London Borough of Waltham Forest v A & Anor

I have read all the statements and assessments about you and B and listened very carefully to everything that I have been told this week.

Before I give my long decision called my Judgment in B’s case, I wanted to let you know the outcome, so you do not have to wait for me to read my long decision.

B is the most important person in my mind, and I have to decide what is best for her for the rest of her life.

I also have thought a lot about how my decision will affect you and B’s siblings, C and D. as I know you all love her very much. I know you have tried hard in 3 places we call units (H, Ty, KH) over the past 10 months and that being in those places for so long must have been hard for you. I know you have tried your best to care for B, as well as you can. I liked listening to you talk about B and hearing what a lovely baby she is and how she is crawling and trying to pull herself up on furniture to try and start walking.

I have also seen a picture of her in the court papers. In it she is wearing a lovely black and pink tracksuit and sticking out her tongue. I know she is a special little girl.

I have seen your statements and you have spoken to me in court about how much you love B and want to care for her.

C and D also both wrote me really thoughtful letters explaining how important it is for B to stay living with you and so they can carry on seeing her lots.

You have learnt lots of things in the units about how to care for B. However, I have read all the reports and statements in the case and Dr Georges, the parenting assessor, the social worker and children’s guardian all have said they do not think you can look after B by yourself. They think you need someone to help you all of the time you are with B.

I know it must be hard to look after B, as she will need things a lot of the time, like having her nappy changed and being given her meals, but as you know from caring for C and D, it can get even harder to look after older children, as they need different things as they grow up.

The social worker and children’s guardian have told me this week that they know you love B and that you have tried your best, but that they think B should be adopted, as you can’t look after her without lots of support.

I can only make a decision that will mean B is adopted if I consider nothing else will do. What that means is that if I have considered all the options and think adoption is the only option where B will have good enough care and she will be safe, I must choose this.

I know this will be very sad for you to hear A, but I have decided B cannot stay in your care. I have decided that B should be adopted.

I have many reasons why I have made this decision. These include:

Your mental health and most importantly how you think about your mental health, we call this insight. I am worried that you accept you have schizoaffective disorder sometimes and sometimes you do not. You changed your mind about whether you have schizoaffective disorder, even in the short time when you were giving your evidence to me in court.

I am worried that the fact you don’t always accept your diagnosis means that you do not know how important it is for you to take your medication. I know you stopped taking it in the weeks before B was born. I also know from what you told me this week that you do not want to take your medication now and I am worried this A mean you stop taking it again someday.

There are other worries about you being able to look after B because in the past people have taken advantage of you and your money. There are worries about the men who visit your house and how messy your house is. There are also concerns that your cognitive difficulties mean you cannot care for B safely.

I know you have had lots of help from M, E, O and other staff members at Ty and KH and that you seem to be doing more things yourself. However, I have also been told that you still need lots of help to be told to change B’s nappy, to not have her in your bed and those sorts of things.

I know you have said you could look after B at home with social services’ help and you don’t mind how much time they are at your house to help you. The problem with that is that it is just not possible for social services to give you support all day and night. Especially when they A need to do this for a very long time, as no one knows if you could ever care for B on your own.

You have said your sisters are coming to the United Kingdom and they could help you. This is not a definite plan, and I have no idea when this would happen. I need to decide about what happens next for B now, as you and her have already waited 10 months to know. I can’t wait to see if your sisters come to help you before I make a decision. Social services also can’t help you until they come, as we don’t know when that will be or if it will definitely happen.

It is sad that there is no other family or friend who can care for B. As I have decided you cannot care for B I do think I need to make orders for B, which means that the social worker will then look for someone who is suitable to adopt B.

I am going to let you go for a break now to speak to your lawyer and Chloe about my decision. I will then be reading in court all the legal reasons for my decision. I leave it to you to decide if you want to come back to hear that, but I will understand if that is too hard to listen to, as I know you will now be feeling very sad. Your lawyer will be able to listen to it so she will be able to make sure you find out everything I have said.

I have heard the final hearing for five days this week in respect of B, a girl born in 2022. She is now aged almost 10 months.

The mother of the child is A, assisted throughout the hearing by intermediary, Ms Chloe Selby, and represented by Ms Badejo.

The applicant is the London Borough of Waltham Forest, represented by Ms Khasriya.

The child is assisted by the Children’s Guardian, Mr Brackenridge, who is represented by the child’s solicitor, Ms Singh.

The applications before me are the Local Authority’s application for a care order, which was issued in November 2022 and the Local Authority’s application for a placement order, issued in September 2023.

B is a girl, who was born at the end of 2022 in hospital and she will soon be 10 months old. She became subject to a child protection plan as an unborn baby in August 2022 and was made the subject of an interim care order to the London Borough of Waltham Forest in November 2022.

A is B’s mother, she was born in a state in Africa and was brought to the United Kingdom as a child where she was subsequently raised by a paternal uncle and his wife. She was diagnosed in 2018 with a mental illness, namely Schizoaffective Disorder. She also experiences physical health problems associated with a type-2 diabetes diagnosis, along with mobility issues related to weight-bearing and flexibility in her legs, possibly arising from a polio infection as a child. Further, she has been assessed in these proceedings, and it is now known that she has cognitive functioning limitations.

