M, Re (No 2)

This is a rehearing of an application made by Cambridgeshire County Council in respect of two boys, JK, born in 2003, and JA, born in 2005. I am principally concerned with JA. The boys are the adopted children of Mr. and Mrs. M, who I shall call the parents. In dramatic circumstances, both the boys left the care of their parents on 13^th May 2014 after JA arrived at school with a bleeding nose saying that he had been hit by his mother. Save for a temporary respite in respect of JK in October 2014, both the boys have remained in alternative care.

As a result of the events of that day, the local authority were involved. There was a s.47 investigation, during which both children complained inter alia that they had been regularly hit or smacked either by their mother or father, and that their mother had put soap into or onto their mouths. JA described both boys being put under a cold shower, as he described it, as a punishment, and JK said that he was regularly physically restrained, told that he had had demons inside him. Both boys expressed anger towards their parents. JK said that he did not want to return home, as he did not feel safe. The local authority accordingly convened a child protection conference in June 2014 and subsequently issued care proceedings. The first interim care order was granted on 29^th August 2014 after, I believe, a contested hearing.

On 12^th September, JK refused to return to his foster carers, alleging that he had been hit that day that he moved to stay with alternative friends. That too was unsuccessful. So, by 19^th September, they too also asked for him to be removed to a new foster home. That too broke down, following a serious incident on 30^th September. JK said that he wanted to return home and, in consultation with the parents out of hours, he did so that evening. That conduct replicated very closely the very sad and tragic circumstances which the boys had suffered whilst having been removed from their biological parents before they lived with the parents in this case.

In any event, that was also short lived. On 15^th October, JK attacked his mother and the police were called. JK was placed in a residential unit, where he remains to date. It is not, I think, suggested that any other arrangement currently is in his best interests. JA also moved placement on 11^th October, following allegations by him that he had been shouted at by his previous carer, and he remains in that foster home to date.

During the course of the enquiries, Dr. Leanne Horrocks was instructed to prepare a comprehensive expert psychological report. Her advices were central to the planning, indeed the stance of the local authority. I shall turn in more detail to her assessment and advices later. But, in summary, she was strongly of the view that the unique combination of the extreme needs of both these boys and their behaviours and attitudes meant that neither could, nor indeed should, be returned to their parents. She recommended that they should be placed separately, something which had arisen previously before they had been placed with their parents. She recommended that JK be placed in a residential setting with therapeutic support, and JA with skilled, responsive and nurturing foster carers.

On the 20^th and 21^st January 2015, the application was heard by His Honour Judge Yelton. The threshold triggers were agreed at the court door. The short threshold document was apparently handed to the judge just before the hearing commenced, it is worth reflecting on what it says. It is unusual, inasmuch as it sets out both parents’ contentions, but, in a short form, it was perceived as a way of being able to move forward. I insert p.A44 into this judgment and which is attached as Appendix 1.

The parents at that hearing, of course, sought the return of JA to their care, accepting that JK should remain where he was. A critical issue, therefore, was whether the relationship between JA and his parents could be rebuilt with appropriate support and interventions. That necessarily involved the court determining whether there was any causal link between the deterioration in the boys’ behaviour, post-adoption, and the parenting style and attitudes, as it was said to be and in set out indeed in the agreed threshold triggers.

Whilst there was some enquiry in the evidence as to the detail of the parents’ behaviours, it became very clear that, even though admitted behaviours were at variance with the recorded threshold (for example, the father accepted that he had put JK under a cold shower as a punishment, and that both he and the mother accepted that there had been a prayer meeting during the course of which JK had been restrained physically whilst those present around him talked in tongues); both parents, as they have clearly said before me, did not in reality accept the threshold triggers at all.

So it was not, for example, a slightly different perspective or change of emphasis of the generalised concessions made, but an entirely contrary approach, so in fact, they did not accept on any analysis, and certainly in relation to welfare, that they had done anything which could lead to any justified interventions on the part of the local authority. In fact, as the mother told me very poignantly, they were desperately upset that, in any sense, it could even be thought that they had caused harm, let alone significant harm, to either of these boys.

