C (a child) (fact finding: sexual abuse), Re

Allegation 5: M suffers from poor mental health and has a diagnosis of personality disorder with paranoia, OCD and anxiety which, when unwell, impacts upon her ability to safeguard C and provide safe, consistent care for her. As a result, C is at risk of suffering significant emotional harm and neglect of her emotional and physical needs.

Allegation 6: M’s volatile and impulsive behaviour has put C at risk of emotional and physical harm. For example:

On 9 October 2023 at 2:30 am, there was an incident where M banged on MGM’s door and demanded money. C was awakened by the noise and became upset. As a result of insufficient sleep due to the above incident, C did not attend school on 10 October 2023.

M returned to the home of the maternal grandparents in the evening of 10 October 2023 demanding money for drugs. M climbed over the back gate and entered the house from the rear, refusing to leave and then grabbed MGM’s phone as she was calling the police for assistance. MGM and MGF struggled to get the phone back from M but were assisted by the police attending the incident.

Allegation 7: M lives a chaotic and criminal lifestyle putting C at risk of emotional harm and neglect of her needs.

For example:

M is currently homeless. In October 2023, M gave up her temporary accommodation in [] and returned to []. Consequently, she became homeless and started sofa surfing at her relatives and family friends in [].

Due to theft offences, M has been in and out of custody from December 2023 until 20 February 2024. M attended [] Magistrates’ Court for sentencing on [] February 2024. Before the court hearing, M was on remand at HMP []. M been sentenced to a 24 months’ Community Order, and 12-month Drug Rehabilitation Requirement and Mental Health Treatment Requirement and up to 20 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days to include referral to the Women’s Service.

Allegation 8: F continues to live a criminal lifestyle, putting C at risk of emotional harm and neglect. F is currently serving a two-year sentence at HMP [] because of theft offences.

Allegation 9: C is suffering and is at risk of suffering significant physical and emotional harm and neglect in the care of either parent because of M’s and F’s drug misuse. In particular:

In January 2023 and for the preceding two years both M and F were regularly using illicit substances, including crack cocaine and heroin. C was present in the home and was locked in her bedroom at the time of her parents’ drug use.

M had continued to use drugs since C was removed from her care.

As a result of this, the parents’ ability to meet C’s needs were compromised in that, when using drugs, they were not available for C, whether physically or as a result of lack of energy or motivation. The impact of locking C in her bedroom caused C significant distress and emotional harm.

Allegation 10: C is suffering or at risk of suffering significant physical and emotional harm as a result of witnessing and/or hearing and/or being in the vicinity of domestic abuse between M and F including shouting,

arguing and violence. In particular:

Between the 21 September 2020 and 29 August 2023 there have been six recorded incidents of domestic violence between M and F.

Allegation 11 and 12: MGF sexually abused Child A putting C at risk of sexual harm.

Allegation 13: MGM failed to protect Child B from risk of sexual harm following allegations made against MGF by Child B.

X Council issued care proceedings for M’s three older children [] which concluded in February 2016. These children were removed from M’s care and placed with extended family members, due to serious neglect, M’s poor parenting, domestic abuse, drug misuse, criminal activities, mental health difficulties, lack of housing and chaotic lifestyle in general. C’s maternal half-sibling Child B was made subject to a Special Guardianship Order made in favour of her maternal grandmother, MGM [in 2016].

C has been known to the local authority for a number of years due to recurrent concerns around her parents’ neglectful and harmful parenting, due to parental substance misuse, domestic abuse, criminal activities, mental health difficulties and chaotic lifestyle. C was made subject to a Child Protection Plan as an unborn on 6 October 2016, when her mother lived in X Council area. X Council initiated care proceedings in respect of C at birth on 21 January 2017, these concluded in July 2017 with a 12-month Supervision Order and C remained in the care of her mother…

On 24 January 2023, a strategy meeting was held due to M’s neglectful parenting and Child B’s sexual assault allegations, this resulted in a Section 47 enquiry being initiated. Child B denied the allegations and said that MGF had never touched her inappropriately.