B is Ms K’s third child, she has two maternal half-sisters, their names are C and D, and they are teenagers. They were subject to previous proceedings which concluded in 2018, with care orders being made and they remain together in long-term foster care. Their father is, sadly, deceased.

Contact between the mother and her older daughters is supervised by the Local Authority and currently takes place on a fortnightly basis, when B has also been able to have contact with her siblings.

B has lived with her mother since birth. Initially they lived in a mother and baby unit at a hospital in London, owing to the mother’s section under Section 2 and then under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act.

Upon discharge from the unit, Mother and B, then aged 4 months, were placed at Ty, a residential parenting assessment unit on 7 March 2023 for the purposes of a parenting assessment. They remained in that unit until the assessment concluded in July 2023.

As the residential unit assessment was negative, the Local Authority, at that time sought removal of B from her mother’s care at an interim care order hearing in July 2023. On the basis that the final hearing was moved forward to this week, the Local Authority placed B and her mother in another unit with family support workers attending daily from 8am to 6pm and sat at the unit monitoring the family overnight.

The mother reported that B’s father was E, paternity could not be confirmed through DNA testing, as I am told he refused to participate. He has played no role in B’s life, and he has not participated in proceedings. I am satisfied the Local Authority have tried on a number of occasions and taken appropriate steps to get Mr E to engage with the DNA test in these proceedings, but to no avail.

The care plan of the Local Authority is for B to be adopted. This is opposed by the mother, who seeks to have B remain in her care.

The Children’s Guardian supports the making of final care and placement orders sought by the Local Authority and agrees with their final care plan of adoption.

The Local Authority bring this case, and it is for them to prove their case.

In deciding any disputes of fact in this case, the test for me to apply is the balance of probabilities.

The burden of proof rests with the person making the allegations.

I am required to consider the evidence as a whole, which I confirm I have done.

I have considered the relevant law in respect of this case, in particular, the Children Act 1989, and the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

I can only make the orders sought by the Local Authority if the threshold criteria are met under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, that is at the time when the Local Authority initiated these proceedings, B was suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and this was attributable to the care being given to her by her parents and that not being what it would be reasonably expected a parent to give.

There is not, in this case, any dispute that the threshold criteria is met. I commend the parties for agreeing threshold, which is contained within a document dated 1 September 2023 and shall be appended to the final order.

In determining what final orders to make, because the Local Authority’s care plan is for adoption, B’s welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration.

I have had regard to both the Welfare Checklist at section 1(3) of the Children Act, 1989 and the Welfare Checklist at section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act, 2002.

I may only make a placement order with the consent of all persons with parental responsibility, that is B’s mother, or by dispensing with her consent on the grounds that the child’s welfare requires me to do so.

I bear in mind a plan for adoption is the plan of last resort. Therefore, I should not endorse such a plan unless I am satisfied that no less an interventionist order will do.

The case of Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 is a case I have considered carefully. The Lord at paragraph 104 endorsed the “principle that adoption of a child against her parents' wishes should only be contemplated as a last resort – when all else fails.”

Baroness Hale of Richmond, having reviewed the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, concluded at paragraph 198:

“It is quite clear that the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do.”

My task is to evaluate the realistic options for the child and to weigh them up, side by side. This was the test considered in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.

When considering the evidence, I remind myself of the case of R v Lucas [1981] QB 720, which although it was a case heard in the criminal courts, is nonetheless one I can rely on. This case reminds us that just because a person lies about one thing, it does not automatically follow that they have lied about everything.

A more recent decision in the Court of Appeal of Re A, B & C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451 sets out the three reasons when I must consider that lie, namely: it is a deliberate untruth, it relates to a significant issue or was not told the reason in advance.

I have also had regard to the overriding objective obtaining in Part 1(1) of the Family Procedure Rules, 2010, and in particular, that sets out that I must deal with this case justly, fairly, and quickly (shame, humiliation, loyalty etc).

Throughout this judgment, I have considered the mother and child’s right to fair trial and family life under Articles 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act.

I have been mindful of Practice Direction 3AA in respect of the mother’s vulnerabilities. The Court had the benefit of considering the full contents of the psychological report of Mr Omar Ramjiawon and the Communicourt intermediary assessment in respect of the mother. The mother has had the assistance of an intermediary throughout this final hearing and at least at the pre-trial review that took place beforehand.

Ground rules were put in place by the Court following the intermediary’s assistance at the pre-trial review on 25 August 2023. The Communicourt assessment states at E139 that the assessment needed to be completed because it had to be cut short. I confirmed at the housekeeping hearing at the start of this hearing on 4 September that this had been done. The intermediary sought no amendments to the ground rules, save for the questions to be asked of the mother by the advocates to be provided slightly earlier on in the day on 5 September, due to the witness template being revised.

The ground rules included that every hour there was to be a break for 15 minutes, that there would be 20 minutes between each witness and that there was to be 5 minutes every 30 minutes that the mother gave evidence. In fact, due to the advice of the intermediary, that was increased to a 10-minute break every 30 minutes during the mother’s evidence.

In addition to these breaks, the mother and the intermediary were also told to just let me know if they needed a pause for a break or for an explanation to be given.

I have, today, read a summary of my judgment, in terms I hope the mother could fully understand, of my decision and the reasons why I have made my decision. We then had a break for 30 minutes for the mother to speak to her team before I handed down this judgment, which the mother has chosen to listen to.