The parents maintained that position throughout the hearing which I heard. They maintained that the impossible behaviour of JK, no one questioning for a moment that his behaviours were very challenging to manage had driven them, on occasion, to slapping or hitting JK, I think, in particular.

The local authority, supported by Dr. Horrocks, the social worker and the guardian, took the view that the parents had been determined to manage things in their own way, which whilst possibly, in part, was because of the desperate circumstances of the boys’ early lives, was more because of the inappropriate, damaging, and punitive extent of the discipline meted out.

Essentially, before the County Court hearing, now nearly 18 months ago, Judge Yelton understandably proceeded from the agreed threshold statement and indeed the stated position of the parents. He relied on the advices of Dr. Horrocks and concluded, having regard to the behaviour of both boys, that neither could be returned to the care of their parents. He made a care order in respect of each of them. The judgment did not seek to evaluate further the issues in the threshold statement. However good the intentions behind the agreed statement, having regard to the evidence which the court then heard, it seems to me clearly that it had to reconsider the factual foundation, in order to reach conclusions on a sound factual basis.

I have no doubt that the approach was entirely motivated by respect for the good intentions and motivations of the parents, and not seeking to cause them further unnecessary pain and distress. It was, in fact, a kind judgment, from a very experienced judge. However, at the root of this case concerning these two very damaged and vulnerable boys is not the parents’ commitment, but whether there have been occasions, not just of occasional chastisement or over-chastisement, when JK’s behaviour was extreme and the parents were unsupported (which might therefore be explained as an understandable, if regrettable, response), but whether or not that behaviour was, in fact, something rather different, whether the parents had, in fact, implemented; a rigid, controlling, blinkered environment which they had created for these children. The exact opposite to what these boys so obviously needed.

The parents, it is said, neither sought nor wished to accept help and indeed misled the adoption agency. It is said that they had responded to the very great challenges presented by the boys with a rigid and punitive regime, which went far beyond what could be considered strict and was, of itself, abusive conduct. Further, it is argued (an expression used many times before me) that their conduct re-traumatised the boys. The local authority, as a result, now invite the court to consider additional findings, these are contained in counsel’s closing submissions.

The parents’ case at trial was that the impossible behaviour of JK (the situation now being very different in any event, because, of course, they are only seeking the return of JA), coupled with the lack of support from the local authority directly led to the position in which this family found itself, and that any culpability lay at the door of the local authority, in particular because they had not provided the support and help which they should have done. It is said now that, if JA was provided with support, he could return to their care. Indeed, the obvious corollary of that is that, had they had they had proper and effective support, the situation which arose now some time ago could and should have been avoided.

A question which also arises is the degree to which, if at all, the parents are willingly prepared and to openly cooperate with the authority. At the very core of this case was whether, in fact, the parents had any genuine understanding and appreciation of the effect that their particular style of parenting had had on these two boys.

The parents sought permission to appeal the care order made on 21 January 2015 in respect of JA on a limited basis, and their amended grounds were placed before the court. The appeal was heard on 19^th January 2016, judgment handed down two weeks later, on 2 February 2016. Lady Justice King gave the lead judgment.

Before turning to that aspect, having regard to this hearing, I should record what will already be apparent from the foregoing; that JK and JA had been subjected in their early lives to quite appalling experiences. They were as a result profoundly unhappy, damaged, even disturbed children, they had been removed from their birth parents as long ago as 2007 and had poor experiences in the care system.

By that time (2007) JK was already having violent fits of rage, exhibiting unusual and sexually inappropriate behaviours towards JA. JK had a history of severely challenging behaviour towards female carers and figures, in particular. Unsurprisingly, against that background, the boys had had multiple placements, each one failed and followed by another, which failed. Each new foster home disrupted, as successive carers were unable to cope with the boys’ sustained and disturbed conduct.

