The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v A mother

I am delivering this judgment at the conclusion of the final hearing on the Local Authority’s application for a care order for a young teenager, A. The Local Authority’s care plan is that A, who is currently in a foster placement accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act, should be made the subject of a final order and placed in long-term foster care. The father opposes that plan and seeks A’s immediate phased return to his care, or as a second option, an adjournment of these proceedings for further assessment. A’s guardian supports the Local Authority’s application and care plan, as does her mother.

All of the parties are represented in these proceedings, A through her children’s guardian. The father, the social worker and the guardian have attended in person throughout the three days of this hearing. The mother has not attended either in person or remotely. The reason for that is that she has a younger daughter, a small baby, who has been unwell and the mother has been required to care for her. In the circumstances of this case, where the mother is not putting herself forward to care for A, and no party sought to cross-examine her, her counsel did not seek an adjournment. He has, however, been able to update the mother on the evidence heard in court, and to obtain her ongoing instructions.

A’s parents were briefly in a relationship but separated not long after her birth. In 2011 the father issued an application for contact. Within those proceedings, findings were made by a District Judge of serious domestic abuse perpetrated by the father against the mother. Findings were made on six allegations of physical violence or physical aggression, and on one allegation of sending threatening and abusive text messages. The father’s response to each allegation had been one of bare denial. In his judgment, the District Judge observed that he had no doubt that the mother “could have doubled the extent of her Scott Schedule if she had wanted to”. I observe at this point that the fact-finding hearing took place some years before the Court of Appeal’s decision in re H-N cautioned against the use of Scott Schedules and enjoined the courts to focus on the nature of the parental relationship and in particular any coercive and controlling behaviour. Nevertheless, the District Judge did address those issues. He described the father as domineering and controlling when he does not get his own way, and observed that there was a “picture here of a man who does have serious anger management control issues”.

A final hearing took place a few months after the fact-finding in August 2013. The father’s application for contact was dismissed. The father has always been clear that he does not accept the findings of the District Judge, and although I see that a domestic abuse perpetrator programme was directed at the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing, the father’s denial of any abuse would have made it unlikely that he would be accepted. It is recorded on the final order in those proceedings that the father did not attend the dispute resolution appointment but sent a text to the mother saying that he did not want to proceed with the contact application.

Thereafter A continued to live with her mother. Tragically, in 2012, the mother suffered the loss of her older child from a different relationship, who died after an asthma attack. Inevitably, this, together with the mother’s experience of domestic abuse, impacted on her emotional and psychological wellbeing. Nevertheless, she continued to care for A with some support from the Local Authority from time to time.

As A went into secondary school, she started to struggle and her behaviour deteriorated sharply. She began to display aggression and physical violence towards others, and self-harming behaviour. She started absconding, using illegal substances, and otherwise putting herself at risk of serious harm. It appears that she suffered at least one sexual assault.

The mother had formed a new relationship and became pregnant in 2022. During the pregnancy, A assaulted her physically on three occasions. A was accommodated by the Local Authority, with her mother’s consent, in March 2023. Unfortunately, she experienced a series of short-term foster placements, none of which was successful. In August 2023, when just 12, A was arrested for assaulting five police officers.

The Local Authority took the decision that A required specialist residential care, and identified a 12-week placement. A deprivation of liberty authorisation was applied for and granted, and A moved to the placement on 17 August 2023. A responded well to the placement. There were two incidents when she required physical restraint as a result of aggression towards staff. However, her then guardian described her making the most of the opportunities available to her, including outdoor activities, and developing an interest in cooking and nutrition.

The Local Authority issued these proceedings, recognising the need to make clear plans for A, in October 2023. An interim care order was refused on the basis that the mother was consenting to A’s accommodation and was fully cooperative with the Local Authority.

