A Local Authority v Mother & Ors

In these proceedings I am concerned for a little boy who I shall call “Joe”, although that is not his real name. Joe, a boy, born [a date], who is therefore just over [an age] years old. I will call his parents Jane and Jack although those are not their real names. Father’s other two children reside with their mother, he has regular contact.

On [a date] the court made Joe the subject of an interim care order. Initially he was placed with his mother in [the first residential assessment unit] but he was removed from her care on [a date] when the placement broke down. He has had several moves since then as I will address later. He is presently in foster care, and despite the moves he has thankfully been able to return to the same foster placement during the proceedings.

There have been a number of C2 applications within the proceedings and the timetable has been extended on several occasions. At the time of this final hearing, we are at week 106.

References to “the assessment unit” refer to the second assessment unit unless otherwise stated and to “The ISW” as the second ISW unless otherwise stated

Only Joe’s mother holds Parental Responsibility for him. I am aware that both of his parents dearly love him.

The key issues at the time proceedings were commenced were identified as:

The Local Authority applies for final care and placement orders in respect of Joe.

This judgment is structured as follows:

Mr Ponniah appeared for the Local Authority

I have read the Written Opening Note prepared by Mr Ponniah which set out most of the factual matters, much of which is not in dispute although there is challenge by the mother to how assessments have been undertaken, interpreted and applied to the mother and father and to welfare issues.

The parents met around [a date] when the mother had recently been released from an in-patient treatment facility and was staying with the maternal grandmother. The father reports them first meeting at a pub, but the mother suggests they first met at a party at the maternal grandmother’s home. Both agree that they went to a number of parties together in the early stage of their relationship. They both also report that the relationship turned toxic fairly swiftly and they split up shortly after Joe was conceived. Both parents allege domestic abuse against each other following the breakdown in their relationship.

The mother is a Care Leaver (from [a council]) with a significant history of neglect, emotional abuse, substance abuse, mental health issues, domestic abuse relationships, self harm attempts and significant childhood and early adulthood trauma including grooming.

She has a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Psychotic illness, with previous diagnoses being Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. Mother also has Irlen's Syndrome (Perceptual Processing Disorder). She is prescribed medication but has not always been compliant with this medication. She has made several attempts to hang and kill herself throughout the years. She is stable from a mental health viewpoint presently, but she still experiences difficulties in managing her emotions.

In [a date] mother stabbed her boyfriend in the stomach with a kitchen knife after he stated he was going to leave her. She received a two-year Community Order and was deemed to be at medium risk of harm and re-offending, low risk to children but risk to herself due to self-harming. Her involvement with Probation ended on [a date].

It is reported that mother has killed two cats on separate occasions. In [a date] she suffocated a neighbour’s cat whilst she was on bail for stabbing ex-partner. She accepts this. She disputes cutting a cat open with a knife in [a date].

On [a date] mother disclosed to Police that she was being regularly subjected to domestic abuse from father both physical and emotional.

Following a referral in and request for support from mother on [a date], an Initial Child Protection Conference took place on [a date] and the unborn baby was made the subject of a child protection plan under the category of neglect. The pre-proceedings process commenced on [a date].

There have been a considerable number and variety of assessments during the proceedings. I will list these and address the most relevant issues later in this judgment.

In preparing for this hearing, I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter, together with the proposed final Threshold Document.

I shall consider each of the parties’ cases in turn.

The draft Final Threshold facts are set out here:

This hearing has taken place as a fully attended hearing over 5 days commencing on [a date]when the Independent Social Worker [a name] gave evidence. Her evidence was taken early and out of turn as she was unable to attend the listed four-day final hearing due to holidays. Everyone agreed that her evidence could and would be taken out of turn.

I made it clear to the advocates that for the sake of efficacy and proportionality, as threshold was factually conceded by mother, it would not be proportionate to address all of the historic evidence in cross examination save for where it related to the remaining issues of threshold, the welfare outcome, the decision making of the Local Authority and the parents’ current positions.

The mother applied in [a date]for an adjournment of the final hearing for further assessment in home by [an assessor] which would have been for an initial period of around 8 weeks. In addition to that, of course, there would have been further time for likely assessment in the community without 24/7 support or very significant support and then final evidence and a delay to a new final hearing for many months. I refused the application as being wholly without merit and gave a short ex-tempore judgment which is contained in the bundle. That decision was not appealed.

Ground rules to enable mother’s best participation were established and applied during the proceedings with the support of the mother’s intermediary.

As I have already stated the father failed to attend and sought an adjournment at the start of the final hearing. This was refused. At the end of the first day, I directed that he be informed (via his representatives) that if he did not attend the following day, he would not be permitted to give evidence. He did not attend the following day despite informing his solicitor and the mother that he would be attending and demanding that his barrister meet him at 9am. He informed the mother that he would be telling the court all about her.

The following day, father emailed his solicitors stating that he would not be attending and additionally that he was unwell. It was not clear to his counsel whether he was again requesting an adjournment and attempts were made to contact him, but he failed to answer his phone save for one occasion when it was immediately disconnected. The father had failed to attend the IRH, the first separate day of the final hearing and any day of the final hearing. He had also disconnected from contact, professionals and his solicitors. I am satisfied that Ms Edwards acted fully in accordance with the father’s instructions so far as they could be ascertained with his failure to communicate. An adjournment would not have been granted to the father even if he had attended to ask himself formally in person. Such application would be wholly unmeritorious.

Ms Edwards, for the father, was placed in a difficult position due to the father’s non-attendance, non-engagement, non-filing of a final statement and his changes of position being indicated via email coupled with not answering his phone. Despite this I am satisfied that she represented the father’s position as well as possible in the circumstances.

I am entirely satisfied that the hearing has been fair in accordance with Article 6; all appropriate and necessary steps to enhance participation have been implemented.

I have read the whole bundle.