Their final foster placement was more successful and more settled, and it was whilst there that the boys started attending the local school, and that was how the mother met JK; she was his teacher. The mother and father are highly respectable professional people in their fifties. They have a grownup family and felt drawn to the plight of the boys, feeling strongly that they could help them. It is entirely easy, not just on an emotional level, but on a practical level, to understand why they should have thought so.

Although the professional advice was that both the boys should not be placed together, the local authority ultimately placed both boys with the parents in September 2010 with a view to their being adopted. It is recorded at that time that they received exemplary care from the parents. Recent enquiry has exposed that, in fact, all was not as it had been thought to have been, all was far from well. There were in fact great difficulties in relation to the boys’ behaviour, JK in particular, and, as the mother described to me, some of her style of discipline, which I will come to later, was of a nature and to a degree that indeed, had the local authority been aware of it, it is probable that the continued placement, let alone adoption, may not, in fact, ultimately have been approved.

Adoption orders were however made in 2013. Less than a year later, during which it appeared that JK’s behaviour had again become more challenging, the incident occurred, which I have already recorded, in May 2014; JK arrived at school with a bleeding nose and blood on his clothing, complaining that his mother had hit him in the face on the way to school.

The mother accepted that she had slapped JK, or at least pushed him away, asserting that, in the circumstances, JK was dangerous and out of control and interfering with the driving of the car. It has been contended at various times that the removal was unlawful and, in fact, unjustified; in evidence however, the father, although not agreeing with the actions and stance of the local authority, accepted that they responded entirely understandably and appropriately.

This is the rehearing of the local authority’s application for a care order. I have heard from Dr. Horrocks, two social workers, the parents and the guardian. I have been assisted greatly by the advocates, Miss Gold for the authority, Mr. Diamond for the parents, and Miss Shackleford for the guardian.

At the start of this case, and indeed at its core, Mr. Diamond contended to the court on behalf of the parents, and starkly argued that the local authority had acted unlawfully and unreasonably, and had been entirely responsible for re-traumatising of the boys. A significant plank of his case in relation to support has, in fact, fallen away, in the sense that the evidence clearly shows that no report or request was ever made to the local authority, either Cambridgeshire or the originating authority, for assistance, help or support, other than a request to the general practitioner in April 2014, but was not, for one reason or another, pursued, and in any event, as counsel now accepts, is not part of the parents’ case.

In fact, the parents made clear in evidence that they do not rely on the way the case was put by their own counsel; that is that the difficulties which arose were attributable to the removal of post-adoption support, because (a) they had never sought it, and (b) it was evident that the difficulties which they had or lack of post-adoption support did not form, as they told me, any part of their case. The court, therefore, does not have to consider s.4 of the Adoption and Children Act. Nor does it have to consider the major plank of the argument which was placed before the Court of Appeal and which led substantially to the order for a rehearing. It is not something that was pursued in final argument before me, or indeed was pursued by the parents during the case. Their stance was an entirely different one. Whilst forming no part of my reasoning for this judgment, the Court of Appeal in those circumstances may well not have allowed the appeal.

I should also record that a troubling and intrusive aspect of the case has, from time to time, surfaced, such that there were times when it seemed to me to threaten to obscure the court’s enquiry pursuant to the Children Act 1989, and indeed led to the mother interrupting the hearing, such was her anxiety about that line of enquiry; that is that the parents have an obvious and undoubted right to be assisted and represented by individuals or organisations of their choice; in this case, the Christian Legal Centre.

As before the Court of Appeal, the parents maintained, not only that they feel that they had been treated differently from the way that any birth parents would have been treated within the care proceedings, as to which, in fact, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that that is so, but also that they were the victims of state suspicion of Christian parenting, both by the authority and by the family courts. They have sought to put their case at the centre of political campaigning by the Christian Legal Centre and an associated body, asserting that they were treated with suspicion and prejudice because of their Christian faith, that they were treated as if they were not the real parents, and that the secretive nature of the family courts means that these injustices are covered up.