The 12-week placement came to an end in November 2023, and at that point, unfortunately, the Local Authority struggled to identify an alternative. The statement of the then social worker filed in mid-November lists the Local Authority’s placement search which covered over 100 placements, all of which declined to accept A, mostly due to a lack of availability. The unit where A was living agreed to extend her placement until the end of November, but were unable to keep her beyond then. On 1 December, in what was clearly a move of last resort, A was returned to the mother’s care. That went well for about a week but, sadly, then deteriorated. A would not leave the house, and reverted to her previous aggressive behaviour. The mother was fearful for her own safety and for that of her new baby, B. A was placed in foster care, with the mother’s consent, on 2 January 2024.

With hindsight, and acknowledging the difficulties the Local Authority was facing, it is obvious that this unplanned and unsupported move was destined to fail. It is very unfortunate that it did, because this has contributed to a situation where currently it seems very unlikely that A could be placed back in in her mother’s care in the near to medium-term future at least.

The father was notified when the care proceedings were issued, and indicated a wish to become involved in A’s life. The Local Authority facilitated an introduction, initially by way of letters exchanged between A and her father. The father’s letter clearly sparked A’s interest. She told Dr Bentley, an expert instructed in these proceedings, that she had Googled him while in her placement and had watched his channel on YouTube. The first direct contact took place on 20 January 2024. Contact was initially supervised but has progressed and is currently taking place two times a week on an unsupervised basis for four hours mid-week and for seven hours at the weekend.

A initially was seeing her mother and B weekly. However, over the course of these proceedings, as I shall come to explain, difficulties have arisen in their relationship and that frequency was reduced to fortnightly. As things currently stand A has not seen her mother, or I think B, for a period of about two months.

A’s foster placement lasted until May 2024 when the foster carer gave notice, due, I believe, to her own circumstances rather than A’s. A then moved to another foster placement, where she is currently living. It was at one point believed that that placement could be long-term, and the Local Authority confirmed this as recently as two weeks ago. However, on the Friday before this hearing was due to start, the parties were told that the foster carer had given notice on the placement. Both the father and the guardian have said that this came as no surprise to them, as the foster carer had made it clear to them directly that she did not see this placement as being long-term. For obvious reasons I am concerned at what seems to have been a misunderstanding or a miscommunication on the part of the Local Authority, particularly as it means that there is currently no placement identified for A when her current placement comes to an end in October.

A’s welfare is my paramount consideration, and I evaluate her welfare with reference to the factors in the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act.

The realistic options in this case have been identified as the Local Authority’s proposal for a placement in long-term foster care; an immediate or fairly swift move to the father’s care; and an adjournment for a further assessment of the father. I am required to carry out an holistic overview of each of those options, weighing up the advantage and disadvantages of each side by side. As part of that exercise I must give weight to a significant aspect of A’s welfare which points to the desirability of her being brought up within her family if at all possible.

There is expert evidence before the court in the form of a psychological assessment, carried out by Dr Bentley, of A and both of her parents. Dr Bentley was not required by any of the parties to give oral evidence. Dr Bentley assessed the mother and concluded that she did not meet the criteria for a mental health condition, but that she had difficulty managing stressful events and that at times of heightened stress she could resort to maladaptive behaviour. The mother has of course experienced some significant and traumatic life events. Dr Bentley observes that these have left her with anxiety which could manifest itself in distrust of others but that, despite that, she was open and reflective in interview. Dr Bentley thought that the mother has not been able to act as the emotional and behavioural container that A needed, and had unwittingly transmitted some of her anxiety to A. However, the mother was able to identify when she needed support, had good self-awareness and could ask for help. Dr Bentley thought that she needed to resume the therapy that she had previously accessed in order to improve her own emotional regulation at times of crisis and stress.

As to the father, Dr Bentley agreed with a diagnosis that the father was given in childhood of ADHD. She thought it likely that the father also had exhibited some anti-social personality traits of oppositionality and defiance which had been most prominent in his adolescence and early adulthood. She thought that he seemed to have calmed down from that place and did not identify any ongoing emotional dysregulation or oppositionality. She thought he had matured and stabilised over time. The father reported that he had used the time when he was not seeing A to work on himself, and Dr Bentley saw some evidence of this. She thought that he showed a commitment to A but would need support in managing her behaviours.