The father failed to file a final statement. His first statement sought to care for Joe as sole carer as he did not believe that his best interests could be maintained long-term in the care of his mother. His last statement on [a date]confirmed that he does not seek to care for Joe as primary carer. My understanding is that he has vacillated between supporting the mother and for him to be considered as primary carer. Despite this he did not attend the hearing at all despite concerted efforts by his legal representatives to secure his attendance.

Before the hearing commenced, I discussed with the advocates (and they in turn with the mother’s intermediary) the nature of judgment which would be most appropriate to assist her to understand my decisions and reasons. I was informed that a full detailed judgment with headings would be appropriate. This is actually somewhat counter to the information in the intermediary’s report which states that a short simple summary of the decision and reasons why should be given although this I assume pre-supposed an oral judgement at the conclusion of the hearing. There was insufficient time to proceed with an oral judgment and in any event, I am of the opinion that a written judgement should be prepared for the sake of both parents and indeed Joe. I am aware from the intermediary assessment that short sentences are better for the mother, she has a “4 key word level” but it is simply not possible to produce a full written judgment on that basis. I will therefore rely on the mother’s advisers / intermediary / an advocate to go through the full judgment with mother if she wishes them to do so.

It is clear that the mother requires things to be done thoroughly (her words to the intermediary) and she needs to “expand in great deal on matters in an attempt to ensure her thorough understanding” ([the psychologist]). It is important for the mother to note that is not the role of the court to deal in great detail with every single issue or point raised in full. The court must be proportionate, and it is not possible in this judgment to refer to all of the evidence and all the arguments advanced. I have given careful consideration to all of the material placed before me, but only refer herein to that which is necessary to resolve the key issues. Mother should be aware that just because I have not mentioned a particular point does not mean that I have ignored it. I have considered all of the evidence, both oral and written, and it has been taken into account in coming to my decision.

Despite the President’s guidance in relation to time management, this is a very lengthy judgment to reflect the substantial amount of time of the proceedings, the evidence and the size of the bundle. It has taken a significant amount of time to prepare. I have not undertaken a long and detailed recital of all of the evidence, but I have set out and analysed the most pertinent matters. I have deliberately done a far more detailed assessment of the written evidence within this judgment than usual for the benefit of the mother. I considered that this would be helpful to her even if she does not agree with or accept my decision, as I anticipate will be the case. Nothing in this judgment should need any further comment or explanation and unless it is a significant and relevant error of law or fact, I will not provide clarifications or deal with additional areas. This judgment is amply detailed.

In short, the various assessments by the Local Authority and independent experts were overwhelmingly negative overall for both parents with the likelihood of risk to Joe remaining high. The evidence as a whole, including evidential statements or position statements is very thorough, giving praise where due and noting positives and negatives appropriately.

In my judgment there is no lacuna, or gap, in the evidence. I have more than sufficient evidence to come to a decision, indeed far much more than in many of these cases.

I have not been provided with a formal Local Authority court timeline or chronology of applications/assessments etc within the bundle. That would have been most useful in view of the number and the history of this matter. In order to be clear about the approximate timeline, I have therefore prepared my own summary of the progression of assessments and decisions and I will address this generally here before expanding on each later in this judgment.

Following mother’s notification of pregnancy to the Local Authority and prior to Joe’s birth, the pre-proceedings process was initiated which led to assessment by [the psychologist] and the recommendation of a Mother and Baby Foster Placement with full supervision. The Local Authority’s initial plan was for the baby to be moved to foster care whilst further assessments took place. They were concerned that there were significant risks relating to the post-natal period and the impact this could have on mother’s mental health. Mother gave birth unexpectedly. I was not the judge initially allocated to the case and did not deal with the Interim Care hearing and it is not clear from the papers how the plans developed and what was the position of the Guardian.

In any event, Joe was made the subject of an ICO on [a date], which was not opposed by the parents, with time permitted to allow for a residential assessment unit to be identified for mother and Joe to avoid the need for separation. A placement at [the first assessment unit] in [an area] was identified (I understand that this was the only possible placement available at the time) and Joe was discharged from hospital to the care of his mother whilst assessments were completed which included a cognitive and psychological assessment of mother. This placement sadly broke down and Joe was placed with foster carers on [a date]

In [a date], the ISW [a name] filed her Parent Assess based parenting assessment of the mother. The conclusion was negative.

The father then sought to care for Joe himself and following assessment by a psychologist, drug testing and an assessment by an Independent Social Worker, the ISW ultimately recommended a plan of transition to his care. This commenced [a date]and the transition plan was to run for around 2 months but was delayed for several reasons including mother’s and the Guardian’s opposition to the plan. Mother also sought further assessment for herself and the timetable was extended whilst additional expert evidence was sought in relation to both mother and father. The mother made an application for an ISW assessment in [a date].

In [a date]the father indicated that he would be returning to work with immediate effect for 4 full days per week and he sought to care for Joe outside those times, using family to assist with care. Contact was extended to include overnight stays. The Local Authority’s final plan was finely balanced but ultimately for placement with the father under a care order, this on the basis that the extended contact had worked well, father had a support network and his drug and alcohol usage had reduced over the assessment period according to the assessments. They concluded that the mother was unable to care for Joe safely. This was contained in their final statement dated [a date].

Joe’s placement with his father ended abruptly when father was arrested for drug driving whilst Joe was in the car with him on [a date], which he did not disclose to the local authority.

The case was reallocated to me (having suffered from lack of judicial continuity) in [a date]and the IRH and Final Hearing listed in [a date]. The Local Authority plan was for adoption.

In [a date]the mother sought to be further assessed on the basis that her parenting assessment was out of date, ([a date]), she had undergone therapy and there had been changes to her presentation. All parties supported further assessment. The timetable was extended yet again and an ISW Parent Assess parenting assessment was ordered to be prepared by [a name].

When completed on [a date], this recommended a gradual increase in contact and phased plan to further assess mother’s ability to meet Joe’s needs. It was also established that the ISW needed to see mother’s medical records and the further police disclosure was outstanding. There were gaps in the evidence and a number of local authority concerns. An addendum was required to consider future planning including the extension of contact.