There was a housekeeping hearing on day one, which did not identify any issues with regards to the revised witness template. However, on day two, the parenting assessor, Ms F from Ty did not attend. As a result, an abridged witness summons was directed for her to attend the following morning. All parties were content for the social worker and family support worker to give their oral evidence in advance of the parenting assessor.

The updating bundle is approaching 1,500 pages and I have considered it in full, including the statements, the adoption section assessments, reports and all the unit logs.

The first witness I heard from was the social worker, Joy Abifade. She had visited the family five times since they moved in July to KH. She explained the situation with the placement at KH, that it was not a long-term placement, that she had met with both managers to put in support for the mother, that the night staff have a baby monitor in the room, and if B was crying and not helped, they would intervene.

The family support workers who attended from 8am to 6pm had agreed to prompt the mother and intervene to ensure B’s needs were met and that they had been asked to get the mother to stimulate B and meet her needs. The family support workers had been commissioned and paid by the Local Authority.

B and the mother’s time was supervised, as it was in the previous placement. The social worker informed me that there had been no significant improvements during the time the family have been at KH, in terms of the mother’s ability to independently meet B’s needs. She said that the mother had a good attitude to staff, but she still needed a high level of support and lots of prompting to meet B’s needs. She did say that the mother had worked with professionals and accepted advice and that she was settled with her mother. She agreed she was thriving when she had left Ty.

She explained there remained concerns about the amount of prompting needed from the family support worker to the mother. She did not accept there had been minimal work done with the mother, including teaching, or coaching because she had provided day-to-day support for the mother from the family support worker, who had provided prompting to help her meet B’s basic needs. She explained a timetable had been put in place to help the mother.

She said that the mother has always, of course, had the opportunity to show she can do the tasks without prompting, but this had not happened.

She explained there had been no plan for the mother to have unsupervised time with B at KH, because when there had been unsupervised time in Ty, it had had to be stopped due to concerns.

She accepted that mother can sometimes perform tasks without prompting, but said a lot of the time she needed to be prompted, and they had to put in that high level of support.

When asked if there was support that could be put in place as there could be for someone with a learning difficulty or physical disability, the social worker said the concern in this case was the duration, for how long and what would be in B’s best interests. As she got older her needs would get more challenging and her emotional needs would be more challenging, was her response.

She explained there has been a professional working with her everyday to look at the changes that had been made in that time and that they were not sufficient.

I thought the social worker was fair and gave a balanced view to the Court.

I next heard evidence from the family support worker. Her name was Ms G. She confirmed she writes up her unit logs contemporaneously. She explained her role is to support the mother in taking care of her daughter. She assists with hygiene and feeding and has daily interactions with her daughter. She says she gives the mother advice, but she does not criticise her.

She explained as well as the prompting, she did informal key-work sessions with the mother, and this included around budgeting and co-sleeping. It was accepted that these were not long sessions.

She said she had spoken to the mother about the risks of co-sleeping as she is in a single bed. She explained the cot was moved nearer to the mother’s bed, but that had not stopped the mother co-sleeping with B.

She accepted another family support worker had let B sleep in her bouncer for around two hours when that is also not advisable. She said there had been a high level of prompting at first, but that had reduced. However, when asked, she confirmed that prompting was still required and that prompting had been needed as recently as the log we had received regarding the day of 2 September. She said the mother requires prompting to meet B’s needs, but not all of the time.

I found her to be a fair witness who gave a balanced view to the Court.

Again, just to reiterate, she was given just over a week’s notice of the hearing by the Local Authority and said she could not attend due to issues with the bill for her assessment. The Local Authority did not apply for a witness summons until the morning she was due to give evidence and she had not attended. A witness summons was made, and notice abridged for her to attend the following day, which she did.

When I started the hearing, it transpired she had not read the updating papers. The advocates identified the papers that they required the witness to read, with the Court’s assistance and Ms F’s evidence was adjourned for approximately two hours for her to read the documents, which she did.

When she gave her evidence, she said that the mother had engaged and worked well with professionals. She said that it was true, that if she had not engaged with anything, it was due to her own personal struggles and not due to a willingness to not engage.

She said that B had a good bond with her mother and had been thriving in her mother’s care at Ty. There had been professional concerns about the mother’s cousin spending the mother’s money, for which the mother had given Ty different explanations. She had accepted none of the professionals had spoken to the cousin and that money could have been withdrawn for different reasons.

Ms F gave evidence that the mother had needed prompts to enable her to care for B on a daily basis while living at Ty. She said, in addition to verbal prompts, they used videos, a graph, and a chart so she could see the routines and plans for the day.

She expanded further in her responses to questions from the child solicitor and said methods of working with mum were varied and implemented and covered all domains of parenting and were detailed throughout her assessment. Those methods had included modelling, teaching, images, and language visuals for people with learning difficulties, watching videos, and demonstrations by staff. She stated that their way of working had incorporated the recommendations from the cognitive assessment that had been undertaken regarding the mother.

She found the ways of working with the mother would be successful for a period of time, but then would no longer work.

In terms of the two alleged smacking incidents, Ms F confirmed she had not witnessed either of them. The first incident she had said involved the mother putting B in her cot, B was kicking her legs up which meant she could not put a blanket over B, so the mother had smacked her. This was apparently witnessed by the unit manager.