Dr Bentley saw A’s needs and her behaviours as being in part related to likely ADHD, which has a genetic component, and also to some emerging emotionally unstable personality traits. She thought it likely that A’s observation of her mother struggling had opened a door where A became aware of her mother’s vulnerability and, knowingly or otherwise, took advantage of it, shifting the power and respect balance in the relationship. She thought that A had developed an insight into her past behaviours and knew that this was not a lifestyle she wanted to pursue. Dr Bentley thought that if she could be contained in a placement with therapy and increasing time with her father, there was a chance that she would stabilise.

Dr Bentley observed contact between A and her father at some points during the preparation of her report, which was filed in March 2024. She thought he supplied a steadying perspective and contained A well emotionally. He was also able to model healthy choices for her in a non-judgmental way. Dr Bentley recommended that A’s contact with her father should be supported and increased, while gathering ongoing evidence about the father’s ability to contain her, and supporting him to develop parenting skills to match the challenges and risks that she posed. She thought it was important that he should show emotional attunement to A’s underlying needs.

An independent social worker, Ms Y, was instructed to carry out a parenting assessment of both parents. Y gave oral evidence during the course of this hearing. Her reports were prepared in February 2024, at which point both parents were putting themselves forward to care for A. In the mother’s case, Ms Y suggested that she did not currently have the capacity to care for A because of A’s high level of need, the mother’s mental health vulnerabilities, and her responsibilities towards her younger child. However, she observed a strong bond between the mother and A, and recommended generous family time arrangements, alongside a specialist parenting course called NVR, or non-violent resistance, designed to help parents caring for adolescents with significant needs and behaviours, and relational therapy to support the mother’s relationship with A. She emphasised that the mother did not pose a risk of harm to A, and hoped that in due course overnight, weekends and holiday contact could be considered.

As to the father, Ms Y acknowledged when she prepared her report that his relationship with A was in its early stages. As it happens, she observed the first face-to-face contact between A and her father, which took place on 20 January 2024. Perhaps unsurprisingly at that stage Ms Y identified some gaps in the father’s ability to care for A. She thought that he struggled to mentalise - that is reflect on A’s mental state - and that he came across at times as harsh and critical. He had a tendency to take a rigid approach, and his concept of providing guidance and boundaries was at that stage quite crude. For example, he said that he would physically restrain A, and Ms Y thought that he would be unlikely to be able to provide the sort of flexible and attuned parenting that A would require.

Ms Y also noted the findings made in the private law proceedings and the recommendation made in those proceedings by a psychiatrist, Dr Castle, that the father should access an anger management programme, which he has not done. Ms Y acknowledged the father’s commitment to A, and suggested that there was scope for building on their developing relationship and increasing contact. She recommended that the father also should complete the NVR, the non-violent resistance programme.

In her oral evidence, Ms Y accepted that the evidence filed since her report was completed showed progress in the father’s relationship with A. She acknowledged that he had demonstrated in particular the ability to set boundaries and to work cooperatively with the Local Authority, for example by returning A to her placement on an occasion when she absconded briefly at the end of March. She said that if A did not have the experiences she had and consequently a very high level of need, she would be less cautious about the father’s ability to care for her, but she remained of the view that the father at least needed to complete the NVR course and was also clear that he needed to undertake the anger management work recommended by Dr Castle, especially as during her assessment the father had presented with a lot of anger towards his own mother. For those reasons, Ms Y did not support an immediate placement for A with her father, and was of the view that work needed to be completed and assessed before any move could be contemplated.

The evidence of the Local Authority is before the court in the form of the initial statement of the previous social worker, and a written statement and oral evidence from the current social worker, Ms W, who has been allocated only since May. In those circumstances, inevitably the Local Authority relies to a large extent on the expert evidence.

On the whole, the position of the Local Authority is reasoned and evidence-based. There was one area where, in my view, insufficient thought had been given, that being the history of domestic abuse in the parental relationship. I thought that the mother was right when she said in her witness statement that she felt the Local Authority had wrongly characterised the background as one of parental conflict rather than domestic abuse. In fact in Ms W’s witness statement, she described the parents’ relationship simply as “volatile” - a description which does not do justice to the findings made by the District Judge in 2013. In her oral evidence, Ms W seemed much less concerned about this aspect of the case than about the father’s ability to manage A’s dysregulated behaviours. When she was asked directly by counsel for the mother about the history of domestic abuse, she described it as historic, said that she did not know the nature of it, and that she was unable to say whether she did or did not have concerns about it because it had all happened before her time. My sense from her evidence was that the Local Authority’s expectation was that if the father completed the NVR programme successfully, there would be little to stand in the way of A’s placement with him. In my judgment, the situation is rather more complex and nuanced.

I have not heard oral evidence from A’s mother. I have read Dr Bentley’s assessment of her, her parenting assessment and her witness statement with care. I understand that at present she needs to focus her attention on her youngest daughter, B, particularly as B, it seems, has some enhanced health needs. However, I consider that she has an important role to play in A’s life, and re-establishing that relationship should be a priority.

I heard oral evidence from the father at this hearing, and have also considered his witness statement and the assessment of him. I formed the view, after considering the evidence about the father and given by the father at this hearing, that since the reports of Dr Bentley and Ms Y were completed, the father has continued to make progress both in his relationship with A and in himself. I consider that he has developed an increased understanding of A as their relationship deepens, and he has also done some work on his own presentation. I am sure that this has been driven by his love for her, and a very strong commitment to providing what she needs. The father has taken steps to resume the ADHD medication which he had stopped for a period of time. He told me that this now made him feel calmer and he was sleeping better and, as a result, has been able to stop his cannabis use. The father has also had eight sessions of talking therapy. He was quite open in saying that he had not initially seen the need for this, but had been advised to try it, and had asked himself: what would be the harm if it did not work? In fact the father said, I believe genuinely, that it had helped massively.

During the father’s evidence I saw clear progress, in particular in comparison to the February assessment of Ms Y where she described a blunt and sometimes crude approach. The father says in evidence that he had thought about that and come to realise that he needed to deal with A a little bit more softly and without being too direct and personal. He was able to give me clear examples of when he had adopted such an approach, for example when dealing with issues such as phone use, personal hygiene and inappropriate clothing. He said that he had asked friends for advice and had taken it.

There were, however, some aspects of the father’s evidence that caused me real concern. These related to the father’s perspective on his relationship with A’s mother and his own past history (which in this court is proven and therefore not open to debate) of violence and abusive behaviour. In contrast to his more reflective answers to questions about A and her needs, the father’s responses to questions on this topic were brief, dismissive and closed. When he was asked to consider evidence which he could not realistically dispute, his reaction was to minimise and justify his own behaviour and to seek to shift responsibility elsewhere.

I consider it likely that the father has matured since 2012 and I am very aware that most of the reports of his aggressive behaviour date back to his adolescence and early 20s. The father is now of course in his mid-30s, although there was one incident in 2023 involving a woman, in which, even on the father’s own account as given to Ms Y, he had initiated a physical altercation. Despite that, I accept Dr Bentley’s overall view that the father is now probably less likely to react with physical aggression than he was 10 years ago.

What concerns me much more is the father’s total denial and absence of reflection into his own past behaviour. The father openly admitted that he had conveyed his own inaccurate narrative to A. As he put it: “A deserves the truth, and it is important that if she had been lied to, she knows that”. As I will come to explain a little later in this judgment, the father’s rigid and uncompromising attitude on this issue, which is of course based on a narrative which is false, poses an ongoing risk of primarily emotional harm to A.