In addition, at the same time, the Local Authority received information that the parents were still in a relationship. This was denied by the parents. The Local Authority applied to court for CYFOR to analyse the parents’ communications with each other following a message sent by the mother to the father which was inadvertently sent to the social worker instead.This message to the father was instructions from the mother as to how to leave her home address and avoid the social worker. The mother and father accepted that he had stayed at her property overnight on [a date], the mother reporting this was a one-off and the father reporting that he often goes to the mother’s property and informing the social worker that he does as the mother tells him to do and says what she tells him to say. The application was initially sought without notice to the parents and then made at an existing review hearing, without notice to the parents.

Both the mother and father refused to surrender their telephones to the Local Authority for 2 weeks for analysis. They both stated that they needed them for personal or work reasons; fuller information is set out in the order of [a date]. They were offered alternative (not smart) phones. The Court invited the parent’s legal representatives to consider with their clients whether they would be prepared to hand their telephone to their solicitors or the Local Authority so that the messages between the parents could be downloaded with their phones being returned within 24 hours so they were not disadvantaged by not having their telephones for two weeks.

The Court indicated that the application by the Local Authority for forensic analysis was one which was appropriate in the circumstances of a message being sent in error by the mother which may be evidence of deceitful behaviour and an ongoing relationship. The request to both parents to give their phones to their respective solicitors was also reasonable and proportionate. The Local Authority sought for and the court indicated that it may draw an adverse inference in light of their refusal to both requests.

The Intervention / Transition Plan with an extension to mother’s contact commenced in November and [a name], social worker filed a statement dated [a date]which highlighted progress. There were problems immediately on the first outing when Joe was returned to foster care “drenched through with wee, food around his waistband, vest and T shirt…”. The supervising social worker [a name] stated that the mother had not changed Joe’s nappy. The assessment continued with a review originally scheduled for December but this did not take place.

In her final evidence the mother states “I do not understand why the local authority withdraw this assessment opportunity because there were no issues with regards to my engagement with it. The local authority took it upon itself to dismiss the progress of this assessment”. She also proceeds to accuse the social worker of misleading her about the nature of the [assessment unit], failing to make any effort to get a compatible assessment, setting her up to fail and never wanting her to succeed as well as dismissing positive assessments and generally deliberately making things difficult for her. These are wholly unsubstantiated allegations and are not evidenced or accepted by the court. [A name]’s evidence praises positives where appropriate and the real issue is that the mother disagrees with her evidence as indeed she disagrees with most of the evidence, preferring her own narrative. She also shows a significant lack of insight into and / or significant minimisation of the day-to-day concerns of all of the professionals about her ability to cope with care of Joe with all of her own difficulties. Of course this lack of understanding is sadly not unusual in these matters.

The social worker’s statement dated [a date](information via [another social worker]) was that whilst mother could provide safe care of Joe in the contact centre and at home for a few hours she needed additional support. The Local Authority believed that mother required a high level of contact with Joe to evidence that she can meet his needs consistently. For this to happen she would need to be able to have Joe in her care most days and some evenings to demonstrate her ability to care, on a time increasing basis. This would require several workers coming in and out of her home day and night to be able to demonstrate her ability to care and include overnight stays for Joe. It would likely have to be outsourced by the Local Authority. The Local authority could not guarantee that the same workers would be able to support mother or that they would be trained to support mother with her own current needs. The social worker had had discussions with mother regarding this and they both did not feel that this would be manageable for mother. Mother told the social worker herself that she would be too fixated on making sure that the contact workers would be comfortable in her home, that she had food for them, that she had space for them, and she would become very overwhelmed. It was the Local Authority’s position that this plan would indeed set mother up to fail and this would not be a fair or realistic option.

Mother needed a second opportunity to demonstrate her parenting abilities and positive change in her own presentation in a mother and baby placement, where she would have the care of Joe 24 hours a day in a safe and supported environment. The Local Authority was mindful that previously mother had struggled to manage in such a placement, but they were acutely aware of the positive changes to both mother’s physical and mental health since then. As noted by mother, she was in a lot of pain having just give birth and felt that her mental health was low at the time of entering [the first assessment unit]. The Local Authority noted that those barriers were no longer evident and felt that within the correct setting mother could be supported in evidencing her parenting abilities.

It is recorded in the evidence that there were no Parent and Baby Foster placements available locally.

A specialist residential placement for the mother at [a placement unit name] was then identified and considerable work and detailed planning took place to ensure that the placement would meet the mother’s needs including specific ASD training, a contract of expectation and a carefully staged transition plan including time for mother to settle in herself before Joe’s arrival. This plan was supported by the Guardian and by the ISW [a name]. It would also allow continuity of social worker for mother as [a name]was one of the social workers who complete assessments for [the second assessment unit]. The recommendation was that [the second assessment unit] would provide the support in two ways, firstly in the residential placement where she would receive support and monitoring and then, all being well, a move into the community with outreach support. Full details of the support and timescales were set out in the statement dated [a date].

There were difficulties within this placement. Sadly, all professionals were of the view that the placement could not continue as the mother’s needs and behaviour were such that they were having a negative impact on Joe and his needs which had been neglected and he had been exposed to emotional harm.

The [the second assessment unit] placement ended on around [a date]and Joe returned to foster care.

An addendum report from the ISW was obtained dated [a date]following the breakdown of the placement. This did not support Joe being placed in his mother’s care and did not support any further attempts at placement/testing out or any further assessment of the mother.

Mother applied for a further community-based assessment which was heard on [a date]. This proposed in home 24/7 assessment at a cost of around £4000 per week. I refused this application; the transcript of my brief ex tempore judgment is within the bundle.

The psychologist opined that mother has low-average levels of cognitive ability, having a presenting weakness in her working memory ability. She further opined that mother’s risks to Joe are considered to consist of physical and emotional neglect, the risk of exposure to domestic abuse, and physical harm, all considered to be to a medium degree. Factors such as poor mental health, systemic pressures, perceived rejection, being in a caring role, and her diagnosis of Autism may increase the likelihood of the risks, with factors such as being in an appropriate placement, perceived social support, and on-going mental health support acting as factors that would reduce such risks.

