JB (Minor)

The issue for decision is of the most serious kind. It is as to whether I should make a care and placement order as the prelude to finding a ten month old child an adoptive home; or, alternatively, whether there should be some kind of further assessment of the mother and her partner with a view to establishing if reunification might be a possibility. The third option, ventilated during the course of the mother's evidence this afternoon, is that I should consider returning the child to her and her partner with immediate effect.

The child concerned is JB. He was born in late September, 2012. He is ten months old. His mother is KK who is in her mid-twenties. JB's father is BB. Likewise, he is a man in his mid-twenties, just a little younger than the mother.

JB was made subject to an interim care order on 2^nd October, 2012 when he was only five days old. He has, since then, lived with foster parents - thankfully the same foster parents. The mother and Mr. B live together in his grandmother's home in South London. Mr. B and the mother had a short lived relationship in 2005. Then there was no contact between them for some six years before they got back together as a couple in November 2011. Mr. B and Miss K plan to move together to live on the south coast. Mr. B’s mother already lives there. His grandmother, likewise, intends to relocate from South London to the south coast.

The mother's primary case, as I have just said, is that JB should go back to live with her and his father more or less immediately. She sees no real reason for there to be any further assessment of her or the father as a couple. Her secondary position is predicated upon the suggestion that Amanda Gillard's parenting assessment is inadequate or incomplete. Miss K has researched parenting assessments herself and discovered that, ordinarily, they occur over about twelve weeks. She points to the relatively infrequent number of visits between herself, Miss Gillard and the father and suggests there should be an opportunity now for Miss Gillard to complete her work. Mr. McIlwain has invited Miss Gillard to consider when, in fact, she could undertake further work. He has been told she could begin after 6^th August and would prioritise the matter so as to achieve an early conclusion.

The mother gave evidence shortly before lunch. She told me what a good father BB is; and that she has no concern about him looking after her child. It is very rare now, she tells me, that he becomes agitated. She would like JB “to come back right now.”

On her behalf, very properly, Mr. McIlwain has drawn my attention to a number of significant changes which, so he contends, should affect decision making. He invites me to accept that the mother’s relationship with the father is now solid, secure, and mutually supportive; that there is no concrete evidence of there ever having been violence between them; that Miss K is no longer taking anti-depressants (in fact, her evidence was that she had not been on them for a very long time now); that her mental health is much improved; and that she has a greater understanding of domestic violence as well as behaviour that might be seen as controlling or manipulative. Mr. McIlwain contends that the mother has learnt a lot as a result of her involvement in these proceedings and that the projected move to the south coast will mark for her as well as the father a new start. Mr. McIlwain invites me to concentrate on those significant changes and to give due regard to the very clear bond which exists between KK and JB. He argues that Miss Gillard’s assessment was not as full as it might have been and that on the basis of the mother’s evidence she would never allow any harm come to JB.

The local authority and the children's guardian, Miss Gorbutt, are united in submitting that I should make a care order now on the basis of a care plan for adoption. That is, they suggest, the only available outcome upon a proper consideration of both the evidence and JB's welfare needs.

Sometimes it is necessary to give a lengthy judgment at the end of a hearing of this kind. On other occasions it is possible - and, in my view, more humanitarian - to attempt to be as concise as possible. I should emphasise that wherever possible, consistent with a child's welfare needs, I would strive to achieve an outcome which enabled that child to grow up amongst his natural family. I strongly believe that children, generally speaking, are entitled to an upbringing by their parents or other close relatives. A judge would only consider the alternatives if persuaded that the prospects for the child within the natural family presented an unacceptable risk of very serious proportions. I should also say that whenever a court is asked to permanently separate a child from his natural family it becomes very necessary indeed to consider whether the suggested interference with the parents' and also the child's rights to respect for their family life is justified. Put another way, I have to look at whether the intervention is required on the basis that it is ‘necessary and proportionate’ as a response to the child's welfare needs.