A’s guardian prepared a final analysis in June and subsequently a position statement shortly before this hearing, which she updated to include A’s current perspective on her circumstances. A’s firm view is that she wants to live with her father. I have been struck by the difference in A’s views about her mother as expressed to the guardian in June and August, when compared to the evidence about their relationship when these proceedings commenced. Back then, despite the history of physical altercations and the obvious difficulties the mother was facing in controlling A’s behaviour, all professionals observed a strong bond and A was expressing warmth and affection towards her mother, who of course was her primary attachment figure. By June 2024, however, A was speaking about her mother in what the guardian described as quite derogatory and negative terms. She repeatedly said that her mother had lied to her about her father and about there being domestic abuse, and she said that she wanted to change her last name from her mother’s name to her father’s name. She told the guardian that her mother had not been a fit parent, whereas her father had been “a stable and fit parent in my life”. I have serious concerns about the source of this information, which of course runs directly contrary to the findings of the District Judge.

Like the social worker, A’s guardian has only been appointed since May of this year. Nevertheless, she was able to give a reasoned and clear overview of A’s situation, and has come to the decision that she cannot recommend either an immediate move to the father’s care or an adjournment. One of the key planks in her thinking, with which I agree, was that a premature move to the father’s care carried high risks because a breakdown of that placement would be so catastrophic for A. A has invested a huge amount into her relationship with her father and her view of her parents at present is very one-sided. She sees her mother as all bad and her father as all good. As a result, the guardian considered she is likely to have unrealistic expectations about what living with her father would actually look like. If a placement break down occurred, that would be experienced by A as a significant rejection and would be in an entirely different category from a breakdown of a placement in foster care.

The guardian gave balanced evidence about the prospects for A of a placement in long-term foster care. She gave clear and uncompromising evidence about her concerns about the current foster placement and its limitations in meeting A’s needs, and was not under any illusions about the disadvantages of the Local Authority’s care plan. Despite that, she was clear that the balance fell down in favour of a final care order because the risks of a placement with the father, for the foreseeable future at least, were too great.

A’s ascertainable wishes and feelings are quite clear. She very much wants to live with her father. She has held that view consistently for several months, and it has strengthened since her relationship with him has developed. At the same time, she has become increasingly resistant to the prospect of returning to her mother’s care. Although I do not believe A has been asked directly, it seems reasonably clear that if a decision were taken that she could not live with her father for the time being, her preference would be to remain in foster care until that is possible.

A is a young adolescent. In considering what weight to give to her wishes and feelings, I take into account Dr Bentley’s view that her ADHD and emotionally unstable personality traits have led to impulsivity and a poor organisation of thought and behaviour, although Dr Bentley thought that during her time in the residential unit she had developed more insight into the sexual and criminal risks she had been facing. A’s guardian’s view is that although she presents as physically very mature, she was also quite child-like and struggled to form a balanced view of her current situation and relationships. Her solicitor has not assessed her as having the capacity to give instructions directly. The guardian told me also that whilst she has no doubts that A holds the views that she has expressed and that they are genuine, they were not expressed with undue force, and she, the guardian, did not think that if the outcome is not what A wants it to be, she is likely simply to walk out of a placement and return to her father. A was receptive when the guardian explained that she thought the father needed to do more work before she could be placed in his care, and seemed to understand the reasons for this. That appears to be a development from A’s views as expressed in June, which were that if a decision were made that she did not agree with, she would “keep opening court cases until I win”.

A is described as a vibrant, engaging and intelligent young person. She is consistently described in warm terms by professionals, including the staff at her previous residential placement, her foster carers, and those who have met and assessed her during the course of these proceedings.

It is not disputed that A has a very high level of emotional need. Dr Bentley has identified likely ADHD and developing emotionally unstable personality traits. Her self-esteem is lower than average, and her anxiety is moderately elevated. Dr Bentley saw an element of attention-seeking behaviour which she thought could be linked to her ADHD and need for stimulation, and also possibly an attempt to compensate for actual or perceived inadequacies, particularly academic. After she observed A’s contact with her father, Dr Bentley observed:

“There was a need that I saw in A to be accepted and wanted by her father and that may point to her own attachment need. I could see that she felt rejected by her mother and so was metaphorically clinging to her father even though this was a relatively new relationship.”

