The London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v TK & Ors

Today I am concerned with V, born on 27 February 2024. Her father is BJ, her mother, TK, and this an application for a care order dated 28 February 2024 and a placement order dated 8 August 2024.

I heard this matter on 21 to 29 January this year, and I am very grateful to Mr Ali, representing the local authority, Miss Hughes representing the mother, Mr Alleyne-Brown representing the father and Miss Bradley representing the child through her guardian. I also want to thank the intermediaries for their assistance throughout this hearing. I would want the parents to know that they have had really excellent representation and that all the points that should and could have been taken to support them have been made very clearly to this court.

The opening positions were that the local authority seeks care and placement orders, which the guardian supports. The mother wants the children to return under a supervision order or to adjourn for further social work assessment; and the father agrees and supports her in this.

By way of background, V has two older brothers, E and P, and an older sister called L; and they were made subject to care and placement orders in August 2023 due to concerns that they were suffering physical harm and were at risk of emotional harm and neglect.

On 28 November 2022 Her Honour Judge Probyn gave a judgment about some injuries that had happened to E Those were a fracture of his left forearm, a fracture of his right forearm and a fracture of his left upper arm. She looked in detail about how those injuries came about. She, in her judgment, concluded as follows:

“I am driven to conclude that these were inflicted injuries and, as already explained, one or other of the parents was responsible for the trauma that caused them. I equally find that the person responsible would have appreciated that the blow or impact was far from excess of reasonable handling and that E was hurt and required urgent medical attention”.

She concludes that there was a real possibility and opportunity for either parent to have inflicted the injury. She also found that E was malnourished and neglected, and that the home conditions fell well below what was reasonable and presented a significant health risk.

V was on a child protection plan before she was born, under the category of neglect. By way of background in these proceedings, an interim care order was made on 1 March 2024 and a residential parenting assessment at Resolve was ordered. What that concluded on 24 July last year, 2024, the mother and the baby were placed in a foster placement together, and I know that that is where they remain still.

I am going to remind myself of the legal framework governing this case. The burden of proof is of course on the person who alleges something happened, and the standard of proof the balance of probabilities. I remind myself that in accordance with the case of Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 I need to consider all the evidence in this case, and evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to each piece of evidence in relation to the other evidence and exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence to come to a conclusion. Of course, findings of fact must be based on evidence including inferences that may be drawn, and not on suspicion or speculation ( Re A(A child) (No.2) (Fact Finding: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12).

I remind myself of the case of Re D (a child) (No.3) [2016] EWFC 1 in which the President of the Family Division. sets out a number of important principles that the courts must remember when working with parents with learning disabilities. The President cited the case of Y v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 33 which says that family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and everything must be done to preserve personal relations and where appropriate rebuild the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing. However, where maintenance of family ties would harm the child’s health and development, a parent is not entitled under Art.8 to insist that such ties be maintained.

He reminded all judges of the well-known passage of Hedley J, quoted to me of course by Miss Hughes in this case, but cited originally in the case of Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 and at para.50 it says the following:

“Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent; but it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done”.

The President endorsed the approach taken by Gillen J in Re G and A (Care Order: Freeing Order: Parents with a Learning Disability) [2006] NI Fam 8; and he, Gillan J, refers to the positive obligation on the state under Art.8 to provide such support as will enable a child to remain with their parents.

The President says that he commended the powerful words of Gillan J to every family judge and every local authority and to every family justice professional in the jurisdiction. His words require re-reading in full, but two passages I will quote here set the tone:

“… that people with learning disabilities are individuals first and foremost and each has a right to be treated as an equal citizen, they are valued citizens, and this court fully accepts that parents with learning disabilities can be good enough parents when provided with ongoing emotional and practical support they need. The concept of parenting with support must underpin the way that we work with parents with learning difficulties, and judges must make absolutely certain that parents with learning difficulties are not at risk of having their parental responsibilities terminated on the basis of evidence that would not hold up against ‘normal’ parents. Their competences must not be judged against a stricter criteria or harsher standards than other parents.”

In his judgment, Gillen J sets out key principles for working with learning disabled parents, and the most relevant passages for these purposes are the importance of the courts approaching cases with a recognition of the possible barriers to the provision of appropriate services to support parents, including the negative or stereotypical attitudes about parents with learning difficulties. The court must take steps to make sure that there are no barriers to justice within the process itself, and a shift must be made from the old assumption that adults with learning difficulties cannot parent to a process of questioning why appropriate levels of support are not provided to them so that they can parent successfully. At it simplest, it means a court carefully enquiring as to what support is needed to enable parents to show whether or not they can become good enough parents, rather than automatically assuming they are destined to fail. The concept of parenting with support must move from the margins to the mainstream in court determinations. And, finally, courts must ensure that careful consideration is given to any decision being properly and fully explained to the parents.

The President of the Family Division issued guidance on 10 April 2018 in relation to family proceedings and parents with a learning disability. He commended the Good Practice guidance to working with parents with a learning disability first issued in 2007, re-issued in 2016 and I think now re-issued in 2021. That guidance was referred to in the following judgments with approval: Re X Y & Z (Minors); Kent County Council v A Mother [2011] EWHC 402 (Fam); Medway Council v A& Ors (Learning Disability; Foster Placement) [2015] EWFC; and finally A local authority v G (Parent with learning disability [2017] EWFC (para.38).

That updated guidance reproduces the five key principles of working with parents with learning disabilities – accessible information and communication; clear and co-ordinated referral and assessment processes; support designed to meet the needs of children and their parents based on assessment of their strengths; and long term support if necessary; and access to independent advocacy.

More recently, the Court of Appeal in Re H [2023] EWCA Civ 59 gave guidance to working with parents with learning difficulties. We should identify the level of support needed; ascertain what can and should be done under the local authority obligations, and then determine whether, with that in place, the child’s welfare needs will be met.

So, I look at the parents’ particular needs. Mr Crimes has done cognitive assessments of both parents in previous proceedings. The father has a low average IQ and so may have more problems with complex syntax or grammar, may find writing complex ideas more difficult and organising thoughts on paper, may have problems with complex sentence structure, writing mechanisms and organisations. He concludes:

“Overall, it could be argued that BJ should be able to operate within due process with some effectiveness without the need for an intermediary. However, reasonable adjustments would be required to support him in his proceedings”.

Mr Collins’ assessment of the mother sets out that she has a borderline IQ, and—

“It would be prudent to have an intermediary, and a PAMS approach may support her”.

I have read the intermediary reports and notwithstanding Mr Crimes recommendations, we have had intermediaries throughout. We have had a ground rules hearing where the rules for working with the father and mother were set out on the face of my order, and nobody has alerted me during this hearing to any departure from those.

I have been mindful of Family Procedure Rules 3A and PD3AA throughout. We are very grateful to the intermediaries who we have had throughout this final hearing. The parents have only had one witness to listen to each day, and on the days they gave evidence themselves, no other witnesses were called. They have had time in the courtroom to familiarise themselves, we have taken regular breaks and followed all the suggestions of the intermediaries, who have not alerted me to any unfairness; and when I have had other cases in my list, I have tried to ensure that this case is not disrupted and that we take breaks around the parents’ concentration.

I look at the evidence that I have read and heard in this judgment, and I have considered all the evidence in the bundle. I will not read it all out, but I bear it all well in mind and I will highlight that which has been most material to my judgment.

