Jessica Jones, Re

Between:

This case concerns small girl, Jessica Jones, now six months old.

Let me say at once that it is acknowledged by everyone in this case that the mother dearly loves her daughter. Nothing I say in this judgment is intended to cast any doubt on that. Her love is shown, for example, by the duvet on the cot, which is intended for use by Jessica, and which one sees at p.353 of the electronic bundle. It has been embroidered with the words “Princess Jessica”.

Turning to the facts. Shortly after Jessica’s birth, the mother surrendered her to the care of the local authority pursuant to s.20 of the Children Act 1989. An interim care order was granted on 24^th October 2024. The matter comes before me for a final hearing. The local authority seek a care order and a placement order for Jessica.

The local authority were represented by Mr Anderson, Ms Millership appeared for the mother, Ms Gunn appeared for the father, and Mr Payne appeared for the guardian.

The hearing proceeded on the basis of representations. The mother had the assistance of an intermediary, and the court made pauses available so that the mother could follow the proceedings without losing her concentration.

The father was represented but had not been expected to attend the hearing. He did in fact attend the hearing but late. Since he needed to discuss matters with his advocate, this put the start of the case back. The first pause to assist the mother was a 15-minute break at around 11:45 a.m. The father did not come back to court at noon, so enquiries were made. He eventually came back at about 12:10 p.m. I asked him to stand so I could remind him of the need to come back on time. He did not stand, so I directed him to stand up, and he said that he had never stood up in court and that he did not intend to start now. I warned him that if he failed to comply with the court’s directions then I would have to summons security to have him removed. Ms Gunn had the opportunity to speak to him, but this did not change his approach. Accordingly, I had security attend. In the event, he left the court without any need to manhandle him, and the hearing then proceeded without further incident.

The mother was born in 1992. Unfortunately, she suffers from low cognitive functions. A psychological assessment following an interview on 2^nd December 2024 was made by Frank Furlong, a registered and chartered psychologist. What he says is this at p.406 of the bundle:

“3.1

Based on the information gathered during this assessment, Ms Jones’ level of Global Intellectual Functioning is rated within the “Very-Low“ range, with an estimated Full Scale IQ score of 70 at the 2^nd percentile.

3.2

Ms Jones’ performance on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – 4^th Edition (WAIS-IV) indicates significantly better developed non-verbal reasoning ability in comparison with her verbal reasoning skills.

3.3

With respect to Ms Jones’ score on the Verbal Comprehension Index, her performance highlights the significant deficits that exist in the development of her expressive and receptive language skills.

3.4

In relation to Ms Jones’ performance on the Working Memory Index, it is suggested that her very low rating demonstrates her significantly limited capacity for holding verbally presented information in memory whilst performing specific tasks. The scores Ms Jones’ achieved on the literacy test suggests she experiences significant difficulties with developing most aspects of her literary skills.

Additionally, her very low rating on the reading test will have implications for how information both oral and written is presented to Ms Jones by the professionals working with her. Advice and information regarding this matter is presented in the recommendation sections outlined at the end of this report.

3.7

Despite encouragement, Ms Jones felt unable to attempt the writing task as she perceived herself to be ill-equipped to cope with the unstructured nature of the writing activity. However, taking account of Ms Jones’ score on the spelling test, combined with her reluctance to attempt the writing task, it is suggested that Ms Jones’ writing skills are likely to be limited in both the quantity and quality of her written expression.

3.8

Ms Jones’ performance on the Number Skills test was rated at a “Very Low” level, reflecting the significant difficulties she encounters with developing her basic numeracy skills.

3.9

The results of the present testing taken in combination with the other qualitative data gathered during this assessment suggests that Ms Jones presents a profile of ability that is compatible with and individual within the “Borderline” range of having a “Significant Learning Difficulty”. Ms Jones’ profile indicates substantial deficits across a range of her cognitive skills, and additionally she also experiences significant literacy, numeracy, and written language difficulties.”