…Council X has now issued care proceedings with respect to Child B [I am case managing those proceedings separately from these proceedings].

C was placed on a Child Protection Plan under the category of Neglect on 13th February 2023. M signed a Written Safety Agreement on 13 February 2023 for C to remain in the care of MGM and MGF.

On 16 June 2023, a strategy meeting was held because Child B repeated the sexual assault allegations against MGF. Child B had returned to stay with MGM and then repeated the statement to MGM and M that MGF touched her inappropriately and the alleged incident happened one to two years ago, around the time that she went back to live with her mother...

…

On 10 January 2024 MGM became C’s temporary foster carer under Regulation 24 of the Care Planning Regulations 2010. As such, the local authority intended to complete a full connected persons’ assessment, to include MGF given that he was living with MGM, and he was closely involved in C’s care.

On 6 February 2024, MGM’s granddaughter, Child A made allegations of historic sexual abuse against MGF.

A strategy meeting was held on 7 February 2024 and a joint section 47 enquiry initiated with the police…

A safety plan was put in place to ensure C was not left alone with MGF at home.

The matter first came before the court for an initial ICO hearing on 2nd April 2024. The maternal

grandmother attended and was made a party to the proceedings. The court adjourned the local

authority’s application to 23rd April 2024 (no earlier date was available) as the court was of the

view it was imperative that the maternal grandmother was represented.

At the hearing on 23rd April 2024, the maternal grandmother confirmed MGF would be returning to the home due to ill health. The court sanctioned removal of C from MGM’s care and made an ICO.

Composite schedule of proposed findings [A96] and MGM’s direct responses to threshold [A68-A69];

Witness statement of Ms Sharma, social worker, dated 12 March 2024 [C1] and 13 November 2024 [C141];

Final Care Plan dated 11 November 2024 [D10];

Contact reduction plan produced on 10 December 2024 and not in the bundle;

Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) video recorded interview (VRI) of Child A on 3 February 2024 [Z0a] and transcript [K18];

Witness statement of a teacher at Child A’s school exhibiting a handwritten note prepared by Child A [C61] (the note is exhibited but appears in clearer form in the police disclosure at [K213];

Transcript of VRI of MGF on 16 February 2024 [K1];

Police disclosure in relation to MGF [K100];

Police occurrence summaries [K114];

Special Guardianship (SG) assessment of MGM by Deborah Orr using the Parent Assess model dated 17 September 2024 [E16];

Referral Record dated 16 January 2023 [F18];

Strategy Meeting minutes dated 24 January 2023 [F38];

Witness statements of M dated 14 May 2024 [C55] and 12 November 2024 [C139];

MGM’s C2 application for contact [B92-99];

Witness statements of MGM dated 28 April 2024 [C51], 18 May 2024 [C57] and 4 December 2024 [Z40];

Witness statement of another of MGM’s granddaughters [C67]; and

The Guardian’s final analysis [Z42].

A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied –

that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to –

the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or

the child’s being beyond parental control.

…The principles are conveniently set out in the judgment of Baker J in Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam), to which I was taken. So far as material for present purposes what Baker J said (and I respectfully agree) was this:

“First, the burden of proof lies at all times with the local authority.

Secondly, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

Third, findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation …

Fourthly, when considering cases of suspected child abuse the court must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. The court invariably surveys a wide canvas. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof…”

To this admirable summary I add three further points.

First, that the legal concept of proof on a balance of probabilities “must be applied with common sense”, as Lord Brandon of Oakbrook said in The Popi M, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds , Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Fenton Insurance Co Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 948, 956.