KK evokes considerable sympathy, I would guess, amongst most of the people with whom she comes into contact, both within the court arena and more widely. She is a young woman who had very considerable problems in her early life. During the course of the February fact finding exercise it became apparent that the mother had a truly shocking start to her adolescent life. When she was only fourteen years old, she was seriously exploited by predatory men. She would agree to have sex with those men for money so that her own sister did not go hungry; and that is because Miss K’s mother is, and was, an alcoholic who was incapable of satisfying her daughters' needs for physical, financial and emotional care. It is, on any view, a very, very sad history.

The impact upon Miss K has been that over the years she has suffered - and I use that word advisedly - by participating in relationships which have not sustained her emotionally. She has had relationships with men who already have, or may have, done her harm. I refer to LM, JP, RP and now, I am afraid to say, also BB.

There is no doubting that Miss K has an emotional bond with her child and that she responds with warmth and affection to JB when she sees him at contact. She speaks with genuine and real pride about her son, suggesting to me that really no-one knows him as well as she does. She is his mum; she has been able to identify when he is hungry; she has been able to tell when he has had a problem with his eyes that turns into conjunctivitis. She is, in other words, in tune with her son.

There are though, on the other side of the debate, very serious identified deficits in the way that KK has responded particularly in relation to MM, her older son. During the course of my 1^st March, 2013 judgment I made findings about her failure to protect MM from sexual harm. I said that almost certainly he had been exposed to “highly sexual activities” when JP was looking after him. I found that LM represents a significant risk of physical violence to any child or adult with whom he was to reside. I also said this about BB:

After the judgment I made clear, first of all to Mr. McIlwain and then directly to the mother that I would be prepared to revise my findings in relation to her involvement in exposing MM to sexual harm if she, Miss K, revealed more about the way in which she and MM had been involved with JP and RP. Sadly, but perhaps not unexpectedly, Miss K has been unable to tell me anything more than she did in February about her relationship with the P / C family. The mother maintains today, as before, that her cousin, LK, lied when she gave evidence about the extent to which she was encouraged by Miss K to indulge in sexually inappropriate activity with JP. I am convinced, as I said in the March judgment, that LK was a truthful witness and that, sadly, Miss K was not.

Very obviously, there is no basis for suggesting that because the mother has not accepted the March findings therefore she should be ruled out in relation to the future care of JB. The process is altogether more sophisticated than that. I was prepared, at the end of the fact finding exercise, to permit a time-limited evaluation by Amanda Gillard, a professional in whom I repose confidence because of the excellent work she has performed in other cases. Miss Gillard's plans for interviews were sound. It is, though, the reality that she was thwarted in the extent to which she was able to assess particularly BB because of his uncooperative attitude. She made a number of appointments for the family - particularly, the mother and Mr. Brown. She arranged to meet with the couple on two occasions shortly after her first meeting with them. Those appointments were cancelled because of concern about intruding on the household - i.e. the grandmother's household. On another occasion, when Miss Gillard had arranged to visit over a weekend, she was sent a text by Miss K cancelling the meeting because of ‘family visiting.’ On a further occasion an appointment offered did not go ahead because Miss K felt she could not confirm straightaway. Miss Gillard suggested weekends and evenings, agreed to meet with the couple outside of the home, but Mr. B does not like to travel outside the immediate area. Accordingly, Miss Gillard agreed to meet with him in Miss K’s Solicitors’ offices. Unfortunately, Mr. B did not attend the appointment; the mother reported him as unwell. In total, six appointments were offered. Miss K attended one joint session and two individual sessions. Mr. B attended just once.

