London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v Mother & Ors

I am concerned with the welfare of ZC, a boy, born in 2023.  He is 20 months old. The parents are separated. The mother (hereafter referred to as M), is represented by Mr Matthews and has been assisted by her intermediary, Ms I , throughout this final hearing. The father (hereafter referred to as F) is, represented by Mr Martey.

The applicant Local Authority is the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (hereafter referred to as LA), represented by Ms Adeyinka.

ZC’s interests are represented through his Guardian, G who instructs Ms Sherrington.

This has been the final hearing of these proceedings. The LA’s final care plan is for ZC to remain in care of his paternal grandmother (hereafter referred to as PGM) under a SGO. The plan is supported by the Guardian and F but is opposed by M who seeks the return of ZC to her care.

M has two other children from previous relationships. M’s oldest child, OC was placed for adoption in 2011 following public law proceedings. The family had been known to the London Borough of Waltham Forest since 2011 due to concerns about M’s ability to meet OC’s needs, OC being left for long periods, neglect and emotional harm.

M’s second child, SC, was subject to care proceedings with the London Borough of Redbridge, due to concerns in relation to emotional harm and neglect. The proceedings concluded in 2023 with a care order being made. I dealt with those proceedings and so there has been judicial continuity between the two sets of proceedings. SC is placed in long-term foster care. It came to light during those proceedings that M was in a relationship with F, but she had not disclosed this information initially.

The concerns in relation to SC related to M’s neglect of his needs, including that M had not engaged with help from professional services to improve her parenting and to support SC’s needs; that M had not met SC’s health, developmental and educational needs; that M had been unable to get SC to school consistently, which led to him being significantly behind his peers with his education; and that M had been evicted from her home.

SC’s proceedings were extraordinarily lengthy having begun in 2021 and concluded in 2023. Extensive parenting and psychological assessments of M were undertaken, and extensive therapeutic work was completed with a psychologist, Dr Surgenor. In Dr Sugenor’s initial psychological report from 2021, she had concluded that:

“there are indications that the chronic trauma that M experienced in her formative years, along with the ongoing challenges she has faced into adulthood, has understandably and unsurprisingly resulted in a ‘sensitive’ stress response, which is overly active and overly reactive, leading to fairly significant issues in respect of emotional and behavioural regulation and social interaction. The situation is further complicated by her learning needs, which reduces her capacity to think in a flexible manner, problem-solve, process information, and articulate herself clearly; these cognitive abilities become particularly compromised at times of heightened stress.

Although M did not report symptoms of a mental health issues per se, this is not consistent with the high levels of anxiety that were apparent during the course of this assessment; her anxiety was palpable and she rarely seemed to feel at ease. It is likely that ‘denial tendencies’ are covering up the symptoms of anxiety and perhaps low mood.

Taking her overall presentation into consideration, there are indications that M is experiencing ‘complex trauma”.

It was in that context that M went on to undertake a significant amount of work with Dr Surgenor.

Despite some evidence of positive change at times, the final conclusion of the professionals was that these had not been sustained and when the case finally concluded in-2023, there remained concerns about M’s ability to provide SC with consistent parenting and that she had not been able to prioritise SC’s need above those of her own with regards to her relationship with F. The local authority was further concerned about domestic abuse and F’s substance misuse, which could have resulted in further harm to SC if he were returned to M’s care.

In 2023, Dr Surgenor, who knew M extremely well by that point, had concluded that M had returned to providing SC with inconsistent parenting, stating that M has “become increasingly emotionally and behaviourally dysregulated”. Dr Surgenor reported that the previous observations of M being attuned to SC were no longer present and she also appeared to lack empathy. Dr Surgenor highlighted serious concerns for SC’s emotional wellbeing and could not recommend SC returns to the care of M. The Court ultimately concluded that SC would indeed be at risk of emotional harm if he were returned to M’s care.

F’s daughter from a different relationship was also subject to a child protection plan in a London Borough due to concerns about domestic abuse between F and M of his daughter. There remain concerns in relation to F’s drugs & alcohol misuse and his mental health.

ZC was born prematurely. He was placed in the NICU at hospital for more than a month. It was reported by the community midwife that M booked the pregnancy late even though she was considered a ‘high risk pregnancy’. M attended her first ante natal appointment when she was 22 weeks pregnant and missed four ante natal appointments. There were concerns that M concealed information and booked her pregnancy under a false name.

In 2023, a domestic abuse incident occurred between M and father. It was alleged that a verbal argument escalated with F punching M in the face and stomach, kicking her, holding her down, strangling her, kneeling on her neck and spitting on her face. Under police interview, F made counter allegations against M stating she threw an iron at him. The matter was marked ‘no further action’ by the police given that both parties blamed one another. The Local Authority issued these proceedings in 2023 when ZC was ready to be discharged from hospital.

ZC was initially placed with M at a residential unit for a parenting assessment which commenced in July 2023. F joined the assessment process in September 2023. which was by way of contact sessions, as the unit could not accommodate him due to the outcome of his hair stand test results, which were positive for cannabis and excessive alcohol consumption.

Following the residential assessment, which was negative in respect of both parents, the Local Authority applied for separation of ZC from his mother at a hearing in October 2023. The application was adjourned until November 2023. M then sought a further residential assessment or a community-based assessment.At the hearing in November 2023, the court directed that further questions be put to the residential unit and that a special guardianship assessment of the PGM commence immediately with a view to ZC being placed with her as an interim placement. The court also directed a professional’s meeting.

The matter was listed for a further hearing on November 2023 but adjourned to December 2023 to further hear the application regarding interim separation and alternative interim placement options. At the hearing in December 2023, the court sanctioned separation of ZC from his mother and placement with the PGM under an ICO. The court also attached an exclusion requirement to the ICO in respect of F attending the property of PGM. ZC has remained in that placement ever since.

Between the end of August 2024 and January 2025, M only attended one session of contact with ZC, which was in October. There have been difficulties in relation to contact as M has missed very many sessions, reportedly due to ill-health and a family bereavement.

F’s contact with ZC had also been limited due to him entering rehabilitation in May 2024, for an 18-month programme, although he discharged himself after approximately four months.

The Local Authority maintain that the risks to ZC of being returned to M’s care are far too high and he would not be safe in her care. That position is supported by F and the Guardian.

M’s position is that she has made significant changes since the start of these proceedings and since she was assessed at the residential unit. She seeks the return of ZC to her care. In the alternative, she seeks further assessment with a view to ZC being returned to her care.

ZC’s s welfare is my paramount consideration and the most important thing for me to consider. In doing so, I must have regard to the welfare checklist.

I also have regard to the principle that any delay in reaching decisions for children is generally prejudicial to their welfare.

I should only make an order for ZC if doing so is better for his welfare than making no order at all.

I have to consider the Article 8 rights of ZC and his parents. Any interference with the right to private and family life must be a necessary interference and must be proportionate, having regard to the risks involved.

The burden of proof is on the LA to prove their case and to prove any disputed facts. The standard of proof is the usual civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities.

In order to make a public law order, I need to be satisfied that threshold is crossed. The threshold criteria test is set out in s31(2) & (9) of ZCren Act 1989:

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

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

It is important to bear in mind the comments made by Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 1050:-

“…society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent, and that some children would experience disadvantage and harm, while others would flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. It was not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting; the compulsive powers of the state could only be exercised when the significant harm criteria in s31(2) of ZCren Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) had been made out.”

I also have regard to what Baroness Hale said in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 at para 143:

“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away ZCren of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse anti-social political or religious beliefs.”

In Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11, the President (as he then was) expressly approved the words of Hedley J referred to above and these words from the judgement of His Honour Judge Jack in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCC B77 (Fam) where he said:

I remind myself that just because a person has lied in one aspect of a case does not mean they have lied about everything. A finding that a person has lied about one issue does not, in and of itself, confirm the truth of any allegation(s) against them. It does not - necessarily - undermine the truth of other aspects of their evidence. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, confusion and emotional pressure and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything else.

The court must not evaluate and assess the available evidence in separate compartments. Rather, regard must be had to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward has been made out on the balance of probabilities.

When I consider the evidence, I must take all of it into account and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence, in order to examine the overall canvass of evidence.

The assessment took place from July to October 2023. The outcome was negative and did not recommend that the parents could care for their child. The midway report of September states that M has faced challenges in various aspects of her parenting. One significant contributing factor appears to be M’s sensitivity to external circumstances and her perception of her own situation. She seemed unaware of how her moods and emotions affect her daily life, with her mood and outlook fluctuating frequently, sometimes even on an hourly basis. M did not recognise her need for support, making it difficult for the Unit to provide the necessary assistance and ultimately affecting her ability to provide stable parenting and care for ZC. The intention of the Unit was to assist and support M, but for any progress to be made, they felt she must be willing to invest in self-improvement, which she was not.

The conclusions and recommendations report dated 13^th October 2023 found that throughout the placement, the primary concern has been the inconsistent level of care provided to ZC. Despite receiving 10 weeks of substantial support, guidance, and weekly reviews that highlight concerns, there was a persistent issue with the adequacy of care. M, at times, seemed unwilling to acknowledge this reality. The unit attributed this lack of consistency to M’s moods, which have been observed to influence the extent of care that ZC received.

The final residential report dated November 2023 concluded that the Unit did not doubt that the parents both love ZC but did not think they could put his needs above their own. By placing their needs above ZC’s needs, the Unit concluded that he would be at risk of neglect and not being provided with emotional support or a safe environment. The Unit felt there were a variety of factors for this, including personal challenges and emotional struggles, which means the parents both lack awareness about ZC’s needs. The Unit did feel that the professional network over the years has tried to offer support but neither parent was ready for this. The Unit considered if there was any way that ZC could safely be cared for by his parents but concluded that there was not.

M clearly does not accept the outcome of the Unit assessment, but no application was made for anyone from the Unit to attend the final hearing to give evidence. Questions about the assessment were put to the previous social worker.

Dr Mayer did not diagnose any mental illness, but did Dr Mayer say that, in his opinion, F has antisocial personality traits, but these are insufficient to support a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder. Dr Mayer noted that F has a tendency to minimize issues and lacks transparency and recommended total abstinence from drugs and alcohol. Dr Mayer suggested cognitive behavioral work to address proneness to anxiety and low mood, and to help with emotional regulation. A typical timescale would be weekly sessions over 12 weeks. This could be accessed through F’s GP.

As the Guardian notes in her final analysis, Dr Timberlake concluded that the cognitive behavioral therapy M has undergone does not fully address the concerns or her needs, and her understanding of the issues surrounding her parenting remains limited. He recommended that prior to consideration of ZC returning to M’s care, she must first complete parenting work that includes structured programs, opportunities to implement new skills under supervision, and work to develop her understanding of the concerns raised during the previous residential assessment. Dr Timberlake emphasised the importance of M addressing her broader mental health challenges. His assessment noted that M struggles to be open about her mental health and lacks sufficient acceptance and understanding of her parenting difficulties. Additionally, she dismisses the concerns raised about her parenting abilities, and the prospect of improvement is therefore low.

Dr Timberlake did acknowledge M’s recent improvements in anger management and her self-reported better working relationships with professionals but emphasised the need for continued monitoring. Her ability to work effectively with professionals and the network around her would have been positive indicators of sustained changes. He stated that M must demonstrate engagement in parenting programs, therapeutic support for her mental health, further training, role modelling, attendance at domestic abuse courses, and a period of residential assessment. Dr Timberlake provided a timeframe of 9 to 12 months for these interventions, which exceeds ZC’s timescales. Dr Timberlake further highlighted the importance of M establishing a secure support network.

As regards the possibility of ZC being placed back with M now, Dr Timberlake commented:

Dr Timberlake’s report was not challenged at this hearing, and no application was made for Dr Timberlake to give evidence.

Dr Timberlake concluded that M had difficulties with her cognitive functioning and would meet one of the criteria for a diagnosis of learning disability. However, the outcome of the cognitive assessment did not change his findings in the psychological assessment dated 8^th August 2024.

PSW was the author of the LA final evidence and two previous statements. PSW confirmed that the LA’s final care plan remained for ZC to remain in the care of PGM under a SGO. She confirmed that ZC is thriving in the care of PGM and that there are no safeguarding concerns.

PSW acknowledged that M has taken significant steps during the course of the proceedings to improve her parenting skills, including CBT, working with PAUSE and completing the Freedom Program, for which she should be given credit, but PSW confirmed that the LA do not support the return of ZC to the care of M due to her assessed inability to consistently meet his needs, including when she had intensive support at the Unit. PSW further relied on the report of Dr Timberlake, referred to above, and his conclusions that M had a lot of further work to do before she could realistically care for ZC.

PSW was asked in some detail about what happened at the Unit but, as she was not there, she struggled to answer most of these questions. PSW was aware of the concerns and allegations that M has made regarding how she was treated at the Unit, and was also aware that the Unit have denied these allegations. PSW did acknowledge that there were positives that emerged from the assessment, including about M meeting some of ZC’s basic care needs and showing him emotional warmth.

PSW accepted that the Unit had not been asked to undertake a PAMS or Parent Assess model assessment, despite what Dr Farhy said in her assessment back in 2015 and what Dr Timberlake said in his cognitive assessment. PSW believed that the Unit has deployed some of the strategies and techniques recommended by the experts but was unsure of what precise methods were used. It was put to PSW that the assessment of the Unit is flawed and unfair, but PSW did not accept that and was of the view that although a PAMS or Parent Assess assessment was not requested, the assessment still provides clear evidence regarding M’s parenting capacity, which the LA can and do rely upon. PSW was concerned that M had not been able to prioritise and consistently meet ZC’s needs and at times, M had behaved aggressively.

PSW was referred to Dr Surgenor’s report from June 2023 and her comments that:

PSW confirmed she accepted this view and that although M is able to make positive changes, she struggles to sustain them, and Dr Timberlake’s report from August 2024 makes it clear that M is not yet ready to care for ZC or even to undertake a further residential assessment. PSW agreed with the Guardian that the changes M needs to make are outside of ZC’s timescales.

PSW was particularly concerned about the huge number of contact sessions that M missed with ZC and the fact she only attended one contact session between the end of August 2024 and January 2025. PSW said that M gave various reasons for this, including illness and bereavement. PSW did accept that when M has attended contact, it has been of good quality, and ZC has enjoyed it.

PSW acknowledged that there are ongoing difficulties in the relationship between M and PGM and it is very difficult for them to communicate with one another.

Overall, I found the evidence of PSW to be helpful in providing an understanding of why the LA have concluded that they cannot support ZC being returned to M’s care. Although a lot of her evidence focused on the Unit assessment, which PSW had some knowledge of, it was clear to me that while that was clearly part of the evidential picture, the LA had also considered the assessments of Dr Timberlake and the assessments completed in SC proceedings in reaching their conclusions about ZC’s welfare.

CSW confirmed that the LA remains of the view that ZC should remain with PGM and that the Court should make a SGO. She confirmed that the proposed level of contact with M was once every two months and was concerned that M would not be able to commit to a higher level given that she only saw ZC once between the end of August 2024 and January 2025, despite contact having been consistently offered to M twice a week. CSW felt this must still be supervised due to concerns about whether M would be able to meet ZC’s needs consistently if she had unsupervised contact. CSW accepted that when M does attend contact, it is of good quality, and ZC enjoys it.

CSW agreed that as ZC is already placed with PGM, there was no need for a ‘setting-in’ period to the placement but there is a need for ZC to settle-in to having regular contact with M again given how much she has missed.

I found CSW to be a helpful witness in respect of the LA’s final care plan. I found her evidence to be broadly well-reasoned and child focused. While I understand the rationale for contact with M being bi-monthly, as I will come on to, I do consider that this should be at a slightly higher level for ZC.

I then heard from M. She referred to her numerous concerns about how she was treated at the Unit, including how they communicated with her, how she felt bullied by the staff there and how she felt her parenting was unfairly criticized. She specifically referred to two occasions when she took ZC to hospital, despite the Unit not being supportive of her in doing so and subsequently being told by medical staff that she made the right decision to take ZC to hospital. On the second occasion, he was found to have a hernia and required surgery.

M was asked about her learning difficulty and how this presents in her. M said that it particularly affects her when she is under pressure, which she struggles to cope with. She felt she was put under a lot of pressure at the Unit to care for ZC in the way that they expected and does not feel that she was given the right level of support to do so. She pointed out that prior to moving to the Unit, ZC had been in hospital since birth and then they suddenly moved to the Unit and the assessment began. M felt she had not had sufficient time to prepare for this.

M confirmed she had undertaken a lot of work since the proceedings began, including CBT, anger management, the Freedom Program and the Triple P parenting course. She felt that she had benefited from all of this work.

On the issue of contact, M accepted she had missed a lot of sessions between August 2024 and January 2025, having only attended one session during that period, which was in October 2024. M said that was sometimes due to her being unwell and because her grandfather became unwell and then passed away-. She said that this had a huge impact upon her and so she decided to stop attending contact as she found it too hard to “juggle everything”. She said that she always tried to let the contact centre know that she would not be attending. M did accept that her failure to attend probably had had an impact on ZC.

M was asked about relationship with PGM. M accepted this had been “hit and miss” at the start of the proceedings M accepted that she had had two altercations with PGM and has since tried to apologize but she feels that PGM has been unable to accept her apologies and the relationship has now broken down. If ZC remains in the care of PGM, M said that she would like contact two or three times a week, including overnight stays. M said that she believes ZC is happy in the care of PGM but said she does not get updates so she cannot know for sure. M also feels that, in the past, PGM was responsible for frustrating contact, which is why it sometimes did not take place as planned.

M was asked about whether she has problems with becoming angry. She said that she used to “lash out” but does not consider this to be such an issue any longer. She refuted any suggestion that she became angry at the Unit and again repeated that she did not feel supported there. M said that, on reflection, she does not feel that she needed a residential assessment because she was caring for ZC well in hospital and could have been discharged home with him in her care.

M was asked about the report of Dr Timberlake and his clear recommendation that she had a lot of further work to do before she could care for ZC. M said that she disagreed with this assessment, that she had already done a lot of work and was now a different person with improved parenting skills. She felt that the CBT she undertaken previously had helped her to address her past trauma and to be more open about this. M said that she would undertake the further work recommended by Dr Timberlake if professionals wanted her to do so but was not convinced that she needed to do so and saw no reason why she could not do it with ZC in her care. She said that she had approached her GP about accessing psychotherapy but had been told that there is a very long waiting list.

M was asked about SC proceedings and the fact that she had been resistant to professional help. M said that she accepted that to some extent but not entirely, although was then referred to a statement where she says that she was indeed resistant to professional help.

I have no doubt that M loves ZC and genuinely wishes to care for him but there were several parts of her evidence that struck me. Firstly, M does not take very much responsibility at all for what happened with SC or for some of the issues in these proceedings. M clearly places the blame with others, including the Unit, PGM and the Local Authority. She seemed to take little responsibility herself and had to be pushed under cross examination, for example, to acknowledge her decision not to go to contact may have had an impact on ZC. As regards the psychotherapy recommended by Dr Timberlake, my impression was that M does not really feel she needs to do this but would do it if professionals want her to. As with her lack of insight into her failure to attend contact, this did not give me confidence that M really has any understanding into the true nature of the professional concerns and the need to address them. I gained the impression that M was probably willing to participate in psychotherapy to ‘tick the box’ rather than because she feels she needs it. While M has undertaken further work since SC’s proceedings, I was left with the impression that a lot of the concerns raised by Dr Surgenor at the conclusion of those proceedings are similar to the concerns raised by Dr Timberlake in these proceedings, and there was little in M’s evidence to suggest otherwise.

At the outset of the Guardian’s evidence, she confirmed that she supported the LA final care plan for ZC to remain with PGM under a SGO. The Guardian confirmed she had listened to the evidence of the other witnesses, but her recommendations remained unchanged. She summarised her reasons for this as being that M has made great efforts, that she loves ZC and really wants to parent him and wants to be a good parent to him. There are, however, still underlying issues, unaddressed trauma, and psychological issues that are all barriers to meaningful change. The Guardian said that M can do the work, but it is reflecting on the work and understanding why she needs the work that is the barrier. The Guardian referred to the assessment at the Unit when M denied the concerns raised about her parenting and her ability to take on board advice/guidance and instead, blamed the professionals. The Guardian was therefore concerned that if ZC was placed in M’s care, she will not meet his needs consistently. The Guardian fully agreed with Dr Timberlake that M has a lot of work to do before she could realistically care for ZC and consistently meet his needs. The Guardian felt that until M’s trauma was addressed, it will be very difficult for her to care for a young child such as ZC.

The Guardian confirmed she would support M having monthly contact with ZC if a SGO is made. While the Guardian accepted that M had missed a huge amount of contact in recent months, she had previously been attending twice a week, and contact had been positive for ZC The Guardian therefore felt that once a month would be the right level for ZC.

The Guardian was asked about the Unit assessment and while entirely accepting that it was not a PAMS or Parent Assess assessment, the Guardian believed that appropriate techniques and methods had been used to assess M that took into account her cognitive difficulties. The Guardian referred to the professionals meeting that took place in November 2023 and the comments from M’s key worker at the Unit about the methods used, which were as follows:

The key worker confirmed that the unit had received the case papers in August 2023 and then comments that:

“when began considering it, ensure that we were understanding what we were reading and needed to adjust to needs at that time. Already observed some needs to be accounted for, M had denied at the time”

The Guardian was therefore satisfied that the Unit assessment was a fair assessment that had been tailored to M’s cognitive needs. The Guardian also confirmed that she had considered the weekly logs from the Unit and remained satisfied that the assessment was fair. She said that the primary issue for M was her unresolved trauma and her inability to accept support. The Guardian did not think that a formal PAMS or Parent Assess assessment would have led to a different conclusion or outcome.

It was suggested to the Guardian that it would be unfair to reach conclusions about M based on previous proceedings, but the Guardian felt that given the issues that existed in SC’s proceedings, they could not be ignored and are potentially an indicator of what could happen in the future. In many ways, the Guardian felt that what Dr Surgenor had predicted regarding M being unable to prioritise a child’s needs, had come true in respect of ZC and that those barriers continued to exist. The Guardian felt that, if anything, M had become more resistant to change between her filing her first final analysis in June 2024 and her updated analysis in January 2025, and this had coincided with M’s reduced engagement and significantly reduced attendance at contact.

When asked about M’s level of insight into her difficulties now, the Guardian felt this was limited and was inconsistent and superficial.

Overall, I found the Guardian to be an extremely impressive witness. I found her evidence to be balanced, well-reasoned and detailed. It was clear to me that the Guardian has a full grasp of the issues in the case. The Guardian was able to acknowledge that M has worked hard and has formed an independent view, for example, that the LA’s proposed level of future contact is too low. The Guardian is however very clear in her careful analysis that there remain too many barriers to M being able to care for ZC now, particularly those identified by Dr Surgenor previously and by Dr Timberlake, that it would not be safe for ZC to be placed in M's care. I have no hesitation in accepting the Guardian’s evidence.

There is no dispute that threshold is crossed in this matter and there is an agreed threshold document, which was served at the start of this final hearing. The final document will be annexed to the final order and so I am not going to repeat it all here. The document sets out the concerns in respect of M’s older children being removed from her care due to her not being able to meet their needs, M not seeking antenatal care when pregnant with ZC until later into the pregnancy and then missing antenatal appointments, and concerns that neither of the parents had worked openly and honestly with the LA. The document also sets out concerns regarding F’s mental health and use of alcohol and cannabis. The threshold document also records the incident in -2023 that I referred to earlier, just a week before these proceedings commenced. The LA assert that all of this placed ZC at risk of significant harm in the form of neglect, physical harm and emotional harm.

I am entirely satisfied that threshold is crossed on the basis of the agreed threshold document.

M has twice sought further assessment. In 2023, an application for assessment at Unit BB was refused (paragraph 4 of that order). In 2024, I then refused an application for M to disclose the case papers to residential units for the purposes of making an application for a further residential assessment (paragraph 3 of that order). I have seen an unagreed note of the judgment given by the judge in 2023 and so cannot be sure if it is entirely accurate but what is clear, given the legal test is one of necessity, is that the Court did not consider a further assessment to be necessary, in 2023 or in 2024.

It is clear to me that LA could have requested a PAMS or Parent Assess assessment at the Unit but did not do so. Having said that, there is evidence of the Unit being aware of M’s vulnerabilities and using appropriate techniques when working with M. These are referred to in their final report and in the minutes from the professional’s meeting in 2023. I therefore do not accept that the assessment can be described as being wholly unfair, as suggested on behalf of M, and find that although it was not a formal PAMS or Parent Assess assessment, the Unit were clearly aware of M’s cognitive difficulties and took them into account during their assessment of her.

It is also clear from the units’ assessment that perhaps the biggest barrier to M being able to care for ZC is her resistance to professional guidance and advice, which is likely to have been an issue whatever type of assessment was requested.

Furthermore, I must consider the whole canvass of evidence and not just consider the Unit assessment in isolation. I, of course, must consider the very helpful, detailed and insightful report of Dr Timberlake that sets out that M has a great deal of further work to do before she could realistically care for ZC and before she could even realistically be assessed to care for him again in a residential setting.

Additionally, the fact that M failed to attend so much contact between August 2024 and January 2025 is also a factor that must weigh in the balance. As I will come on to, this led to ZC missing out on a huge amount of contact, which is likely to have been confusing and potentially emotionally harmful to him.

I also have the two detailed analysis documents from the Guardian, where she has diligently reviewed the evidence and reached a clear conclusion.

My view therefore is that while a PAMS or Parent Assess assessment could and perhaps should have been requested by the LA at the Unit, the totality of the evidence in this case gives me a very clear assessment and up-to-date understanding of M’s parenting capacity. I therefore do not consider there is a gap in the evidence, and I do not consider it therefore necessary to direct any further assessment of M.

(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of ZC concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding); ZC is, of course, still very young and has no understanding of these proceedings. If he did have an understanding, it is likely that he would ideally want to live with a parent but if that was not possible, he would want to live with a family member.

(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs; ZC is a toddler. He has all the needs that one would expect a young child to have and is entirely dependent on his primary carer to meet all of those needs on a consistent and reliable basis. That includes his basic care needs, emotional needs and his educational needs too. Additionally, ZC now needs a final decision to be made about his future so that he has permanence. He has been the subject of proceedings since shortly after his birth and has already moved from the care of M to PGM at the end of 2023. ZC needs to know where his permanent home will be so that he can settle there for the remainder of his childhood knowing that he is growing up in a loving, secure and stable home environment where his needs will be consistently met.

(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; the LA’s plan, supported by F and the Guardian, means there will be no practical change of circumstances for ZC He has been cared for by PGM for more than a year, and is settled and thriving in her care. If I make a SGO then there will be a change in ZC’s legal status but no change in his day to day care or living arrangements. If ZC was to be removed from the care of PGM then I am concerned that this would be another significant change for ZC and will inevitably be disruptive for him as he is likely to experience some level of loss of attachment with his current primary care giver.

A placement with M will clearly be a significant change of circumstances for ZC. He has not lived with M since the Unit assessment ended in 2023. M has also missed a significant amount of contact with ZC between the end of August 2024 and January 2025. This is likely to have been confusing and probably upsetting for ZC as M effectively disappeared from his life for several months in an unplanned and unexpected way. This does lead to me being concerned about how ZC may respond and make sense of suddenly being placed with M after seeing so little of her over the past six months.

(d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant; ZC is still a very young child. He spent time in hospital following his birth, then moved to the Unit with M and then moved to live with PGM. He has therefore experienced a level of disruption in his short life. His contact with his parents, in the last few months or so has been limited. ZC is of mixed - heritage, and it is important that his understanding of his background and heritage is promoted by his primary carer and through contact. From what I have read and heard, ZC appears to be a delightful, happy and smiley toddler, with no health concerns or identified additional needs.

(e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering; I have already found that threshold is crossed in this matter and that ZC was at risk of significant harm when he was born and when the LA issued these proceedings. I do accept that M has worked hard and has made positive progress during the proceedings. She has undertaken a lot of work and courses, some of which will clearly have been difficult, particularly the CBT. I am, however, very concerned about M’s capacity to sustain her progress. She was unable to do it for SC and the evidence of Dr Timberlake is that without some further work, the same is likely to happen in respect of ZC This leads me to conclude that M is unlikely to be able to consistently meet ZC’s needs and that he would be likely to experience neglect and emotional harm, as a result of this inconsistent care, if placed in the care of M.

I have no concerns about ZC being at risk of harm in the care of PGM. It is a tried and tested placement with a family member who has been positively assessed as being able to care for ZC, and PGM has evidence that she is able to keep ZC safe over the course of more than a year now.

(f) how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs; It is clear to me that M loves ZC and truly wishes to care for him. She has worked very hard during these proceedings and has completed a significant amount of work in the form of CBT, PAUSE, the Freedom Programme and the -parenting course. She should be commended for this work, and I do not underestimate how much time and effort she has committed to it with a view to securing ZC’s return to her care.

There are, however, some very significant vulnerabilities and risks. Firstly, in SC’s proceedings, M appeared to have made significant progress and the plan at one time was that SC would be returned to her care, but M was unable to sustain that progress and SC was ultimately not returned to her care and remained in foster care. I remind myself again of the conclusions of Dr Surgenor in her final report in those proceedings. I am therefore concerned, although M has made positive steps in these proceedings, about whether she can sustain this. She was not able to do so with SC and having considered the assessment of Dr Timberlake, there is no evidence to suggest that things will be different this time unless M is able to undertake therapeutic work and engage in another assessment.

Following on from that, the reality is that M has not completed the therapeutic work that Dr Timberlake says she needs to complete in order to be able care for ZC. I make it clear that this is not a criticism of M; there is a very long waiting list for this therapeutic work on the NHS and M is not in a position to fund it privately. Nevertheless, this important work remains outstanding, and it is unclear when M may be able to engage with it. I accept the views of Dr Timberlake, particularly in light of what happened with SC that M will need to complete this work and undertake some further assessment in order to safely care for ZC. Given the time that this is all likely to take (which is still unknown) and ZC’s need now for a final decision, that further work is, in my judgment, outside of ZC’s timescales and his need for permanence.

I am further alarmed by the huge level of contact that M missed between August 2024 and January 2025. I appreciate that M says she was ill for some of these sessions and that following her grandfather becoming unwell and then passing away, she felt unable to attend. Those missed sessions though will undoubtedly have had an adverse impact on ZC though, which M accepts. ZC went from seeing M regularly to hardly seeing him at all. This will have been confusing for him and it, of course, gives rise to concern about whether M would consistently be able to meet ZC’s needs if he is placed in her care. I am concerned that M becomes overwhelmed when faced with challenges and that ZC will suffer as a result if he is placed in her care. It seems to me that this is what happened when M’s grandfather was ill and I am concerned that when something similar happens in the future, it is very unlikely that M will be able to prioritise ZC above her own difficulties, and he will experience neglect and possibly emotional harm as a result.

(g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question: it is clear to me that a final order for ZC is required. He needs a final decision to be made about where he should live. The options available to the Court now are to place ZC back with his mother, adjourn and extend the proceedings for further assessment of M, or approve the LA’s final care plan for ZC to remain with PGM under a SGO.