Secondly, that the court can have regard to the inherent probabilities: see Lady Hale in In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11, para 31. But this does not affect the legal standard of proof, as Lord Hoffmann emphasised in the same case (para 15):

“There is only one rule of law, namely that the occurrence of the fact in issue must be proved to have been more probable than not. Common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question, regard should be had, to whatever extent appropriate, to inherent probabilities. If a child alleges sexual abuse by a parent, it is common sense to start with the assumption that most parents do not abuse their children. But this assumption may be swiftly dispelled by other compelling evidence of the relationship between parent and child or parent and other children. It would be absurd to suggest that the tribunal must in all cases assume that serious conduct is unlikely to have occurred. In many cases, the other evidence will show that it was all too likely.”

…

Parties should understand that the court’s approach to witness evidence based on human memory will be in accordance with CPR PD 57AC, Appendix para 1.3.

This states that human memory:

is not a simple mental record of a witnessed event that is fixed at the time of the experience and fades over time, but

is a fluid and malleable state of perception concerning an individual’s past experiences, and therefore

is vulnerable to being altered by a range of influences, such that the individual may or may not be conscious of the alteration.

To these matters I would only add that in cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural – a process which might inelegantly be described as “story creep” – may occur without any inference of bad faith.

No judge would consider it proper to reach a conclusion about a witness’s credibility based solely on the way that he or she gives evidence, at least in any normal circumstances. The ordinary process of reasoning will draw the judge to consider a number of other matters, such as the consistency of the account with known facts, with previous accounts given by the witness, with other evidence, and with the overall probabilities. However, in a case where the facts are not likely to be primarily found in contemporaneous documents the assessment of credibility can quite properly include the impression made upon the court by the witness, with due allowance being made for the pressures that may arise from the process of giving evidence. Indeed in family cases, where the question is not only ‘what happened in the past?’ but also ‘what may happen in the future?’, a witness’s demeanour may offer important information to the court about what sort of a person the witness truly is, and consequently whether an account of past events or future intentions is likely to be reliable.

I therefore respectfully agree with what Macur LJ said in Re M (Children) at [12], with emphasis on the word ‘solely’:

“It is obviously a counsel of perfection but seems to me advisable that any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so.”

…

28…There will be cases where the manner in which evidence is given about such personal matters will properly assume prominence. As Munby LJ said in Re A (A Child) (No. 2) [2011] EWCA Civ. 12 said at [104] in a passage described by the Judge as of considerable assistance in the present case:

“Any judge who has had to conduct a fact-finding hearing such as this is likely to have had experience of a witness - as here a woman deposing to serious domestic violence and grave sexual abuse - whose evidence, although shot through with unreliability as to details, with gross exaggeration and even with lies, is nonetheless compelling and convincing as to the central core… Yet through all the lies, as experience teaches, one may nonetheless be left with a powerful conviction that on the essentials the witness is telling the truth, perhaps because of the way in which she gives her evidence, perhaps because of a number of small points which, although trivial in themselves, nonetheless suddenly illuminate the underlying realities.”

Still further, demeanour is likely to be of real importance when the court is assessing the recorded interviews or live evidence of children. Here, it is not only entitled but expected to consider the child’s demeanour as part of the process of assessing credibility, and the accumulated experience of listening to children’s accounts sensitises the decision-maker to the many indicators of sound and unsound allegations.

10-29

Example 3: A child’s reason for silence

Experience has shown that children may not speak out about something that has happened to them for a number of reasons. A child may:

• be confused about what has happened or about whether or not to speak out;

• blame him/herself for what has happened or be afraid that he/she will be blamed for it and punished;

• be afraid of the consequences of speaking about it, either for him/herself and/or for another member of the family (such as {specify});

• may feel that he/she may not be believed;

• may have been told to say nothing and threatened with the consequences of doing so;

• may be embarrassed because he/she did not appreciate at the time that what was happening was wrong, or because he/she enjoyed some of the aspects of the attention they were getting;

• simply blank what happened out and get on with their lives until the point comes when they feel ready or the need to speak out {e.g. for the sake of a younger child who he/she feels may be at risk};

• may feel conflicted: loving the abuser but hating the abuse.

20-7

Just because W has not given a consistent account does not necessarily mean that W’s evidence is untrue. Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can happen whether a person is telling the truth or not.