Some of the evidence I have read is hearsay. An example of that is the foster carer notes. The foster carer has not been called and cross-examined on them; so, I remind myself of the weakness of this type of evidence that has not been tested in court, and the weight I place on it is a matter for me. The foster carer logs become more detailed with time, and this of course could be for a number of reasons: one might be because patterns of behaviour only become clear over time, or it could be because the local authority asked for more detail, or a combination of both. But the foster carer logs are a near contemporaneous running record of how the mother is doing. They also of course are a document that the parent will see, and the foster carer has an ongoing relationship with the mother. Sometimes what the foster carer says in the mother’s presence and is recorded in meeting minutes is more positive than the overall picture in the logs – and that may be because it is harder to give feedback face to face; so, I approach these logs with care in the light of that. The foster carer as I said has not been called, but they are an observation over a period of months and give me an insight as to whether there is a pattern of behaviour that appears or whether the changes the mother is making are embedded in relation to ongoing issues.

I will summarise the impression the witnesses made on me in court. Miss C is a relatively newly qualified social worker and this was the first time she had given evidence in court – and that may explain some of the lack of flexibility in some of her answers. She had not developed an ability to respond by thinking flexibly about resolutions other than the local authority’s plan – for example she would frequently answer questions by saying that adoption was the local authority’s plan and give answers which were quite procedural. By that I mean she heavily relied on references to meetings that had taken place or would take place in relation to some aspects of her evidence.

Her final statement of 14 January this year would also have been more helpful if she had exercised more of her own judgment about how the mother was doing from her own observations and drawing on meetings between the social worker, mother and the foster carer. In her statement she recalled one meeting in December with the mother and the foster carer, but it is clear from notes with other meetings and the evidence she gave when she was recalled, that she did have a more detailed recollection of her meetings with the foster carer and was able to provide more detail when asked; so, for example, she was asked about whether there could be more unsupervised time for the mother, and she said,

“I talked to the manager about it and we looked at what the foster carer was telling us, and she was telling us that when she was there, the foster carer, the mother would be looking after V, but when she was not there she was always on her phone; and so she doesn’t trust her to look after V; so during the PPM meeting in January the foster carer mentioned that she was not taking guidance. That’s what she mentioned, and there are still concerns with mother not putting V in her cot and the milk”.

It would have been more helpful, by way of example, if the social worker had included that detail in her statement, and then analysed what that meant for her conclusions for V.

However, it is, in my view, to the local authority’s credit that they have changed their plan to direct contact rather than indirect, and Miss C was able to give the mother credit for the positives when she was asked expressly about them. She was clear that the mother never gave up, even when things were not going well at Resolve.

Miss Hughes rightly took Miss C to where she said there were no positives in her statement, and Miss C’s evidence in the witness box was that the parents’ care was not consistent, and that they needed prompting.

Miss F was the social worker who was co-working with Miss C and covered her period of sickness for six weeks from September 2024. She was on leave from 19 December until she returned to work to give evidence on 22 January.

She was a clear and more confident witness than her colleague and she rang the foster carer before she came back to work to give evidence on 22 January; and I do not think that that is problematic in and of itself. She is a conscientious professional who wants up to date information to help the court and to get it right. In fact I would have been concerned if she was in the witness box having not taken the trouble to get up to date information. And what the foster carer told her was about the milk, the co-sleeping, and that she was worried that the mother was not stimulating V. And that is consistent with the foster carer logs. Of course it would have been better if she had produced her own contemporaneous note of this for us in court but I do not disregard her oral evidence.

The parenting assessor was a calm and clear witness. She was softly spoken and balanced in her appraisals of the parents. She did not like counsel using the word “criticism” in relation to the father’s parenting, and her approach struck me as supportive and collaborative. She was clear in her conclusion that due to the lack of consistency they have not been able to achieve a level of good enough parenting, and I would not have felt it was safe for V to be going home with them and remain in their care.

TK showed great courage in giving evidence. She did not get upset and with her intermediary support she answered every single question she was asked. I think she was doing her very best for her daughter whom she clearly loves and that she has tried her hardest. She said,

“I wanted to fight for my daughter so at the end of the day, even if it does go to adoption, I have done my best”.

We have a bundle of thousands of pages of evidence, and the mother was not taken to every foster carer log in detail. Give her cognitive profile I think that probably would have been unhelpful for her, but Mr Ali and Miss Bradley put to her the recurrent themes in the evidence and in the foster carer notes in a way I think was fair so that their case was put to her directly.

The father gave his very best to give evidence and was thoughtful. At times he was clearly looking for the words he wanted to use and remembered as best he could.

He gave evidence that he did not think the Resolve assessment was fair; though he recalled very clearly and repeatedly both in his oral and written evidence the fact that the pre-birth assessment was positive, with the observations about the cleanliness of the house and how the parents could meet the children’s basic care needs. But he struggled to give as much detail about what he understood as the weaknesses of his parenting according to later assessors, and this was broadly consistent with what Resolve noted, that he found it easier to take on board the positives than to reflect on what needed to change.

The guardian was a clear and robust witness, and she was the guardian in the previous sets of proceedings: she was therefore in a good place to assess change and give evidence because she knows the parents well. She has been unwell, and the last time she saw the mother was in the previous foster carer’s in September, and she had not spoken to the father recently. She did not support a further assessment and did not think there was a gap in the evidence. She did not accept the landscape was different from previous proceedings, and she was adamant there should be no further delay for V.

When I look at the key submissions made by the advocates on behalf of the parties, the local authority and the guardian submit there is no gap in evidence, no need for further assessment, and should be no delay in permanence for V.

Miss Hughes submits the parents have made changes and that the past is not the end point but the starting point. She submitted that the local authority had a plan from the beginning to remove V and they tried to separate her from her parents twice in these proceedings. They sought an early permanence placement and saw foster carer as a holding position only. She took me to the note following the meeting of 29 November, the PPM.

“The Team Manager highlighted the daily logs looked vague and more detailed information should be provided to know V’s day to day activities. The foster carer was told that the local authority needs evidence how the mother would manage on her own in the community, but it seems we cannot evidence it”.

Miss Hughes interpreted this evidence that the local authority were looking for information to suggest that the mother could not parent V in the community. But the Team Manager’s comments of course were not subject to cross-examination and are open to a more generous interpretation. Miss Hughes is also critical, of course of the lack of health visitor notes.

In the light of Miss Hughes’ submissions, I want to make these preliminary observations about the local authority case. Those working with vulnerable parents need to be really careful about the way they work with them, so, not to give them the impression that they have already made up their minds; and although I understand that social workers are planning for all eventualities and that an early permanence placement is part of contingency planning, the parents may not. The parents need to know that the social workers support them and are looking for positive change, and indeed the social workers were, in the witness box, able to articulate the positives; and the parents need to hear that, whatever the plan.

The support plan the social workers put in evidence was on their own admission completed because the court asked for it, and it is fair to note that it could have been more creative in terms of maybe video-interactive guidance, nursery, the level of support and modelling the parents could expect. And it is also deeply regrettable that the health visitor notes have not been provided, and that the email sent in response to the local authority chasing them does not seem to be a contemporaneous record. This is unacceptable.

It my view it would have been better if the guardian had given the parents a call if she could not see them face to face to check in with them as to how they were doing.