Miss Gillard gave evidence on 17^th June. She told me that in addition to those matters mentioned within her report, she had not felt either welcomed or well-received in Mr. B's grandmother's household. There was no eye contact. The responses she received were abrupt. I should say that Miss K’s co-operation with Miss Gillard was far more impressive than that of Mr. B. She is not a mother who has failed to engage with professionals. Her difficulty is that her partner cannot bring himself so to engage. It is the fact that he has never attended a single court hearing at which his son’s future has been under consideration. He has not attended appointments, other than the one arranged by Miss Gillard at his home. His excuses for not coming to court, more often than not, have involved some story of him being afflicted by a digestive complaint. Today, Miss K says he has diarrhoea and therefore must see the doctor.

I am convinced that Miss Gillard was in as good a position as any expert to arrive at the conclusions she did at the end of her report. My own assessment enables me to conclude that as to her key conclusions Miss Gillard is entirely correct. In particular, I refer to her evaluation of Mr. B. He presents, she says, as an individual who is unable to prioritise the emotional needs of a child over his own needs. He has not attended contact with JB which has undoubtedly had an impact upon his relationship with his son. He provided only unsatisfactory excuses for failing to attend. Mr. B, in his discussions with Miss Gillard, was quite agitated, curt, and abrupt; but is considered by Miss K to have an easy-going personality. Miss Gillard does not believe that to be the case. She considers him to be quite isolated and, by his own admission, worried about reacting. He feels threatened by people in the local area. Miss Gillard considers him a troubled person.

During the course of last year Miss K had two black eyes. Her explanations as offered to Miss Gillard were unconvincing. The mother said that on one occasion she rolled off the bed and on the other she was attacked by a complete stranger whilst walking home. Miss Gillard noted the mother’s demeanour when talking about these incidents to be ‘very rehearsed.’ Miss K gave evidence about that this afternoon. She told me she had been set upon by a gang of people once so as to account for the first and that there had not been any other occasion when she had sustained a second black eye. She said her bruises “take a long while to go down;” and that is why it had been thought there were been two incidents leading to black eyes.

Miss Gillard says - and I agree - that the mother’s insight into the issues surrounding domestic violence is limited. She has had considerable time to reflect and her history of forming violent relationships is known. She has demonstrated a lack of discernment and a high level of naiveté and dependency on partners. Miss Gillard concludes there is a high risk of ongoing difficulty in this area and that without significant personal support the mother is likely to continue to develop unhealthy relationships.

This is, I would say, an exceptionally sad situation. It is one in which there is no vestige of support evidentially for anything other than the local authority's proposal which is that JB should now be placed on the path towards adoption. My heart goes out to KK because I know how much she loves and cares for her son. She wept when she gave evidence. She is weeping again now. I wish, with every fibre of my being, that it was feasible to do other than I am now about to do, which is to say that JB's welfare needs require the process of finding him an adoptive family should begin. His need is to develop a positive, secure and permanent relationship with prospective adopters. His welfare requires that I should dispense with KKs - and, indeed, BB's - consents to adoption pursuant to s.52(1)(b) of the 2002 Act.

The care plan as drafted will be amended slightly as Mr. Rowatt agreed yesterday. I cannot agree though to the insertion of a condition pursuant to s.26 that JB should have direct contact with his mother each month. My reasons for that are these: Almost certainly any search which required that the adopters were to encompass monthly contact with JB’ natural mother would seriously limit the chances of him being found a good adoptive family and soon. His needs dictate that an early placement should be made. Direct contact with a natural parent, at whatever level, will impede that process. The second reason for denying the mother's heartfelt wish for ongoing contact is that any such arrangement may make it very difficult indeed for JB to satisfactorily attach to his adoptive parents if he were to see his mother at the frequency she suggests.

I adopt the local authority's care plan. I make the placement orders having considered the various provisions of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 and particularly the welfare checklist comprised within s.1(4) of that Act.

I am sorry that KK did not stay to the end, but I altogether understand why she left. If she had stayed she would have heard me say that she owes you, Mr. McIlwain, a very great deal for the realistic, compassionate, insightful, and sympathetic way in which you have been able to represent her cause both at this and the earlier hearing.

That is my judgment.