I am not sure that being advised and represented by a politically motivated group that believes that the courts are hostile to Christians and supports the rights of parents to behave in a particular way (particularly in relation to corporal punishment, and additionally opposing state interference in family life) has been entirely helpful to the parents’ case. There have been moments, as I say, when it appeared to take over this enquiry, but this case is not about that. This case is about the welfare of these two young, vulnerable and deeply disturbed boys, and whether or not they can be returned to the care of their parents if, as I would very much wish, the circumstances were such that the family could be reunited.

There have been extensive submissions on the law. But, in essence, it is not in dispute. The position is hopefully set out in Devon County Council v. EB & Ors. [2013] EWHC 968, a decision of Baker J. Those are the legal principles with which I start and which I import into this judgment. It is for the local authority to prove on the balance of probabilities the facts upon which it seeks to rely, and it is for the local authority, since it is seeking to break the bond between these boys and the parents in a caring sense, that nothing else will do.

In Re B (A Child)(Care Proceedings) [2013] UKSC 33, and indeed in Re B-S, an adoption case, followed in Re R, the principles set out also record the extreme nature of these proceedings. As Baroness Hale said in Re B:

That echoes very much Y v. United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR:

In considering this application of the local authority’s for a care order, I, of course, have regard to the welfare checklist in s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989. Clearly, their welfare is my paramount consideration. I raise an additional and, it seems to me, important point which is argued by all counsel but with different emphasis. That is Articles 8 and 9, helpfully encapsulated in the wise decision of Hedley J. in Re L [2007] 1FLR 2015. Although it is much misquoted, nonetheless it is apposite in this case:

That approach was endorsed in the Supreme Court in Re B. There are two passages which develop the point and to which I place particular emphasis. The first is the judgment Lord Wilson of Culworth, where he said:

I additionally bear in mind that the best person to bring up a child is the parent. It matters not, as Hedley J. says, whether they have all the attributes which I have already described in those cases. It is the parent who is the best person to bring up a child. It seems to me that those things, taken together, are strong and essential principles which apply in this case.

Dr. Leanne Horrocks confirmed her earlier advices in writing and evidence in the previous hearing before the court. Her evidence before me was entirely consistent. She did, however, comment on the behaviours, particularly of the father, since that time; in particular, the covert provision of ‘phones, as it was described, self-evidently destabilising such vulnerable children. As the father I think now accepts, it was an unhelpful thing to have been done. Dr. Horrocks considered that it was an example of the father not being able to work openly with those who were endeavouring to help these boys; that is to say, in short, that he was not to be trusted.

Her evidence highlighted the very real strengths of the parents, but was concerned that the implicit understanding of the boys’ needs was something which had to be properly understood and for whatever reason here was not. She was affected by the fact that JA, in particular, continues to talk about the ill treatment he says he suffered at the hands of his parents. She concluded that he was confused, equating violence or a sense of fear, at least, with love. So the terrible conundrum for him was that, whilst he very much wants to return home, he is essentially ambivalent. Self-evidently he requires a good home where he feels safe. But for him the home environment was inconsistent or, sometimes worse, abusive, even traumatic. He has an insecure attachment, literally.

Dr. Horrocks was clearly affected by the parents’ explanations of their parenting styles. She described it; “an imbalance of control and power”. She said that it was not for want of input. I reminded myself, having reflected on the evidence, of the letter that was written to the parents as long ago as July 2010, when the parents were approved for the children to be placed with them for adoption.

The panel gave their recommendation, as follows. The important part was that the foster carers who the boys were there living with supported the match:

Those sentiments need to be borne in mind, so many have been subverted or disregarded. No doubt the children were ultimately placed with the parents because it was thought that they fulfilled those criteria. What sadly was not apparent was that the parents kept quiet, deliberately, as I took their evidence, about the behaviour of JK, and their responses to it. They deliberately concealed his escalating behaviours, some were really very extreme, no one would suggest otherwise. Worst they concealed their harsh and, I am sorry to say, abusive reactions to his distress.