20-8

Just because a person gives a consistent account about an event does not necessarily mean that account must be true, any more than inconsistent accounts must be untrue.

…

You should not assume that the way W gave evidence is an indication of whether or not the allegation is true. Witnesses react to giving evidence about allegations of rape/sexual assault in a variety of ways. Some people will show emotion or distress and may cry. But other people will seem very calm or unemotional. The presence or absence of emotion or distress when giving evidence is not a good indication of whether the person is telling the truth or not.

That said, and considering the authorities set out above, the Report of the Inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland 1987 Cm 412 and Report of the Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney in February 1991 among others and the contents of the current ABE Guidance, I am satisfied that this court can take judicial notice of the following matters:

Children, and especially young children, are suggestible.

Memory is prone to error and easily influenced by the environment in which recall is invited.

Memories can be confabulated from imagined experiences, it is possible to induce false memories and children can speak sincerely and emotionally about events that did not in fact occur.

Allegations made by children may emerge in a piecemeal fashion, with children often not reporting events in a linear history, reporting them in a partial way and revisiting topics.

The wider circumstances of the child’s life may influence, explain or colour what the child is saying.

Factors affecting when a child says something will include their capacity to understand their world and their role within it, requiring caution when interpreting children’s references to behaviour or parts of the body through the prism of adult learning or reading.

Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence by leading or otherwise suggestive questions, repetition, pressure, threats, negative stereotyping and encouragement, reward or praise.

Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence as the result of bias or preconceived ideas on the part of the interlocutor.

Accounts given by children are susceptible to contamination by the statements of others, which contamination may influence a child’s responses.

Children may embellish or overlay a general theme with apparently convincing detail which can appear highly credible and be very difficult to detect, even for those who are experienced in dealing with children.

Video-recorded interviews with children are hearsay evidence but may be admitted as evidence

of truth of the statement in family proceedings. Such interviews should be conducted in accordance with the detailed guidance in Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (ABE) (latest edition 2022) although this guidance is non-statutory. The court can make findings based on ABE evidence so long as it is alive to the hearsay nature of the evidence and the age of the children at the time of interview (Re M (Sexual Abuse: Evidence) [2010] EWCA Civ 1030). In TW v A City Council [2011] 1 FLR 1597, CA, the Court of Appeal found that the inadequacies of the ABE interview were so manifest, even allowing for a broad margin of latitude to anyone conducting such an interview, that no evidential weight could be placed on it. In particular, it was not sufficient for a judge to rely primarily on the fact that a child might be able to stand up to and overcome a thoroughly unsatisfactory interview; rather, a clear analysis of all the evidence was required and the child’s interview had to be assessed in that context. In Re W; Re F (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 1300, the forensic value of the ABE interviews was found to be minimal such that the trial judge had been wrong to attach any weight to them. Whether the flaws in ABE evidence are so fundamental as to render the interviews wholly unreliable is a matter for the trial judge who must analyse the process thoroughly to evaluate whether any of the allegations made in such inter views can be relied upon (see Re E (A Child) (Evidence) [2017] 1 FLR 1675, CA, Re M-Y (Children) [2019] 1 FLR 79, CA and Re C (A Child) (Fact-Finding) [2022] EWCA Civ 584 where the Court of Appeal dismissed a father’s appeal against findings in care proceedings where criticisms were made of ABE interviews).

The importance of complying with the ABE guidance, which is directed at both criminal and family proceedings, has been reiterated by this Court in a series of cases including TW v A City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 17, Re W, Re F [2015] EWCA Civ 1300,  Re E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473, Re Y and F (Children) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2019] EWCA Civ 206 and in the judgments of MacDonald J in AS v TH and others [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam) and Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27. It is unnecessary to repeat at any length the extensive comments set out in some of those judgments. For the purposes of this appeal, the following points are of particular relevance. (Save where indicated, the paragraphs cited are from the ABE guidance.)

Hearsay evidence is admissible as a matter of law, but…this evidence and use to which it is put has to be handled with the greatest care and in such a way that, unless the interest of the child make it necessary, the rules of natural justice and the rights of the parents are fully and properly observed.

In considering the extent to which, if at all, a judge would rely on the statements of a child made

to others, the age of the child, the context in which the statement was made, the surrounding circumstances, previous behaviour of the child, opportunities for the child to have knowledge from other sources, any knowledge, as in this case, of a child’s predisposition to tell untruths or to fantasise, are among the relevant considerations.

The reliability of the person relating what the child said is of vital importance.

4 Considerations relevant to weighing of hearsay evidence.

[A109]

MGM did not ask C if MGF had touched her. MGM asked C whether MGF goes into her bedroom to get her up for school and C said no and that MGF calls her from the bottom of the stairs in the morning when it is time for her to get up and ready for school.

[K126]

When we initially attended the address, C was sat on the sofa eating Mcdonalds [sic]. She was not visibly upset by our presence, and said that she would be ok to talk to us. MGM then started to speak to officers about the allegations and how she and the rest of the family are 'fuming' about it. I reminded MGM that we should not speak about it in front of C, and that we would need to speak to C alone.

[K127]

MGM mentioned that she and the family were 'fuming' and want to provide statements about how this is not true. She said they had questioned C and she had denied that anything had ever

happened. I advised MGM that we would not recommend asking C questions, and that conversations about the investigation should not be happening in front of her.

[E42]

MGM then told me that she had to have an emergency blood test as her potassium was very low. She raised this several times, saying her potassium and BP ere [sic] a problem and that her GP said she could die (this was in front of C).

[Z49]

I told her that her social worker is going to tell the judge that she would be very worried if C returned to the care of her mum or grandmother and that Ms Sharma says she should remain in her current placement until she is 18. I asked her how she felt about it and she said “good” with a big smile on her face.

…

C told me she doesn’t know where she wishes to live for the rest of her childhood. She told me she feels safest in her placement but happiest at the grandmother’s home. She told me that she would prefer if adults made a decision that they think is best for her and that she would not be sad if the Judge decided that she should stay with her current foster carers.

[Z44]

C is happy and settled in her placement and she enjoys spending time with her maternal grandmother twice a week and with her mother less regularly within the community. C attends a school in [] where she started whilst she was in the care of her family. Whilst she enjoys going to school and forged some friendships there, the travel is taking its toll on her and impacting on the activities she is able to do in her placement.

[Z45]

C benefited from at least some good enough care during her early childhood when her mum was stable and did not misuse substances.

[E36]

She denied any guilt with M, saying, ‘She’s got no reason to be like that’ (the dysfunctional way that she is and inability to safely parent her children). Again, sadly, I feel this reflects MGM’s difficulties in understanding her children’s lived experiences and how these have impacted their development and outcomes. She dismisses anything in M’s childhood/upbringing that might have led to at least some of her negative behaviours and cannot see the patterns in her own difficulty parenting the children: with care and social service experiences, domestic abuse/violence, none of her children completing secondary school education, all the children using drugs and themes of criminality and anti-social behaviours. This is not about blame (which MGM feels she is attributed with), however, the reality of her own children’s lived experiences

– and those of some of her grandchildren – have been that their care has not been adequate or safe enough, and thus has affected their welfare.”

[E36]

As to [], MGM told me that he has ‘backed off’ since she got the Court order against him and isn’t coming around at this time. However, this was rather undermined by [] and his girlfriend turning up in the back garden while I was there…MGM has very little power and control over the family visits to her home and does not want to turn her adult children down, at least in part due to her guilt and her sense of ‘protecting her own’.

[E38]

Neither was MGM able to locate any of the behaviours within family relationships, modelling or experiences, or parental/adult difficulties in managing emotional or behavioural needs and my impression was that this was an unmanageable area for them (and they have too many competing demands already to deal with) and therefore C would be likely to be vulnerable in the same respect, perhaps repeating some of the negative cycles that have been enduring in the family.

[E49]

Unfortunately, it is my concern that, should C return to live with her grandmother, this will not be sustainable as it would be most likely the challenging emotions and behaviours would recur and MGM is no more equipped to deal with them now than she has ever been (with her own children or her grandchildren). In my opinion, there is a plethora of evidence as to MGM’s significant challenges in parenting/caregiving and would indicate that she would be unlikely to be able to cope with C’s developing emotional and behavioural needs over time and therefore

there would be a high risk of relationship/family breakdown.

[E65-E66]

- C’s diet/health; this was not something MGM was previously able to manage, resulting in C being obese and therefore compromising her fitness and health. Issues around food and control remain as observed during family time.

…

- C’s emotional and behavioural needs: while in her grandmother’s care, C would have uncontrollable ‘tantrums’ which would lead to MGM locking herself in her bedroom until C calmed down…

…

- C’s educational outcomes: MGM has not been able to support any of her own children to access secondary level education (due to them being beyond her parental control and their own significant traumas and difficulties)…

…

- C’s protection: MGM acted appropriately and protectively in removing C from her parents care after what had been a long period whereby C was subjected to abuse and neglect (which MGM said she did not realise the extent of), and MGM has previously had to intervene to safeguard other grandchildren. C’s mother is a regular visitor to the property and continues to misuse substances and demonstrate withdrawal behaviours (such as pacing during the night disrupting the household). While MGM has said she would not have M in the home if C [was] there, the assessor considers this an unlikely outcome based upon historical information as to M being there with C and upon seeing M myself there when she was staying overnight during this assessment process. It is not manageable for MGM to maintain boundaries around this: she considers it a rejection of her daughter…

…

- risk of placement breakdown: MGM has sadly been unable to fulfil the duties upon her as a Special Guardian in respect to an older granddaughter and there are various complications and concerns in respect to that relationship.

[Z48]

MGM appears unable to empathise with Child B’s experiences and she does not see why breakdown of her relationship with Child B is relevant to C’s case. She shifts a lot of responsibility for C’s current situation on Child B and other children in the family. This is significant and it raises concerns about her ability to protect C when/if C needs/wishes come in contradiction with MGM’s beliefs.”

[Z51]

If placed in the care of the wider family members, C should be able to maintain her relationships with her siblings and cousins and she would continue to attend her current school.

[Z53]

The current level of contact is impacting on C’s placement. However, it is difficult to know how her placement will be effected by such a drastic reduction. Under their Looked After Procedures, the Local Authority should consider whether it is in C’s best interest to spend time with her family 12 times a year (in total). Some of the sessions could be joined by mother and grandmother (if their relationship at one particular time allows it). The sessions can be shared at a ratio of 9 for grandmother and 4 for mother. I do not believe that a contact order is in C’s best interest as this is likely to reduce the Local Authority’s ability to protect her and promote her emotional wellbeing…

An agreement to undertake life story work;

Provision for 8 sessions of contact with MGM per annum, 3 with M per annum and 1 joint per annum;

Incorporate the contact reduction plan into the care plan so it is available to the IRO;

Confirmation the meeting point for contact with MGM is the currently used leisure centre (the reduction plan names the wrong location) but an agreement to review any proposals for a different venue for each contact from MGM;

Confirmation that there can be indirect contact with M before or after Christmas and C’s birthday;

Confirmation the proposed direct contact with MGM will be for 2 hours but that a request for longer contact, particularly in holidays, will be reviewed if MGM makes a proposal for a particular activity during contact (such as a visit to the cinema and meal or a visit to the coast or other excursion) including contact periods for as long as 6 hours;

Provision of advice and guidance to MGM on child focused conversation;

Provision of a plan for sibling contact;

Provision for a risk assessment of MGM’s contact after a suitable period of monitoring of compliance with the written agreement and in light of MGM’s changed position in these proceedings in relation to placement.