The second incident, she told me, was witnessed by a family support worker, and involved B being in her highchair when she was putting her hands in a dish, so the mother had smacked her on her hands.

She confirmed that the first incident had happened during the parent-led phase and that she had spoken to the staff members about what had happened, and they were clear that what had occurred was a smack. She further said she checked if it was a tap, or a smack and they said a smack in frustration. Ms F said she did not recall the mother saying she had smacked her, but she did recall her saying that she would not do it again.

She accepted the mother could meet B’s basic care needs with prompting, the concern is that she could not do it autonomously.

It was put to her that the mother A have improved in KH. She explained she had not seen if KH had pulled back to see if the mother could do it autonomously. When asked why this was important, she said it was to see what learning the mother had retained.

In answer to questions from the child’s solicitor, she explained about the first period of unsupervised time with B, had ended early as there were concerns the mother was not meeting B’s basic care needs. She said that “once the mother became frustrated, we thought it would be unsafe to continue”. The mother without a high level of support and prompting would be unable to meet B’s needs and hence the level of support had continued throughout the assessment, save for the two trial periods of the mother leading care, which had both been unsuccessful.

When asked at the end of her evidence if she could identify any support for her that would allow the mother to care for B safely, she replied, “sadly, no”.

I found Ms F to be a witness who was insightful and helpful for the Court to hear from.

All of the ground rules were followed so she had a break for 10 minutes every 30 minutes. The mother tried really hard when she gave evidence and it was clear to me how much she loves B, as well as her other children, C and D.

She described B as loving and warm and she knows who her mum is, that she had started to say Mamma and has two bottom teeth. She is crawling, but prefers to walk and is currently pulling herself up on furniture.

She mentioned on a number of occasions how unfortunate it was that the person she believes to be B’s father was not accepting that he is her father or spending any time with them. It was a topic she came back to on a few occasions and that is something that professionals have also said in their assessments, that it is a topic that the mother keeps going back to.

She explained that she found it difficult at Ty and wonders if she had a relapse, she said she found the Depo injections “take a toll on me.”

She said being watched 24 hours a day was daunting and scary. She outlined the work she had done at Ty and commented on how she had found the videos helpful.

When asked about the allegations that she had smacked B twice, she said she remembered one occasion and said it was not a full force smack, “I tapped her”. She said that this had been because it had been a challenging time, and that she knew it was a tap.

To the Local Authority’s Advocate she said what happened is she was putting on B’s nappy and she was kicking her feet. She was scared the poo would get everywhere so she tapped her on her bum. She said B had given one little cry. That she sometimes acts up. She said, “I thought, let me tap her so she knows I am being serious. I do not think it hurt, but it gave her a shock”.

The mother had found KH more relaxed, the staff to be more helpful and that they intervened less. She said she does do things without prompting, but does not know how quick they want her to do things.

When asked what she wanted to tell me, she passionately explained how she wants to keep B in her care, how, sadly, the last few years have been the hardest of her life. She told me she would work with anyone if she could keep B in her care. She again spoke of B’s father being difficult and said he might come back later to help her.

The mother gave evidence when asked questions by her barrister that she disputed her mental health diagnosis and that she was in the process of appealing the August 23 Mental Health diagnosis decision, but the compulsory treatment order continues and that this had been discussed at the meeting with her psychiatrist on Wednesday afternoon of this week, when the Court did not sit so she could attend the meeting.

The mother said she disputes the mental health diagnosis, saying:

“I don’t understand it, why would my mental health have erupted now, why was it not picked up earlier, did I have a mental health worker before when the kid’s dad died? The kids are paying for my mental health.”

When asked if she agreed that she had been mentally ill, she said she did not agree, she had been under a lot of stress. People had abused her trust and home and well-being, they had seen her as vulnerable and taken liberties years ago, but there had been no such thing as mental health years ago, it did not exist, not present like a compulsion thing.

She said the medication makes her feel worse, that she does not trust what doctors are telling her. That it is best to be drug-free and she feels fine when not on medication and she is better for caring for B when she is not on medication. She says her sisters would help her when they arrive.

When asked by the Child Solicitor if they might not be able to come, she said, they will, they will travel to two other countries and then to the United Kingdom, they have saved for their trip and they nearly have the money to travel.

She said she would choose not to take her medication, but told the Court she does accept she has a schizoaffective disorder.

The mother, during her evidence, changed her position whether she did or did not accept she had a schizoaffective disorder.

I know giving evidence was difficult for the mother and her message to me about her wish for B to remain in her care was genuine and her love for B, and in fact all of her children, was very evident to me.

The Guardian confirmed he had reviewed the updating logs, and the picture was similar to the picture at Ty - that a high level of support is still required for the mother.

That he was open to an adoption placement being sought that could potentially allow direct contact for the mother and siblings, if that works for any adopters identified.

He agreed that the mother has a good bond with B, who also has a good bond with her siblings, from what he has read.

He was able to confirm that Ty had seen several positive elements to the mother’s care, that she engaged well with staff, she took on board advice, but that sadly that was not always followed through consistently.

When asked if B had not been left in nappies as long at KH, the Guardian accepted that perhaps the concerns were not to the same level, but there were still reports for concerns around nappy changes.

He accepted that sometimes, when the mother was prompted, she A have already done the action that she was being asked to do.

He accepted that more work could have been done with the mother at KH, but that work had been done and support had been given and the mother had shown it was difficult for her to put it into practice.