[the psychologist] stated that mother would benefit from Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT), to support her with emotional regulation, distress tolerance, interpersonal skills, and mindfulness in a very structured way catered also to her personality disordered traits. However, the timing of such therapy was significant, and was better started at a later date when the mother had the opportunity to settle into parenthood. It was advised that a further follow up assessment was completed once Joe is [a number] months old, which would allow for psychological parental adaptation.

The testing considered various prescription drugs that mother was taking at a time when she was also breast feeding. The results were as follows:

The assessment highlights many of mother’s positive features but for the following risk factors, it concluded negatively:

Mother’s apparent propensity towards violent and aggressive behaviours when she was faced with challenge, exposing Joe to the same.

Mother became overwhelmed while caring for Joe at [the assessment unit], which resulted in staff needing to care for Joe at times.

Mother had been unable to reflect on professional criticism and refused to accept professional advice and support.

Mother had a significant (recent) history of mental health difficulties resulting in self-harming behaviours.

Mother’s ability to manage her and Joe’s routines concurrently.

Mother had reported to be engaging in binge drinking on occasion.

Mother’s support network was limited.

This recommended that the mother would benefit from Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT), to support her with emotional regulation, distress tolerance, interpersonal skills, and mindfulness in a very structured way catered also to her personality disordered traits. Such support would also need to incorporate attachment focused work, therapy to increase her emotional awareness of Joe’s emotional needs and increase her ability to develop insight into her defensiveness. Such work should start as soon as possible, and prior to any care duties of Joe being resumed in future if this was decided.

It also advised that the mother should have an intermediary or advocate to support her in any legal meetings and court hearings, to support her communication with others and monitor her mental health and stress levels.

The application was made in [a date]as the mother’s NYAS worker who had previously supported her was unable to attend the final hearing.

After reviewing the report of [the health visitor] which provided an overall encouraging and positive view of mother’s parenting practices, her recommendations made in her addendum report remained unchanged. Most significantly, in her view, the therapy would increase the chances of such positive progress continuing in the face of stress (which is inevitable and usual in parenting). That was the reason for her recommendation of therapy, despite mother’s stability and progress to date.

Mother had engaged well with Dialectical Behaviour Therapy attending nine therapy sessions, with more sessions planned, which would address further DBT skills training on emotion regulation and interpersonal effectiveness. Mother appeared to have had little opportunity for therapeutic support to date to help her process her negative life experiences and further develop a positive identity. She would benefit from Narrative Therapy work to do this. He suggested 6 -8 sessions.

The recommendations were as follows:

It was her professional view that Joe’s placement into mother’s care would not be without risk, but she was optimistic as to the likely success of a cautious graded transition.

However, it was her professional view, that for there to be a realistic prospect of security being achieved in his mother’s care, a cautious and extended plan of testing and transition, would be required.

Joe required permanence and stability, at the earliest opportunity.

She considered that this was proportionate and sensible, when considering the prospect of Joe having the opportunity to live within his family of origin. The recommendation was subject to:

If Joe transferred to his mother’s care, it was her professional view that there would need to be a continued role for the Local Authority in supporting and monitoring Joe’s placement in his mother’s care.

The conclusion of this assessment by [the assessment unit’s] Manager/Social Worker [a name: BL] was: “It is considered therefore that the continuation of this placement is not in Joe’s best interest, and it is evident from the observations and difficulties experienced, that sadly, this environment and mother having full time care of Joe is too overwhelming for her.

It is my professional opinion that mother is either not capable or not motivated to make the positive changes she needs to in order to offer consistently positive and safe care to Joe as his main carer.

The timeframe for her achieving these changes is not conducive to Joe’s needs and stage of development as he requires and deserves a caregiver whom is able to offer safe and consistent care now.

It is my professional opinion that the threshold for interim removal is met, and that Joe requires a plan of permanence.

With deep regret I do not believe that he can be safely cared for by mother and when Joe becomes older and more challenging, the issues raised are likely to intensify further. Whilst it is accepted that removal from parents causes developmental trauma, it is considered that protective factors in terms of receiving consistent care, love, and protection with one’s forever family, paired with informative life story work can be mitigating factors.

Time is of the essence for Joe, he will be [a number] years old in [a date] and the first 3 years are the most detrimental in terms of his attachment development, identity and relationship needs”.

This concludes: “Unfortunately, I believe that at week 96 of care proceedings, there is no further support available to teach mother the required skills. There remain concerns around a history of domestic abuse / unhealthy relationships, poor decision making resulting in neglect, poor support network (with a falling out between mother and the lady to whom was previously her main support person, with a repeat reliance on Joe’s father for emotional support), difficulties attuning to Joe and meeting his needs consistently, vulnerabilities around a consistent routine, boundaries, guidance and mood instability / unpredictability. The cause of mother’s behaviour cannot be determined, and there is likely a combination of factors such as trauma, neurodiverse difficulties and / or personality traits, however, most significantly, Joe would be at risk of harm in his mother’s care, and testing out further support, will necessitate continuing delay. I cannot support any further delay for Joe aged [a number]-months-old, with proceedings standing at week 96.”

This confirmed that the father had consumed chronic excessive levels of alcohol between mid [a date] to end of [a date]. It was also positive for cannabis use at low levels, between end [a date] to the end of [a date]and was positive for cocaine use, medium level.

Father tested positive for cannabis and cocaine use from [a date]. He also consumed chronic excessive levels of alcohol in the approximate time period from the end of [a date]to the middle of [a date]

The conclusion of the report can be summarised as follows:

Father presented as having anxious personality traits. He also stated that he worked full time and that a lack of work had historically increased the severity of his depressive symptomology.

Father stated that he would prefer to co-parent Joe or to have contact with Joe at the weekends, similar to the contact arrangements he has with his older children. He understood that this may not be possible and it was a reason for wanting to provide full care/custody of Joe and to prevent him from being adopted.