It is really important that nothing is a foregone conclusion in court proceedings like this, and that the court has to be provided with evidence that approaches it with an open mind. It would have been better as well if that referral for Triple P had been made earlier for the parents so that there could have been some ongoing work for the father and mother in the foster placement.

I know that professionals working in the Family Court are pressed and busy and have high workloads, but the decisions that the court is asked to make are so important, the parents must not feel that they are being written off. At the end of the day it is the court’s decision to make about V: not the social workers and not the guardian’s, and I have the duty to look at the totality of evidence and whether the process has been fair and whether a new assessment is needed.

I look at the assessment process and whether that followed good practice. Miss C gave evidence that she was familiar from her university course and her time at Barking and Dagenham about the concept of parenting and support. Although she had not seen the cognitive or intermediary assessments when she started working with the parents, she was able to tell the court that she understood the importance of being clear, making sure the parents understood, and had someone to support them at meetings. She gave evidence she was aware that the father could not read and write well, and her line manager gave her direction and supervision. Although she did not name a specific course that she had done, I was satisfied that she was well versed in how she needed to work with these parents.

I look at the process at Resolve, and they used easy read admission information, and Miss C’s evidence was that there are weekly check-ins at Resolve which made it clear what the father needed to do differently. She gave evidence that after a midway report when Resolve said they would develop a new strategy for working with the father, she did check in with him but was told by him that, “Everything is sorted and fine”.

The assessment process used with parents with learning difficulties was Parent Assess, and there is a clear introductory letter in plain language and an assessment plan in plain language. Miss C was clear she used picture cards, that is evidenced (at E51 and in her oral evidence) and that the expectations of the parents were given in short simple language (p.E55). This was confirmed by the guardian whose evidence was she met the key worker who was experienced in working with parents with learning difficulties, and she recalled that things were made simple so they could understand. There were breaks in assessment set out (at E55). The assessor read the cognitive assessments and complied with suggestions (E57). They set out (at E74) how they would follow good practice and working with the parents; and looking across the chronology at Resolve, the parents had hands on demonstrations of how to bath and change a baby. They were encouraged to go to baby groups. They had group work, and one to one discussions.

Miss C’s evidence was reassuring, that the adaptations the parents needed were put into place, and she explained in some detail the structure of their assessments, with breaks. She explained how in one to one sessions areas arose on which the father needed to work, and the Resolve staff worked with him on those areas. She pointed to the key work sessions in the chronology in which the father was taught skills, and although it may not have been written down for the father, she was clear that she and the staff went over their concerns a number of times, that he was not supporting TK, and that all meetings were face to face.

The father said in the witness box it was hard at Resolve because there were lots of people there and, “One person says one thing and one says another”, but I note that there was a sole assessor; and there was also consistency in the issues being raised in the chronology, even if they were raised by different members of staff.

Mr Alleyne-Brown submits the written information could have been made different to BJ. However, when I look back at BJ’s intermediary assessment (at E20), it is clear he responds best to visual cues and actually finds reading very difficult (that is at E22).

It seems to me that Resolve did use different teaching methods tailored to the parents’ needs.

When it came to foster care, the evidence of the social worker is that both foster carers were aware of the mother’s cognitive difficulties before she started living there – and what is clear is that the mother did learn about making some home-made meals, and that the foster carer clearly had a way of communicating with her that modelled good routine and some of those meal preparation skills. The foster carer log showed a degree of repetition given to the mother if she does not make changes straightaway.

Looking at the evidence as a whole, it seems to me that the professionals working with the mother and the father have tailored their way to working with the parents’ needs.

When it comes to the threshold, it is agreed save for the following: the father does not accept that V was at risk of the same harm as her siblings and will say that V is healthy, well-fed, and being well looked after by the mother. He is also able to fully support the mother in caring for V.

The social work evidence is that if TK and BJ had V at home she would go through what the older siblings went through – namely neglect; and I think at the best place to review the evidence in its entirety before I give a determination on whether the social worker’s or the father’s position on threshold are more likely than not to be correct.

I turn to the welfare analysis for V, and her welfare is my paramount consideration; and I remind myself of the no delay principle and the no order principle in the Children Act.

I look at her wishes and feelings, and of course she would want to be brought up by her birth family if it were safe to do so and to have a relationship with her brothers and sister. She would want to be safe and well looked after.

I look at her emotional, physical and educational needs. There are no concerns about her development and of course each child develops at a different pace; and through her life she has not only been with her parents but been surrounded by childcare professionals such as the staff at the Resolve and the foster carer, and she is doing well.

She needs consistently good enough care, carers who put her first, regular feeding and stimulation. She needs stability and consistency. She needs carers who can acknowledge when they need help; and the evidence in the bundle suggests she has formed a bond with her mother in particular.

I look at the likely effect on her of any change of circumstance, and of course it would be very distressing for her to be removed from her mother’s care, and we need to minimise the number of changes she faces in future.

She is 11 months old, white British, and has older siblings by way of her background, and it is clear that the guardian took the view that it was important for V to get to know her siblings as her relationship with them is lifelong.

I look at any harm that she has suffered or is at risk of suffering, and in this respect I look back at the history of the family as recorded in Her Honour Judge Probyn’s judgment.

P in 2019 had a skull fracture when he fell out of a pram due to not being securely strapped in, and he fell on to a hard surface; but Her Honour Judge Probyn did not find that this was a result of neglect; but she does make clear that the injuries sustained by E were non-accidental and I will quote in some detail exactly what she says. She says:

“I do not detect on behalf of either parent any remorse that they failed to disclose the important information to E’s treating documents or any other professional. Indeed, it seems to me that the father was defensive and the mother simply unable to speak to this. I find they both lied about events to Miss S and thereafter at the hospital. I find they both knew there was a real problem with E’s left arm on 9 September and did nothing about it. They continued to lie about the timing of the injury throughout the investigation and in their evidence filed in these proceedings. I do not accept that they did not know there was anything wrong with E at the time he sustained forearm fractures. I find they failed to obtain medical attention, as would be expected of both of them, on 9 September and previously. In the circumstances, I am satisfied there is a real possibility or opportunity for either parent to have inflicted the injury”.

And I have already repeated her findings at G89 that these are inflicted injuries. She goes on to say,

“I am satisfied neglect was a significant factor in E’s poor weight gain. There is no medical explanation for the failure to thrive, and the parents have both been proactive in chasing this up. I find that E was neglected by both his parents in relation to his general care. It was clearly inadequate, given both the failure to thrive and the failure to ensure that he received proper medical attention in relation to diet and the injuries”.

And she finds that “by some margin the home conditions fell below what was reasonable and presented a significant health risk”.

The findings of course are a record of the harm in relation to the older children. But it is important to look at the extent to which the parents accept the findings, because if they do not accept what has gone wrong in the past or understand what has gone wrong in the past, it is hard to make sure that things do not go wrong for V in the future; and also if they are not completely open and honest it is hard to make sure that things are shared about V that people need to know about. Therefore, I look at the progression of their response to these findings, which I accept they must have found incredibly distressing to hear from Her Honour Judge Probyn.

Miss N, the previous assessor, said that,

“The parents don’t agree that the children suffered any neglect. They don’t agree that E suffered any physical harm”.

