London Borough of Havering v R & Ors

These are care proceedings brought in relation to Q, a little girl born in the summer of 2024, who is aged 10 and a half months old. I am handing down this judgment on day five of the final hearing, which commenced on 7 May 2025. Prior to my judgment, I have told the parents my decision with short reasons. I am grateful that R has decided to stay. S is not in court today. He is still unwell.

Q is represented through her Children’s Guardian, Aime, and her barrister is Ms LeCointe. The child’s mother is R who is represented by Ms Williams-Howes. The child’s father is S. He is named on her birth certificate, so he has parental responsibility for Q, and he has been represented in these proceedings by Mr McWatters. The London Borough of Havering, who I will call the Local Authority in this judgment, have been represented by counsel, Ms Taylor-Ezechie.

R is vulnerable and has a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder. She was assessed by Dr Leaning, an adult psychologist, to be vulnerable due to her childhood experiences. S is also vulnerable. He has been assessed of being of low intelligence and has dyslexia. I have been mindful of Practice Direction 3AA throughout these proceedings. There was a consideration of ground rules throughout this hearing, but also in previous hearings including at the pre-trial review and issues resolution hearing. These ground rules have included having frequent breaks for the parents during the hearing.

To make this judgment easier to follow, I will refer to everyone in this case by their first name as we have been doing during the hearing, as per one of the ground rules. The applications before me are the Local Authority’s application for a care order, which was issued in July 2024, and the Local Authority’s application for a placement order issued in April 2025.

The Local Authority seek a care and placement order for Q. They seek the parents’ consent to the making of the placement order, is dispensed with. Their care plan is for adoption. Q is currently in foster care and if the orders are granted, she will be placed with adopters. Their contact proposals are for letterbox contact twice a year and to look for adopters who are open to direct contact. The Local Authority’s position was supported in its entirety by the Children’s Guardian.

R seeks to have Q returned to her care. She made an application one working week before this judgment, and after the final hearing had commenced, to have a residential assessment. Initially, this would be for a viability assessment to see if the mother would be permitted by the unit to undertake the full assessment in the Symbol unit. That is the specialist unit for parents with vulnerabilities such as autism. S does not seek to care for Q but wishes for her to remain in her birth family.

R is aged 17 and is a looked after child herself, having been made the subject of a care order in 2023. She is currently placed at her residential home. S is 20 years old, and he was also known to Social Services as a child. Q was initially removed from the parents’ care shortly after her birth under police protection powers. She was then made the subject of an interim care order in July 2024 and has been in the Local Authority’s care following her discharge from hospital.

Initial provision was made for the parents to have supervised contact five times a week, but there have been various contact review meetings and that contact has been reduced to once a week in the end, due to issues with the parents’ engagement and repeated late attendances. The matter was before me for the issues resolution hearing in April. In the time leading up to the hearings, there had been a pattern of the parents sadly disengaging with their solicitors until just shortly before a hearing. They had not filed their final evidence for that hearing.

I was pleased that both S and R attended the hearing. They made applications for further assessments, the mother for a parenting assessment by a different independent social worker, and the father for an addendum parenting assessment, in which he would be Q’s main carer, but with support from his grandmother. His grandmother, had previously withdrawn from her assessment. She had a positive viability assessment, but she did not proceed with the full special guardianship assessment.

Both applications were refused at the issues resolution hearing, but the parties were not barred from raising those as an active part of their case in this final hearing. It was made clear as well at that hearing that it would assist the Court to have an updated viability assessment by the social worker to consider the paternal great-grandmother’s role as a support to S, if he was to care for Q. This was done.

In terms of the Local Authority’s concerns, they centre around the parents’ vulnerabilities, substance misuse, father’s criminal history and the volatility of the parents’ relationship. The father and his family are known to another Local Authority about concerns around criminal exploitation, drug dealing, neglect and possession of an unlicensed dog. The father is also known to the police for possession of cannabis, theft and violent crimes.

The mother and the maternal family were known to the Local Authority throughout her childhood, owing to concerns around the maternal grandmother’s mental health, alcohol use, instability and neglect. The mother has lived with various family members. However, following placement breakdowns and missing episodes, she has been moved frequently. I was sad to hear how many different times R has had to move placements and all the different schools that she has had to attend.

Due to concerns about the care that R was receiving, proceedings were issued, and R was made the subject of a final care order in 2023 and, as I have said already, she now lives in a residential unit. R has significant additional needs, having been diagnosed with autism and she experiences social communication difficulties, which mean she can become emotionally dysregulated and display upset and angry outbursts. In addition, R can experience anxiety and panic attacks and she struggles to read social cues. R had an Educational Health Care Plan at school, but she struggled to engage with school due to the number of moves.

It is also fair to say that S had difficulties at school too. He has severe dyslexia and has previously been assessed for ADHD, and he also had an Educational Health Care Plan at school.

In view of the above and the parents’ continuing use of cannabis and the mother’s inconsistent engagement with midwife appointments, Q was made subject to a pre-birth child protection plan in March 2024. The PLO was then commenced. It was agreed the parents would engage with hair strand testing, parenting and psychological assessments. During this time, there continued to be concerns about the parents’ volatile relationship.

It was intended during the PLO that Q and the mother would move to a mother and baby unit once Q was born. R was admitted to hospital two weeks prior to Q’s birth due to concerns that Q was small and not growing properly. There were concerns raised about the mother’s behaviour towards staff and the father’s attendance at hospital. Q was ultimately made the subject of police protection powers in July due to the mother’s presentation, which included her refusing medical treatment and the monitoring of Q, refusing to put Q down and not allowing staff to clean her room. I should say that what I have been told about Q’s birth and what happened afterwards, it was clearly very difficult for R. There were a lot of people in the room, and it was not easy for her to manage.

Interim care orders were made in July, and Q was moved into foster care upon discharge from hospital. It was said at the first two hearings that the mother and baby unit that had been identified remained an option for R. There were some units that withdrew their offers due to concerns around the level of the parents’ conflict, but it was still the plan of the Local Authority and indeed it was an application that the mother sought to pursue, although ultimately she did not do so at the further case management hearing that took place in August.

In August, I timetabled matters to an early final hearing and an issues resolution hearing in January. Due to delays in respect of the parenting assessment, the case was not ready for an issues resolution hearing on that date and instead the case was utilised as a ground rules hearing. The matter came back before me in advance of the issues resolution hearing on 8 November due to the parents’ lack of engagement with the parenting and psychological assessments. Both parents asked for a further opportunity to engage, which was permitted. This resulted in the parenting assessment due in November 2024 not being filed until January 2025.

At the ground rules hearing in January, an application for an intermediary assessment of R was pursued and granted. That assessment in due course confirmed that R did not require an intermediary. No application for an intermediary assessment was made on S’s behalf. The matter then was before me for an issues resolution hearing in April, and I have said about the two applications that I dealt with on that occasion.

In terms of the assessments undertaken during the proceedings, there has been a psychological assessment by Dr Leaning in respect of both parents. He also undertook a capacity assessment in respect of R and deemed that she did have capacity to instruct her solicitors.

In respect of the mother, Dr Leaning concluded that she falls within the average to low range in cognitive functioning and adaptive independent skills with her difficulties stemming from her autism diagnosis and traumatic circumstances, as opposed to any diagnosable psychological or personality disorder. Dr Leaning considered that she does have capacity to conduct proceedings and made a number of recommendations. These included her being seen by a qualified occupational therapist and receiving support from a specialist neurodiversity therapist that could help R develop mechanisms in the longer term to manage her dysregulation.

In respect of S, Dr Leaning considered that he is operating within the borderline to low average intellectual range and that he has severe dyslexia and that has been a significant factor in his presentation and abilities. Similar to the mother, Dr Leaning did not view any evidence of a psychological or personality disorder in respect of S and commented there is no evidence that the father does not have capacity. Dr Leaning suggested, as was raised about both parents, that S can have difficulties with anger, which resulted in a recommendation that S would benefit from anger management support. As I have said, the parenting assessment of the mother did not progress initially or when further directed, due to the mother’s continuing lack of engagement.

Ms Wendy Last, was the assessing independent social worker and filed a summary report. It is noted that notwithstanding R’s engagement being limited to two sessions, she was clear that she had seen sufficient and read sufficient documentation that she could not recommend reunification of Q to R’s care. Wendy observed the mother was preoccupied with her drug use rather than Q and seeking for Wendy to approve her continuing use of cannabis.

Wendy was concerned about the mother’s intimidating and aggressive demeanour and that she has frequent mood swings. She referred to incidents where the mother was seen as being racially abusive to placement staff members and sent abusive text messages, including to Wendy herself, and that the mother became heightened after disagreeing with the independent social worker’s views, which caused S to become visibly panicked and fearful and seek assistance from his grandmother. Wendy commented that R did not appear to have any depth of understanding about the needs of a baby and suggested she was alarmed by the body language between Q and R.

The parenting assessment of S was also sadly negative. S initially engaged poorly, but this improved and he attended the two sessions with R and in addition another three sessions on his own when it was observed he showed more willingness and determination and love towards Q. Wendy commented that whilst S’s heart is in the right place, that S has a very high level of needs of his own and a level of understanding which is insufficient to be a full-time caregiver.

Wendy noted that S had no insight into his own childhood experiences, safe relationships or developmental milestones and with his vulnerability he appears to rely on others to make decisions for him. Wendy considered his understanding of the world is immature and simplistic and that the level of professional support required to ensure that Q would be safe would not be sustainable or typical. Wendy also raised concerns around S’s limited support network.

At the end of the assessment period, S approached the independent social worker indicating that whilst his grandmother could not care for Q herself, she would be willing to support S in caring for her. Wendy thought this proposal was well-meaning, but considered it to be a knee-jerk reaction, given the paternal great-grandmother’s previous withdrawal from assessment and the reality of the level of support required.

Both parents undertook hair strand testing for cannabis. In the father’s first set of testing results in September 2024, he tested positive for cannabis at a high to medium level. In the updating testing in February 2025, he tested positive at a high level for cannabis use. The mother’s initial hair strand testing of October 2024 was positive for cannabis use and similarly at a medium level in the updating testing in February 2025.

Three individuals were put forward as alternative carers during the course of these proceedings. Of these assessments, the initial two did not start; two of them having both written to the Local Authority to withdraw. The original viability, as I have said, of the paternal great -grandmother was positive, but then she did not proceed with the full assessment.

I have heard this hearing over five days and the oral evidence I have heard is as follows:

Wendy gave her evidence on the first day of the final hearing. It was clear she had made extra attempts to get the parents to engage in her assessment. Indeed, her assessment of the parents was originally due to be filed much earlier than it was filed with the court. She met with S five times and made special arrangements to see R, after 1pm because R had told her she struggled to have morning appointments. Wendy explained to the Court how the parents had missed sessions with her for the assessment.

She confirmed she undertook a ParentAssess assessment because she was aware of the parents’ additional needs and vulnerabilities. She considered that the parents had been given adequate support from her and the social worker in order to attend the sessions and that these had been kept brief and that as much as possible had been done to facilitate the parents’ needs. Wendy went to great lengths to explain how hard she considered Tricia and Katrin had worked to support the parents so that they understood the purpose of the assessment, were reminded of appointments and told where and when they should be so that the assessment could be as fair and comprehensive as possible.

Wendy felt that R was controlling of S and that she could manipulate him. She thought S at times was unable to manage R’s behaviour. She found the dynamics of their relationship quite concerning and although they say they have separated, she was concerned about whether S would be able to stand up to R and remain separated from her. Wendy explained when questioned by the mother’s barrister that she had not had as many visits with R as she would have liked because R had not engaged with all of them. She explained how R had said that she was not going to engage with a bunch of stupid questions and that she seemed to get zoned out and bored with parts of the parenting assessment.

Wendy explained that the ParentAssess model was the best format available she thought for this case at the moment. She said she did not know how the parents could have had a better assessment because they were struggling to understand, and they did not at times appear engaged or very interested in the questions. She was concerned that the parents do not engage fully with all the professionals in the case.

She said she was concerned that she could not confidently say R could any more regulate herself now than she could at the outset of proceedings. She is concerned that R struggles to manage her own emotions. Wendy said it was awful to say it, but she struggled to find any positives about the assessment of R. In conclusion, she was clear that the parents love Q, but they have too many needs themselves to give Q what she needs and deserves.

When asked if the parents could manage to care for Q with support, Wendy replied this would be a huge task for the Local Authority. There would need to be a support worker 24 hours a day for the foreseeable future. She said she cannot imagine a package to be robust enough to make it feel safe. She said the parents need so much support themselves let alone to care for a baby. I found Wendy to be a thoughtful and fair witness who clearly had a good understanding of the concerns and the challenges in the case.

I then heard the Guardian out of turn as she was unable to attend later in the week. In her evidence she confirmed she did not support a residential assessment of the mother. She said that for there to be one at this stage there would need to be a considerable amount of evidence to say it would be successful and that there simply was not that evidence in this case. She was concerned a residential assessment of the mother would cause a significant delay for Q. Further she said that the work the mother needs to do is a long-term piece of work that will need to be offered by CAMHS, or a specialist service, and it was not just therapy that the Local Authority could offer.

Aime acknowledged that R has vulnerabilities and sensory needs, but she was concerned that she had not done anything to help herself with regards to those vulnerabilities in terms of her not engaging with the work suggested by Dr Leaning. She is worried about R’s emotional dysregulation and the impact that would have on her ability to provide emotionally safe care for Q. Aime was satisfied that Wendy had done a fair assessment of the parents.

As I have said Aime was not working from day three of the final hearing, but I am grateful to her providing updating instructions with regards to the remainder of this final hearing, namely yesterday, when it was confirmed that having considered the mother’s formal application for a residential assessment that she neither supports an initial nor a full assessment being undertaken by a residential unit such as Symbol. I found the Guardian to be a thoughtful, fair witness who had clearly given the case a lot of thought to balance the options and reach her conclusion.

I then heard evidence from Q’s social worker, Tricia. Tricia confirmed that she did not support a residential assessment of R. She said the concerns about the parents’ inability to care for Q were multifaceted including their substance misuse, concerns about their relationship, the amount of help that Katrin, R’s social worker, had provided to R and indeed S through these proceedings and particularly since January 2025 when in fact she was no longer officially R’s social worker and yet the parents had still found it difficult to engage with the assessments fully despite a huge amount of support.

She remained concerned about the parents’ commitment and their missed contact sessions. She considered that they have a lack of capacity to care for Q and meet her needs within the timescales of these proceedings. Tricia explained the lengths Katrin sometimes goes to such as collecting the parents and taking them to contact. She had taken them to register Q’s birth. The social worker provided the parents with a contact schedule. It was clear that Social Services had done as much as they could to try and support the parents.

Tricia was aware that Katrin had had a conversation with R about the recommendations of Dr Leaning’s report, but the recommendation referral options were not taken up by R. She did accept that parents had not been offered parenting classes, and she too was concerned that T had withdrawn from the assessment previously and was now seeking to put herself forward again. Tricia explained when a residential assessment had been offered to the parents at the outset of the case that R had said she did not want to go because of the rules with the units, the cameras and that she herself identified she would struggle to be in that environment.

Tricia was clear nothing could be gained from another assessment of the mother, and it is clear R loves her daughter, but even now she is struggling to do the work necessary. Tricia thought the parents’ separation was complicated and she is not truly sure if they are separated. She said she had observed R to become controlling over S on occasions. I found Tricia to be a fair and helpful witness. She assisted the Court and clearly tried very hard during the proceedings to assist the parents to engage.

I then heard evidence from the great paternal grandmother. She gave her evidence to the Court that she did now wish to have a special guardianship assessment of her, having turned down the opportunity to have one previously. She hoped to be able to care for Q alongside S, but said that she would do the main care if needed. She said she had had some health conditions and that she had previously had some mental health issues, but these were in the past.

It was clear that she had R and S’s best interests at heart in her change of mind and in seeking to be further assessed. The professionals all had concerns that that was not going to be her long-term position. These concerns turned out to be correct as the great paternal grandmother did not file the medical evidence I directed and formally withdrew from being assessed as a carer for Q in May. I found T to be a likeable witness who was clearly family focused and tried her best to answer the questions as honestly as she could.

I then heard from R’s previous social worker, Katrin. Katrin explained to the Court how despite no longer being R’s allocated social worker since January 2025, she had stayed involved to help R during these proceedings. She explained that R had initially rejected a referral to the support hub and that she did not want to go through Dr Leaning’s report with Katrin in detail nor have the referrals made that he had suggested. She said that she had had two discussions with R about this. Katrin said she had offered to make a referral to the Sycamore Trust for R, but that she had not wanted to attend any groups or counselling. She said that she hopes that R will now engage with her GP to get talking therapy, as she will not be eligible for CAMHS once she reaches the age of 18.

Katrin was clearly fond of R. She talked about how R could be dysregulated and could be hyper focused and not able to move on, but at other times that she could be extremely regulated and when she is calm, she is delightful. She hopes that R engages with the occupational therapy and specialist therapy recommended. She worries if she does not she will have the same problems over and over again. I found Katrin to be a fair and helpful witness who assisted the Court and assisted R throughout the final hearing.

Finally, I heard from R yesterday. I know R found it really hard to give evidence at the final hearing, but I am really glad that she did. As I have said I was sad to hear how many times R has moved and all of her school moves. R told me about her mother and sister and that they can offer her support, but that this is not always consistent. R explained to me how sometimes it is hard for her to remember appointments and that she can get anxious and not be able to sleep, that she can feel sick and she finds it hard to use her calendar and telephone in terms of reminders.

R was able to tell me that sometimes she accepts that she has been angry and frustrated, but that is not all the time and that she feels professionals sometimes are unfair and characterise her in that way. Whilst she does not necessarily see that she needs to engage with occupational therapy and the specialist therapy, she told me that she would do it. R also said that she could stop using cannabis if she wanted to. She said she can control herself in front of Q. She explained that, she had become dysregulated after Q had been born but that it had been a very difficult time with lots of people in the room.

R was really sad that she was not able to give Q her first bottle of milk. I was sad to hear how R feels her life is on hold whilst she waits for the outcome of this case, and she does not feel she can book holidays or make plans for the future. I was very clear, and R’s lawyers worked very hard to explain to me that she wants to be given a further opportunity to be assessed in a residential unit and that she said she would agree to their rules if they were reasonable. R accepted that she chose not to go to the residential unit at the beginning of the case, but she said that she did this in case a better unit had come along. I found that R was honest with me and that she clearly loved Q, and that she answered all the questions that were asked of her and her answers were really thoughtful.

The Local Authority bring this case, and it is for them to prove it. In deciding any disputes of fact in this case, I remind myself the test I need to apply is that I have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. The burden of proof rests with the person making the allegation. I am required to consider the evidence as a whole, which I have done. I have considered the relevant law in respect of this case both under the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

Before considering whether to make a public law order, I have to consider whether the threshold criteria are met pursuant to 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. This sets out that:

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

(a)that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b)that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—

(i)the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or

(ii)the child being beyond parental control”.

When considering the likelihood of harm this means no more than a real possibility it will occur, but that a conclusion to the effect must be based on facts established on the balance of probabilities as per the case of Re B [2013] UKSC 33. It is important to bear in mind the need for vigorous analysis of the threshold as set out in Re A [2015] EWFC 11, which set out the two fundamental principles.

In this case there is not a dispute that threshold criteria is met. Indeed, a final threshold document is appended to the order of 9 May 2025.

I remind myself of the rights to respect of family life which is enshrined within Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and that the Court should only interfere with those rights if it is necessary, just and proportionate to do so.

In determining what final orders to make, because the Local Authority’s plan is for adoption, Q’s welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration. I have had regard to both Welfare Checklists in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and the Welfare Checklist in 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I may make only a placement order with the consent of all persons with parental responsibility, that is Q’s parents in this case, or by dispensing with their consent on the grounds that Q’s welfare requires me to do so.

When considering care plans with a plan for adoption, I remind myself of the summary contained within the case of YC v UK [2012] 55 EHRR 967 and that is that:

“… family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing”.

I bear in mind that a plan for non-consensual adoption is a plan of last resort. Therefore, I should not endorse a plan unless I am satisfied no less interventionist order will do. This was reinforced in the forceful language in the case of Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33. The principle that adoption of the child against her parents’ wishes should only be contemplated as a last resort when all else fails. Baroness Hale concluded:

“It is quite clear that the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s welfare, in short, where nothing else will do”.

I have also kept in mind the words of Lord Templeman in Re KD (A Minor)(Ward: Termination of Access) [1988] AC 806, that:

“The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not endangered. Public authorities cannot improve on nature”.

In Re D [2022] EWCA Civ 896, Lord Justice Peter Jackson set out that:

“Adoption can only be approved where it is in the child’s lifelong best interests and where the severe interference with the right to respect for family life is necessary and proportionate”.

I have also considered the more recent cases of Re J (Care Plan for Adoption) [2024] EWCA Civ 265 and also Re M A (Child Placement Order) [2025] EWCA Civ 214.

Therefore, I must weigh up all the realistic possibilities in this case and identify and analyse the harm which may flow from each plan as well as the benefits before coming to my decision. I must analyse whether any harm identified could be reduced or mitigated. I must consider what resources the Local Authority could make available to this family. My task is to evaluate these options for the child and weigh them up side by side. With this was the test considered in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. I need to be vigorous in exploring and probing the Local Authority’s thinking.

Also ,in considering evidence I have reminded myself of the case of R v Lucas [1981] QB 720, which although was a case in the Criminal Courts is nonetheless one I can rely on. That was reaffirmed in the more recent decision in the case of Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451.

I have been mindful of Practice Direction 3AA, and I have had the full benefit of considering the contents of Dr Leaning’s psychological assessment in this regard.

I have also had regard to the overriding objective contained in Part 1(1) of the Family Procedure Rules and that is that I must deal with this case justly fairly and quickly. I have also had regard to the parents’ and the child’s right to a fair trial and that I must have in mind at all times the need for the Court to adopt the least interventionist approach.

In terms of considering parents’ capacity to change I have borne in mind the test identified by Sir James Munby in Re S [2014] EWFC. Finally, in respect of placement orders, should I make a placement order I need to consider whether to dispense with the parents’ consent under section 52(1(b) of the Adoption and Children Act, and I remind myself I should only do so if I consider his welfare requires that I do this. This was reaffirmed in the case of Re P [2008] EWCA Civ 535.

Turning to threshold as I have said there is a threshold document attached to my order made in May. Without objection, threshold was found to be met in the terms drafted.

The framework in which I must carry out my holistic evaluation of the options are the Welfare Checklist. I am mindful of section 32(1)(a) of the Children Act, which requires the Court to draw up a timetable with a view to disposing of an application within 26 weeks. This case has been running for approximately 45 weeks. However, this delay has been necessary to allow the assessments to be undertaken and to give the parents further opportunities to be able to engage with those. However, I am of the view that any further delay is not now in Q’s best interest.

In terms of my welfare analysis, it is clear from my reading of the papers the strength of love, R and S have for Q. In terms of S’s ability to care for Q, at the outset he was seeking to have Q placed in his care with a shared care arrangement with his grandmother. I heard evidence from T in respect of this, but she is now no longer seeking to care for Q and no active case was put forward on behalf of the father for him to care for her.

The email from the great paternal grandmother of 27 May states:

“I’m writing this email with a sorrowful heart as I’ve previously said to S’s solicitor my brother may have to stay with me in the near future. I want the best for Q and if I had the room I would have S and Q live with me. I hope a mother and baby unit will be found for R and Q, but I feel I cannot care for her at this time”.

S did not attend Court on the first day of the final hearing because he said he was ill. He has also not attended Court on the fourth and fifth days again because he has told me he is unwell. As he does not put forward a positive case I intend to be fairly limited in respect of my comments with regards to the assessment of S. Wendy’s report has some positives about S, but ultimately her assessment of him is negative. She acknowledged in her evidence they may be some place in the future for a further assessment of S to care for Q with the assistance of his grandmother, but this is no longer available as an option to the Court. Whilst S is not seeking to care for Q he wants her to be brought up within her birth family.

In terms of why the parenting assessment of S was negative, it is a thorough assessment that needs to be read in full. However, in summary, his use of cannabis had increased during these proceedings. There were real concerns about his commitment in terms of the long time when he has not instructed solicitors or filed a statement or engaged with the parenting or psychological assessments. Contact due to non-engagement was changed from five times a week to once a week and even then not all the contact sessions have been attended. I think S took a brave decision to understand the concerns of Wendy, Tricia and Aime and to come to the conclusion he was not in a position to care for Q.

In terms of my evaluation of R’s ability to care for Q, the concern is that she cannot consistently and safely care for her. In my analysis of her ability to parent Q I rely on the oral and written evidence I have already carefully detailed. The threshold document details the nature of the concerns in this case. R herself is a looked after child who at times struggles to regulate herself due to her diagnosis of autism and the trauma suffered as a child, which is set out by the psychologist in his report.

R like S has significant needs of her own. For the reasons I have set out the only options for Q are either for a further assessment of R as a possible carer for her within a residential unit or for her to remain in the Local Authority’s care because there are no third options in terms of family or friends. The threshold document sets out the significant difficulties that R has had caring for Q and while R told me she would not react adversely in front of Q, she has done so in the past. This is the concern of Tricia, Wendy and Aime. The concern is about the risk to Q in the care of her mother when R is dysregulated.

I have had the benefit of hearing most of the hearings in relation to this case and I am aware the parents have been given an extensive opportunity at more than one hearing to go into a residential unit and to be assessed as carers for Q. It is sad the parents did not agree to that assessment at the time, but they have had a robust community assessment since. I agree with the evaluation of the Guardian that R would struggle in a residential unit. The Guardian said that she would struggle to interact with professionals giving her advice and instructions. Being in a closed environment would be a significant pressure for her.

Aime said it is fair to say that R has found it a struggle to work with professionals at times even within the community-based parenting assessment and she has been given more than one opportunity to engage with that. R has also, like S at times, struggled to engage with her own solicitors and did not file her final evidence despite directions on three occasions for her to do so.

The Court is really clear about the difficulties R faces, and it has been known for some time since Dr Leaning’s report was filed in around November 2024, the professional input she needs. Dr Leaning in her report sets out she requires occupational therapy and specialist therapy. These will help provide her with strategies to manage her autism and anxiety and it is those conditions that at times causes her to have high dysregulation. There is need for R to address her dysregulation and undertake this work and that would be required to ensure she does not present a risk to Q. Even in her own evidence, R struggled to accept the reason why she needed to engage with that work, even though I was pleased to hear that she said she would.

It was significant for me that Katrin had tried to refer her for this work and R had not been able to agree to those referrals being made to date. The Guardian submitted in the absence of an indication of at least a willingness on behalf of R to engage with that work, it is unfortunately untenable for the Court to consider any further form of assessment. It was submitted that it is not known how long it will take for these resources to be made available to R, how long she would need to engage with those resources and whether she would engage fully or, as in these proceedings, whether her engagement would be sporadic so that the work could take longer than it would ordinarily. The Guardian’s view is that all of this further work and assessment would be beyond Q’s timescales.

The Guardian accepted that R’s presentation and behaviour was not wilful or deliberate, but that she clearly just cannot manage her own behaviour and therefore could not manage to care for Q. As I have said, Wendy’s assessment of R was negative and concerns about her ability to care for Q were heightened during Wendy’s evidence. Despite R not engaging with the residential assessment proposed at the start of proceedings and it being proposed at least on a couple of occasions, it was significant that R did not pursue that fully until the issues resolution hearing in April and then again at this final hearing. It has been pointed out by the Local Authority that when enquiries were made of residential assessment units, due to R’s presentation, the units have previously withdrawn.

Q is now 10 and a half months old, and she has been in proceedings for the entirety of her life. Due to R’s inability to maintain contact five times a week with Q, it has been reduced to once a week. I am satisfied every opportunity has been given to these parents to engage with these proceedings and the assessments. The solicitors brought the case back to Court due to the parents’ non-compliance and further opportunities were given to the parents to comply.

The submission made on behalf of the mother is that the Court could adjourn these proceedings just for a short period of time for the mother to undertake the initial assessment with Symbol. Submissions on behalf of Q are it would take much longer than a two-week initial assessment for the Court to be in a position to deal with that. There would need to be referrals. Symbol would need to undertake the work. As I have set out already, R may not engage consistently with professionals. If Symbol did say a full residential assessment was needed, that could take a number of months, and the Court already has before it clear evidence about the parents’ inability to care for Q as set out in the detailed parenting assessments which were undertaken in the community during these proceedings.

The Guardian was asked why R being assessed by a residential unit is likely to be negative and her view was that R is simply not able to remain in her current residential unit, let alone a residential unit where she has to be assessed; that she struggles to be in an environment with professionals around; her that she becomes dysregulated and angry and when she does and that she underestimates how impactful her behaviour is on the people around her. I have to consider too the impact on Q of moving to a residential assessment at this stage when the clear evidence from Wendy before the Court is that R does not have the ability to safely parent Q.

I am pleased that with the exception of day one of this final hearing, R has engaged with the court process, the final hearing. I know that she has found it difficult at times and had to leave court on occasion and that she has needed lots of breaks, but she has always returned to the courtroom as indeed she has to listen to this full judgment. I really hope that R undertakes all the work that Dr Leaning has identified so that she can learn to manage her dysregulation. However, until she does that, I agree with Aime that any further parenting assessment of R is likely to be negative.

Turning briefly now to some of the other issues the Local Authority raised in their submissions, one is the mother’s use of cannabis and that as recently as February 2025, R’s results show her medium drug use in terms of her cannabis usage. She has been in proceedings for 10 and a half months, but as recent as February, there was no sign that she has been able to stop using cannabis. Time is needed to see if R can become abstinent and remain abstinent even when life presents its challenges.

In terms of the parents’ volatile relationship, the parents say they are no longer in a relationship. However, I am not aware that either of the parents has done any of the work identified, the anger management work that was identified for S and the therapeutic work identified for R that may help them with this. A number of professionals have described how R is controlling towards S. However, it is important that both parents take steps on their journey to address that dynamic and their behaviour and again this work has not yet started. It is simply not in Q’s timescales for the Court’s decision to be delayed whilst this work is undertaken.

As I have said, R is clearly vulnerable, as is S, both in terms of their diagnoses and also in respect of their experiences as children. Both need to undertake further work. In conclusion, I am concerned that R lacks the requisite insight in relation to many of the issues she faces and that she has not made any substantive steps yet to address these concerns. Overall, it is clear she lacks insight in respect of her vulnerability and the work that she needs to engage in to be able to safely parent for Q. Many of R’s difficulties are simply not her fault, but I have to balance that with the fact that Q’s welfare is my most important consideration.

I have explored whether there are support systems that can be put in place to enable R to care for Q. Sadly, R has no reliable support from her family, and it is simply unrealistic for a Local Authority to provide a long-term care at the level of 24 hours a day, as indicated to be needed, in order for her to safely care for Q. I have summarised the law, and the care plan for adoption is a draconian one, and adoption should only be considered as a last resort and when nothing else will do.

On behalf of the mother, it is said a delay for this further assessment could mean there is a potential less drastic option available for Q. Whilst this is an option open to the Court, it has to be balanced with the fact that Q’s welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration. I accept what is said on behalf of the Local Authority and Guardian, that a delay for the further assessment potentially impacts on Q. It could prolong the instability and uncertainty about her permanence. On the evidence available, it seems very unlikely the assessment would be positive, given the parenting assessment of the mother was negative.

The Court must consider all realistic options within the child’s and the court’s timeframe, and indeed it has. The mother has had almost a year to have agreed or applied to be placed in a residential unit before as recently as last month. I have before me already the information and clear professional analysis from the social worker, the Guardian and the parenting assessor, and there is enough information before the Court to know that any further assessment of R is likely to be negative, and it is not in Q’s best interest for the proceedings to be delayed for that assessment. As I have said, I have to balance all the realistic options.

The parenting assessment of R, and the concerns I have highlighted, show that sadly R is not able to safely parent Q. Q needs a final decision made in respect of her. I have explained that sadly there are no other alternative family placement options for her. For all the reasons that I have set out, I conclude that R and S cannot meet Q’s needs. I realise how devastating this will be for the parents because I know how much they love and care for her. I do not consider there is any realistic support package that would enable them to care for Q.

In terms of my consideration of the Welfare Checklist, within section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, I confirm that given Q’s age, she is unable to vocalise who she would wish to live with. However, if she was able to express that, I think she would want to be brought up by her mother or another family member providing that could be done so safely and in accordance with her best interests. I am sure that if Q could not live with R or S, she would wish to see them.

Q has all the needs of a young child of her age. The need for a family where she can be kept safe, where her need for emotional support and stimulation can be met, and where she can grow and develop. I have considered the long-term impact on Q of being adopted. This will cause her to lose her legal ties with her birth family, and I recognise that sadly not all adoptive placements succeed. I am aware adoption can cause real difficulties for children in adolescence and later life.

Q is a girl aged 10 and a half months. Her ethnicity is white British. Q was at risk of harm when these proceedings were instigated, and that harm is detailed in the agreed threshold document. R and S wish to care for Q, and I have explained in this judgment why sadly I do not think they can meet her needs. I have also explained why there is no other family member option available.

In terms of the range of powers available to the Court, these can include a child arrangements order, a special guardianship order, a care or supervision order, or a placement order. My analysis of these options is as follows. One option is for Q to be placed with her mother. This could be done under no order, a lives with child arrangements order, a care or a supervision order. For all the reasons I have just outlined, I do not consider that is in Q’s welfare interests as it will not keep her safe. As I have said, it is sad that there are no alternative carers available to care for Q.

Another option available to the Court would be for Q to remain in long-term foster care. Given she is less than one year old, I do not consider that to be in her best interests. It would mean she is a looked after child for the next 17 years with everything that comes with that, such as having a social worker and LAC reviews. It would not offer her permanence that she needs. I recognise it would allow a greater level of contact for the parents, but that is outweighed by the lack of permanence and the possibility of multiple placement moves during her minority and thus many different carers. Therefore, it would not give her the security of a family that she can belong to for the remainder of her life.

The Local Authority supported by the Guardian seek that Q is made the subject of a care and placement order and adopted. I may make the placement order only with the consent of all parents with parental responsibility or by dispensing with their consents on the ground that the child’s welfare requires me to do so. My paramount consideration is Q’s welfare throughout her life. For all the reasons I have stated, and because these proceedings have now been ongoing for some 10 and a half months, I am clear that nothing else will do other than adoption. This can meet the child’s immediate and long-term welfare needs.

I am required to consider the arrangements for contact. I have considered the Local Authority’s care plans, which are supported by the Children’s Guardian, and I approve the contact plan for her to be indirect letterbox contact twice a year and for the adoption search to look for adopters open to direct contact, if possible. I approve all of the contact arrangements and I do not consider these need to be ordered.

I dispense with the consent of R and S to the making of the placement order on the grounds that Q’s welfare requires me to do so. Therefore, for all those reasons, I make the final care and placement orders sought by the Local Authority. I am satisfied that Q’s welfare requires I make the orders, and it is just and proportionate that I do so.

I would like to express my thanks to the professionals in the case for their hard work. That extends to the advocates and also to the solicitors. As I know that both Emma and Katie (the parents solicitors) have worked very hard at previous hearings and throughout the case to keep the parents engaged with them.

I have already said I assume the Local Authority were planning to get a transcript of the judgment in any event, given that I have made a placement order, so I would be grateful if that could be done, and I give permission for that to be shared with the adopters in due course. I think we need to give consideration to what documents, if any, it would be helpful to disclose, for example R may want to disclose Dr Leaning’s report in order to access some of the provisions recommended.

Therefore, that concludes my judgment, but R and S I really do hope that you do the work that has been recommended. R I really am grateful for you engaging with these proceedings, and I think you are incredibly brave that you have listened to the judgment in full. Thank you.