Based on the outcome of the expert assessments, he said that any support that would need to be put in place for the mother in order to ensure B was kept safe would need to be for 24 hours a day.

He explained that in terms of a plan of what the support would look like for the mother to care for B, he said that in trying to do his report, he tried to think what it would look like, and it was difficult because the requirement was for almost constant monitoring.

It was put to the Guardian by the advocate for the mother that there could be a care order in place so that B could be safe. The Guardian said he questioned if that was in the best interests in the long-term or even the short-term for B. As she becomes a toddler, she will need more stimulation. She would test boundaries, and he does not consider it to be in her best interests to stay with the mother.

In answer to my question, when I asked given what he had heard this week in relation to the case, what he felt the mother’s insight was, he said that he felt that:

“The mother’s insight appears to fluctuate, that it is difficult for mother to answer questions regarding her diagnosis, there is contradictory statements about whether she agrees or not with the diagnosis. In the past, during visits, she said she rejects the diagnosis and yet today she has accepted it. It does worry me that the mother may not take medication if not on a CTO -compulsory treatment order.”

The Guardian explained that he had been open and would review his decision when he got the logs, this had been detailed in his report and he had done so, but his recommendations remained the same and he supported the making of care and placement orders with a care plan of adoption.

I found the Guardian to be careful, thoughtful and well-reasoned in his report and in his evidence. He was able to see some of the positives and also the difficulties for the mother caring for B. He was clear though, that it is not in B’s best interests to remain living with her mother and instead he recommends care and placement orders are made for her.

There is an agreed threshold document dated 1 September 2023, which shall be attached to my order for this final hearing, so I will not repeat it here.

I am satisfied that threshold is met in the case. I consider that B was at risk of significant harm on the date protective measures were implemented in November 2022. In summary, these are due to the mother’s mental health difficulties, and lack of insight into her mental health issues, such as not previously complying with her medication and mental health services. These difficulties have impacted on her ability to potentially safely care for B.

I am satisfied threshold is crossed.

As already outlined in the Ty report, it has made reference to two incidents of smacking. I heard from Ms F about these incidents, and she had not observed them either in person or on video, but she had informed me that she had spoken to both members of staff that had seen these incidents. One was the unit manager, and she was satisfied that the mother has smacked B on both occasions and not tapped her.

The two incidents were said to be when the mother was feeding B and when she was changing her nappy. E167 states in May 2023: “M with an open hand smacked B’s bottom four times in succession, quickly.” E168 confirms this was during the first parent-led phase.

At E167 on 8 June 2023 is says that “M smacked B hand twice, telling her ‘No’ at the same time.”

The mother in her oral evidence only recalled one occasion when she said she tapped B, as she was not making it easy for her to change her nappy. It is significant to me that when the mother was just given a short period to lead the primary care of B that she got frustrated and used physical chastisement on B, especially given her young age. It concerns me, despite all the work and support given to the mother, that when she was taking the lead, she could not cope to the extent she used physical chastisement on B.

I find that on at least one occasion, the mother used her hand to physically chastise B on her bottom. Given the description of the professionals, I find that this was a smack.

This is relevant to the part of my welfare evaluation which I will come to now.

As stated above, I have had regard to both Welfare Checklists in the Children Act, 1989 and the Children and Adoption Act 2002. I confirm, given the child’s age, she is unable to vocalise with whom she would live. However, if B was able to express with who she would wish to be brought up, I have no doubt it would be with her mother or another family member, provided this could be done safely and in accordance with her best interests.

I am also sure that she would wish to continue to see her older sisters regularly, if this was possible, from a home which was meeting her needs.

B has all the needs of a young child, that is a need for a family where she can be kept safe, where her needs for her emotional support and stimulation are met, and where she can grow and develop.

As a young baby, B had a heart murmur. I understand, and I am pleased to hear, that this is no longer a concern. Everyone tells me she is an easy baby to care for and she enjoys her food. Her mother told me that she is crawling and starting to pull herself up on furniture in an attempt to start walking.

I have considered the long-term impact on B of being adopted. This could cause her to lose her legal ties with her birth family. I recognise that, sadly, not all adoptive placements succeed. Adoption can cause real difficulties for children in adolescence and later life.

B is a 10-month-old girl, her mother is from a state in Africa. It has not been determined for sure who her father is, but I understand that the person that the mother considers to be B’s father, is of Black-African origin.

B also has two older siblings, who she sees every two weeks.

B was at risk of harm when these proceedings were instigated, as detailed in the agreed threshold document of 1 September 2023.

The mother wishes to care for B, and I will explain later in my judgment why, sadly, I do not think she can meet B’s long-term needs.

Other family members were put forward to care for B at the outset of these proceedings, but they were either negatively assessed or they have not been able to proceed with their assessments. The outcome of these enquiries and assessments have not been challenged by them or indeed any of the parties.

The range of powers open to the Court include to make no order for B. For B to remain in her mother’s care, either under a child arrangements order, under no order, under a care order or a supervision order. For all the reasons I have just outlined I do not consider that is in B welfare interests to remain with her mother, as it will not keep her safe.

In the terms of orders, I could make an order to a family member, but sadly that is not an option in this case. It would also be possible for me to make a care order and for B live in foster care, or, as I am asked by the Local Authority, I could make a care and placement order with a care plan for B to be adopted.