It was likely that should he have full care of Joe, his work would be affected by the demands of parenting. Father accepted that he would be less able to work if he had full care of Joe but was unable to connect to the range of challenges that this may present. Father had stated that he would require financial, emotional and practical support in order to care for Joe full time but did not give detail of what this would look like.

Father minimised the challenges of parenting for a young child referring to his past and current experiences of ‘successful’ parenting of his older two children. Minimising significant events could be a product of his personality traits. An example of this minimisation in interview was father stating that his attempts to kill himself by jumping from a bridge and taking an overdose were ‘little things,’ trivialising them. He also described his previous convictions as ‘minor things’. Yet his PNC record details 17 convictions for 28 offences. This puts into context his statements.

Furthermore, he presented with a somewhat misguided view in regard to his decision to “binge drink”, stating that this felt more acceptable to him, as he would engage in this behaviour when he did not have the children. As such, he was not considering the needs of the child. Binge drinking would have an impact on his overall mental health and parenting functionality.

Father must address the psychological factors causing him to continue misusing drugs as maladaptive coping strategies. Should father’s contact time with Joe be increased the level of care and time required to look after a young child would likely place additional demands on his coping. It is therefore important that any underlying trauma/difficulties associated with past relationships and methods of coping with anxiety were addressed. Also, seeking support for and understanding his use of alcohol and drugs from specialist services would be advised.

The recommendations of the social worker were in summary:

The risks outlined are longstanding, complex and in many senses were linked to one another. In short, risks of parental mental health, parental substance misuse and domestic violence are identified. There is a significant amount of history relating to each of these risk factors.

After a great deal of careful consideration, He was unable to recommend that father was presently suitable to provide full time care for Joe. Whilst there remained several risk factors, there were significant positives to father’s parenting capacity as set out within his assessment and as a result he made the following recommendations:

Father tested positive for cannabis in the medium range in the period [a date]to [a date]and tested negative for cocaine in the same period.

The executive summary of the assessment showed:

Father had demonstrated a good capacity to engage with [a name], family intervention worker, to complete the recommended direct work covering certain topics. Positively she reported father’s engagement and insight had been good, and she continued to work with him currently.

Father continued to share the care of [his other children] with [their mother] and cared for them at points throughout each week within an informal agreement with her.

Since Joe’s birth, father has had contact with Joe which has increased from supervised contact in a contact centre to periods of contact then taking place at father’s home. The quality of that contact had consistently been observed to be positive. Father was assessed to be a confident and capable father within periods of extended contact who could meet the needs of his children without intervention from supervisors. His commitment to contact had been generally good (although his work commitments had impacted arrangements at times). He ensured that he was well prepared for contact and demonstrated high levels of emotional warmth and love for the children. He was child-centred, nurturing and demonstrated good insight into Joe’s needs and next stages of development and his need for stimulation. To date the risk factors which had been identified; father’s mental health, illicit substance and alcohol misuse had not had a detrimental impact upon his contact with the children.

Direct work recommended within the Psychological Assessment had been completed and father’s engagement and insight within this work had been highlighted positively.

The parenting assessment dated [a date]made several key recommendations. Positively, clear progress had been made against those recommendations. Contact had been progressed and continued to be of good quality, direct work had been completed and was ongoing with positive feedback noted in respect of father’s engagement and insight which also evidenced his ability to work with professionals from the Local Authority which had been identified as a potential area of risk. Risks of illicit substance misuse remained although his use could be low level, and this would need consideration within future planning. The main risk factor at this time was father’s alcohol use and whilst his latest drug and alcohol report concluded positively in respect of no recent excessive alcohol use, they were reliant upon blood sample analysis which was not ideal as it can only analyse shorter periods. However, observations from professionals and the fact that father maintained employment did act to offer some reassurances in that respect and whilst caution must be exercised, he held the view that risks factors could be managed under a comprehensive risk management plan. This would ideally take the form of a Home Placement Agreement under a Care Order should Joe be placed within father’s care or within a period of transition / increased contact. He felt that such a plan could be considered if ongoing drug and alcohol testing was in place to measure use, reduction, or abstinence over a longer period.

There was now evidence that father had used cannabis either whilst caring for Joe or shortly before assuming care of Joe. The level of substance misuse raised the suspicion of Police and had been confirmed within a drug swipe. Father had outlined that observations of him driving on the wrong side of the road were the result of him looking for a map, it could be argued that his use of cannabis has had a detrimental impact upon his focus and capacity to drive his car safely and make suitable decisions (i.e. to drive whilst under the influence of cannabis or to look for a map whilst driving, with Joe in the car) and therefore would impact his capacity and decisions with regards to his parenting of Joe.

There were also indicators that father was not working openly and honestly with professionals given his account that he was allowed to drive after the incident where PC [a name] outlines that father was arrested, within his declarations in regard to drug testing and in not reporting the incident to professionals.

However, the information at hand was highly concerning and unfortunately represented some very disappointing decision making on father’s part which in reality compromised the safety of Joe.

Given the circumstances within the incident, continued drug and alcohol use (albeit reduced) remained a significant risk factor at that time. There were links made between substance misuse, father’s Social Anxiety and Stress Disorder / history of mental health needs and the ISW recommended the Local Authority considered seeking the updated views of [father’s psychologist], who had completed the Psychological Assessment in respect of this.

When considering these issues cumulatively, he urged caution in progressing the rehabilitation home plan further at this time as he held the view that this would compromise Joe’s safety and wellbeing. The Local Authority would need to have evidence of father’s reduction of alcohol and substances before this could be considered. He was aware that care proceedings were progressing and this delay could be considered to not be in line with Joe’s needs. Father had consistently stated that he had been reducing his alcohol and substance misuse since they began working together in [a date]. As such, as time had progressed there was decreasing confidence in father’s capacity to work towards a sufficient reduction in use or abstinence.

[father’s former partner] recently asked to be reassessed as the previous assessment was [a date]. The local authority further assessment of her dated [a date] was negative and she has not sought to challenge this assessment.