A of course needs a relationship with both of her parents and she needs to be permitted by each of them to enjoy a relationship with the other. I think that the mother is likely to be able to meet this need. From Dr Bentley’s report I see that, despite her own past experiences, the mother has been open to the possibility that the father has changed in the intervening years. I have more concerns about the father’s ability to promote A’s relationship with her mother. As I have observed, it is possible to trace in the evidence quite a striking change in A’s attitude to her mother since her relationship with her father re-commenced. While she was in her residential placement, the statements filed record that A was having daily telephone or video contact with her mother as well as regular visits, and their interactions were seen to be very positive. Despite the difficulties in the relationship, it was clear that A both loved and trusted her mother. She has now become strongly resistant to that relationship and believes that her mother has lied to her about the reasons that her father was not involved in her life.

A’s educational needs are very significant. She is just starting year 9 and has been out of education for more than a year. This is therefore a crucial time when she has a chance to re-enter education and to put herself on the path to gaining qualifications. She is also clearly in desperate need of relationships with people her own age. A currently has no friends at all with whom she can spend time and socialise like a normal teenager. The guardian’s description of her current circumstances, in a placement which is in any event time limited, was quite bleak. A is spending most of her time in her room. When she spent a few weeks at school at the end of last term, she was taken to and from school by taxi. She is not currently allowed to go out alone, and she has very little communication with others save for her contact with her father. That situation, which clearly is not normal for a young person who is nearly 14, has come about as a result of the joint decision making of A’s father, who has parental responsibility for her, and the Local Authority, who currently do not. I am sure that all decisions have been taken with a view to keeping A safe. It is inevitable, however, that there will need to be some change in A’s circumstances over the next weeks and months as she returns to school, and whoever is caring for her will have to help her manage the transition to greater independence and a more normal living arrangement.

A has experienced a lot of change in the last 18 months and requires stability. I recognise that the extent to which the court can give her that stability at this stage is limited. All options before the court will involve a change of placement. Looking ahead, it is very important that stability is achieved for A, both in her placement and in her relationships, so that she is free to enjoy and make the most of the remainder of her adolescence.

A’s background and experiences are a significant welfare factor. As a very young child she was exposed to domestic abuse in her parents’ relationship. She was in a home where the family suffered a significant bereavement, and she has had ongoing exposure to her mother’s emotional vulnerabilities. She has then experienced some significant trauma since her own behaviour deteriorated, including a sexual assault and drug misuse. She has had very disrupted living arrangements, and has been out of school for over a year.

It is beyond argument that A suffered significant harm during the period when she was frequently absconding from home. She put herself and sometimes others at risk because her behaviour was so dysregulated and at times physically aggressive. That past harm means inevitably that the court will be particularly anxious to reduce the risk of future recurrence.

Some work to reduce that risk has been done by A herself. Dr Bentley thought that as a result of her specialist placement, she had developed better insight into the risks of her previous lifestyle and that she did not want that lifestyle to become permanent. However, as yet, she has had little opportunity to test out her own ability to keep herself safe in the real world, because her current access to others, including people of her own age, is very severely restricted.

Unfortunately, despite the efforts that A herself has made, and what I hope is therefore an increased ability to protect herself, the evidence suggests that there are ongoing risks to her in each of the realistic options before the court. If A remains in foster care, there is a real possibility that she will face a rather bleak and miserable existence where her emotional needs are not fully met. In the worst case scenario, this may lead in due course to A repeating her previous absconding and risk-taking behaviours and/or to physical violence.

It is also necessary to identify as clearly as possible the risks that A may face if she lives with her father now or at some point in the future. In the short term I think it is likely that there will be a positive honeymoon period when A will be unlikely to abscond. However, as time goes by, she is very likely to push against the boundaries that the father sets, and if he is unable to contain her, her behaviours will regress. The extent of that risk will depend on the father’s ability to manage her emotional needs and consequent behaviours.

There are also significant risks, in my judgment, if A moves to live with her father without being supported to adjust her current false picture of her own family history. The truth of that history is that A’s mother suffered not only a very significant bereavement but serious domestic abuse, and the decision that she should not have contact with her father was taken by a court in order to safeguard both A and her mother. A has no understanding of this at all, and believes that her mother is a liar who deliberately and maliciously cut her off from her father for over 10 years. That false belief is preventing her from forming a proper understanding of her mother’s strengths and vulnerabilities and is, in my judgement, the main reason why their relationship is currently fractured. If the father cannot support A in adjusting this view, and certainly if he promotes it, A is likely to lose her relationship with her mother for the remainder of her childhood and quite possibly beyond. That, in my view, would be damaging and harmful to her.

I am required to consider the parenting capacity of each of A’s parents. I recognise that A’s mother is not currently putting herself forward to care for A. Nevertheless, she has the capacity to meet A’s needs through contact, and it is important that support is put in place to allow that to happen. As I have said, I consider this relationship to be of huge significance to A, even though A herself does not presently see that, and reparative work is crucial.

The father’s capacity to parent A is a key welfare issue. The assessment carried out by Dr Bentley indicated that when considering the father’s presentation against the background evidence, the father had emotionally matured and stabilised over time. My assessment of the father’s presentation at this hearing, some months after Dr Bentley’s assessment was completed, is that the seeds of positive change which were present at that stage have continued to develop and the father has made progress. When I refused, at the IRH hearing, the father’s application for an addendum parenting assessment, I said I thought that was unnecessary because if the father continued in the same trajectory, I would be able to evaluate the progress he had made from the evidence of other professionals, particularly the social worker and the guardian, and from my own assessment. I have indeed, as I expected, been able to carry out that evaluation on the basis of the evidence before me at this hearing.

The father has not yet commenced the NVR programme. The reason for that is disputed, but given that the father has been generally very proactive within these proceedings, I am inclined to accept that it was his understanding that the referral needed to be made by the Local Authority. It is unfortunate that that seems to have been overlooked by the Local Authority and was not made until mid-July, which is why the work has not yet started. The father was able, however, even without that work having been completed, to show an improved insight into how he would manage A’s high level of need, and he was able to tell me how his views had developed and changed since the assessments were carried out in February and March. I am of the view that there is still some work for the father to do. Both he and A have described a difficult conversation between them about a plan for A to start school, and from both descriptions it is fairly clear that the father could have handled that situation better. He would, in my view, benefit from strategies which would enable him, as the guardian put it, to separate his own feelings of resentment, in this instance at not being involved in the decision about A’s schooling, from A’s feelings about wanting to attend school and the importance of encouraging that. I am of the view that the father is likely to respond well to the NVR programme and to benefit from it, and the programme is likely to equip him with most, if not all, of the tools he needs to manage A’s difficult behaviours. If there were no other issue affecting the father’s parenting capacity, I would be cautiously optimistic about his prospects of being able to provide safe care to A within a reasonable period of time.

The father’s parenting capacity is, however, in my judgment, quite significantly undermined by his denial of his own past harmful behaviours and his willingness to convey a false picture of the background to A. The findings of the District Judge about the father’s history of aggressive behaviour were based not just on the evidence of the mother but on a broader picture of someone the District Judge described as a man with a serious anger management problem. The father completely denies not only that this is an issue for him now, but that it ever has been.

I accept that the past perpetration by one parent of domestic abuse against the other will not rule the perpetrator out of caring for a child in the future. However, in this case, the following important factors are present. First, the father categorically denies the findings made against him of domestic abuse. Even when factual evidence was put to him that he had no choice but to accept, the father was unable to see his own obvious fault. He described messages he had previously sent to the mother, which were plainly abusive and threatening and included direct threats of physical harm, as the messages of a loving dad who had been stopped from seeing his child. Secondly, and most importantly, A has absorbed her father’s version of events and has become aligned with him and hostile and rejecting of her mother, to the extent that she believes her mother is a manipulative liar. That the father has allowed this to happen, and sees no risk to A arising from it, is a significant deficit in his parenting capacity that weighs in the balance when considering what he can offer A alongside a placement in long-term foster care.

The range of powers available to the court extends to each of the realistic options. The father’s second position, an adjournment of these proceedings, would involve delay which I recognise is in general not in a child’s best interests. In this case, however, and particularly given the uncertainty around A’s future placement if she remains in foster care, I agree in principle that delay could be justified if there was a real prospect of A moving to her father’s care in the foreseeable future.

The advantage of long-term foster care is that it should, if the right placement can be found, offer A a safe home where she can be contained and her emotional needs met, including her need for ongoing relationships with both parents. A will be able to continue to spend time with both of her parents from the neutral environment of the foster home. There may be the possibility of a placement with one of them in the future. Although it is not one of the options currently before the court, it is important, in my view, that the mother is not ruled out as a potential future carer. Both expert reports acknowledge the strength of the bond, the importance of her mother to A, and very much leave open the possibility of reunification in the future.

I am very aware of the risk that such a placement for A will not be found. Her current placement, in my view, is not meeting her needs. There are perhaps some grounds for optimism in that A’s previous placement where she lived from January to May seems to have been more successful, and A speaks warmly of her former foster carer who was able to provide for that period of time a containing and nurturing environment.

The disadvantage of this option, particularly if a suitable placement is not found, is that A’s carer will not be able to contain her emotionally, and her behaviours will deteriorate so that she is once again at risk of very serious physical and emotional harm. There is the prospect of once again the need arising for A to be deprived of her liberty, and the instability and disruption that that would bring.

The advantage of a placement for A with her father, now or in the not too distant future, is, first, that that will accord with her own wishes and give her the chance to live with a parent who loves her deeply, is committed to her and wants to work hard to understand her needs and to improve his own ability to meet them. There are also disadvantages to this option. First, there is the risk that the father will not in fact be able to manage A’s behaviour. At present if A were to return immediately, I think that it is likely that the father would struggle, and the risk of a placement breakdown is quite high. At a minimum, the NVR needs to be undertaken so that the father can develop the strategies he will need to manage A’s behaviour when flashpoints occur, such as happened recently on the school issue. The other disadvantage, which is more entrenched and therefore more problematic, is the father’s inability to promote A’s important relationship with her mother. In my view, a placement with him would lead almost inevitably to a complete and long-term rupture in A’s relationship with her mother, the signs of which are already present, and consequently there will be significant risks to A’s sense of herself and her identity, and her ability to form healthy relationships herself in the future.

If this were simply a case where the father needed to continue to improve his parenting skills, I might well have been persuaded to adjourn these proceedings to see if a placement with him could be achieved in the next two to three months. However, in my judgement, the problems in this case run much deeper. A’s sense of identity, like that of all children, is bound up with her parents and her history, and depends on her forming a truthful and integrated understanding of her family background. The truth is that her mother loves her and did her best to care for her for the first 12 years of her life, through some unimaginably traumatic life events that were not of the mother’s making. I find it difficult to contemplate a move for A to her father’s care when this fundamental aspect of her background is disrupted by the false narrative currently shared between the father and A. There is currently, it is fairly clear, no prospect of the father’s perspective changing, and there is limited, if any, chance that he will permit A to form a more balanced view herself.

For those reasons, the better option for A is a placement in long-term foster care, and I make the care order sought by the Local Authority. I intend not to finalise the order until I have seen the final care plan, which the Local Authority has said it will file within seven days. That care plan is intended to set out the work that the father will be required to complete, including the NVR course and I believe also anger management. I am not sure whether there will be any plan for the father to undertake specific domestic abuse related work but I expect, given his denial, that he would not be accepted for that work in any event.

I will be happy to accept an amended care plan, and I agree with the guardian that a framework will be helpful, but I am wary of a tick-box approach which might lead to a conclusion that once the father has completed certain courses, overnight contact will start and lead almost automatically to a move for A to his care. For my part, as I have made very clear, I would feel uncomfortable about the prospect of any decision to place A with her father while she continues to hold false negative views about her mother. I would invite the Local Authority to consider this aspect of my judgement when the final care plan is drafted. I accept, however, that there are limits to the court’s reach in terms of future decisions and also to what can be contained in the care plan, and I accept that if and when the time comes, decisions will be taken based on an overview of all factors relevant to A’s welfare. That is my judgment.