I will come to my analysis of these options later in my judgment.

The mother seeks to have B, who I have no doubt she loves very much, remain in her care. She made a passionate plea to me about the importance of B remaining in her care. I listened to this as I did all the evidence very carefully.

I also carefully read all the written evidence and the lovely, thoughtful, and supportive letters C and D have written to me. It is clear how much they love their mother and their baby sister and want B to stay living with their mother.

There are positives to the mother’s case and indeed all the professionals agree that she loves B and has a good bond with her. It is agreed that she had engaged with assessments.

It is also accepted, in the main, that the mother has had a slight reduction in the number of prompts needed in the most recent unit she has been living in over the past two months.

These proceedings have been ongoing now for almost 10 months and whilst I am pleased to see the mother has made some improvements, I am told there is still a long way to go for her to meet B’s needs independently.

The mother’s mental health has improved on medication, and she has been engaging with mental health staff under the compulsory treatment order since she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act last autumn.

In terms of my welfare analysis, the parts of the written evidence I wish to highlight are as follows:

There is a psychological assessment of the mother’s cognitive functioning undertaken on 13 January 2023. The recommendations of this report confirm that if a parenting assessment took place, it should be a PAMS or parent assist. He recommended psychotherapy to enhance the mother’s insight and help her understand her mental health diagnosis. He also recommended an intermediary assessment.

Dr George was the expert psychiatrist who has reported in the case and has made the following conclusions. At E79, it is confirmed that the mother suffers from clear symptoms of DSM 5295.70, schizoaffective disorder and is currently in full remission. That she has shown, in accordance with treatment and that it is in remission. That her affective symptoms and psychiatric symptoms have subsided because she is compliant with treatment. This can all be explained by a psychotic illness.

“Her mental state is stable, but she lacks insight into her mental health problems. A history of schizoaffective disorder confirms an extremely high risk of relapse in the future.

As the mother is not capable of taking on responsibility of a child within her full care parental responsibility in the long or short term. She suffers from schizoaffective disorder and has vulnerability factors, e.g. having the care of a young child, not working and the father of the child is not involved. She lacks insight and, in the case, and her mental health deteriorates, she will not be able to access support in time. This raises concern about her ability to protect her child when she is experiencing a decline in her mental health.”

That quote is taken from E80. Dr George recommends that the mother remains compliant with her medication and engages with the CMH team and that she has CBT and attends an understanding mental illness group. That is detailed at E82 and E85.

She says, in conclusion at E92 that:

“If she remains in the mother’s care, she will require a comprehensive approach to parenting rehabilitation which should include interventions that directly address her specific parenting needs and deficits to be compliant with her psychiatric treatment and close liaison with other services, such a gynaecology, paediatrics, and child psychiatry. Mother will need, and benefit from, parenting coaching and skills training to improve her knowledge of specific parenting behaviours.”

Dr George completed an addendum report and at E224, she comments that she has taken into consideration all of the reports prepared by the mother and baby unit.

“I am aware that the mother was placed in Ty, and they provided an interim parenting report dated 21 February. The report makes a number of recommendations and in their opinion, without the presence of staff of intervene on B’s behalf, to ensure that her needs are met, she would likely be at risk of neglect or physical, emotional and development needs as well as risk of physical harm.

It is fairly stated that to date, the mother has not demonstrated she can meet any of B’s needs in an independent manner. She requires significant moment-to-moment support to predict, identify and respond to all aspects of her daughter’s care needs.

I have taken all of that into consideration and the mother’s legal status, that she is detained under a compulsory treatment order.

I remain of the opinion that the mother is not capable of taking on responsibility and care of her child within her full care and parenting responsibility in the short or long-term.”

At E168 of Ms F’s report, she explains that the first parent-led week was in May 2023. In her report it is explained that:

“Staff ordinarily take a step back to see what learning has been retained and practiced consistently, usually. Due to the complexities of mother’s parenting competencies as sole carer, in this case, measure was specifically taken to identify what B’s lived experience of her needs being met was revealed when staff were not supporting, coaching or problem-solving for mother. The five-day planned period was ended early due to the impact on B’s care needs and them not being responded to adequately.

For example,”, she explains in the report, “B remained in the same nappy for 14-hours, she had consumed 24 ounces of the recommended 35 ounces of milk in the 24-hour period. B's sterilizer water had not been changed and the guidance is for it to be changed daily. B was awake in the morning for over two hours before she is attended to for a bottle or a nappy change. B was smacked on her bottom with an open hand when the mother became irritated with her as she was resistant to lowering her legs to be tucked into her cot. B did not get her clothes changed or receive a top and tail bath for the entire period.”

At E207, Ms F concludes:

“The conclusion of the assessment is that in our opinion, the mother does not have the capacity to care independently and safely for B in the community and such an arrangement will leave B at significant risk of neglect and possible physical harm. Under an arrangement of independent care, and even with the provision of professional support, the mother is liable in my opinion to become quickly overwhelmed by the cognitive, practical, and emotional demands of enduring sole care for her daughter and this will place B at risk of neglect and/or physical harm and affect the mother’s own emotional difficulties and stability over the longer term.”

At E120, Ms F observed:

“In our opinion without the presence of staff to intervene on B’s behalf to ensure her needs are met, she would be at risk of neglect of her physical, emotional and developmental needs as well as at risk of physical harm.”