In view of the lack of full agreement it has been necessary for me to consider and make appropriate findings in relation to the threshold.

It is agreed by the mother that the facts set out in the threshold are not disputed but the conclusions drawn therefrom are.

The father, having failed to engage with this final hearing or file a final statement, has not commented upon the final draft threshold. I do have the benefit of the father’s initial response statement dated [a date]. The final amended threshold takes into account the challenges and admissions/partial admissions made by the father in response to the initial threshold. Having carefully considered both thresholds and the father’s statement as well as all of the other evidence I am satisfied that if father had engaged, he would likely have conceded this final threshold. Alternatively if he had not taken that step, I am satisfied that the evidence supports making the findings against him.

Given that the threshold facts for making an order under S31 CA have been conceded by mother and father failed to engage, it was not necessary to hear oral evidence to satisfy this. The mother’s challenge to the conclusions was dealt with in her statements and in the evidence called before the court with cross examination on the welfare issues.

I make the findings on the basis of the parents qualified acceptance/ agreement, supported by the evidence in the bundle.

In finding the threshold proven, I assessed the evidence in the bundle before me, direct oral evidence of all of the social workers and professionals, mother, father and Guardian and made the findings in accordance with the civil standard and burden of proof which is applicable in all Children Act proceedings.

The burden of proving the facts pleaded rests with the person making the allegation.

The standard to which the Local Authority must satisfy the court is the simple balance of probabilities. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. Within this context, there is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened. The court may decide that it did or that it did not – see Re B [2008] UKHL 35 where at [2], Lord Hoffman said “In our legal system, if a judge finds it more likely than not that something did take place, then it is treated as having taken place. If he finds it more likely than not that it did not take place, then it is treated as not having taken place. He is not allowed to sit on the fence. He has to find for one side or the other. Sometimes the burden of proof will come to his rescue: the party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied him that it did. But generally speaking, a judge is able to make up his mind where the truth lies without needing to rely upon the burden of proof."

The legal concept of proof on the balance of probabilities must be applied with "common sense" (The Popi M, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Fenton Insurance Co Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 948).

Findings of fact must be based on evidence not on speculation. The decision on whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all of the available evidence and should have regard to the wide context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors (A County Council v A Mother, A Father and X, Y and Z [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam)).

In determining whether the local authority has discharged the burden upon it the court looks at what has been described as 'the broad canvas' of the evidence before it. The court takes account of a wide range of matters including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence. The role of the court is to consider the evidence in its totality and to make findings on the balance of probabilities accordingly. Within this context, the court must consider each piece of evidence in the context of all of the other evidence (Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 at [33]).

The evidence of the parties is of utmost importance and it is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. The court is likely to place considerable reliability and weight on the evidence and impression it forms of them (see Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd Anor [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) at [15] to [21] and Lancashire County Council v M and F [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam)).

I remind myself that it is not uncommon for witnesses in cases of this sort to tell lies during assessments and in the course of the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). I also bear in mind that memories can fade or change with the passage of time particularly in respect of events which were traumatic or distressing at the time.

When considering the evidence, I additionally give myself a revised Lucas direction, namely, I should only take account of any lies found to have been told if there is no good reason or other established reason for the person to have lied. I also take into account the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re H-C [2016] EWCA Civ. 136 where McFarlane LJ (as he then was) said at para.100:

‘One highly important aspect of the Lucas decision, and indeed the approach to lies generally in the criminal jurisdiction, needs to be borne fully in mind by family judges. It is this: in the criminal jurisdiction the 'lie' is never taken, of itself, as direct proof of guilt. As is plain from the passage quoted from Lord Lane's judgment in Lucas, where the relevant conditions are satisfied the lie is 'capable of amounting to a corroboration.' In recent times the point has been most clearly made in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in the case of R v Middleton [2001] Crim. L.R. 251. 'In my view there should be no distinction between the approach taken by the criminal court on the issue of lies to that adopted in the family court. Judges should, therefore, take care to ensure that they do not rely upon a conclusion that an individual has lied on a material issue as direct proof of guilt'.’

I entirely accept that the mere fact of a lie being told does not prove the primary case against the party or the witness should they have been found to have lied to the court. I also bear in mind that there is no obligation on a party to prove the truth of an alternative case put forward by way of defence and the failure by the party to establish the alternative case on the balance of probabilities does not of itself prove the other party's case, Re X (No 3) [2013] EWHC 3651 Fam and Re Y (No 3) [2016] EWHC 503 Fam".

I find the threshold proven, for the reasons which I have already addressed.

I make no further findings; I do not need to. Additionally I do not draw any inferences in relation to the phones and the text mistakenly sent to the social worker. Again, I do not need to.

In considering this application, I start with the principles in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 ['FPR'] and specifically the overriding objective at FPR r1.1, which includes ensuring that the case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly, proportionately, and with fair allocation of resources.

I have been very conscious preparing this judgment that the requirements explained by the Court of Appeal for a fully reasoned judgment mean that this court must be frank and clear in its analysis. That involves saying things which this mother and father will undoubtedly find difficult and distressing. I regret that very much. It is, however, unavoidable that the court has to set out in full its reasons for making this decision.

If a Care Order is to be made the court first has to make finding[s] that the threshold set by s.31(2) Children Act 1989 is satisfied in respect of the children i.e.

In addition, Section 1(1) provides that when the court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child, the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.

In determining what is in a child’s best welfare interests the court must have regard to each of the factors set out in the welfare checklist in s.1(3).

Section 1(5) provides that when a court is considering whether or not to make an order under the Act with respect to a child, it shall not make the order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.

The Court must also have regard to the Article 8 rights of each of the parents and of the child and must endeavour to arrive at an outcome that is both proportionate and in the child's best interests. In public law cases this means that the level of State intervention should be no greater than is necessary in order to secure the child's welfare.

It is important to underscore the particular importance in every case of the requirement to have regard to the general principle, set out in s.1(2), that any delay in concluding these proceedings is likely to prejudice the welfare of this child.

