parents, and the realistic options are as to whether this should be with no order or under the auspices of a supervision order. Both options are available, as I have found that threshold has been crossed, but I remind myself that the court should look to the least interventionist order and consider whether an order would benefit a child.

There is an obvious benefit to there being no order as it enables A to be brought up within their family without any state intervention, and it is known that the parents dislike being controlled and both these parents have struggled with the intrusion of social services in their lives, which inevitably will have caused stress and anxiety. However, there are concerns, as I have found, and these parents have poor decision-making skills, and Dr Redding identified mother's potential to act impulsively. There is evidence that they can put their own needs before A’s. Despite strenuous efforts by numerous professionals, father has not engaged to the extent that any of them have been able to carry out a full and proper assessment, therefore by adding a qualification to their assessment of risk.

It is unlikely that these parents will engage with the authorities on a voluntary basis and therefore at the end of the expiration of mother's tenancy, if not before, they are likely to move away, and the only possibility that this authority will know their whereabouts is if father informs his probation officer. There is a risk he will not do so in light of the circumstances in which they came to Wales, and this is a real possibility bearing in mind the way they have reacted to social services’ involvement.

In relation to a supervision order, the benefit is that the local authority will have a statutory basis from which to monitor this situation and ensure that proper plans are put in place for A. I agree that this should be a low level but suspect that this will depend upon whether the parents take on board Dr Redding’s recommendation that they should be open and honest with professionals; as if they had been and had presented a proper thought-out plan, I anticipate a supervision order would not have been proposed.

A supervision order would be a reduction in the current level of intervention and should ease the anxiety as the parents would no longer share parental responsibility with the local authority, and there has been an improvement since mother moved out into the community. The detriment is whether this order would prove to have any effect in view of the parents' engagement to date, but this is not a good reason for not making an order. It was said, “What is the purpose of aiding, assisting and befriending?”, but it seems to have been forgotten that it is A who is the person who will be assisted and befriended and not the parents. It will involve some interference in the family's life, which will cause a level of anxiety and stress to the parents which may impact upon A, but that is something that they are capable of addressing and avoiding. There are potential practical issues with regard to the family moving to London, but again that is not a good reason for not making an order.

On balance, I take the view that the concerns that I have identified in my analysis of the welfare check list, and consideration of the balancing exercise of the realistic options, are such that the most appropriate plan is for there to be a supervision order. It is regrettable that the court has had to reach this conclusion that there needs to be ongoing social services involvement, but it is due to the parents failing to present to this court a plan for A’s future beyond the next five weeks, and even then it was given through advocates, one of whom has since been discharged.

There are too many imponderables for this court to make no order. Mother has only recently moved into the community and father has only had one session of his therapy. It is recognised that this should be completed before he moves into the family and the date of completion is not known. Father up until now has only ever had two sessions of contact per week supervised by the local authority, and therefore these major changes to A’s life need to be monitored. These parents have a mindset that their rights must be respected and that has shown that they have sometimes not prioritised A’s needs. For A’s sake there needs to be a supervision order whereby they are advised, assisted and befriended to ensure that their physical needs are properly met by way of accommodation and financial resources.

I query with the parties whether there should be requirements attached to the supervision order to ensure that father completes the therapy before moving into the household, which could be done with his consent, and likewise where a responsible person lives separately from the child there can be a requirement to keep the supervisor informed of his own address. I do not think that the order need necessarily last for 12 months and would envisage a more realistic timescale of around six months to enable there to be a transition to a more permanent accommodation. I agree that the format of the order would be very similar to a care and support plan, and I hope that the local authority have circulated the plan earlier today.

There will need to be an amended final care plan for my approval. In making my decision that a supervision order is the correct order I have considered the relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and I am satisfied that the interference with mother, father and A’s right to family life is both justified in law and pursues a legitimate aim, namely the welfare of the child. By the same token the interference fulfils a pressing need and is proportionate to that need.