As set out above, I do not consider that any further assessment is necessary in this case.

As regards ZC being returned to the care of M now, there are clearly positives for child if this was to happen. He would be cared for by a parent, which is the most natural place for a child to be and would be looked after by M who clearly loves him dearly and wants to do her best for him. As outlined above, M has done a lot of work during the proceedings in an effort to bring about positive changes for ZC, and I have no doubt that that work has put her in a better position now to where she was at the outset of these proceedings.

Having said that, there are very many vulnerabilities if ZC was to be placed with M, which I have set out above. Given the extent of the vulnerabilities and the amount of work M would have to do before consideration could realistically be given to further assessing whether she could care for ZC, I do not consider that the LA can put in place any level of support to sufficiently manage the risks as things stand. In reality, M would need full-time supervision and monitoring, which is just not realistic, and there are, of course, still those concerns that M simply stopped attending contact when she became overwhelmed by other things. I am therefore doubtful that, if she were to become overwhelmed again, she would be able to prioritise ZC’s needs and keep him safe.

As regards placement with PGM, there are clearly many positives to that placement. ZC is already settled there and all of the evidence is that ZC is thriving, being kept safe and having his needs met consistently. It is a family placement, which promotes ZC’s understanding of his background and heritage despite not being placed with a parent, and that is important for his emotional wellbeing and development. Of course, remaining with PGM also means there will be no change of circumstances for ZC.

There are very few identified vulnerabilities to a placement with PGM. There are clearly difficulties between PGM and M, which is something that will need to be worked on. If ZC remains with PGM, it will be extremely important that he continues to have contact with M, who has an important and ongoing role to play in his life. M would continue to have parental responsibility for ZC and so she would need to be kept updated about his welfare, although PGM would be responsible for making decisions in respect of ZC’s welfare.

On balance, I have concluded that while M has worked hard and has made progress, the identified vulnerabilities significantly outweigh the positives in respect of her capacity to care for ZC. There are, put simply, too many risks and too many unknowns at this time and while M can and should undertake therapeutic work, it is unclear when that will start, when it would be completed and, of course, whether it would lead to M being able to make and, crucially, sustain improvements in her capacity to care for ZC and to meet his needs. As things stand, she is not, on the evidence available, equipped with the skills to do so and waiting to see if such changes can be made is not, in my view, in the best interests of ZC’s welfare given he needs a decision now.

Given the very clear positives of ZC remaining with PGM, which heavily outweigh any vulnerabilities in that placement, I have concluded that it is in the best interests of ZC’s welfare that he should remain with PGM and that I should make a SGO.

The LA propose contact to take place between ZC and his father once per month and with his mother every two months, professionally supervised for twelve months. In around eleven months, the LA will convene a Family Group Conference to consider the longer term arrangements and whether PGM or another family member should take over the supervision, if supervision is still required. The Guardian says that contact should take place at a monthly level for ZC with M. M would like a higher level of contact with contact at her home and overnight stays but says, as a minimum, it should be monthly.

Having considered the evidence, I concur with the Guardian in respect of contact. Given M’s difficulties in sustaining attendance at contact consistently, I do not consider that a higher level to be in ZC’s best interests as I am not convinced M would be able to sustain her attendance. Having said that, bi-monthly contact means there will be significant gaps for ZC and I am concerned that this will further damage his relationship with M, which has already suffered as a result of M’s failure to consistently attend during the past five months. While I entirely acknowledge that M has been unable to attend contact consistently for several months during the proceedings, I hope that she will be able to sustain a commitment to seeing ZC once a month. If she can, I am of the view that this is the right level of contact for ZC as it will allow him to develop and then maintain his relationship with M, which will clearly promote his emotional wellbeing and development. The issue of contact should, of course, be kept under review and if a different level of contact is felt to be in the best interests of ZC’s welfare in the future, this can be arranged. For those reasons, I do not consider it necessary or proportionate to make an order in respect of contact and I am confident that PGM will ensure ZC is made available for contact as required. I endorse the proposal for the LA to fund the supervision of contact for 12 months and to convene a family group conference in 10 to 11 months from now to look at the longer-term arrangements.

Given the current difficulties between M and PGM, I would strongly encourage the LA to assist in arranging some family mediation. It seems to me that without that, it will be difficult to envisage a time when PGM could be responsible for facilitating and managing M’s contact with ZC herself.

In respect of F, the arrangements are agreed with PGM now assuming responsibility for facilitating and managing contact between ZC and F. Contact will take place monthly. Given the positive assessment of PGM and her agreement to this arrangement, I am content that this is in the best interests of ZC’s welfare and that there is no necessity for an order in relation to this.