The local authority also seeks placement orders pursuant to s.21 Adoption and Children Act 2002. Section 22 makes it clear that:

In addition, when making a placement order the court is required to consider what, if any, contact the child should have with his birth family.

As to the making of a placement order, whether to dispense with parental consent and the Court’s consideration of the contact proposals, the court’s approach must be governed and informed by s.1 of the 2002 Act.

I will briefly address the most pertinent issues; I have taken them all into account nevertheless:

(a) the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision (considered in the light of the child’s age and understanding),

(b) the child’s particular needs,

(c) the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person,

(d) the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant,

(e) any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)) which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering,

(f) the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including—

I also accept and adopt the welfare (child impact) analysis of the Guardian in her report and of the Social Worker in her final statement dated [a date].

In placing the child for adoption, the adoption agency must give due consideration to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.

The court or adoption agency must always consider the whole range of powers available to it in the child’s case (whether under the 2002 Act or the Children Act 1989); and the court must not make any order under the Act unless it considers that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so.

It is important also to have regard to the many authorities in which guidance has been given by the Senior Courts. In particular the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal in Re B (Care Proceeding: Appeal) [2013] UKSC 33, Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, Re W (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227, Re R and Re A [2015] EWFC 17. I have had such regards in coming to my conclusions.

The language used in Re B is striking. Different words and phrases are used, but the message is clear. Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are "a very extreme thing, a last resort only to be made where all else fails", to be made "only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do".

The fact is that there are occasions when nothing else but adoption will do and it is essential in such cases that a child’s welfare should not be compromised by keeping them in their family at all costs.

In Y v United Kingdom [2012] 2 FLR 332 the court considered the fundamental question of the severance of family ties and the fact that

“Everything must be done to preserve personal relations and where appropriate to rebuild the family… However, where the maintenance of such ties would harm the child the parent is not entitled under Article 8 to insist that such ties are maintained.”

Worthy as this objective is it does not always sit comfortably with the child’s timetable and the need to avoid delay. The court is entitled to take into account the case history as to what options may be realistically available and how realistic it is to expect a positive outcome.

Behind all this there lies the general principle, derived from the no order principle under 1(5) of the 1989 Act, to be read in conjunction with s 1(3)(g) as to the range of powers available to the Court, and now similarly embodied in s 1(6) of the 2002 Act, that the court should adopt the 'least interventionist' approach’.; also confirmed in Re O (Care or Supervision Order) [1996] 2 FLR 755.

There must be proper evidence both from the local authority and from the guardian. The evidence must address all the options which are realistically possible and must contain an analysis of the arguments for and against each option. My task then is to evaluate all the options in the light of Joe’s welfare and consider all the negatives and the positives of each option.

I have reminded myself of the guidance in Re A [2015] EWFC 17 under the heading of “Some Fundamental Principles” which were helpfully summarised by Lord Justice Aikens in Re J (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 222.

I have given consideration to the mother’s vulnerability/special circumstances. Mother has had an advocate at court throughout this hearing and ground rules have been agreed and applied. It is also understood that, while the mother in this matter does not have a learning difficulty, she is neuro-divergent, and I have considered Re H (Parents with learning difficulties: Risk of Harm) [2023] where at (65) Baker LJ said the following;

I am satisfied that there is no lacuna in the evidence that would cause me to delay a decision.

I am satisfied that delay is not in Joe’s best interests.Additional time for further assessment is unnecessary and would cause delay and harm to Joe.

In accordance with Re B I now turn to a consideration of the options available to me. I have already throughout this judgment considered the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case and indicated my assessment of the evidence and indeed the potential options available to me.

I approach the Local Authority’s applications on the basis that the best place for any child is within his family of origin unless there are clear welfare grounds to prefer an alternative. My task is to consider whether Joe could be cared for by a member of his family to a satisfactory standard within an appropriate timescale, not whether he might be “better off” being adopted.

The local authority does not seek for Joe to be placed in long term foster care. Their plan for him is adoption. The Guardian supports this position. It is not an appropriate option for a healthy young boy. It provides too many risks and uncertainties.

There is no evidence to support the propositions of the parents either that the mother has not been given the opportunity to be properly assessed or that either of them is able to care for Joe at home, whether under a care order or any other order.

Mother’s case remained that she has not been provided with the opportunity to demonstrate that she can care for Joe in her home environment where she feels most comfortable and that the two residential assessments have not been appropriate to meet her individual needs. I accept that she genuinely believes this.

The guardian stated “In fact, mother does not agree with any of the assessments completed of her other than the initial assessment of [the ISW] that recommended she be provided with the opportunity to have increased contact with Joe to further demonstrate her parenting capacity. Within her statement and throughout the time that I have engaged with mother she has had significant difficulties in accepting assessments or views of professionals that challenge her own views. When she does not agree with professionals, she will often become challenging and is unable to take on advice and guidance”.

I fully accept and agree with this proposition. The issues with her personal behaviour whilst caring for Joe have been strikingly similar for each assessment.

It is clear that the Local Authority and Guardian have, in my judgment, bent over backwards to try everything suitable and appropriate that they could to support and properly assess the mother. She has had the benefit of assessment over a period of 2 years, far longer than most parents. None of them have been ultimately positive. It has been seemingly almost impossible to work with the mother in a manner where Joe’s safety would be secured. She does not like to listen to professionals’ advice where she disagrees with it, she does not like rules and structures unless they are her own and becomes challenging when she is criticised.

The mother has had extensive support and interventions to support her parenting capacity since Joe’s birth including support from contact centre staff to support her with family time and support in caring for Joe’s needs. She has been supported by intervention workers and completed several parenting programmes. She has received advice, guidance, and support by various professionals and has engaged in Dialectic Behavioural Therapy and Narrative Therapy both organised and funded by the Local Authority. In addition, she has been provided with two separate opportunities to parent Joe in mother and baby assessment units. Sadly, the high level of supportive interventions provided to the mother over the course of these proceedings have not provided any consistent evidence that she can make the required changes to her functioning to provide any confidence that she could provide Joe with a consistently good enough level of care throughout his life.