At the age of 15 the mother started a relationship with a man ten years older, Mr A. Although she now denies it, the relationship appears to have been abusive. In addition, the man had involvement in illegal drugs, and the mother started to smoke cannabis from the outset of her relationship with him. The mother accepts that she continued to smoke, at least latterly, typically six joints a day up to and including her pregnancy with Jessica, but says that she stopped smoking cannabis on 3^rd October 2024.

The hair strand testing ordered by this court does not, however, bear this out. It shows evidence of cannabis use in each of the six months prior to 27^th January 2024. This was queried by the mother’s solicitors on the basis that her hair can remain contaminated after the user ceased to take the drug. The testing laboratory, Lextox, answer this point in their letter of 15^th April 2025, at p.522 of the bundle, in these terms:

“Question 3. Within the report the results table shows a decrease in the concentration of THC in the foremost recent hair sections analysed. Furthermore, the results table shows the reduction also corresponds with the testing for 11-Nor-Delta(9)-TCH9-carboxy acid being negative. Is it possible that the ongoing positive tests for THC because of older metabolites remaining present rather than indicative of ongoing use?”

The answer given was:

“It is possible for a donor to provide a positive hair test result for approximately three to four months on average, sometimes up to six months following cessation. This is because approximately 85% of skull hair is growing at any one time with the remaining approximate 15% in the resting non growing phase. The resting phase of the hair usually lasts three to four months, but it can sometimes last up to six months. As such, when an individual has regularly used a drug, stops and continues to abstain from using the drug, it can take approximately three to four months, sometimes up to six months for a person to return a not detected result. As the resting phase consists only of approximately 15% of the hair, the levels detected are expected to be at low levels. A large decrease, approximately 85%, would be expected in the first month once an individual stops using a drug, followed by smaller continuous decreases of the resting phase hair is gradually shed from the skull until a not detected result is obtained after three to four months, sometimes up to six months. However, in this case, whilst there is a decrease in the concentrations of cannabis group compounds from the hair section covering the last declared use, the three to four centimetre hair section to the following hair section, the decrease is not as large as would be expected following cessation, and therefore in my opinion the results obtained are not consistent with the cessation of cannabis use on 3^rd October 2024 as declared.”

This evidence does not stand alone. Various social workers observed her to smell of cannabis after the purported cessation of use. The mother’s explanation, at p.394 of the bundle, that the smell would be acquired by her walking past people in the town where she lives who are smoking cannabis is, in my judgment, unconvincing. I find as a fact that the mother continues to smoke cannabis.

In 2012 the mother gave birth to her first child, Anne. Mr A was the father. Sadly, Anne died on 8^th November 2014. The mother had taken her to hospital on 6^th and 7^th November 2014, but the hospital discharged Anne. The local authority suggest that the mother could have done more but, in my judgment, that is not proven. The issue with Anne is more that the mother remained in an abusive relationship which would have damaged the welfare of Anne had Anne lived.

By this time, the mother was in a new relationship with a Mr B, and he too was abusive to her. In 2017 she moved into a flat with a Mr C. He was also abusive to her. Indeed, in the parenting assessment at p.254 of the bundle, she describes it as a “toxic relationship”.

On 7^th June 2018 she gave birth to a son, Henry. Mr C was the father. Henry was the subject of care proceedings, which resulted in His Honour Judge Vincent making an order placing him for adoption. I can take the facts from the judge’s judgment of 30^th January 2019, at p.640 of the bundle. There he says:

“2.

The proceedings began on 9^th August 2018 when Henry was two months’ old and they were provoked by the police exercising their powers of protection on that date. It is fair to say there had been some longstanding concerns about Henry’s parents and their relationship and their ability to meet the needs of a child in their care. On 5^th November 2017, at a time when Petra was about eight weeks pregnant, someone (blanked out) telephoned 999 and reported that he had had an argument with her which resulted in him pushing her. Moving forward to after the birth, when Henry was just 10 days’ old, the midwife was expressing concern about a violent domestic incident between the parents when (and I presume that must be Mr C) is said to have broken a window. By 20^th June there are emerging signs of neglect, when the social worker observed that Petra was not feeding Henry adequately and was failing to sterilise bottles. A family support worker expressed concern on the next day that Petra was wrapping Henry up too much, making him overwarm so that he was not waking to feed.

3.

On 1^st August, Petra left the family with Henry at about 11:45 at night in a distressed state and (I presume Mr C) telephoned the police, but by 7^th August, evidence was emerging that the parents were arguing frequently and that Mr C’s behaviour was escalating towards violence. It was clear that Henry was present during some of the shouting and was experiencing the tense atmosphere within the home. Petra has had a previous child who, very sadly, died from Sepsis. The local authority has harboured some concerns about a failure on her part to timeously seek medical assistance for that child.

4.

Mr C was known to have a history of violence and mental health problems, and it was felt that he was not currently following treatment advice. He had also been involved in drug misuse. Petra similarly had mental health difficulties. She was expressing the view at an early stage that there was something wrong with Henry and she showed little confidence in caring for her baby. The couple had very limited support from family and friends. Mr C has a significant criminal history, having been convicted of some 20 offences or so dating back to 2011. I think he was last convicted in February 2018 for breach of a restraining order.

5.

On 8^th August 2018 (it is not clear who was agitated) was agitated about Universal Credits and started shouting and swearing. It is reported that he said he would go back to dealing drugs as it would be easier than accessing benefits. He has spoken openly about being violent within his previous relationship and knocking out his ex. When the social work manager attended the home address during the evening of 7^th August, Mr C presented in an aggressive manner and threatened her. The social worker visited again the following day. The parents were invited to attend the offices of Social Services to discuss safeguarding issues, plans, and assessments, but refused to comply. The social worker was extremely concerned about the welfare of Henry and in the event the police subsequently exercised their powers of protection on 9^th as a result of Petra Jones first consenting to s.20 accommodation but then withdrawing her consent. She had, it is suggested again, wrapped Henry up in blankets to the point where it was clear that his health was becoming compromised. At the same time the police were expressing concern as the parents were making serious threats to harm any social worker involved in the case.

6.

Following the police exercising their powers of protection, Henry was removed to baby only foster care on the same day, and the proceedings had their first hearing before me on the following day, 10^th August, at which point I imposed an interim care order to last until 17^th of that month at that time. I limited it to a fairly brief interim care order because there was a question mark in respect of the police use of their powers and the circumstances that attended the removal of the child. I gave the parents’ advocates permission to disclose case papers to residential placement providers and adjourned the matter for a review hearing on 17^th August. At the same time, I allocated this final hearing slot to the case.

7.

By the time of that further hearing on 17^th August it was clear that the parents continued to present as a couple. Nothing had, by that time, emerged from residential placement providers. The local authority had identified a mother and baby foster placement that was set up to begin on 20^th August, but the parents were expressing a preference to be together in the placement. As it transpired, Petra Jones went into the offered placement with Henry but stayed only fleetingly. No family placement was ever located, and the assessment of the parents thereafter took place through contact.”

Apart from concerns about the relationship between the mother and Mr C, mother’s care for Henry was also found to be inadequate.

At para.17 of the judgment the judge said:

“17.

Ms Donohoe gave credit to the parents for making themselves available for both contacts, and indeed the assessment sessions. Whilst Petra has consistently stated that she wished to be assessed with Mr C, and saw no need to end the relationship, Ms Donohoe felt that Mr C was more ambivalent about the relationship with her. He was advised to inform his solicitor in the event that he wished to be assessed on his own, but he failed to do so. The view of Ms Donohoe is that the assessment sessions themselves seem to have generated an increased level of discord between the parents, and both of the parents have disclosed increasing incidents of violence and threats to each other during the sessions.

18.

Notwithstanding the commitment that the parents made to attending contact, the basic care delivered to Henry during contact was deemed not consistently good enough. The parents, to Ms Donohoe’s mind, are able to understand what they need to do but they fail to put it into practice. There have been ongoing professional concerns about feeding routines and the handing of Henry by both of his parents. That is notwithstanding the fact that parenting training was provided to the parents by a family support worker.”

I turn then to the parenting assessment made in the current proceedings. It is dated 17^th February 2025 and is a substantial document of 47 pages. It finishes with an assessment analysis at p.290, and I will read from 291:

“Ms Jones believes she met all areas of what children need with Anne and Henry and believes she could meet Jessica’s holistic care needs if she was in her care. Ms Jones has shared some knowledge. However, this is extremely minimal in areas of what children need and does not recognise the deficits in her own parenting other than not keeping Henry safe due to domestic abuse, which has been contradicted by Ms Jones during the assessment. Ms Jones has also previously suffered a child death, which may be due to not recognising deteriorating health, as well as her son no longer in her care due to neglect. Continued drug use and lack of knowledge in regard to Cognil (that is an intervention) as well as limited parental knowledge will impact on her ability and judgment to respond to situations that need to be addressed with immediate effect.

It is clear that she loves Jessica very much and has attended most of her family times, which has involved her confirming in the morning that she will be attending. It is acknowledged that Ms Jones has taken on board advice and guidance, listened and looked up information not only in family time but within direct sessions enabling her to make positive changes. The family time remains in a safe and secure environment for one and a half hours three times a week, supervised by workers who have the ability to intervene, advise and support to ensure their time together is safe and happy.

Ms Jones is aware she has not kept herself safe in the past and has only as an adult started to learn what is right and what is wrong. It is concerning that she presents as a vulnerable adult that is at risk of exploitation. Although it is a positive, she recognises that at times she has been in unsafe situations, although has limited knowledge about risk in general. It is also worrying that this will definitely impact on her ability to keep Jessica safe now and in the future, as well as impede her ability to incorporate and instil this in her parenting, inevitably placing her in vulnerable or unsafe situations as well as her child unbeknownst to Ms Jones.

She has been in relationships with risky individuals that have placed her and her children in unsafe situations and has minimised or omitted information and events. It is unclear if this is on purpose or not, or if she thought some of the information would not be gained due to this happening in another county. Either way she has made relationships appear better that they were. It is also concerning that when starting new relationships these have been almost immediately after her last relationship ended, which has again placed her in unsafe and unstable situations, as well as going against agreements in relation to Mr Morgan and denying they have been seeing one another.

Ms Jones smoked cannabis throughout all her pregnancies. Babies who are regularly exposed to cannabis before birth sometimes have breathing difficulties and sleep disturbance. Newborn babies may be irritable, jittery, and they may startle and cry at the gentlest touch and sound. These babies can be harder to settle, which can place additional stress on a care giver. Parental substance use increases the risk of sudden infant death in unsafe sleep practices through unintentional bed sharing. She has not been honest about her cannabis use to all professionals when directly challenged about this and it is unknown if this is something she wishes to address in the future. It appears that she is managing her mental health and is aware of a good day and a bad day in regard to this, as well as her triggers and coping tragedies. She has a future appointment at the end of March for her to discuss further as she recognised at the end of the assessment that her mental health may need reviewing with a view of her medication being increased. It is a positive that she has recognised this and therefore important for her to attend.

Ms Jones has shared that she has never felt like she belonged and sometimes unloved as a child, which is tragic in itself. Her sense of belonging is crucial to her being happy and give herself a sense of meaning and purpose in life, helping her to manage her mental health, and without this will continue to feel lost and alone. In focusing on the more positive aspects of her life and areas that are going well, as well as achievable goals, will support her on her voyage of validation.

The home conditions are poor and cluttered with pungent smells throughout the home. Ms Jones has attempted to make changes and be proactive in finding storage for her items. There are also concerns around stability of their home and where they will move to next, either as a family or by herself. Ms Jones’ mother has already stated that she does not want Ms Jones to live on her own as it is unsafe, so it is unclear what will happen. What is evident is, is that the home is not suitable for Jessica now or in the future. At times Ms Jones has minimised, refuted, or has not shared information to make homelife appear better than it was, as well as being dishonest during the assessment. In doing so, it has impeded the parenting assessment and showed a lack of acknowledgment and admittance in the deficits to her parenting. As the parenting assessment has progressed various areas were able to be discussed. The information gathered further highlighted her vulnerabilities and shortfalls in her parenting knowledge.

Following the parenting assessment end review it was very clear that Ms Jones showed very little insight into various areas of concern raised as well as showing a lack of understanding as to why these were being highlighted. She was argumentative and dismissive of the worries, and her whole demeanour was defensive and non-negotiable from the onset. Ms Jones has continued to demonstrate her lack of understanding of the impact these concerns have and would be detrimental to the care and safety afforded to Jessica.

All children have the right to have their basic needs met, to be prioritised, feel safe, loved and happy. I am under no illusion that Ms Jones loves all her children very much. It remains important that Jessica is able to thrive and grow in an environment where her holistic needs are met consistently. It is therefore the view of the parenting assessor that there is no amount of realistic support that could be put in place to manage risks posed to her child should Jessica return to the care of her mother. Therefore, Jessica should remain in the care of the local authority.”

The author was not cross-examined on her assessment. The summary of the overseeing manager is at p.294. It comments:

“This parenting assessment has considered all areas of parenting and has included challenge to Ms Jones in order to gain the full view of past and present. Ms Jones has worked well within the assessment and has shown in family time that she is making efforts to make changes, especially when prompted to do so. However, overall the assessment has identified that there are significant gaps in Ms Jones’ knowledge and ability which means it would not be safe at this time for Jessica to return to her care. The report is detailed in considering both positives and the worries presented. Opportunities for progression have been given. Ms Jones has unfortunately not demonstrated a good enough level of parenting or protection to offer reassurance that Jessica would be safe in her care. There remain outstanding significant worries that could not be overcome by support.”

In addition, the local authority say the relationship between the father and the mother has not in fact ended. They have been seen together twice. The mother says this is purely by chance. The town where she lives, she says, is a small place. I do not accept that on balance of probabilities. The account of them visiting the Co-Op suggest strongly that they were going shopping together. This is another example, like her case on having stopped smoking cannabis, where she is, in my judgment, not telling the truth to professionals.

I turn then to the law, and to the analysis by the local authority and the guardian. All parties were content that I should take the summary of law set out by HHJ Vincent as the law, it was not in dispute, and I will do that, expressing my gratitude for HHJ Vincent’s work. He says:

“21.

I come very briefly to the law. The law is tolerably straightforward and well known now. Care proceedings involve two basic questions. First, are the threshold criteria for making a care or a supervision order under s.31 of the Children Act 1989 satisfied? Secondly, if so, what order should the court make? Section 31 provides that the court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm is attributable to the care which the child has received or would receive. That is conceded in this case. (It is also conceded in this case) There is a helpful final threshold document which has received some tweaking (that is the same here) and it is conceded in this case that the threshold has been surmounted.

22.

That brings me on to the next question: what order should I make? That involves well established legal principles. The rights of parents and children under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to respect for family and private life are engaged here. Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 says that the child’s welfare must be my paramount consideration. Section 1(2) tells me not to delay the proceedings because delay is likely to affect the child’s welfare. Section 1(3) contains the well-known Welfare Checklist. I have regard to the entirety of the checklist, but it seems to me that the important element within it is the risk facing the child in parental care and the capability of the parents meeting his care needs, which in turn involve alienating that risk. (That is the same in this case)

23.

On the application for a placement order, the court applied s.1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. On such an application my paramount consideration is the child’s welfare throughout his life. Again, the section enjoins me to take into account the fact that delay in coming to a decision is likely to prejudice his welfare. Once again, there is a checklist of factors to take into account. In this case it is in s.1(4) of the 2002 act. The differences between that and the checklist under the Children Act 1989 are largely concerned with taking a lifelong view in respect of the child and also keeping a close eye on the importance to him of the relationships that would be lost through adoption. Beyond that, by both s.1(3)(g) of the 1989 Act and s.1(6) of the 2002 Act the court is required to have regard to the range of orders available. Under s.21(3) of the 2002 Act the court may not make a placement order unless satisfied either that the parents have consented or that their consent has been dispensed with. In this case neither parent gives active consent to the making of a placement order, and under s.52(1)(b) the court may dispense with the parents’ consent if the welfare of the child concerned requires the consent to be dispensed with.