My concerns about the mother’s ability to care for B in the long-term are multifaceted, she has had a difficult childhood herself and it is clear how devastating the whole family found it when C and D’s father sadly died.

All professionals agree the mother is not able to provide good enough care for B. There has been a period of almost 10 months within these proceedings and the mother has not been able to meet B in that time independently and she still requires a high level of support.

The mother is at risk of instability due to her not consistently accepting her mental health diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. The mother does not wish to continue her medication and indeed is seeking to discharge the compulsory treatment order, an application, I understand, was refused in August 2023, but on that the mother seeks to appeal.

The mother received her mental health diagnosis in 2018. It troubles me that she stopped taking her mental health medication, ultimately leading to her being sectioned in October 2022.

The fact she was so clear in her evidence, and indeed to everyone who questioned her, that she does not want to take her medication for her mental health condition, is of concern. She does not like how it makes her feel, but it shows to me that there is lack of insight into her understanding of her diagnosis and the need for her to take medication when advised by professionals in order to keep her mental health stable. If advised to and she does not take her medication in the future, it could mean that it places B at risk of harm, possibly from neglect or emotional harm.

Of course, therapy has been recommended by the psychologist in this case. The mother’s mental health key worker, Solomon, told the social worker the timing for therapy was not right for the mother during these proceedings. Clearly, this work will no doubt assist the mother and be beneficial for her once her life is stable. Therefore, I hope that she does do that, but it has not been undertaken to date and it will not be undertaken within B’s timescales.

As stated by the social worker, despite the mother being placed at KH, she has continued to receive a high support on a daily basis from 8am to 6pm, plus monitoring through the night. A significant level of support, supervision and monitoring by family support workers has been available to the mother on a long-term basis during these proceedings. It concerns me that that despite intensive support and supervision that there is a risk B’s needs will not be met by the mother.

In addition to the mother’s mental health difficulties, she also has her own health difficulties and cognitive limitations, as we know from the reports. The social worker said she did not consider that the high level of support that the mother would need would to care for B would be possible and that it was not sustainable nor realistic.

The mother’s needs are so great that sometimes it is difficult for her to adequately care for herself. I have read about prompts in respect of her taking her diabetes medication. The social worker confirms that she continues to require prompting from staff to undertake the basic tasks for B. She has also continued to require some prompts in relation to caring for her own hygiene and ensuring she takes her own medication.

The mother cared for B for approximately four months in H Hospital mother and baby unit. Then approximately four months at Ty, having the benefit of the parenting assessment. The last two months she has been residing in KH. During the assessment of Ty, in accordance with the psychologist’s advice, she was assisted through a variety of ways, bearing in mind her cognitive functioning about how she could meet B’s needs. Throughout that process there was a high level of prompts and support to help her to do this. These included support around routine, nappy changes, taking medication and interacting with B rather than spending time on her phone. These prompts A have lessened, but they are still a daily occurrence I am told, even since the family moved to KH.

I am concerned this evidence shows the huge amount of time and resources that have been put in place to help the mother to meet B’s basic care needs, but despite these, the mother is still being prompted about these topics and is not able to care for B independently. References to these prompts have been as recently as early September 2023, which is around the time of the last notes I have seen from the unit – my not having received any this week as of course the mother has been in Court.

The two periods of parent-led care trialled at Ty made for concerning reading. The smacking incidents and B’s clothes and nappies not being changed. These parent-led sessions were not attempted at KH. I understand that is not a unit on the scale of Ty in terms of its support and monitoring. Given the level of concerns of the mother-led trials at Ty, it is understandable that the Local Authority did not feel able to try that again in the context of the same prompts still being given to the mother at KH and the support not being present at KH to enable that trial period to be further monitored when the risks are so high.

There is a lack of evidence in the logs that the mother has made any significant improvement in terms of her ability to independently care for B. Indeed, new concerns such as the mother co-sleeping with B in a single bed have arisen whilst being at KH and also concerns such as the mother moving B by her arm.

Time has shown that, sadly, the mother is not able to consistently implement the professional advice she has been given over a period of at least six months in order to meet B’s basic care needs. This has all been during the time that B has been under the age of one. Her needs will, of course, change and arguably get more complex. Given the amount of support provided today for the same concerns still being raised about nappy changes and routine, I agree with the experts and professionals that there is no evidence that the change that A have occurred at KH is sufficient to allow the mother to care for B independently or indeed with support.

I agree with the professionals that it is simply not possible to put in, possibly, 24-hour a day support to enable the mother to meet B’s needs and keep her safe. I agree with the Guardian’s comments that the level of long-term and intensive support arguably would not be in B’s best interests in any event.

In terms of other support, the mother explained how she hoped her two sisters would be able to travel from Africa to the UK to help care for her and B. This is not a definite arrangement, it would not provide the mother with care she needs to help her to care for B, at least in the short term. I recognise that the Local Authority could provide this short-term care until the mother’s sisters arrive. However, we simply do not know when or if that will ever happen. Given B’s age and welfare, means that a final decision needs to be made about where she will live. These proceedings have already been ongoing for 10 months and I do not consider it would be in B’s best interests for these proceedings to be adjourned to wait for the sisters to arrive, or indeed for a further assessment of the mother, nor was an adjournment something I was asked to consider.

The Guardian and social worker have concluded there are no realistic packages of support or safeguards that can be put in place to support the mother in caring for B. I agree with this analysis. The fact that after all these months of support and prompting, the mother cannot show she can care for B independently suggests the support she would need to do so in the future would be considerable. The need for possibly up to 24-hour a day care, for possibly years is simply unrealistic and not in B’s best interests.

Other concerns outlined in the threshold document have been raised, such as the state of the mother’s home, her being involved in risky situations such as men in her home, her cousin having access to her bank account. I understand these concerns, which are no doubt linked to the mother’s vulnerabilities. They are indeed further evidence of the mother’s inability to provide a safe home for B going forward.

For all of these reasons, I conclude that the mother would sadly not be able to safely meet B’s needs due to her own emotional and mental health difficulties. I realise how devastating this will be for the mother to hear, given how much she loves B. I know how hard she has worked to have B remain in her care. However, sadly, she cannot meet B’s needs in the long term and the amount of support she would need to do so is not realistic nor would it be in B’s best interests.

As I have just outlined, one option is for B to remain in her mother’s care, either under no order, or a child arrangements order, or a care or supervision order.

For all the reasons I have just outlined, I do not consider that is B’s welfare interests for her to be with her mother as I do not consider the support that would be required is realistic or in B’s best interests.

A number of family friends have been put forward as alternative carers by the mother. It is sad that none of those assessments have been positive or been able to be progressed. None have been challenged and all parties agree there are no other alternative family and friend options for B.

B’s father has not been able to be formally identified. The person the mother has named will not agree to a DNA test. He has not engaged with professionals or the court proceedings and so there are no paternal family and friend placement options available for B.

Another option available to the Court is for B to be placed in long-term foster care. Given she is just 10 months old, I do not consider this to be in her best interests. It would mean she is a looked after child for the next 17 years, with everything that comes with that, such as having a social worker and attending LAC reviews. It would not offer her permanence. I recognise it would allow a greater level of contact for the mother and B’s siblings, but that is outweighed by the lack of permanence and the possibility of a number of placement moves during her minority and thus she A have many different carers. Therefore, this option would not give her the security of a family to which she can belong for the remainder of her childhood.

The Local Authority, supported by the Guardian seek that B is made the subject of a care and placement order and adopted.

I A make the placement order only with the consent of all persons with parental responsibility, in this case, that is B’s mother, or by dispensing with her consent on the grounds that the child’s welfare requires me to do so.

I have considered the long-term impact on B of being adopted. I recognise that, sadly, not all adoptive placements succeed. Adoption can cause real difficulties for children in adolescence and later life. This can be because they must come to terms with the fact that they have not grown up within their birth families.

Adoption does provide a child with a permanent family in circumstances where a child cannot remain with their birth family. Despite B being born in hospital when her mother was experiencing difficulties, B has not experienced trauma. She has had the benefit of one carer, her mother, since birth. Therefore, perhaps, B has a better chance than some children of transferring the attachment she has made to one caregiver to another alternative permanent caregiver.

My paramount consideration, as I have said, is B’s welfare throughout her life. I have borne that in mind throughout my welfare evaluation.

I recognise that B’s mother would dearly love to care for her, however I conclude on the evidence that she does not have capacity to meet B’s needs and there is no other wider family member who is able to do so.

I consider the mother cannot meet her needs without considerable support, the intensity of which is not realistic and would not be in B’s best interests.

These proceedings have been ongoing for 10 months now and B requires a permanent decision with whom she will live.

I do not consider there are any realistic support systems or safeguards that can be put in place to enable the mother to safely care for B in the short, medium, or long term.

Therefore, having considered all the realistic options, I must conclude that the mother cannot offer that care and, in those circumstances, having evaluated all the options, it is clear that nothing other than adoption will do and that only that can meet B’s immediate and long-term welfare needs.

I am required to consider the arrangements for contact. I have considered what is set out in the Local Authority’s care plan. I endorse a search which looks for carers who can facilitate direct contact with C and D, if possible. I approve the contact plan for B to have indirect letter box contact with her mother and whilst I accept that A be the only realistic option, I support the Guardian’s suggestion that enquiries at least be made with prospective adopters about whether it is possible for the mother to have any indirect contact. However, as with C and D’s contact, this should not be a requirement of the placement.

I approve all of the Local Authority’s proposed contact arrangements and I do not consider they need to be ordered.

For all those reasons, I make a final care and placement order as sought by the Local Authority. I am satisfied that B’s welfare needs require I make these orders.

I dispense with the consent of the mother to the making of the placement order on the grounds that B’s welfare requires me to do so.

I want to express my gratitude to the professionals in the case for their hard work and consideration of what they considered to be in B’s best interests. I would like to thank all the advocates for their hard work and assistance to the Court in overcoming some of the logistical problems at the start of the hearing, in terms of the witnesses. I would also, particularly, like to thank counsel on behalf of the mother for the careful and patient way that I have seen and observed you to assist the mother during this hearing. Finally, I would like to thank the intermediary, Ms Selby for all the assistance she has given the mother and the Court this week.

That concludes my judgment. I just want to make a couple of closing remarks.

I know that it will be the usual course of action for the Local Authority to do life story work for B and it will be incredibly hard from M, but I hope she will engage with the social worker to assist with that work. I also hope that she will engage with having letterbox contact with B in the time to come.