There was no development of insight between her two assessments save that the mother was taking steps to avoid becoming pregnant again. She says,

“In summary, there has been no shift in their parenting; no acknowledgement of the injuries to E in particular, that they were accidental; no acceptance that E was malnourished; no acceptance of the neglectful parenting that contributed to the children’s harm. As stated, the parents do not accept any culpability for the injuries their children sustained, and without such recognition it is hard to see how any changes could be made or effectively maintained. There is no motivation for change”.

The first social work statement in these proceedings records that neither parent accepts the findings of Her Honour Judge Probyn, and that of course sets out the position at the relevant date for threshold purposes. The parenting assessor sets out there is no element of Her Honour Judge Probyn’s judgments that the parents accept, and the father was adamant that they fed E properly and his problems were due to lactose intolerance. I note the paediatric evidence before Her Honour Judge Probyn seemed to rule this out.

Miss D gave evidence that she wanted to understand what had happened in the past, and was looking for a sense of, “this is what we will do” to prevent future harm from the parents,

“They attributed harm to other individuals, and that left me in the position that I felt, ‘How do I address these concerns and prevent future harm when there is no sense of acceptance of what has happened?’”

She was clear she did not see any change in their view and that they were stuck in their position as time went on.

In the previous assessments, Resolution were asked to form a risk assessment of the parents. As the final analysis sets out, on reviewing the papers the specialist risk assessor took the view that the parents were not suitable candidates for such an assessment, and the Resolve assessor agreed with that view and said that without any sense of acceptance it was unlikely that such work would make any difference.

In the witness box, the mother said,

“I am accepting responsibility for things I could have done better, but not what I did not do”.

She accepted in the witness box it was important to talk about what had happened to the other children and that important work had yet to be done.

It was also clear that she found it difficult to do so, and when asked about when they were asked to share at Resolve, she says, “sometimes”, but when they were asked the Resolve staff for help, it was treated as a negative and it went against them. And she accepted that without that work being done, the risk of something happening to V was high.

The father was clear that he would not want the same thing to happen to V as happened to the older children. Indeed, his reluctance to handle her when changing her nappy seems at least in part due to the fear that he might be accused of something. However, he, too, found it hard to discuss this with the parenting assessor and said in court,

“I felt like it was already in the document; so, I didn’t like talking about it because it had already been resolved”.

He repeated in the witness box what he had said to the parenting assessor: namely, that other family members had care of V, which does not seem to be the evidence that was before Her Honour Judge Probyn and not part of her finding.

He was able to express regret that E was not taken to his medical appointments and that he was malnourished; but when he was in the witness box he still did not seem to be able to accept that the malnourishment was because of the care that he and TK gave E and referred to the lactose intolerance again.

When I look at the parents’ trajectory and their understanding it seems to me they have shifted a little in their thinking by the time they were in the witness box, but there does not seem to be a genuine acceptance of the poor standard of care that all three children had.

And the guardian described this as a good start, but each parent, she said, still has issues with their own trauma and experience. She was clear she put a lot of weight on their responses to the findings because they were both caring for the children and should be expected to give a clear explanation of how the injuries to E happened. So, she looks at the risk of future harm, and says,

“With no-one taking responsibility for the harm that E suffered it’s my view that the risk of harm for V remains a significant concern, and particularly because the parents have not done risk reduction work”.

She maintained that position that she put in writing in the witness box. These were very serious findings the court made, she said,

“They have not come to terms with them and accepted those findings and demonstrated they can safely care”.

When I look at the risk of future harm, I look at how able the parents are to seek support from medical issues because the backdrop of this, of course, is Her Honour Judge Probyn’s finding that E did not receive proper medical attention for either his diet or the injuries. I look at whether the parents have developed that ability to seek timely help on medical issues, and there are some really positives here, that the mother was able to tell the court what creams V has and when you put them on and what they are for. And she was able to describe how you get a repeat prescription.

She was asked what she would do differently for V, and she said she would make sure that she was kept up to date with all her appointments, and her milestones.

I need to look at the evidence about how the mother is able to look at V’s healthcare needs, and she still needs prompting to remember arrangements to attend appoints – for example she accepts (at p.546) that the foster carer encouraged her to check V’s weight and she said, “If you didn’t tell me, I would have forgotten”. That prompting is not insurmountable difficulty, of course, it could be that a floating support worker or a social worker could remind mother to diarise these things or put appointments on her app or in her paper diary, and that a floating support worker or foster carer if V was in the parents’ care, would help them chase appointments.

What is more significant is whether the mother is able to ask for help in those appointments and whether she is able to share what she has observed about V with those who are there to help her. Miss F gave evidence that the foster carer and the mother had agreed that the health visitor should be asked how much milk V needed and about the co-sleeping – and when asked by a health visitor in the meeting, with the foster carer present, if mother had any concerns, her evidence was that the mother said “no”. It was then the foster carer who raised the issue of the bottle and the co-sleeping for guidance.

In the witness box the mother did not remember what the health visitor said, although she did remember the meeting. The email which the health visitor sent in response to the local authority request for their note is consistent with Miss F’s evidence, but it is not clear to me that the health visitor made a contemporaneous note, and I have not seen the whole email exchange that led to the health visitor’s response; so I treat this corroborative evidence with real caution.

However, this is not the only incident in which the foster carer has raised something with the health visitor that the mother has not. There is another example (p.548) where the health visitor is asked by the foster carer about teething and crawling. The mother was asked in court why she did not raise that herself. “I knew it would come later”, was her response. However, if V is to meet her milestones – which of course is what her mother wants – the mother would need to be a bit more curious about whether what V is doing is in line with her age, and to have the confidence to ask those questions. And it seems to me that the mother struggles to tell people what is going on for V to make sure that she is developing as she should and that she (the mother) is doing what she needs to do.

I also look at how able the parents are to care for their own health needs, because that gives me an insight as to how well they might be able to care for V’s health needs. I look at the mother’s pattern of having some sort of episode. In 2017 she collapsed twice in the street (E138). On 16 December 2020 she collapsed and was taken to hospital and was observed to have low mood. On 28 December 2020 a third party called an ambulance when the mother collapsed in the street, and she collapsed I think in a park with her children in her care in the buggy. A friend told the police that the mother had not been eating.

Miss N says that TK and BJ lacked any real insight into their own health care needs or that of their partner, and she did pick up that example of mother not eating for four months when caring for young children, and not telling BJ; and I think that was during the period when she passed out on the park bench.

The father had told the court that mother had a fit when she was in hospital and he looked after V, but he said he did not tell the social worker because they should have the hospital notes. And when asked if it would have been helpful to do so, he said he’s not a health professional, so it is up to her (the mother) who she tells.

Looking at the chronology, I see on 19 April at Resolve, they documented that:

“Another resident has informed staff that TK and BJ had informed her (the resident) that TK has fits. TK allegedly informed the resident she did not want anyone to know, and the previous wait evening night staff had been told by TK that TK was unwell by BJ, however she had then allegedly informed the resident she almost had a fit”.

They spoke to TK and recorded as follows:

“TD asked TK about the previous night of feeling dizzy and if this had happened before, and whether she has any health conditions that may be causing this. The mother then tells the staff she gets headaches which may be why she gets dizzy, but she has been to the GP, and they cannot do anything about it. They suggested booking an appointment with the GP to discuss it further. TD asked TK if this happens often, and she informed them it happens sometimes, but when it does, she does not pick up V”.