The same applies to the father, the assessments do not support placement with him, and he too has had ample opportunities including an attempted rehabilitation.

I have no doubt that these parents love Joe and genuinely believe that they can care for him safely. They have engaged with these proceedings and have been committed to contact which is very pleasant.

The professionals disagree with their suggested ability to care and protect him. Despite intensive support being provided to each parent over the course of two years the risks in respect of their individual parenting remain significant although nonintentional and there is no support or interventions that could be provided to allow Joe to reside with either parent that would mitigate the risk factors. Having considered the written evidence in this case and heard challenge and the oral evidence, sadly I cannot not see any possible way in which either parent could be appropriately supported to enable them to safely parent Joe given the significant risk factors.

The mother cannot care for Joe owing to the fact that she is unable, without considerable support and assistance, to adapt to the uncertainties and unpredictability’s that come with parenting a young child and indeed with daily life in general. She is sadly unable to react and adapt quickly and appropriately and there are no guarantees that she would seek appropriate help. Indeed the Guardian was concerned that she would not seek help until crisis point and this certainly would not be in Joe’s best interests.

I have no doubt that Joe’s parents would dearly wish to care for him. They have both tried their best to achieve this during the last two years of these proceedings and assessment. Father has been unable to achieve stability and maintain reduction in drug use to enable him to care for Joe and I understand why he found it difficult to attend the final hearing. He has stopped attending contact on the basis that he considers it is not in Joe’s interests. That suggests to me that he was coming to terms with the likely outcome of this matter as it related to him. Mother has had so many difficulties in her life that it has been simply impossible for her to properly look after herself at times let alone a wholly dependant child, reliant upon her for everything. It is a very unfortunate situation and I have tremendous sympathy for the mother.

The risks to Joe of being placed in the care of his parents are simply too high and too risky. There is no effective support which could be put in place which would protect him and overcome the risks. I am entirely satisfied that the evidence does not support placement with them and that the Local Authority and Guardian have evidenced that I must rule out that option. Given Joe’s age, it is imperative that a placement is identified quickly as delay could adversely affect his attachments and future wellbeing.

I rule out rehabilitation to the parents as a potential option for Joe due to the overwhelming evidence against this. The risks are simply too high. This is a sad case and I do this with a heavy heart as I do not consider that mother or father would ever deliberately harm Joe and I know that they truly love him.

There are no relatives who can care for Joe.

That therefore leaves me with only the option of Adoption for Joe.

There is of course a balance of positives and negatives for adoption. The negatives include ceasing all contact with his natural family including his half siblings and this potentially affecting his identity but there are more positives. These include him ceasing to be a looked after child subject to corporate parenting, being placed with carers who have effectively chosen him and will care for him throughout not only his childhood but also the rest of his life and the possibility of having his own new family and family unit. This is the only option that offers Joe the option of secure and safe family life according to both the Local Authority and the Guardian and I accept that assessment.

I fully accept and endorse the comments of Black LJ in Re V. Joe’s immediate needs are for stability, security and permanence. In my judgment this can only be achieved by way of adoption and his welfare requires this, and accordingly I dispense with the consent of his mother and father. I accept that this interferes with the rights of Joe and his parents to a family life together but in my judgment the making of such an order and the interference are proportionate given that there is no alternative which would meet his needs.

Joe has had contact with his parents throughout the last two years although his father has ceased attending around 6 weeks ago. They have attended to his needs at the contact centre and it has been described as lovely. Joe has had some ongoing contact with his extended family including his two half siblings. If I make an order approving adoption as the plan, it is unlikely that he will have any further contact with them.

Thereafter the Local Authority plan indirect contact only. It is the opinion of the Social Worker that Joe is unlikely to benefit from on-going direct contact with his parents. She also states that “any plan for ongoing direct contact is likely to also limit the availability of suitable adoptive family matches if the local authority’s final care plan is approved by the Court. There are other variables to consider too, for example, the parents’ inability to support or accept a plan of adoption, the reasons which have led to this being the proposed final care plan for Joe, their inability to support Joe in an adoptive family, and the potential to undermine and disrupt any future placement. Consideration would need to be given to how Joe might respond to this and whether arrangements would undermine the sense of security that would be hoped for in an adoptive placement. The views and skills of prospective adopters would also need to be considered.

The Guardian’s only comments regarding post adoption contact are “Good quality indirect contact with birth family will ensure that Joe’s identity needs are met” and ”Indirect contact with parents and his half siblings will serve to promote a positive sense of identity for him.”

I do not consider that it is appropriate for me to make an order for direct contact post adoption as I accept that this is highly likely to reduce the availability of adoptive placements for Joe. However, this is a mother, and indeed father, who at no stage of these proceedings have sought to undermine the foster placement or caused trouble in that regard. They clearly adore Joe and would not, as I have stated in this judgment, deliberately cause him harm. It remains to be seen how they accept and adapt to the outcome of these proceedings but as yet, there is no evidence, which has been brought to my attention, that they would seek to undermine or seek to disrupt any adoptive placement. I have more concern about the father due to his recent drug driving conviction and his failure to engage with Joe and the proceedings thereafter but the mother has conducted herself well and with dignity in what to her must be terrifying and difficult circumstances throughout this final hearing despite the special measures in place.

I would therefore recommend that the Local Authority invite prospective adoptive carers to keep an open mind about direct contact at some point in the future, particularly with the mother. There are benefits of direct contact within adoption, as well as risks, and these include maintaining important relationships between the child and birth relatives; providing reassurance to the child and birth relatives; helping the child with issues of identity and loss; and helping the child to deal with their dual connection to the birth and adoptive family. It can help a child to make sense of the past. Social media has changed the landscape for closed adoptions, as children grow older and curious. It is often better for any such direct contact to take place in a controlled and supported manner rather that at the child’s own volition. Letterbox contact cannot, in my judgment, ever be considered to be truly “good quality” as it is so limited in nature, but I accept that it is often the only way to maintain any links.

I make the following orders: