London Borough of Hillingdon v Y (Mother) & Ors

case.

they were flat mates, akin to second cousins. (See C& F assessment March 2022). She stated that in 2017 they had a relationship but that he had hit her twice while in a deep sleep. She stated that he was racist and did not date women of colour. However, now they are a couple, engaged to be married and live together.

her GP surgery in January 2022 stating that X had slapped her, and she was concerned about his mental health. The receptionist called the police because Y
was 22 weeks pregnant with twins and there were concerns around domestic abuse.

concerns about the mental health of both parents. When X was interviewed
by the police, he said he was mumbling due to PTSD, and said that he was being followed. The police attended their home March 2022 and concluded that both Y and X were suffering from undiagnosed mental health conditions. At the time the twins were still in the neo-natal unit.

in the neo-natal unit until 30 March 2022 when they were transferred to their local neo- natal unit which was the local hospital for the parents. Below I set out the health concerns for the twins.

defect–small hole in between the 2 receiving chambers of the heart, chronic lung disease–required supplemental oxygen. She had retinopathy of prematurity grade
1–abnormal blood vessel formation at the back of the eyes and small intraventricular haemorrhage grade 2–resolved

foramen ovale–small hole in between the 2 receiving chambers of the heart and a small intraventricular haemorrhage grade 2and retinopathy of prematurity stage II-III

would not answer DASH questions, that X suffered PTSD. Y told the LA that the twins were conceived through IVF. (See C& F assessment March 2022). There were concerns about parenting capacity, undiagnosed mental health which led to
the twins being on a Children in Need plan.

The initial plan was for the LA to provide support under section 17 CA89, a CIN plan because Y was going to engage with the Perinatal Mental Health team and X would engage with MHT but Y had expressed that she did not wish
to engage.

have expressed concerns about Y’s mental health. Perinatal referred Y to AMPH for MHA assessment.

2003 because of Y’s presentation and reactions to the LA. Y did not attend the assessment leading to the team seeking a warrant from Willesden Magistrates court for a mandatory assessment in May 2022 [“the Mental Health Act warrant”].

would not start proceedings because the parents would cooperate and that the mother would move to a mother and baby residential unit for an assessment.

to be discharged. The hospital would not discharge the twins to the parents because they were unable to care for the children competently and confidently.

him that she would be taking the children home. Nurse II sent a further email stating the same that the parents had threatened to take the children home. The

hospital contacted the LA but also the police and obtained a police protection order
[“the Section 46 order”] preventing removal from the hospital.

serve the mother with a letter of intent. Y refused to take hand of the letter, but
the contents were explained to her by SW, AN.

together to foster care where they have remained ever since. The parents had contact three times a week at a centre with the children which has continued to
date.

assessments were directed as well as disclosure of the papers for any residential unit identified. The psychiatric and psychological assessments were undertaken for both parents individually and were updated after receipt of the parents’ incomplete

medical history.

was adjourned generally. Parents made an application to restrain LA from vaccinating twins – the application does not specify which vaccinations should be resisted but led to order on 5^th September 20222 refusing the application and recording that LA can go ahead with all routine vaccines and that G may be given the Palivizumab vaccine while F may be given Palivizumab if required. There have been numerous C2 applications that are set out in section B of the bundle. The adjourned IRH was August 2023.

agreement but I have not found the order in the bundle. Contact commenced in the contact centre twice a week for two hours. The first parenting assessment (by SS) was undertaken in 2022 and the outcome was negative. X undertook a cognitive assessment and communicourt assessment.

parenting assessment in September 2023. The court sanctioned this because the final hearing set for September 2023, had to be adjourned for judicial illness. Because the adjourned final hearing was set for March 2024, there was sufficient time for a further parenting assessment.

below for the issues) commenced in October 2023. The parents did not attend any further sessions after the mid-way report in November 2023, because the ISW (CC) recommended contact reduce to twice a week for two hours. The ISW filed the final

report in January 2024, again negative. On application in December 2023, the court directed contact to remain at three times a week but reducing each session to two hours which was appealed. At the pre-trial review in Feb 2024 the LA were directed to file a Supervision Order support plan and directions given for filing final evidence, and a transparency order was made.

to restrain the hospitals from disclosing medical notes for parents and babies. Applications for writs for perverting the course of justice.

are 8 appeals of the 22 C2 applications with the most recent one being struck out and wholly without merit. Most of the applications were repetitive, incoherent, or lacking in the relevant law and were dismissed by various judges. The final applications that I dealt with at trial are set out above and had elements of all three characteristics. The relevant law below was provided to the parents at the pre-trial review to assist and focus them.

under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989, generally known as the threshold criteria. The court may only make a care order if it is satisfied that at the relevant date 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 her.

significant impact on current functioning, including in domains relevant to this childcare matter, such as interpersonal relationships, and ability to cooperate and work harmoniously with others, significantly services and agencies which would need to be involved, were the twins to be returned to Y. This is a relevant fact
when considering the physical and emotional welfare of the twins with Y.

personality traits (not a personality disorder) which impact her thinking and behaviour with professionals and can potentially prevent her recognising risks of harm to the children and prevent her prioritising the children over her own intractable views on parenting which I consider against the welfare context below.

and mentalisation based therapy [MBT] and pointed out that Y would need to give provider the reports. He stated that the therapy could take 12-24 months. After that a period of testing /embedding would be required to see if there was improvement in parenting.

concerned that even if Y was able to obtain the therapy there were concerns that it could be unsuccessful especially if Y does not embrace the process and he felt that this was likely given her relationships with professionals.

take photos and he declined. This was an inappropriate request by Y.

performance on neuropsychological testing, his provisional opinion was that Y is not suffering from a neuropsychological condition or significant neuropsychological symptoms that could be attributed to a head injury.

anxiety, and personality disorder, she denied a history of significant mental health problems during his assessment with her.

have influenced her patterns of interpersonal interaction through her adult life and could, in theory, influence how she relates to others in positions of authority, which in turn could influence her interactions with health and social care professionals.

neuropsychological condition that requires treatment or other support. However, he did recognise and acknowledge her issues with authority above.

of engagement is not due to underlying mental health issues (without seeing her full medical history). This unknown potentially places the twins at harm.

authority/ agencies likely presents significant obstacle to the safety of the children, now and in the future.

the bundle.

section 2 sets out Y’s involvement in the participation of X’s assessment. Y stated that she would answer the call from Dr McC to X, she would leave the room and that the doctor should note that X would be providing pre-prepared answers.

Dr McC did not see X’s full medical notes.

an anti-psychotic medication.

contained a copy of his qualification in law, there must have been a marked decline in his cognitive functioning since that time as someone with the difficulties he noted at interview, would have very much struggled to obtain a university level qualification, in any subject.

name and occupation, and he seemed unable to clearly explain what the local authority were worried about, regarding him and the mother.

in July 2023. He notes that some paperwork was from 1961 even though X was born in 1965 that X was discharged from army in 1991 (31 years ago) but not diagnosed with PTSD. He states that the paperwork he reviewed mentions PTSD and personality disorder.

of mental health illness at present. His concerns relate to cognitive and psychological issues.

functioning, and the ability to undertake a parenting assessment.

diagnosis of PTSD, his prescription of antipsychotic medication and reports of past paranoia regarding the traveller community. He was seen by the Community Mental Health Team and he is described as having difficulty in managing his anger with emotional outbursts. Despite such recorded features there is little definite evidence

of a specific diagnosis or reasoning as to his need for medication and this remains unclear according to Dr McClintock.

verbal /perceptual reasoning comprehension were low. X stated that he did not understand LA’s concerns. Dr Mann states:

has ever experienced mental health difficulties and his inattention/overly positive response within the personality profile which invalidated the measure. X’s unusual presentation is likely to be a combination of his impaired processing ability and probable underlying mental illness and trauma of which he has poor insight and understanding. His presentation and denial of difficulties maintains the uncertainty of any mental health diagnosis.

understanding, his cognitive profile and his presentation would suggest otherwise. His verbal comprehension was not within the impaired range and, by itself, would not hinder his level of understanding, but it is his ability to process information that impacts on other areas of his cognition according to the doctor.

to very poor attention, distractibility, difficulty in learning and retaining information and integrating such information cognitively. Thus, a Communicourt assessment was conducted (see below).

reports have highlighted issues about X’s cognitive functioning with reports of a cerebellum injury, radiation exposure impacting on his communication, and issues relating to confusion and disorientation.

and LA he noted that that X could hear everything during their assessment (there was a suggestion that his ears were blocked which prevented his participation), that he could not comment on PTSD because he found no evidence of it in the review of X’s army records.

out that she has never harmed the children and that she was right to question all decisions and they were not a personality trait. She stated that.

had no legitimate role in matters of child welfare/ safety, and also even that the family court lacked legitimacy and that is very unusual. Mother was defending
herself in that she considered the local authority was misguided in instigating the proceedings because she considers herself to be a good mother. However, she has cooperated with the LA as best she can and much has been achieved in the raising of G and F due, in significant part, to mother recognising the legitimacy of the local authority and has, thereby, deferred to the experience and knowledge of social workers.

because she recognises their wealth of experience. Mother has a love for English law and its principle of habeas corpus. Mother denies that her making an observation on how family courts operate across England, is indicative of an abnormal personality.

Indeed, she would relish a rational and objective conversation about how the role of family courts fits within English law. A love of law and justice does not mean one is suffering from an abnormal personality. Mother feels that had she not had post- partum hypertension with oedema in her legs or the trauma of separation from her babies and care proceedings that she would in fact have performed much higher in Dr.Prangnell’s assessments of her. Neither consultant has appreciated mother’s background in troubleshooting when she was trained by KCW CHC and Community Health Council officer after medical school, which has been her raison d'etre at the time.

CHC complaints manager experiences as challenging behaviour towards authority when this is not the case. Mother feels it is right to exercise parental responsibility by questioning staff for second opinions, informed consent and her medico-legal
choices.

of this on a supervision order and she is willing to undergo CBT related to unlearning of subjects that she learned at CHC, medical school and law school should they deem it necessary. Otherwise, mother feels she has a stealthy and steadfast mind dedicated to her family which will never allow them to come to any harm as her grandiosity is exhibited in her appetite for second opinions and always checking her family’s legal rights.

that ‘any defamatory challenges will be sued out at high court in Kings Bench from X. Any defamation of his character, reputation or any insults / libel / slander will be dealt by a military grade solicitor for him’. “

any harm could be caused to the twins by this thinking but on justifying the statements she made to the doctors, essentially. The response demonstrates a lack of insight by Y, it is defensive and deflective and no thought on welfare.

AD and Professor NY to give evidence which was declined as it was not necessary, but the parents filed without permission medical reports /notes from both which were in the main bundle. The mother describes the assessment as a three-hour cognitive battery by Professor NY. Dr AD states X’s cognitive ability is rated as under functioning, that his processing speed is very low within the second percentile, that his speech was ‘slow, effortful and poorly articulated and below the level expected’.

reasoning. So, Dr AD’s tests results are very similar to Dr Mann’s results if not even less supportive of X’s position.

reasoning scores rather than what Dr AD said about his cognition. They further provided a letter from an SLT, EN, who suggested Talking Therapy

because when she spoke with X, she thought his poor communication was brought on by stress despite it been ongoing prior to the proceedings.

MRI is not the method to identify cognitive difficulties. Thus, the written material from the witnesses the parents wanted to call did not support their assertion that X was cognitively capable as I have set out above.

being blocked with wax. None of the medical assessments suggest that X could not hear during the assessments.

and no conclusions were provided. At the second assessment the assessor set out recommendations for questioning, breaks to ensure X’s participation.

the assistance and appointment of an intermediary because his cognitive ability was higher than assessed.

including a blocked ear which had not been drained at the time of the assessments. Neither Dr Mann nor Dr McE reported hearing difficulties.

communicourt assessment), a key feature of all three is Y’s involvement in the assessment. It does not detract from my conclusion about X’s mental health, but Y’s involvement poses a question as to why she will not let the professionals assess X alone and how that might impact on the care and welfare of the twins.

Academy that are in his name to prove that he was capable. Given that his cognitive ability is limited and that the courses were all online – E- courses and that in oral evidence X said that he did not type anything, I do not believe he undertook these courses. It is not matter I weigh in assessing threshold or welfare, but it does
support the view that X does not recognise his own limitations.

a fact set out by Dr AD but both parents deny this.

as to why X cannot care for the twins which means there is no way of remedying, supporting, or protecting the twins if cared by X alone. This unknown is harmful, and it is not within the twin’s welfare time scales to spend any more time trying to ascertain the reasons. But I do not agree with the parent’s explanation and prefer the evidence of the experts regarding X’s cognition and that impacts his care of the children.

traits that impacted on her care of the children. The evidence demonstrated that X has cognitive and physical difficulties which he refuses to admit and impact on his care of the children.

help me assess welfare.

the hospital, the second period when the contact was in a contact centre with the twins and third period the contact in the centre when the twins are 18 months to present date where contact reduced from nine hours a week to six hours but was supervised by two contact workers.

neo-natal unit being born three months early. Y at the beginning would not wear a mask without checking with lawyers, she asked for specific nurses not to look after the children. Y asked that eye drops not be used in a test

[4.4.22]. Y was stressed, asked for a baby to have a blood transfusion, and asked for the chaplain [10.4.22]. Y tried to feed baby while baby was lying flat, the nurse intervened because it was unsafe [12.4.22].

that she had three degrees, call a magistrate and the police because she did not want the twins to be separated. They described her as rude, confrontational, and aggressive. [27^th June 2022]

doctors advised that the twins should have fortnightly eye checks because of risk of sudden progression of retinopathy but Y would only consent to three-week visits without a second opinion [25.4.22].

turning blue and stopped breathing [2.5.22] and X poured large amounts of milk into the baby’s mouth, and it was dangerous. Y did not want the twins to be vaccinated [16.5.22] and would contact lawyers. On one occasion with parents G’s, oxygen dial turned down to 0.031/min from 0.11/min [20.5.22] but nothing to prove the parents turned it down.

children, she showed concern and affection for the children. She fed them and occasionally settled them [26.4.22] and [29.4.22] and had skin on skin contact [2.5.22]. But Y was preoccupied sometimes with deliveries, was very tired as the care was constant and new.

between 30^th March 2022 and June 2022. The notes highlight the difficulties of looking after children born prematurely and the importance of following the advice of the doctors and nurses who have specialist knowledge. While the notes demonstrate some difficulties with feeding and the mother’s worries the overriding theme is the confrontational attitude of Y.

with staff, I do not understand why she would argue with the professionals when it was clear that they were experts, and it was in the welfare of the children to follow the advice of professionals.

those decisions could harm the children, like her opinion on eye checks and vaccinations where the time was of the essence to protect the twins. It seems to me

that her difficult personality trait interfered with her ability to absorb what the doctors told her and potentially placed the children at risk. But I balance that against the fact that she was scared and stressed although I cannot ignore the risk of potential harm that the twins faced at that time.

centre, the level of interaction between Y and the twins improved but not with the professionals.

sometimes homemade, she changed the nappies, she played with them, read them books, sang to them, said prayers, and spoke to them appropriately. Y showed appropriate concern when she noticed little red spots near G’s eye. She gave them equal attention.

concern that Y was feeding the twins to many types of food. Y interacts well with the twins as they climb onto the sofa, or they are dancing, and she is singing. Y is very hands on. Y feeds them, plays with them. In most of the early contact notes X follows Y’s instructions. His interaction is limited with the twins in the first 18 months.

supervisor or professional, it escalates. The supervisor asked her not to give
the twins extra milk, Y did not agree, and Y rang the police during the contact on 22.7.22, in front of the twins. This response was an example of Y’s resistance to advice and an example of her difficult personality trait impacting welfare.

court bundle. Of these 76 reported no Protection/Safeguarding concerns. The remaining 21 showed comparatively minor concerns, largely to be expected from a first-time mother who had never experienced extremely premature babies at all. This inexperience rapidly improved with the expert guidance from family support workers, so that concerns about Y as a mother fell away.”

the mother’s care which centre around exercising judgment and welfare.

running around a lot and require constant supervision and Y undertakes this mainly while X is in the kitchen, cleaning or out buying food. X talks to

himself and the children ignore him most of the time. There are a lot of examples where the children fall over or bump their heads which are due to lack of supervision by the parents.

fell over, got hit by toys as referenced above and it was a session observed by CC. 178. Y feeds the children healthy foods like berries, watermelon, she makes food and

buys food. The mealtime seems quite interactive with a variety of food, but CC expressed concern that the children were hungry because Y kept changing the food before they had finished.

and respond. This was confirmed by the Guardian in evidence.

entertain the children through reading, singing, playing. She is clearly trying hard to create a homely atmosphere in the contact room by bringing lots of toys, but they are a tripping hazard and the children fall over a lot. Y did not like being told often to stop the children climbing onto the sofa, putting bangles and dominos in their mouths and there is a concern over the lack of boundaries.

provide support through getting food, cleaning and clearing. The notes show that Y undertakes most playing, reading books, singing, showing videos on her phone.

the notes any other type of engagement with the children by X. X did sing happy birthday to them: X sat down and was happily singing a happy birthday song to the children. He mumbled. He stroked their heads and was showing them some affection, but much of his time is assisting Y, cleaning, fetching and well away from the children.

contact supervisors. The notes suggest that X was unstable on his feet. The notes also demonstrate that Y and X are supervised by two contact workers

who actively intervene. Contact is supervised not supported. In the most recent contact notes of February and March 2024 on issues of boundaries and safety:

and was laughing, the supervisors told mum, she must try to stop her from doing this and not laugh at her. Mum said she does not know how too. Mum was advised to

say no, stop throwing the food on the floor. G tipped the books from the shelf onto the floor. F sat looking through books. F tipped a box of Lego brick onto the floor, mum said Mumma said no. G continued to do this and tipped the rest over the floor.”

sufficiently for contact to move to the family home between Y and the twins. There has been no application of what they learnt in the parenting assessments or from

the FSW to the children consistently.

centre felt that two supervisors were necessary because the parents could not manage the twins safely which translates to a concern that the parents could not keep them safe at home if they were allowed home. As set out above if the centre raised a safety concern about tripping / climbing Y tended to deflect by blaming the room set up or pointing out other hazards like the plug sockets.

blocking off, putting safety locks on cupboards and doors but he could not elaborate on this or explain in detail which concerned me about how he could specifically keep the children safe. In response to XX from Y where he was led on each question so

that he answered everything with a yes or no, he confirmed that he would provide close protection for the children. However, the SW, the PAMS assessors, the Guardian and the FSW all reported the lack of engagement and involvement by X in the care at contact.

safeguarding concerns in the section on safeguarding which she said suggested there were no concerns. LL responded that the way the notes were completed was

unfortunate but that the notes set out the concerns such as the examples set out above.

loving bond and severing of that bond will have an impact on the twin’s welfare if
the court sanctions placement but that must be balanced against the potential harm the twins could suffer if the parents are not able to follow the advice of professionals. The later contact while maintaining those aspects of bonding above, the parenting demonstrated a lack of boundaries, lack of control over the children, an ability to keep them safe in a small space.

twins, and I attach a lot of weight to contact because it is primary evidence on the relationship, below when thinking about reunification at home but I must balance that against the risk set out above that was demonstrated in contact since the

children would wish to be safe as well as being with their parents. Thus, it is very important that I analyse their parenting capability by considering the parenting assessments and what they learnt there and if risks could be managed or extinguished.

the mother’s lawyers, and she had specific questions to answer in her report and she had a specific remit to follow as set out in her instructions.

threatening legal proceedings, Y’s dismissal of Dr McC and Dr Mann’s reports on X. She described herself as X’s carer and that she can support X with his needs. She was concerned about the contradictory information, unverified information instead of absorbing parenting skills.

had difficulty focusing on the question asked, going off topic, while X’s responses were limited to one-word answers.

comprehensive profile of the family’s day-to day functioning of the 15 tasks, the parents thought they needed help with one task – feeding.

X struggled to identify when F had eaten enough. SS was concerned
about an incident whereby X refused to feed F when Y was struggling to
manage both twins.

minutes to feed G half a bottle unlike the foster carer where G finished a bottle in ten minutes. SS was concerned about the parent’s ability to consistently put their knowledge into practice.

his own medication and SS was concerned how X could manage a child. Y wanted to attend a paediatric first aid course. SS felt that X could not identify the twins’ cues and failed to comfort G and he walked out of the contact. X could not initiate appropriate play and games.

is that neither child should be placed in the care of Y or X either as individuals or together due to the level of concern regarding Y and X’s ability to safely care for either child. She expands on this by analysing the evidence from the parents and her own observations.

difficulty accepting the views of others if they do not equate with her own. She has been unable to accept expert assessment of X’s vulnerabilities but has instead criticised the way the experts conducted their assessments. Y now asserts that X had sight and hearing problems, which she said she and X had been unaware of up until the time of the expert assessments, and which Y argues significantly impacted X’s ability to complete the testing administered.

will distort information she receives to fit the narrative she wants others to accept. When her narrative is not accepted Y will exhibit, in her view, quite extreme behaviours in the angry messages she sends which tend to include complaints of

discrimination and threats of legal action. In her opinion Y’s approach could be viewed as intimidating by those on the receiving end.

to intimidate her into changing her report because she could not be intimidated.
202. Nevertheless, in terms of understanding the needs and routine of the children, she

thinks Y would struggle because Y’s expectations for the extent of routine the children would have, if placed in her care, would be unrealistic e.g., she cited the children’s toileting needing to be at set times. During contacts, Y has at times struggled to maintain the twins feeding routine despite being provided with times when the children next required food.

children. She noted that Y would drift mid-way through care resulting in neither child receiving adequate care.

needs and he has had limited involvement with the children, has difficulty completing even basic tasks for the children and his contact with them to date has lacked quality, so no observable attachment exists.

failed to attend the hospital to be with the children because she said she was staying home to care for X as he was unwell. SS states that there are multiple concerns about the ability to provide simply good enough care for the twins.

concludes that they have minimal ability to identify risks and protect the children from emotional harm. Neither appear to have demonstrated any consideration as to possible impact on the children when X became angry at contact ad reportedly ‘stormed out’ of the contact room.

needs not being consistently met. Neither have considered the emotional impact on the children by their developmental needs being compromised because of the overly restrictive approach taken by Y during contact.

placement, compared to how they present during contact, in her opinion indicates that they present as mostly unresponsive babies, with bland, unsmiling faces, whilst in the care of the parents. This is in stark contrast to the babbling, smiling laughing presentation they have whilst with their foster carer.

neglect. Both minimise and do not accept the risk of domestic abuse and the dynamics of their relationship suggest to SS that Y is dominant, and X complies, although Y prioritises X’s needs over the children. SS states:

to unquestioningly accept what she says. that X will look to Y for guidance in his responses and she has observed Y to quickly become angry with X, telling him to ‘stop lying’, when he was providing information regarding his finances during the assessment. However, X has been noted to act in an angry manner when he has not wanted to do as Y . SS is concerned that Y has dismissed expert assessment of X and she does not accept the cognitive and physical difficulties he is seen to have.

hard to see how she will ensure his needs are met. Without an acceptance of his difficulties, Y could overestimate his ability to provide care for the children and this could result in the children’s physical and emotional needs not being met or them experiencing physical harm. Y appears to prioritise X’s needs above those of the children and her concern would be that the twins need would become secondary to any requirements of X.

while they present as working with the family support worker, they disregard the advice given, that they accuse professionals of discrimination, threatening legal action when their narrative not accepted, and she considers that it is disguised compliance. It is not meaningful.

would indicate that he will also start to threaten legal action when professionals do not agree with his narrative – his narrative parroting that of Y. She has serious concern that Y ‘gaslights’ in that she will change information – often keeping some of the original information to provide her new narrative with an element of legitimacy – and that her distortion of information originally provided she will then refer to as fact.

the parents and professionals is not open, honest, collaborative or likely to be successful. This will impact on the welfare of the children if they are cared for by the parents because oversight by the professionals would be difficult. That is potentially harmful for the twins.

lack of stimulation and attachment of the twins to the parents, the inability of X to contribute to parenting in a meaningful way. Y does not follow the advice of professionals and threatens them with legal action if she feels threatened or challenged. Ms Smith set out an email exchange:

any tourist spots when he was in Estonia for the IVF treatment – and what he thought of the country. He appeared confused by the question and seemed unclear about having travelled to Estonia and as such, I did not ask anything further. The subsequent whats app message I received from Y was ‘ if you need any medical information about where I had my intimate medical procedures could you please direct them to me as X doesn’t know the answer and gets confused when you ask him? If it is private and sexual in nature then I will answer you in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. Thank you. Just to confirm please do not ask about my medical history to X but please direct to me.’

contempt and perceived her as an “antiCorona-PPE” and an “anti-vaxxer” and spirited “Brexiteer” (especially the foreign bank nurses) additionally, prejudicially gave rise to the fake ICO which led to continued pseudo-incarceration of mother by

way of house arrest for purposes of double-blind assessments carried out by SS. If this is not true on a balance of probability; it is impossible for not one person at either the NHS trust or SS have anything positive to say about Y who admittedly is like marmite until people want something from her. h) From racism instigated solely by Turk {name redacted] it is obvious that the ICO against Y does reflect racial discrimination that Y, the twins and X have faced amongst these people. And the court cannot ignore the political dynamics or demographics at play here. And the only way that Y, the babies and their father X will have any restitution in this case is if the SS are forced to produce actual witness evidence against their accusations of Y whom they also describe as “kind and loving”.

enquiries with Bristol university, the House of Lords, various local authorities had not uncovered any verification of SS’s qualifications or experience. Y stated they

looked at her credentials, her experience in premature babies, check her CV , looking out for published articles which was reasonable. SS was not upset by Y checking CVs. Y suggested that SS had represented that she was published, and SS stated
that her CV did not say this nor had she represented this.

the business and stopped issuing licences. SS pointed out that the licences were still valid, that PAMS assessments were still accepted and recognised.

disabilities. Y and X do not have learning difficulties, have degrees. SS continued the PAMS assessment which was what she was instructed. SS stated that she was instructed to undertake a PAMS assessment but that it was equally applicable to parents without learning difficulties.

viewed that there was potential harm. But for SS intervention G, might have suffered harm on an occasion when she observed contact. She was worried that G would fall out of X’s arms and suffer physical harm. Y states that the contact notes indicated that the baby fell into the pillow. G did not fall because SS prevented it. She fell
into a donut pillow. SS refers to incident where X sitting on the sofa, Y positioned

his hands. Y was not the closest in proximity. SS disagreed with Y’s analysis of the incident that G had not come to harm on that occasion.

meeting. She did not speak to Y about supervision orders and input into care plan.
SS does a time limited piece of work.

losing two sisters, mother’s health condition and that SS had not made any

allowance for it. SS stated that there were some references to pre-eclampsia, but her assessment was about parenting. SS was sympathetic but she was involved when the twins were older. Y stated that they were scared until G’s heart defect closed and SS

had sympathy for this. Asked if she should tell LA about this. SS stated that her job was to report on parenting and the management of stresses that are inevitable, and her job was to assess the impact. She tried to be as fair as possible and detailed as possible.

LA and second ISW said the parents would struggle to meet the physical, emotional needs due to lack of attuning and lack of supervision. She would be concerned that Y would leave X in charge of children and his ability to look after the twins. She is concerned that Y cannot work with professionals in the welfare of the children.

point ISW was struggling to engage with Y. The Guardian needed to take a second person with him due to concerns about unfounded allegations. Y stated that she had requested a second person because she was not comfortable discussing female health issues with the Guardian.

months old, the parents had contact 2-3 times a week. But the conclusion of the PAMS report was that the parents individually or together could not care for the twins.

position was that the parents had not made any of the recommended changes to

allow the children to be safe and well in their care. Her concerns were heightened not lessened.

development, follow the advice of professionals, provide support to the children as a couple because of the difficult personality traits of Y.

this point (Jan 2023) the ISW, the medical notes from the local hospital, the contact notes and the assessments from Dr Mann and Dr McE demonstrate that X, the father cannot look after the children on his own. If these concerns were not resolved by
the parents the children could suffer emotional, physical, cognitive harm if cared for by the parents. This risk of harm would not be present if the children were adopted or in long term foster care where the LA share PR.

good bond between Y and the twins, and a second parenting assessment was directed.

that a further parenting assessment was necessary. The Guardian felt that the parents had started to work with the professionals and understand the concerns. The ISW was instructed by the Guardian but chosen collaboratively by the parent’s lawyers and Guardian. This choice was to ensure the best chance for the parents to succeed because they would feel confident with the assessor and work collaboratively.

care proceedings for the parents to demonstrate their ability to meet the needs of their children.

with the parents in their home safely and well. Catherine O’ Callaghan was
instructed [CC] and she provided two reports, a mid-way report in November 2023 and a final report in January 2024.

and 20.10.23, roughly 7 hours, and a phone call on 28.10.23. CC described being emotionally unregulated, making threats to publish details on websites and talking about a forced adoption conspiracy. Asked about engagement with professionals. Y stated it was all made up and reacted strongly when asked about her engagement with CC.

‘I am not, and don’t you dare write that or I’ll have this heard at the high court, I will not have that written about me one more time’. At this stage CC tried to encourage Y to have a break in the session as she was becoming increasingly challenging and confrontational. She refused to take time to calm down and wanted to remain in the room. This was further reinforced at their discussions.

as refusing to follow the structure of the assessment and unable to take on board professional advice and guidance. Such was her behaviour in the third session that
CC ended the session as Y was refusing to exit the room and her voice continued to be raised. Y then began answering yes and no to questions and presented as trying to disrupt the session further. CC asked if she could speak with X alone as he was calm, however Y refused to allow this.

children. CC observed contact twice and described it in her evidence as chaotic and unsafe.

navigate boundaries and safety throughout the session. The supervisor intervened three times to ask the parents to check on the children after they had fallen but Y was unhappy about the intervention stating that the children were fine. Y clearly does not appreciate prompting which she views is criticism.

wondering why Y kept changing their clothes all the time. Y said it was because
she did not get a chance to change them but then stated it was because the clothes were stained but CC did not see a stain.

from the children by Y. It was very difficult to assess X’s actual parenting as he is constantly being restricted and undermined by Y’s controlling behaviour and personality. It is therefore difficult to evidence the quality of his parenting and how the children respond to him when he is being prevented from demonstrating much more than cleaning support tasks. As they are seeking to be assessed as co parents it is important X has the chance to demonstrate how he engages with the children, but it did not happen as he was not allowed.

agreement. CC felt that X must be allowed to engage and interact with the children and test his ability to stimulate the children.

mobility issues and if she felt this would pose any difficulties or risks. She felt that this would not and then say ‘do you want the truth or what they want me to say to you… Close protection is what he does best. I would be happy to leave him for up to two hours or more. Wouldn't go more than 30 mins away by Cab, that's not because of safeguarding issues for X, it’s just because they are twins.

insight into the safeguarding and welfare of the twins according to CC.

presented as confused and reluctant to speak. X is a very vulnerable man. Y seeks to speak over him and remove him from the room throughout contact and sessions. Dr Mann assessed Y as having cognitive issues and of needing a care assessment to better understand his level of needs. I note that Dr Mann later received several

messages from Y referring to the report as ‘slander’.

supervision needs. In the contact Y became focused on the plug sockets being exposed. She was unable to reflect on the points regarding the climbing of the sofas,

pulling lamps.

who blamed the clutter for the accidents, but CC noted the level of injuries was the same

first, but Y wanted to record their meetings, which was refused and questioned CC about the veracity of the assessment, PAMS or KUBAS. She brought a lengthy agenda which would derail the session and the assessment. Y had several expectations like having someone present, recording the sessions and it was unreasonable and not allow her to challenge on the parents’ parenting capacity.

able to provide them. The assessment was a KUBAS assessment and CC stated the mother could make written notes of the meeting not recordings. In evidence and in the report, Y stated that she had a right to make recordings under a transparency rule which CC disagreed.

overwhelmed and the children were falling over, tripping, minor bumps, and bruises. The reduction would allow the parents to grow and develop with the changes. Y pointed out in cross that the environment in a centre is not homely and pointed out that the children were safe when climbing the sofas or playing by the bookcase/ cupboards. The parents did not engage with her after that.

unable to manage the needs of the children within the confines of a contact centre and the supervisor has to offer several prompts and guidance to ensure that the contact is safe for the children. The parents struggled to ensure that the children are physically safe in contact and cannot observe both children safely at the same time, often leading to the children falling or climbing on sofas and tables.

when they do prompt her with the children. Contact therefore, could not be supervised in community either because of the high level of supervision required within the centre and the lack of meaningful engagement with professionals.

from finishing her report, they investigated CC’s qualifications and were thoroughly aggressive and litigious with CC. The Appeal courts dismissed their applications against CC.

concealed threats . They tried to file an injunction against her. Y had accessed a CUBAS power point which referred to recording of sessions. She contacted the
owner and tried to gain information. They would latch onto a phrase and take it out of context.

report, telling her to be quiet during the sessions. They suggested that CC would not re-arrange medical appointments to accommodate the parent’s needs. CC tried to offer other appointments and explained that it was ‘time limited piece of work’ that had to be completed by January 2024. Parents wanted her to attend all the contact sessions which was not reasonable or necessary.

not seen the parents after the October contacts. CC had intended to attend contact on 20.12.23 but she did not attend due to the parents’ threats to report her
to a professional body. Her final report was based on her observations and the agreed documents provided.

language issues. Y has not permitted him the opportunity to meet with professionals alone and has stated that she does not trust professionals to do so after ‘he was given a test when he couldn’t see what was in front of him’. When CC tried to arrange to meet with him alone, she received messages from Y’s phone number claiming to be from X, but X told her that he cannot text and type and therefore dictates to Y. She suspects the messages are from Y. X cannot provide any safeguarding or supervision of the children at home as demonstrated by the
level he provided in the contact centre.

refuses him opportunities to meet with professionals alone. I am troubled that she has also refused him the opportunity to engage with adult services assessments.

Given his own vulnerabilities, X is not being treated fairly or appropriately by Y, and that he is a potential victim of abuse. It is troubling to see the role he plays in supervised contact sessions where Y continually gives him various tasks to do given

his clear mobility difficulties and his desire to spend time with the children. It would be assumed that someone taking on a caring role for him would seek for him to be sat in the contact and engaging with the children. She noted in a recent contact on 19.12.2023 X was seen to almost fall on two occasions.

parents changing, taking on board the concerns of the professionals, and that there was no possible safeguarding to protect the children if returned to the parents.

professionals and is very swift to escalate to threats to harm professionals’ credibility and professional status. She has a very basic understanding of legislation and professional bodies but seeks to weaponize her knowledge with the intention to manipulate and disempower professionals. This behaviour is extremely disruptive to building a working relationship. Y has not been able to remain focused on the children and has sought to create chaos and disruption to this assessment.

much resistance by the parents and, contact must be safe. Parents were in unique position of having so many contact sessions a week, but the parenting did not develop or improve or become attuned to the children’s needs.

required, reading a story is stimulating but should have been interactive. Children walking around and none of the toys played with. Y stepped over toys to show children the phone. They do not sustain it for the duration of contact and in future they need an understanding of child development.

because she believed that Y and X could not work with professionals. CC also had

concerns about the dynamics between X and Y. Y would not take on the advice of professionals and X not able to mitigate the risk that caused of harm to the children because of the unequal dynamics in their relationship.

does not accept that she has caring responsibilities for X , that X cannot assist Y with parenting and they have a limited support network. Y pointed out her friend could help with emergencies and play dates but little else.

supervision leads / may lead to accidental injury as it could have been avoided by greater parental vigilance and awareness. Removing furniture from a room is not child protection.

boundaries are taught and set. Not climbing on furniture, not touching something that could be dangerous is something a child needs to learn from an adult by boundary setting, using tone of voice, saying ‘No’ and intervening to physically stop an accident happening. It is evident that X has so little actual interaction with his children it is difficult to quantify whether he is even aware of the children’s changing needs and development.

Parenting assessment” was farcical as it did not even take place for the long list of detailed reasons given to the judges that are found elsewhere in this bundle and have been explained at great length by the parents. The parents are good enough parents and are witnessed by all contact workers and wardens including the guardian as having given adequate feeding, provided good stimulation with cuddles and age- appropriate toys and the parents always show good emotional insight and more significantly, have never displayed any major deficits in parental supervision, which does not present significant risks to the children’s physical safety. This situation has been discussed ad nauseum and videos displaying this have gone as far as the court of appeal. What these two bad actors are displaying is a “SNAPSHOT” analysis much like the ISW1 over the milk when Mother was bringing in her own with breast milk

added. In a similar way this ISW2 only saw the children when they were learning to climb the sofas for the very first time. And they had been given no parenting classes to learn how to do this.

parenting classes elsewhere”. That’s how little interest she had in this family which at the time had no less than 7 pre-arranged, unavoidable medical appointments for Father. The report of the ISW2 and its incompetency’s and the way that she mistreated the parents surrounding the issues over PAMS vs Cubas vs ParentAssist vs revision materials and not speaking to the friends and family group and refusing to carry out a PCA statutorily compliant assessment is well documented under that title and the parents request that the court read those documents in conjunction as otherwise this will elongate this document to a length that everyone will complain as they usual do.

concerning the aforementioned points and possibly seek counselling with regards to her paranoid thoughts concerning deep fake audio-visual as this is indeed a very new concept for the world to have to endure and CO can be reassured that even deep fake videos can be disproven by police forensics laboratories. And it is simply not nice or in the best interests of our babies for CO to continue to have such a strongly held prejudice, (especially when, even the council, WLFC or WhatsApp, do not use AES triple encryption). We explained that the meta data, binary, blockchain etc is altered no matter how precise the artist believes his work to be. And that the generation of true random numbers remains an unresolved element in computer science. We have assured CO that she does not have anything to fear from us, as the purpose is only to make sure that we are not misreported through miscommunication as detailed by

the reports by Professor S, Dr E, ER, EN, NM, Dr WA, Midwife JI, and others.

work with her. CC did rearrange meetings despite the parents’ medical appointments. Describing the report as farcical, describing the ISW as ‘two bad actors’, ‘the mistreatment of the parents’ demonstrates’ the parents lashing out and

their inability to focus on improving their own parenting skills-deflection. Furthermore Geraldine Weatherall of CUBAS confirmed the integrity of the assessment and the qualifications of CC. GW was contacted by Y, a distraction.

and contemporaneous examples of interaction between parents and twins, and the parents with professionals. This has endured in other professional relationships with the parents. I found SS’ analysis to be very inciteful and accurate about the risk to
the children and there was hope that the parents would take on board the concerns and adjust their behaviour and control their emotions by the time of the second PAMS.

that the parents had not made any of the recommended changes to allow the children to be safe and well in their care. CC maintained this position in the face of aggressive, intimidating cross examination by Y who laughed in CC’s face, called her paranoid and was generally rude and disrespectful to CC. Despite intervention by myself and objection by the LA, Y did not change her behaviour towards CC which is another example of not being able to follow the direction or recommendation of a court or a professional.

achieved. The parents refused to engage after the November report which meant there was no prospect of observing or testing safe contact in the parent’s home. Home contact was not tested due to the parent’s lack of engagement with the assessment and how harmful that could be to the twins.

when this was not allowed. They would not follow the structure of the assessment or engage with it.

they refused to cooperate, and it is another example of refusing to work with professionals or take on board their advice and recommendations. The failure to
take on board recommendations places the children at risk of harm who require
their carers to follow advice to keep them safe which I have considered below.

behaved in both assessments in a similar way, insisting on dictating the terms. They reacted to the assessments in a similar way, aggressively if their terms not met.

assessments being undertaken by different assessors and using different assessment methods.

to have home care and any further assessment or delay is not in the welfare of the twins because the lack of permanency is harmful for the long-term welfare of the twins.

home because it is not safe as professionals cannot monitor the children 24/7 and the parents will not follow the advice from professionals to keep the children safe. They do not identify what area of parenting they think they need help with, which accords with the views of the professionals that they will not engage or have insight.

robust and comprehensive and insightful and highlighted the same issues.

took over at the end of June 2022. Her role has been to collate all the information and decide about the care plan in collaboration with the other managers. In her statements she noted that the children while premature were meeting their developmental milestones but slowly. She highlighted the potential medical risks they might face which she noted from the permanency medical examination.

course the LA are exercising their parental responsibility. The children may be at risk of cerebral palsy, ADHD as mentioned earlier. The mother felt that this diagnosis was orchestrated to scupper return of the children and she asked LL about diagnosis only being made through a psychologist. She also questioned the credentials of the medic who undertook the assessment noting they are not registered with the BMA.

evidence from AN. She observed contact twice at beginning of 2023 and read all the contact notes which fed into her statements but has not observed since due to complaints by the parents.

concerns about X mobility and lack of interaction. Y had accused her of peddling
an agenda of forced adoption and accused her a racism and unfair treatment which LL denied. Y in cross told LL about her health issues, her terror for the
twin’s health which she says contributed to the ‘failure’ of the parenting assessment. LL had sympathy and accepted it would be stressful.

police leading to written communication only between LL and parents. Y further reported LL to police for perverting the course of justice.

solicitors making a working relationship difficult. The mediation was unsuccessful so communication and working together did not improve although LL highlighted good working together over the MMR vaccine. But at the same time Y did not follow the written agreement fully.

amount and she noted while they worked well with FSW, but they would not or could not maintain what FSW taught them.

2023, and she recognised a lot of the positives and had not made decisions on the final care plan. LL accepts that they are a mixed-race family, and the plan took that into account. She does not find it odd that twins appear to look like X and has no influence on LL’s assessment.

term FC also not appropriate because the twins need a permanent home and an opportunity to develop lifelong bonds. It was not in the children’s best interest for proceedings to continue. She felt that further parenting assessment are not necessary. In terms of X, she stated:

sessions due to him spending most of his time in the kitchen completing domestic tasks. As stated in the Parenting Assessment, “It is evident that X has so little actual interaction with his children it is difficult to quantify whether he is even aware of the children’s changing needs and development. His time with the children and the quality of that time is actively minimised by Y and this seriously affects the input he has in the care or stimulation of his children.” It is clear from contact records that X cares for G and F and will often show physical affection toward them, however, whilst X continues to minimise the extent of his difficulties and display a lack insight into the Local authorities concerns regarding these, the prognosis for any change in X parenting capacity is poor. X refused to undertake a Care Act assessment

professionally and did not work with her. Y also accused LL of perverting the
course of justice and demanded that LL be removed from the case and stripped of her social work qualifications as set out in her response in the bundle. There was a detailed response by Y as to each date relied on by the SWET but broadly along denials and disputes. Y states that the SW team made them feel like criminals and that she could not parent effectively in a controlled environment and that she was entitled to question the qualifications of various professionals.

tried to work collaboratively with mother.

Y/Mother’s evidence

Analysis of Mother’s evidence

Conclusions on Y’s mental health

X / Father’s Evidence

face value because the parents were not yet able to care for the children as explained
by Dr OO who pointed out that after two rooming in sessions, it was not safe for the children to go home with their parents. On a balance of probabilities these facts are proved. Y did say she would remove the children.

significant harm to the children-:

develop those routines and leaving the foster carer is bound to cause upset and

instability to the twins as they are with her 24/7. The twins have a strong bond with the FC, and she is an important person in their lives. This upset would be lessened IF moving to their parents at the end of proceedings was possibility. I consider that a

welfare benefit of reunification.

have an attachment to their parents and call them ‘mama, dada’. The attachment to Y is likely to be stronger than their attachment to X given his interaction with them at contact set out above. There is an attachment, but I do not accept that the attachment to X is stronger than the attachment to the foster carer for the children. Thus, they will be upset to leave FC more than not seeing X. The attachment with Y is strong and they will no doubt be hurt by not seeing Y.

and boundaries and the children are primarily kept safe by the two supervisors. Inconsistent parenting is harmful and presents a risk to the children. The parents have not demonstrated a likelihood of future consistent parenting as set out above because they refuse to take on board advice from the professionals or apply what they learnt in the parenting assessments above.

face a risk of harm (as per checklist) at home alone with the parents demonstrated in threshold, the contact centre set out above and in the PAMS assessments.

facilitated to support moving safe contact to the parent’s home overnight. A play pen, reigns at their home (as suggested by Y), or the space being bigger with two supervisors in tow at their flat was not realistic nor likely to have led to an improvement in supervision where the children would have been safe overnight because the parents could not engage meaningfully with professionals to put the children first and have not developed any independent skills to improve parenting capacity and keep the children safe.

because they have never been alone with the parents, and always been
safeguarded by the LA.

they would grow with their loving parents, they would remain together as siblings and a family, and it would uphold their article 8 rights. Their wishes and feelings would be to be with their parents but safe from harm. The parents love them. During contact Y kisses them, sings to them, prays for them and loves them. X follows what Y does in contact which suggest that he also can be warm when prompted. The parents from contact have demonstrated they can meet the basic needs of feeding, cleaning, and stimulation.

my analysis on reunification. As already noted in contact, Y provided some home cooked meals which were healthy and balanced. Y followed the advice of the FSW about food which was a positive. Y was aware of what the children liked.
She was very loving and of course the children would be immensely enriched by

that love and care during contact. The parents can afford good basic care in a supervised situation, but compared to adoption an adoptive parent who would also offer good basic care but in an unsupervised setting. Being constantly supervised may cause a child to be anxious and insecure about their own ability to be independent and that is a negative and a potential lifelong impact.

at the start and end of contact as she has been encouraged to greet them and engage with them. However, when the children require physical comfort, she is not able to recognise their need to have affection and attention, and so requires someone to tell her to respond. She can then be oppositional to the staff or accept the direction. There is a difference between her learnt behaviour and her intrinsic ability to recognise and respond to her children in moments which she cannot foresee and plan for.

attachment to their parents. This is displayed through conflicting responses. They present as flat in mood when they arrive, which show the children have become so accustomed to attending contact three times a week with their mother over the course of the last eighteen months that they have developed coping strategies.
They do smile at her however there is a lack of eye contact and lack of excitement.

Given the ages of the children and the very high frequency and duration of contact one would expect to see a stronger reaction and response to their parents.

parents meet the emotional needs of their children. Over the long period of contact it is obvious that the changing needs and demands of the children have proved challenging for Y and that she still requires support and intervention at times to keep the children protected and safe. The lack of supervision leads to injury which could have been avoided by greater parental vigilance and awareness.

that led to the parents having a further opportunity but there have been no new green shoots of change between September 2023 and March 2024 (six months). I accepted his evidence and analysis.

during this period as evidenced in March 2024 contact notes. The parents have not done anything in the past six months to allay the professional’s concerns about their parenting capabilities. They have not built on any of the positive work that the Guardian observed prior to his September report to suggest any hope of change.

exercising their rights over the twins right to education. Dr OO stated they
are ready for nursery, that they are physically and emotionally ready for nursery. The foster carer says the same, the SW echoes this and the Guardian says this too, but the parents refused because they wanted the twins to reach their gestational May birthday and now, they have, the parents have no objection because it is almost May.

and not prioritising the children and not working with the professionals, causing delay to the children’s educational needs. This would not happen if the children were in foster care or adoption. It is another example that the parents have not done anything in the past six months to allay the professional’s concerns about their parenting capabilities or judgment.

estate was worth £900,000 but Y also stated that she was personally contacted by the High Court who she reports told her that her mother removed her unlawfully from the will. Y further stated that the allocated Social Worker has issued these proceedings ‘in attempt to stop me getting my inheritance, they know I can’t claim for that money until the supervision order is in place’.

inheritance, but I can assume the children would benefit from it they are her children and IF it were true about the estate.

baptised. Y recites the Lord’s Prayer to them at every contact. It is possible that through long term foster care or adoption the children may not be matched with an appropriate religious parent but that could be mitigated through religious education classes at school if I decide that the balance does not favour the children living with their parents.

one able to tell them about their heritage on both sides of their family because she has not shared information about the IVF process with the professionals. Y stated that the children have a mixed Asian and Caucasian background and X as their father with parental responsibility can provide access to other aspects of their background because Y probably shared that with him.

their unique culture. X expressed racist views to the mother when she was
pregnant stating that he would only date white women as mentioned in an early Child and Family Assessment, reported by Y. That kind of view will make the twins feel insecure about their background and culture.

may be an inherent lack of recognition or understanding of the twin’s culture. Long term that could be a loss to the children if adopted but that loss could be lessened or mitigated if Y were to disclose to them about their true parentage from IVF.

story is a matter for the children alone and that, that story must only be revealed by

Y and X, their mother and father, at the time of the twins’ choosing and that it is nobody else’s business.” I do not think Y will share details of their parentage until she wants to which would be another example of failing to prioritise the children over her own needs. The cultural aspect could be further mitigated if the children eventually go to schools or nurseries where there are children with a

similar background which is strongly possible in London.

the children safe or in enforcing boundaries or with stimulating the children all the time. The FSW pointed out that X does not engage in the learning , nor take part in the activities that she observed. CC detailed the chaotic contact and the SW noted that all contact was supervised by the two workers which meant the twins were safe and without their supervision the children may have suffered physical and emotional harm through tripping, falling and lack of boundaries. The Guardian outlined similar observations and so did the contact supervisors.

look after them as he stated in oral evidence.

problems with boundaries and keeping them safe. She herself states that she finds
it hard to ‘say no to them’. However, the contact demonstrates that over two years Y overall fed the children appropriately, stimulated them properly through play, singing, kisses and cuddles. It is a busy two/three hours in the contact centre which suggests less harm in the areas of emotion but a risk of physical harm.

their letters of support if she was at home to mitigate the risk. They would provide emergency help and regular play dates but not support 24/7 and the twins need that. In the contact centre the children were supervised by the two contact supervisor adults and that is why they were safe from harm.

home. He was clear that he would call the neighbour if there was an emergency when he needs to be able to assess and react to risk when looking after the twins. His suggestion was unrealistic and puts the twins in harm’s way if there was an emergency at home.

can accept they would help and support. The bundle sets out many letters of support from friends set out earlier who will offer play dates and basic support. The children will lose out on the opportunity to meet these family friends (they have never met them) and however that might enrich their life but that support from friends and family must insure the children are always safe in the parent’s care and they cannot. But Ms AS and Mr FF both work and can only provide emergency care or play dates which is insufficient to maintain 24/7 safety of the children.

part of their support network, would not be considered as protective factors in this situation. It is highly likely relationships would break down, if they had any concerns about their parenting and if they attempted to challenge them in this respect. This has been evident throughout these proceedings. I accept that this correct because the parents have challenged professionals where they feel their parental rights have been usurped or where they do not agree with the decision (vaccines, nursery, boundaries).

Y might (as an example) not always supervise efficiently in contact is understandable, the concern is about the risk of harm and the impact on children
as mentioned by the Guardian (anxiety, issues with authority). It is potentially harm caused by the parents to the twins and the support network from friends and family doesn’t mitigate this potential harm. The parenting assessments would have taught them about or advised them about things like boundaries, and other parenting matters, but they did not engage in it. They did not maintain what the FSW taught them either.

mentioned goes beyond tolerating diverse parenting and may place the children at risk of harm. Every parent has the right to choose what is best for their children,

but it must be in the child’s welfare and not expose them to the risk of harm. During the trial Y got very angry when the risk of ADHD / cerebral palsy was even

mentioned and in evidence she stated that those things could only be diagnosed by medics.

very small the mother would not consent to fortnightly eye checks despite the risk of blindness. The parents made an application to injunct giving Palivizumab vaccinations. They prioritise their right to decide causing potential delay over managing the potential health risks to the children which suggests poor judgment and parenting capability which would not arise with long term foster care or adoption. SS during her parenting assessment made similar comments about recognising risks above.

birth (the parents deny there are any risks and wish to rely on Dr OO), they are more likely than not to identify signs of ADHD, cerebral palsy which means there is a risk of long-term physical harm to the twins. Dr OO categorically stated that the children do not have conditions but may develop conditions and he stated that the children required carers who were alive to the risks which Y and X are not. They cannot provide attuned care as set out by the Guardian and SS above. This problem is not a risk associated with long-term foster care or adoption.

possible health risks for the twins. There is a pattern of denial, it is entrenched, and they cannot work on it and move away from denial and that is a risk for the children at home particularly if it leads to removal by the LA again. It would be catastrophic if the children are returned to the parents and removed again from the parents. The future harmful impact cannot be underestimated.

described above when setting out the contact in the neo-natal unit. While I understand how scared, unwell and stressed the parents were when the children were at local hospital but the mother could not feed the twins consistently, putting G in the wrong feeding position so that she could have choked, attempting to mix breast milk and prescribed formula milk for premature babies, and threatening to remove them from hospital.

breast milk and prescription formula or not let a baby lick chocolate, Y could not control her emotions sufficiently to work with the hospital and the professionals
and take on board their advice to eliminate the risk.

trying to feed a premature new-born baby chocolate is potentially harmful to the children.

Dr OO, that could have caused the twins significant harm as the hospital did not deem them to be competent or confident carers, given G might have needed oxygen at home, and both had prescription formula milk and the concerns around that.

bond developed and there was an improvement in care as I set out above, but the parents still threatened to call the police when they disagreed with the staff and did not take on advice on supervision. These are examples of poor decision making which may harm / impact the children if they continue in the future.

year’s old the contact was chaotic. The two parenting assessments were negative (see above) which demonstrate that their parenting capability is not robust, developing or in the welfare of the children and there is no mitigation or safeguarding against this going forward in a family placement.

children due to Y’s enduring personality difficulties and the examples demonstrating this are the threat to remove from hospital, the fact that Y focuses on the twins not having ADHD, cerebral palsy rather than acknowledging the risk, meaning that they might miss the signs of onset placing the twins at risk of harm. When F was improving and could be moved out of neo-natal the parents made threats to call the police and he pointed out that normally parents are joyful as child getting better. These reactions, the thought processing is harmful for the children if they witness it or suffer the consequences of the decision making. I agree with this.

challenges that impact on his daily life as set out above, meaning the care they are afforded by X will not be good enough and could expose them to harm.

issues and Y denies that she initially had concerns about domestic abuse yet
agreed that X attend a domestic violence course. Their failure to acknowledge or remedy these concerns places the children at future risk of harm should X suffer a bout of PTSD or become violent.

of PTSD to the LA or court, but he has shown some anger in contact centre, and he cannot exercise any control over Y’s flashes of anger towards people like CC. The denial means that no safeguarding action is available to the LA for risk mitigation as mentioned by the expert assessors above.

where some of their needs are neglected, which is bound to have a negative impact on their health and behavioural development if they live with the parents.

characterised by her erratic behaviour the children may experience instability through being exposed to constant conflict with professionals and any other people in their life who challenge her views. This would be detrimental to their emotional and behavioural development. This is compelling.

between Y’s thinking about the circumstances in which her children were removed into foster care in June 2022, and the implications of her decision making at that time. This is another example of potential harm due to Y’s reactions. All the mother’s written evidence (some examples below) shows that. Y takes no responsibility and shows no insight and leads me to believe there is no prospect of change by the parents.

they went to the maternity unit and took other people’s babies, they could make a case around any of them…they want to have us trained to think and believe that we

needed their help. We have had 18 months of conditioning that we are not good enough, but we know it’s all lies’

the twins, and she did not like being told what to do with her children when the twins were in hospital as set out above. Despite the hospital interventions being focused on safety and health, Y did not see it that way.

could have caused the children harm (through infection) and clearly put the children at risk of harm.

to allay concerns about X’s care of the children. Y refuses to accept that X has cognitive difficulties and spent much time trying to show he did not.

conclusions, I agree that those issues (difficult personality traits/ X’s cognition) could impact on the welfare of the children by placing them at risk of significant physical and emotional harm if left in the care of the parents and tips the balance away from reunification.

which demonstrated that the parents were unable to prioritise addressing the risk of harm and welfare of their children through participating in the assessment but instead focused on personal attacks on CC. Their suggestions for preventing

‘deep fake’ and meta data to justify recording CC did not help them Yet in oral evidence Y was adamant that she was right to want to record the sessions.

as Y would describe her’ defence or mardy behaviour’ is immaterial. Y has minimised her behaviour and she was aggressive. It is an example of poor judgment, uncontrolled emotion, entrenched behaviour which if repeated in childcare

activities may place the children at risk. Unfortunately, this has been demonstrated in childcare by the numerous examples above from threatening to call the police on

the hospital, to the contact staff, the social work team. Y says this behaviour is
due to trauma of proceedings but there are examples in her pre-parenting history that suggest otherwise (her reaction to her medical school exams), and I do not accept her explanation.

the HS drug test, and the FSW summaries were largely positive, although Y did offend the FSW too when wiping the FSW’s nose. Indeed, the FSW accurately
points out that Y will ask the same questions until she gets the answer she wants and ignore the advice of professionals including the FSW if Y does not agree with them.

meaningfully as demonstrated in the evidence outlined, and this presents a potential risk long term for the twins and tips the balance away from reunification.

the medical assessments cannot be managed because Y will not engage, and this poses a risk to the children if they are reunified at home with Y. This cannot be remedied by DBT in a timescale that suits the children’s welfare. The same issues
are not likely to arise if the children are in long term foster care or subject to placement, so that they are not at risk of significant physical and emotional harm.

capability and that is potentially harmful for the twins if she was the main carer because there is no way to safeguard against this when she exercises judgment on behalf of the children. This is concerning.

demonstrates that X has not resolved issues of PTSD and Y supports and protects his right to be seen as a person without PTSD. Commendable as she might think that is and noting there is no example of PTSD in the past two years, if X has a period of PTSD in the future, it may harm the children, and this presents a potential risk for the twins and tips the balance away from reunification.

welfare. She further does not recognise X cognitive limitations which is also a risk

to the children’s welfare as SS mentioned in PAMS, Y may overestimate what X can do for the children.

sanctioned by court but support a diagnosis of cognitive difficulties. X has had

court approved assessments that indicate he has cognitive difficulties, and while the conclusion of the psychiatric assessment is that he does not suffer PTSD or any

other neurological disorder, X’s care of the twins as set out above is not good enough and places them at risk of emotional and physical harm, that do not exist if the children are placed in adoption or long-term foster care.

he cannot promote the children’s developments. As he is in denial about his own cognitive capabilities, I do not believe he would recognise any risk of developmental issues the twins might face.

cleaning, although Y states that he will provide close protection to the twins, but I do not think that is required as no one has threatened the twins.