Further down the log TK then referred to being in hospital with V and having a seizure but this has not happened since, and the doctors were not aware of why it had happened.

On 20 April 2024 she does have some kind of episode, and it is recorded that BJ states that “TK will be fine”. He said, “She is shaky of the body and that won’t last long and she won’t fall”. He said, “There’s no cause for alarm” and the staff advised that an ambulance can be called if she has a fit again. BJ stated they can manage and nothing will be done in the hospital and he said the only time they will call an ambulance on 111 is when she knocks her head. This note is consistent with the assessor’s recollection about what the father said happened before, that they did not seek medical advice.

On 22 April the mother goes to the doctor and is then referred for an investigation and the doctor says she will be on a waiting list for about a year. The staff recalled that she did not want them to attend this appointment, so they gave her the ambulance letter to take with her.

I have then seen the chronology that the staff put a safety plan in place which the parents are not very accepting of, according to the notes.

The mother said in the witness box she had seen the GP before the appointment she had at Resolve about the episodes, but whatever was said at the previous appointment does not seem to have got to the bottom of why mother is having these episodes; and the issues of these “spells” whatever they are, is not a new one. I do not know if it is linked to the mother not eating regularly or if it is more of an epileptic type of fit. However, the evidence suggests that this is a relatively significant health issue that has been going on for a period of years, and the father did not see the need to chase up the referral, saying that it was in the mother’s name.

In other notes at Resolve, the mother does not complete her course of antibiotics for her C-section wound but seems to stop it without GP advice (that is at p.15 and p.58). And the father gave evidence that the medication he was taking for pain at Resolve, which is clearly documented in their notes, was making him sleepy, so, that was a factor in him not being able to care for V. However, he did not go back to the GP or explain to them how important it was that he needed to be alert at this critical time.

The foster carer also logs a one-off occasion where the mother is encouraged to seek medical help by the foster carer when she is in pain.

There is also the question of what the mother does when she is feeling low, and the chronology suggests that when she was at school she had a difficult time and she was bullied, leading to self-harm. And she has also of course lost her own mother. I have already referred to that 2020 entry in the chronology where she collapsed and appeared to be in low mood. And she tells Miss N that she had post-natal depression after her first two children, and she agreed in the witness box that she did have post-natal depression after E but did not think it was as bad after V because she just had one child to look after.

In the first statement, the social worker describes her as “deflated” and of course the mother accepts that following the separation from her older children this was, of course, an issue. The social worker also describes her as “flat” and “unresponsive” and not wanting any mental health support (that is at C54). The mother says she was offered some therapeutic work but declined it and that is consistent with p.45 of the bundle.

The mother’s evidence in court is that when she was pregnant with V the mental health people saw her and said she did not need their help. They gave her a number to call if she was feeling low, but she did not call it when low at Resolve with the foster carer because she said it was all about stress of court. She said she did actually respond to the social worker that she would use some therapeutic sessions, but the social worker never got back to her and she did not chase.

The father said the mother was low in mood at Resolve, but he did not think she needed help for this. And the foster carer notes that the mother is low in mood at times and visibly so (that is E593 and P606).

There has been no psychiatric or psychological assessment in these proceedings and no diagnosis given. And it is entirely understandable that the mother’s experience of sleep deprivation and being a new mum and what has happened in her life will make her low at times. But what is clear is she does not really see the value of help with this and has not chased it or been proactive in seeking it. Of course on one level that is her choice, and forcing someone to do any therapeutic work would be quite wrong. But this is a source of support that the mother could have had which she might have benefited from, and she has minimised the concerns that others have showed for her when she has presented as low.

The father did not see it as his responsibility to get his partner support, and so this could be seen as another example of not seeking medical attention or finding it difficult to see the need for support and accepting it.

And so when I look at the totality of the evidence about the parents’ approach to their healthcare needs and that of the children it seems to me there remains a risk of harm in that they will not seek timely help or to be able to bring to professionals’ attention things that might be relevant in helping to make sure that the children do not come to harm.

I look at how capable the parents are of meeting V’s needs, and sadly there are no other family friends or members who can care for V or help the parents look after her. The parents are in a different place to previous proceedings, time has passed since E’s injuries, and now they have only one child in their care, no more, and there are no longer so many people living at TK’s father’s house.

However, some things are static. They have not changed. Their cognitive abilities are not likely to change, their relationship remains unchanged, and so I need to look carefully at the evidence about their changing ability to meet V’s needs.

I will look at the ability to meet her needs over the period of time that social services have been involved in these parents’ lives, and there is a broad canvas to look at to ascertain whether change has been made. I want to make it clear at the outset that there are lots of positive examples. There are positives in the foster carer notes. The mother is learning to prepare meals from scratch rather than ready meals, even though her inclination is to use the pre-prepared meals. She gets up in time for V to go on the school run with the foster carer. She has learnt the cream routine for V which she puts in place. V has a routine and structure at the foster carer’s.

However, I need to look at the ability of the parents to consistently meet her needs if she was in their care with support.

The PAMS assessment in April 2022 and June 2023 for the older children led Miss N to conclude that there are significant gaps in the parenting, and that neither parent can provide any of the children with the care they require throughout their childhood. It could be they make some changes via parenting support, but they are unlikely to put that knowledge into practice consistently. No parenting programme can fill the significant gaps. They have no support other than each other, and no role models for change.

In her first report she highlighted the real difference between the help that the parents thought they needed and the help that she assessed that they needed. Now, these reports are not so long ago; so, it is important to see if the parents have been able to retain and act on what they looked at with Miss N; so, I look at co-sleeping. Her Honour Judge Probyn found that Lucas slept with his mother and, when he was at home, with his father; and this is something the father records in the witness box too. But when we look at the foster carer logs, V is not sleeping in the cot, despite advice. It is clear that the mother was given safe sleeping sessions at Resolve (that is E61) and she told the assessor that she could remember well, and was able to tell her the main points of how to keep V safe. Indeed, in the witness box the mother was able to describe very clearly to us why it was unsafe for a baby to share a bed,

“It’s risky [she says] I know it’s risky, but I’m trying my best to get her in her cot”.

But there is a gap between what the mother is able to talk about and putting it into practice, and she has not followed that safe sleeping advice consistently for the first 11 months of V’s life. The foster carer gives her a baby sleeping bag (that is the week of 10 November 2024 at p.533), but weeks later on 27 November 2024 (p.573) the foster carer logs that she is concerned that the mother is not using it.

Similarly, the father was able to explain the risks of co-sleeping but took the view that the reason that V was unable to settle in her cot is because she had been moved in her life and so she was confused and distressed herself to sleep.

I look at hygiene and home conditions, because Her Honour Judge Probyn found that home conditions fell below by some margin what was reasonable. At Resolve the flat is seen to be clean and tidy but not consistently so. For example, there is an entry in March:

“The room is untidy, there were Coke bottles on the side half empty. The bed was not made. There were clothes on the bed. The bin needed emptying and the room had a strong musty smell”.

On 5 April, again, there is an observation of it being untidy and there are a couple of observations about the couple’s personal hygiene at Resolve; for example on 10 March and then I think on 14 April. The foster carer’s concerns echo this to a certain extent.

“I have observed some areas of the mother’s personal hygiene and her room has a very strange smell. I notice she doesn’t shower much. She can also wear the same clothes for days” (p.451).