24.

The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have interpreted for lower courts all of that stuff, and in essence there is a fairly straightforward level of guidance provided for the courts now. The signal points of it are that there is level of obligation on the local authority bringing the proceedings to present the court with a Re B-S analysis relating to the pros and cons of each realistic option for the care of the child and the evidence base underlying it. (Then he says he has received one). The guardian had a similar task on her hands (and he expresses his gratitude). I have to do the same thing. I have to identify the realistic options, summarise the pros and cons, and then reach a welfare conclusion. I have to do that in a holistic way rather than in a linear fashion. I am not able to find one particular option wanting as a result of its disadvantages and automatically assume that any remaining option is the correct one. I have to stand back and look at all the options in the round.

25.

There are one or two other things to say, that is that placement for adoption cannot be approved by the court unless literally nothing else will do. That is a serious and very high test. Secondly, that in looking parental care the court is not looking for protection, it is looking for a level of care that is good enough to meet the needs of the child concerned. As a society we have to countenance care that is sometimes below par and sometimes causes a child some measure of harm, perhaps maybe inconsistent and perhaps also described as barely adequate. That is a level of parenting that the state is not entitled to interfere with. It is if the level of care and the impact on the child incites that significant harm would be caused that the state, and indeed the family justice system, has not only the right but the obligation to intervene.”

The social worker evidence template in this case says this in Section 3 at p.360 of the bundle:

“Jessica residing in the care of Ms Jones. Despite there being many positives in relation to Ms Jones in terms of her capacity to be warm and loving towards Jessica, there are significant concerns highlighted by the local authority in respect of her ability to meet Jessica’s basic needs consistently and safely. There are continuing concerns that Ms Jones has tested positive for cannabis with her hair strand testing showing a positive result over the last six months, from July 2024 until January 2025, despite her reporting that she has abstained from using cannabis since 3^rd October 2024. Ms Jones disputes the outcome of the hair strand testing reporting that she has been in the company of others who have been smoking cannabis which has influenced the hair strand results. Ms Jones has used cannabis throughout her pregnancy with Jessica, and despite reporting to Derbyshire Recovery Partnership (DRP) that she has abstained from this since 3^rd October 2024, the hair strand test before the court clearly shows that Ms Jones has continued to use cannabis and has not been honest in relation to this.

Significant concerns were highlighted by the local authority in respect of Ms Jones’ parenting capacity and quality of the care she could afford to Jessica. Whilst it is acknowledged that Ms Jones does love Jessica, she has continued to have contact with Mr Morgan despite being aware of the risks he poses and has not been honest about this when challenged. Ms Jones undertook a parenting assessment and attended 16 out of 20 sessions offered. The parenting assessment highlighted significant gaps in Ms Jones’ knowledge of safe and effective parenting, which may lead to Jessica being at a significant risk of harm should she be returned to the care of Ms Jones. As evidenced within the chronology before the court, there have been significant concerns in relation to Ms Jones meaningful engagement with services such as DRP and the Elm Foundation.”

Then she comments on Jessica residing in the care of Mr Morgan and says he has not been assessed and that it is not a realistic option to return her to his care. She then says:

“The local authority has considered what is in the best interests Jessica given her age and vulnerability. Jessica is of an age where she is unable to verbalise her wishes and feelings. However, it is reasonable to assume that Jessica would choose to reside with one or both of her parents if they were able to safely and consistently meet her needs. However, it is reasonable that Jessica should want to be raised in a safe and stable environment.

Jessica is a baby who is completely dependent on her care givers to meet her basic needs. Jessica will require care givers who are able to prioritise her needs over their own. It is also possible that she will need carers that can support her through any attachment difficulties that may arise from her experience and understand her cultural and identity needs. Having assessed and considered parental and paternal family members, it is the local authority’s position that the plan for Jessica should be one of seeking a placement order with a plan of adoption and that she should remain in foster care until a suitable adoptive placement is secured.”

On 6^th March 2025, the agency decision-maker agreed with the local authority that Jessica should be placed for adoption stating: “A plan for permanence via adoption is required to safeguard Jessica’s welfare. This is necessary and proportionate to the risks identified.”

The SWET analysis then goes on to analyse the options in this way, at p.368.

“The first option is a care order with long-term kinship placements. Jessica would be placed in long-term kinship care where her needs would be met by a family member with the established relationship who is assessed to meet her needs. Jessica would remain in the care of her family, which would provide her with a sense of identity. The cons at that Jessica would be exposed to risks of parental substance use, domestic abuse, and failure to have her basic needs met from Ms Jones and Mr Morgan. There are in fact no family kinship possibilities apart from her mother.”

They then deal with other options.

“Long-term foster care. The pros are that Jessica would be placed in long-term foster care where her needs would be met by a carer who is assessed to meet her needs. Jessica would continue to have contact with her birth family, supervised by the local authority. The cons are that Jessica may move foster carers and placements over her childhood which could impact on her emotional wellbeing. Jessica would not achieve permanency.

Return to parental care. The pros are that Jessica would reside within her birth family in her parents’ care. The local authority had significant concerns that Ms Jones and Mr Morgan would be able to meet the care needs of Jessica safely and consistently and she would suffer significant harm.

Full care order and placement order. The pros are that Jessica would remain in local authority care in which all her needs would be met until a suitable adoptive placement was found. Jessica would achieve permanence and no longer be a Looked After Child. The cons are that Jessica would no longer be placed within her family of birth. Contact would be through letter box.”

Pausing there, the mother asks that if adoption is allowed then it should be an open adoption. I will come back to that.

The guardian’s final statement is at p.505. She gives her substantive evidence at p.510, where at para.22 she says:

“From my discussions with Ms Jones and having read her final statement, there is no doubt that she loves Jessica and wishes for her to be returned to her care. Ms Jones believes that she should be given the chance to evidence that she can sustain the change and progress she has made and does not believe there is any reasons why Jessica should not be in her care. The local authority evidence raises concerns in respect of substance abuse, parenting capacity, domestic abuse, and insight, which informs the view that should Jessica be placed in her mother’s care she would be at significant risk of harm.”

The guardian then deals with substance abuse and largely repeats the evidence I have already recited. She then at para.24 deals with domestic abuse and notes that it is factored in many of Ms Jones’ relationships and says:

“Ms Jones is vulnerable to predatory males and those who will take advantage of her. It appears that Ms Jones is unable to recognise red flags, and during the assessment referred to ending up in relationships with males who she was initially friends with and then they changed”.

And she outlines various concerns there.

At para.26 she deals with insight and honesty and says:

“I am greatly concerned by the information from two professionals regarding Ms Jones being seen with Mr Morgan. While Ms Jones states this was a coincidence the information suggests they were much attending the shop together, and this was also local to Mr Morgan’s home.”

Then there is further evidence of that.

Then para.27 deals with parenting capacity and says:

“Ms Jones appears to lack basic knowledge and insight into a child’s needs and her lateral thinking. In my view, this raises a significant shortfall in her parenting capacity. Despite having care of her first two children, the parenting assessment highlights areas where Ms Jones lacks basic knowledge, such as the safe temperature of the milk and the importance of using sterilised bottles for young babies.”

That is contested by Ms Jones, who says it was a misunderstanding of the way in which she tested the bottled milk for its temperature.

Her analysis is at p.1517. The first consideration she makes is no order and says this is not a safe option for Jessica for the reasons set out in the report. “Safe reunification — The pros, this would be the best option for Jessica if it was safe for her to return to her mother’s care, and she sets out the advantages. The cons are that Jessica would be at risk of harm in her mother’s care.” She then says:

“Ms Jones’ love for Jessica is undoubted. However, the assessments that have been carried out as part of these proceedings on the evidence before the court concludes that Jessica would be at risk of significant harm if she were placed in her mother’s care. This makes reunification an unsafe option for Jessica. In my opinion there is no package of support that can be put in place to mitigate the risks to Jessica in her mother’s care.”

Then she deals with kinship care and special guardianship. She says that the assessments of maternal and paternal family members has been negative and therefore there is not the possibility of providing safe and consistent parenting.

Next she deals with permanent long-term foster care. She says:

“The pros are long-term fostering would safeguard Jessica from significant harm. Jessica would have ongoing contact with her birth family. Jessica would have ongoing social work involvement to monitor her progress and ensure relevant support is in place. The cons are Jessica would not legally be part of a family as her foster carers would not acquire parental responsibility. Foster placements can end suddenly, which impacts on permanence experienced by children in care. This leads to uncertainty about placements and feelings of instability and could impact on Jessica’s attachments as well as her emotional and behavioural development and educational outcomes. Long-term fostering requires ongoing social care involvement which is instrusive and can result in stigma. Permanence would not be achieved for Jessica.

Adoption. This is the local authority’s care plan for Jessica. Pros – Jessica is only five months old. (She is now, of course, six months). Therefore, adoption would offer her the opportunity to become part of a permanent family from an early age. This would enable Jessica to grow up in a safe and secure family where her needs are consistently met. There is a commitment on the part of adoptive parents for long-term permanent care, which is not necessarily the case for foster care and is, in my judgment, less likely to result in placement instability. The adopters would acquire parental responsibility for Jessica. If appropriately planned and supported, it is anticipated that Jessica would be able to manage the transition to an adoptive placement. Cons – Adoption would severe Jessica’s ties to her birth family. This is and should always be a last resort and only considered when there are no other options available. Jessica has an established relationship with her mother, and this bond will be broken if she is adopted and would be limited. There is always a very small risk of adoption breakdown. Jessica would need to be carefully matched to prospective adopters.”

Finally, she deals with residential care and notes this is not a realistic option for Jessica due to her age, and deals with other — for example, child arrangement —orders, and says that there are no other orders which would realistically offer Jessica the level of care, protection and stability she requires given her age.

The mother, in her final statement, at p.372, para.4, says:

“The local authority completed a parenting assessment of me, and the outcome of this assessment is negative. I seek to challenge the parenting assessment. I submit this is not a comprehensive assessment as a lot of the information is repeated, and I believe the assessment is rather over critical. Moreover, there has been a lack of consideration given to my circumstances, and the outcome of the assessment relies heavily on historic concerns.”

However, the parental assessment, in my judgment, is compelling, and, of course, the author as not been cross-examined on it. It is also right to note that the mother has been seeking to attend the Elm Foundation Freedom Programme, but through no fault of her own can only commence the course later this month.

I stand back to consider the options. Realistically, these are either making a placement order or returning Jessica to live with her mother. The other options, for the reasons given in the SWET analysis and the guardian’s analysis, such as long-term foster care, have no advantages for this little girl, and no party suggested any other option was viable.

I turn then to the two options. In my judgment, returning Jessica to her mother cannot be done safely, and this will not change in any reasonable timescale. When I look at the Welfare Checklist in s.1 of the 1989 Act, and s.1 of the 2002 Act, this is a key element: see s.1(3)(e) of the 1989 Act and s.1(4)(e) of the 2002 Act.

I can run through the other elements of the checklist very quickly. Section 1(3) of the 1989 Act requires the court to have regard in particular to:

In my judgment, this is a case where nothing other than a placement order will do. Accordingly, I will make a final care order with a placement order and dispense with the parents’ consent.

So far as the letter box issue is concerned, this is primarily a matter for the local authority to discuss with prospective adopters. Likewise, the mother’s wish for an open adoption is one which the local authority are at liberty to discuss with adopters. However, in my judgment, in this case it is more important that Jessica is found a good home with loving adoptive parents. If a letter box or open arrangement can be reached all well and good, but the higher priority is to find a good placement.