She notes that she gives V a bath one to two times a week. She goes on:

“I have proposed to TK several times my help, but she doesn’t want any help from no-one, which is difficult for others”.

The mother said she gave V a bath every other day.

I look at nourishment because Her Honour Judge Probyn found that E was malnourished, and the parents failed to provide him with adequate nutritional intake, and he was malnourished as a result of neglectful parenting.

Back in Miss N’s assessment, TK and BJ answered questions and achieved an adequate score on the knowledge questionnaire in the parent booklet; but neither appeared to understand the need for a varied diet including vegetables and fruit and their cooking repertoire is quite limited.

She goes on:

“I am not surprised, as throughout all the times I visited the home over ten occasions, I did not see them eat themselves. They both report not eating and instead having energy drinks during the day. TK describes a disinterest in food generally, and I note from the occasion that she was motionless on the park bench she had not eaten for what she reports to be four months. It is unlikely that somebody who takes so little care of their own nutritional needs to the point they are dizzy and passing out is able to tend to the children’s nutritional needs. I note the same is true of BJ, who is unable to describe the varied dietary needs of the children”.

The assessor notes that E’s weight increased when removed from the parents’ care and she considered that the parents’ eating patterns and the lack of ability to encourage P to eat were evidence of neglect.

At Resolve, the mother and father need consistent prompting to feed V; and although the evidence is that this was often at night and understandably mum is tired as a new mum, the point is that if Resolve had not been there, V would not have been fed as she should have been.

In the witness box the father accepted they might need help with diet, and it was clear at Resolve the importance of their own food and routine is raised with them right at the beginning, in March. The father made it clear that they do not eat breakfast. They do have lunch and at dinner. He cooked a roast at Resolve, and in fact there is a reference to him telling staff he is cooking a roast. But there are also repeated references to the parents having energy drinks and less nutritious food, like crisps.

So, what is the position since we have been at the foster carer? There is only one instance positively that the mother does not hear V cry at night (at p.598) : an occasion when the foster carer says she was crying for over ten minutes. The mother stopped giving V milk during the day without health visitor advice (at p.505 of 538) and it is clear from the foster carer notes that she took the view that V was too young to stop drinking milk during the day; and the mother told the court that she did take the foster carer advice, but the notes on the ground suggest she did not.

The mother prefers ready meals and after a long period of encouragement the mother becomes open to making different types of food.

“I had a conversation [says the foster carer] in the 19^th October week with the mother, again encouraging her to make home food, but for now she is not ready yet”.

But she does learn to make some meals, although ready meals seem to be the default, and the foster carer’s view is that she prefers them (that is p.580)

One of the final entries in the foster carer logs is about the mother storing vegetables and the fact they are not in the fridge. The foster carer says

“I am sometimes concerned about what she gives V to eat. She doesn’t like advice at all and gets frustrated when it comes from me” (p.615).

Again, we see at the foster carer a pattern of the mother not eating at all during the day, having energy drinks and cigarettes and telling the foster carer she prefers to eat alone at night. Of course to an extent it is up to the parents what they do as adults, but it is important because they need to have an ability to positive role model for V a healthy relationship with food, and eating together as a family maybe part of that. This is a long-standing issue, as I can see from Miss N’s report. And although the mother has learnt to make some food from scratch with the foster carer, it is after a great deal of encouragement and supervision, and still the foster carer after many months has reservations about the meals given to V and the amount of milk.

Another area of meeting V’s needs is helping her to thrive, because Her Honour Judge Probyn found that E was neglected by his parents in relation to his general care. What has changed in the parents’ ability to help her to thrive? In Resolve there are areas of concern that are relevant to this. They observed poor budgeting and money management, buying vapes and energy drinks instead of things for V, and there were references in the notes to them borrowing money or running out of money. They were concerned that they did not prioritise V’s needs over their own; so, for example on 18 April not returning straight after contact with the older children.

I have already mentioned the prompting about feed, and there was also consistent prompting about stimulation, V spending long times in her cot without appropriate stimulation, and the staff spent time talking to them about what they could do other than leaving V in her cot.

Those concerns about stimulation continue at the foster carer’s. It is really positive that the mother and the foster carer bought this jumping toy, which Lily plays with, but despite this the foster carer still has reservations. She notes the mother spending more time on her phone with the father while putting V to sleep, and there are times she worries that the mother is on the phone to him a lot (p.538 and p.543). The clear impression that the foster carer forms is that the mother entertains and stimulates V when watched by the foster carer in the living room, but when she leaves, the mother is on her phone and V is in the bouncy chair. And there is a pattern of this in the notes (p.161, p.110, p.607, p.627 and p.622) and one of the final entries reads that the foster carer’s view is that V “is sleeping too much into the day and waking at night”, and she gives the mother consistent advice on how to stimulate V(that is p.505, p.517, p.545, p.566, p.580, p.607, p.610 and p.618).

It is very clear as well that the mother found Resolve stressful, possibly in part because she was around so many people, and the foster carer logs make it clear that the mother does not find it easy to socialise, and at times it makes it hard for V to socialise (pp.477 and 606).

It was really telling when in evidence the mother said she had to go to a Christmas Party and, clearly, not everyone is an extrovert, but it is for V’s benefit that the mother needs to find other people to spend time with if she is going to thrive. And it is clear from the logs that V has benefited immensely from being around the foster carer’s other children and family and the mother does respond, to her credit, to prompts to take V outside to see the rabbit; but the overall impression is that it is hard for the mother to help V spend time with other people and it takes a lot of encouragement for her to do so.

And it is clear from the last entry of the foster carer notes that the foster carer still has reservations.

“When I stay in the living room she will show me she is entertaining V, but as soon as I turn my back she is on her phone; so, now I just suddenly turn up in the living room”.

All three professionals who have given evidence have highlighted this lack of consistency in the mother’s ability to care for V; and having reviewed all the evidence I can see that there is a pattern of the mother needing to be prompted which features in all the observations of her at different settings. Miss D was clear that sometimes the father was able to do things and sometimes he was not in the mood, and that was when she was asked about the father feeding V, and there is a need for a great deal of support and reminders.

The guardian’s evidence is that there had not been a level of progression where the parents can care consistently. That being the case it is really important to look at the ability of the parents to work with other people, because if V remains in their care they will need support and they will need to accept advice from people in order to provide consistent care.

So, I look at their ability to work with other people. Obviously, Her Honour Judge Probyn found that the mother and father failed to disclose important information to E’s treating doctors or any other health professional about E’s arm being hurt. When they were at Resolve, Resolve thought that they needed a level of care to monitor them 24-7 to help them feed V.

It is fair to say the mother has been left alone with V for short periods in the foster placement, with somebody else in the house but not in the same room. And that suggests that the foster carer thinks it is safe to do that, although I do not think this was expressly approved by the social work team. However, the mother has quite a high level of support at the foster carer’s. The foster carer frequently takes V on the school run and I think leaves mum at home (that is P503, P545) and V is fed by the foster carer not infrequently. The foster carer keeps an eye on V when mum goes out to smoke, and for the vast majority of the time and by camera at night, the foster carer is hovering and ready to assist. And the guardian’s evidence was that this level of support should not happen at this stage. The mother is not a first time mother and has had an intensive period of support and instruction at Resolve.

It seems that if V were to be in her parents’ care, there would need to be a degree of support and monitoring, even at this stage, and somebody on hand to help the parents care for her for the majority of the time.

The question is the extent to which the parents are able to accept that they need some help and make use of any support offered. The previous assessor, Miss N, says that they attended a parenting course between the time of her first assessment and her second. They did not appear to change their views of the parenting that they could provide; and she noted no motivation for change. The father referred to this going on a parenting course in his evidence. He said he went to the contact centre for one for three or four sessions, but they cancelled it.

Miss N paints the picture of a very isolated couple who are entirely dependent on each other to have their needs met. And this is consistent with the parenting assessor at Resolve, who says:

“They are emotionally dependent on each other. They are very protective of each other, to the extent that the mother tries to cover for BJ’s slack”,

and she saw it as a threat to V’s wellbeing that they cover up for each other; and Resolve took the view that the mother did not challenge the father’s narrative.

The Resolve workers found the father antagonistic at times and say that he ignored advice. He walked out of meetings, and did not attend the final assessment session. He struggles to hear anything but positives, and Miss D confirmed this in the witness box. When areas of development were raised with them, he felt he was being criticised and found it difficult, she said, and both social workers described him as challenging to work with. Miss Zdid not describe him in this way but did explain he liked to ask questions.

She gave a very clear example of where the parents were given a concrete suggestion about what might help them and how they responded. Miss Z mentioned the father was staying up late to play video games, as a result of which he could not help the mother the next day; and her evidence was consistent with the chronology which clearly shows the staff suggesting to the father he should get some rest. And he does not accept that and stays up, for example, on one occasion to 4 am, even though V is asleep and not needing him at that time.

The parents were given the suggestion that the mother gives V to father for the day to encourage him to bond with her and gain confidence in caring for her; and mother became upset and they would not try it.

The assessor’s recollection of the types of suggestions that were made to the parents and their responses is consistent with the notes that Resolve kept, and she puts the difficulties that the father had accepting advice and the context of his past experiences, she says,

“He needs to deal personally with his childhood trauma. Maybe that would make him more receptive to advice and support rather than him seeing it as a criticism. We work with families so they can improve their outcomes. It’s not in anyone’s best interest to criticise a parent. Unless and until he is able to deal with his trauma, it may be difficult for him to engage. That is my professional opinion”.

She was clear he was not motivated or willing to work with others to address those practical areas of parenting. And in the witness box the focus of the father’s evidence was Resolve did not help him, and as far as he was aware he did nothing wrong at Resolve.

The mother was very honest in saying in the witness box she does not trust the social worker, and the foster carer records that she does not trust her, the foster carer. And the mother’s ability to take feedback from the foster carer is mixed. She is described as taking feedback well in one of the early foster care logs (P458) but later the foster carer says she does not take constructive feedback and takes the view that she does not want her help or support. This is a repeated, I think, probably cut and paste text suggestive of an ongoing issue. And she feels that she cannot trust what the mother says about whether V has been fed (P538 and P602). The meeting in January 2025 records the foster carer observing the mother not wanting to take guidance as she noticed the mother would do what she wanted when she was not there – for example putting V in bed beside her at night rather than in the cot. And the foster carer does have increasing concerns about whether the mother is being entirely open and honest with her. In her November meeting with the social worker she reports:

“TK says she prepares home made food for V, but I found out that this was not true”.

So, the foster carer’s impression is that,

“TK does not want help from nobody. She consistently says no to everything offered by myself or even my family around me. I feel like sometimes TK does not tell the truth because the ingredients I saw in the kitchen are not what she told me she’d cooked, and she also gets frustrated when I’m around her”.

The mother disputed this and said she does not find it hard to ask for help. Both parents in the witness box said they were open to help and open to a parenting course. But when asked by Miss Bradley whether they could manage without the foster carer, the mother said she could and she was ready to do that and to care, from today, to care for V on her own.

When pressed she accepted that it might be best to first make some more improvements, but she found it hard to say how long that might take.

The father’s approach was similar. He said,

When I look at the ability of the parents to accept support, and I think they do not find it easy to accept support consistently and I do not think they actually see the need for it, but those working with them do.

I want to look at the father’s role in meeting V’s needs and the parents’ relationship because these parents are together and they have no intention of splitting up and of course that is entirely a matter for them. They propose that the mother will be the main carer and the father will support her. And these parents have been together since school, and the assessor highlights their co-dependence and the fact that they cover for each other, and she doubts that they would challenge each other if need be. And we saw this in the witness box, where the mother explained the father did not do more at Resolve because he had a bad back. And the social worker, too, thinks that mum is very loyal to the father and does not challenge him.

There is very clear evidence given by the social workers and assessor that the father did not support the mother as much as he could at Resolve or pull his weight in caring for V; and going back to Her Honour Judge Probyn’s judgment, that was a theme in the mother’s text to the father back in 2021.

And some of those concerns at Resolve are mirrored in the contact notes. The father finds it difficult to consistently stimulate v. At the beginning of the contact notes in August and September there is some encouraging of the father to get involved. And then there is a period of improvement in September where he seems to have taken on board some of the advice given. It says, “BJ was attentive to V’s wants and needs”.

Some of the contacts in November are good; but in December he seems again to need prompting to warm to V.

“TK showed emotional warmth towards V, giving kisses and cuddles. From observation at times BJ did not appear to kiss V or offer his arm for cuddles unless TK suggested to BJ that he hold V or V was sitting in his lap. The father therefore does not seem to be able to consistently stimulate V in contact and he needs prompting to change her”.

The mother does the majority of the changing throughout the contact notes. He is distracted by his phone. There are several entries about that in August, September and December; and, sadly, the entry relating to the night of December reads,

“Mummy asked Daddy if he wanted a cuddle with V before he left, but unfortunately he was too tired”.

And I know he is juggling work and contact, but there are a number of occasions on which he was late and, on 22 November I think, he fell asleep in contact.

Rather than being able to supplement the mother’s care or bolster her in those areas that she finds hard, the father, too, shows a lack of consistency and initiative.

And the mother said in the witness box she thought that the father could care for V on his own without her, but it seems to me he has not demonstrated he is able to do that yet and that this was rather optimistic of the mother. She said she had talked to the father, and he would want to do more for V and spend time with her and she believed him when he said this. And the father in the witness box said he was very hands-on, but it was clear he saw his role as the wage earner and his main change was moving his work for a more flexible job. He was very honest, saying he would be uncomfortable changing V if he was left alone with her, and he was unable to set out what more support the mother might need because he had not been at the foster carer’s.

Looking at the evidence, the mother’s confidence that father can and do more is not borne out by what has happened on the ground, and it seems to me the father is unlikely to be a great source of practical support based on those past behaviours and his responses in the witness box.

I return to the issue of threshold, having reviewed the entirety of the evidence, and I am satisfied that the findings made in the previous proceedings mean that V is at risk of harm, the same harm that her siblings were at risk of suffering or suffered. The parents’ own upbringings mean they have had a significant amount of trauma and loss and no role models for good parenting, and their life experiences appear to have shaped their everyday lives about the way they parent their children.

The evidence obtained about how the mother is doing in foster care is that, although she has made progress, those patterns which have been highlighted in the earlier judgment and in previous assessments about how she struggles to mee the totality of V’s needs consistently, are still there. She does not seem to grasp the need for advice or always be able to consistently follow it, and there is a high level of support which these parents need which they are not truly accepting of or open to.

I return to the Part 25 application, and I have reviewed the wide range of evidence spanning a number of years and the parents’ ability to change has been tested now on and off over a period of almost three years during previous proceedings and these. At home with Miss N, in Resolve, and in foster care, the guardian says every approach has been tried and tested. And I do have those day to day observations of the foster carer who lives alongside TK; and although some of those examples I give would on their own undoubtedly seem minor, looking at the broad picture and the patterns of behaviour, it is clear that old patterns of behaviour are still clearly there and TK does not really think that she needs help or wants to embrace it.

Whilst some of the points I have raised, as I have said, may be minor in isolation, that broad canvas suggests a chronic difficulty with manging the parents’ own lives and the care of any child in their care consistently and any changes slow in coming, with a very high level of support needed.

I highlighted the s.13 factors in my earlier judgment and some of that reasoning still stands good.

Looking at the whole picture I do not think it is necessary to have another report to resolve proceedings justly. These proceedings have been going on for 11 months. The parents have had a range of opportunities to show change. They have had an assessment tailored to their needs and those older patterns are still very apparent.

I need to now look at the Adoption and Children Act because if I make a decision about the adoption of a child I look at the child’s welfare, which is the paramount consideration throughout their life. And if I conclude a placement order accords with the child’s welfare, then I have to determine whether their welfare requires me to dispense with the consent of their parents. I have reminded myself of the guidance of Re P(Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535. I am content with s.1(4)(a) (d) and (e ) in the welfare checklist so I turn to paras.(b) (c) and (f).

I look at the child’s particular needs. She needs carers who can help her with her sense of identity as she grows, and she needs a relationship with her brothers and sister and her mother and father if she were to be adopted. She needs age appropriate explanations about her early life, and what has happened to her older siblings.

I look at the likely effect on her of having ceased to be a member of the original family and becoming an adoptive person. It is a severance of legal ties with the birth family, a lifelong and fundamental change. The relationship with TK and BJ will be limited to direct contact once a year and letterbox contact, and this is such a profound lifelong decision that will affect a child’s identity as they grow up and in the future, and it extinguishes the parental responsibility of parents. She would be in treated in law as a child of the adoptive family and all the impact of succession inheritance that that has, and maybe more profoundly than those practicalities – the potential impact on identity, self-worth and self-image.

I look at para.(f) and the likelihood of the relationship continuing and the value of the child to it doing so. Of course there is such a value in V knowing her birth family and in knowing her brothers and sister because sibling relationships are often the most enduring throughout someone’s life. And here we have parents who are wanting to care for her; willing to care for her; but not able to do so consistently from the evidence before me.

Mr Alleyne-Brown is right, that when I look back at the social work statement it is not as detailed as it should be when they look at the competing options for V; but it is my job ultimately to look at all the options and the pros and cons and to look at the level of support needed by the family, what can and should be done by the local authority, and determining whether with all that in place the child’s welfare needs will be met. So, I must carry out that global holistic analysis now.

Option 1 is for V to be with her mother and father, who clearly love her, and the mother has shown some ability to work with the foster carer and has made some improvements. She has got a routine and a structure to her day in that environment. She has only failed to wake at night once to care for V, and I think she has done her best.

There has been a shift in the parents’ willingness to consider what happened to their older children, but this was clearly a shift that took place within the witness box and at a very late stage of proceedings, and that the parents have some way to go in being able to really explore how they might do things differently.

And I have looked at the package that could be put in place with either a care order or a supervision order. We could have video interactive guidance; we could have nursery; we can have regular social worker visits; we can have floating support workers; we can make a referral for a mentor; we can have a Working Together agreement in plain language; and all of that support could be provided to help the parents.

But against this they would need such a high level of support, particularly to make sure there are regular meal times of nutritious food and, more subtly, to pick up on those things that they need to tell a health visitor or a social worker about V’s health and development. They have had a high level of support at Resolve, and the conclusion was they could not care for V. The mother has done better one to one with this foster carer, but even with that really clear scaffolding she is not consistent in her care and really does struggle to take on board feedback or see the real need for help.

I do not think BJ would be able to accept or work with that high level of professional involvement. The evidence suggests otherwise. And TK goes along with him and does not challenge him on that. They struggle to care for themselves adequately at times and so would find it hard to care for V.

And they do not at the root of it see a need for support or really accept that the older children suffered significant harm in their care, which means V will remain at risk of harm until they have genuinely developed an acceptance and understanding of Her Honour Judge Probyn’s judgment; and without this there is a high risk of history repeating itself.

The option of adoption. This provides stability and permanence. It provides a family chosen to meet V’s needs and give her a stable and predictable home. The parents would, I hope, see V through direct contact once a year, there is no suggestion on the papers that they would disrupt any placement.

But against this, adoption has lifelong implications: it is severing ties with the birth family, and it has profound implications for V’s identity and later life challenges. Adoption is not a magic wand. It is not a panacea, and adoptions can and do break down, and the parents really have done their best within the range of their ability for their daughter.

So, having looked at all the evidence and the pros and cons of the options, I remind myself that I should not interfere in the life of this family. I should only make orders that are necessary and proportionate to the risks to the child; but I am satisfied that the orders sought by the local authority are proportionate; and, sadly, I cannot envisage the parents will be in a position to provide consistent care that comes close to meeting all of V’s needs, and though I am satisfied that adoption offers the best way of meeting her needs for permanence and security, I accept the local authority and the guardian’s position that this genuinely is a case where nothing else will do short of adoption.

And I am clear now that the position is such that I need, for V’s welfare, to dispense with the consent of her parents.

The local authority suggest a gradual reduction to contact twice a week, once a week, and then once a month, and I do hope that they will look at yearly direct contact when they search for a family for V and will prioritise too contact with her older siblings.

I do not think it is necessary to make a contact order because this is not something that the local authority have been talked into but a position that they have taken after reflection before they even entered the witness box; but I also think it is really important that when the parents are given letterbox contact with V they are also given a really clear way of getting support for that. From what I know about their reading and writing, that may not be easy; so, they will need somebody to help them send pictures, receive drawings and pictures from V, and put something in the post in response.

So, subject to any further submissions, I make the following orders. I record the threshold criteria are met. I approve the local authority’s care plan. I make a care order. I dispense with the consent of the parents. I make a placement order. I direct a transcript of this judgment be prepared and anonymised in the usual way and published. I give leave for relevant documentation to be disclosed to prospective adopters, and I make the usual orders about costs.

I do really hope that the parents can bring themselves to participate in life story work for V and perhaps meet the prospective adopters, and I hope that there will be regular indirect contact and that a family will be found and appreciates the importance of direct contact once a year between V, TK and BJ. It is really important that V’s family know how she is getting on and that she knows her birth family still think of her and care for her.

And if, in later life, V is to read this judgment, I think it is important that she appreciates that her parents love her and very much wish to bring her up.

I am grateful to the social workers and for the time and thought they have devoted in this case. I hope they will take my comments about their evidence as something to work on and develop professionally. And I thank the guardian too for completing her report under pressure at a time she really was unwell.

I thank counsel for the constructive way that they have dealt with this case and particularly for the support that Miss Hughes and Mr Alleyne-Brown have given their very vulnerable clients, and for the support of intermediaries who are not in the room, but I do hope that my formal thanks might be passed on to them.