So by the time that the matter finally came to a head, which was some considerable time later, it had become very difficult by that point to have any realistic prospect of reparation. Both the boys were very distressed. Both had acute feelings of rejection. Both were quite unable to regulate their behaviours, indeed both considered in different ways (and it is a strong word) that they had been violated.

So, putting those two things together, the parents’ behaviours, as it was said to be by the children, the physical and psychological trauma that they had already sustained, culminating in the boys feeling unsafe, meant that, at least at that stage, it was impossible for any reunification to take place. In fact, that continues to form the fundamental basis of the local authority’s case to this day; there is, tragically, a mismatch between these two boys and these two parents both loving the other.

It is clear that it was said at the time that the parents were engaged in authoritative, and indeed it was put by counsel punitive practices, characterised by coercion, power and control, and that it was that combination of behaviours, whilst many resilient children would not have been affected, which had a huge and debilitating effect on these two boys, so that they felt abandoned, rejected and violated.

Dr. Horrocks was a powerful witness. Her strong advices seemed to me to reflect the factual and largely undisputed realities.

I heard briefly from the current and a previous social worker. The current social worker has established a good, easy relationship with the boys, in the sense that she is not challenging. She is able to joke with them, talk easily to them in a non-confrontational way. She took the view that they were able to come out more because of their newfound safety, was how she put it. Those words of “security” and “safety” were a recurring refrain. She put that down to the current foster carers’ way of parenting, their sympathetic sensitivity, empathy and insight.

The social worker commented on the father’s conduct in contact. I hope that he would now acknowledge that being unprepared to even acknowledge the contact supervisors was unhelpful and, indeed, frankly childish. But it is an illustration of how difficult the current situation has been.

I heard from the previous social worker, the first social worker, in fact. She set out how she had conducted her enquiries. She had made many visits to the home; 18, I think. She recalled that JK had been indignant of some of the practices which had been meted out to him. She was clear that the children had not been removed “unlawfully”.

I turn to the crucial witnesses, the father and the mother, the father giving evidence first. He told me in an understandably emotional way that he very much wanted to give the boys a better life. They had had an appalling time. They had made a lot of enquiries, they had prepared themselves both practically and intellectually to try and assist the boys. They were highly motivated to help, and they felt, in a way which I completely understand, in a position to be able to do so.

He painted a picture of family life; many good times, which I am pleased to hear, and some not quite so good. The depth and extent of his emotional attachment was tangibly evident. He has made it very clear that he did not now contend that the intervention was illegal. In his opinion the local authority had overreacted in the circumstances.

The perspective of the father perhaps became clearer when the article apparently published recently in The Sunday Times was put to him in cross-examination. He said that he did not know what was in the papers, indeed he deflected all reasonable enquiry or reasoning as to what had taken place. The parents allowed themselves to be video-recorded. I am told that it is available on the internet. I have not seen it, other than obviously in court. There are images of the boys’ rooms. Indeed, there are images of the boys, albeit disguised. This was a most unfortunate development, and which illustrated clearly the perspective of the father.

He was asked about the use of corporal punishment (as it has been called) and the use of a flip-flop. He gave me an account about that. I confess I found it difficult to get to the bottom of precisely what had happened during the many years that the boys had been with their parents. The one element that came over clearly, however, was that there was not much, if any, regret. Indeed, the father went to some lengths to explain to me that the boys were, in reality, very unreliable and untruthful.

His explanation as to how it was that the threshold triggers were agreed at the first hearing was not particularly illuminating either. In effect, the Court at first instance was proceeding on an entirely false basis. It was a particularly unedifying chapter in this case, even though I completely understand and take into account the parents desire to present themselves in the best possible light, so that, with the best intentions, they could have their boys, or JA at least, returned to their care, nonetheless it was another deliberate deceit.

I was especially anxious by the investigation into particular incidents; the prayer meeting in February 2014, where it is said that JK became out of control and violent. He was restrained and held down. People were holding his hands and feet, and praying quietly in tongues. That was the scene which greeted him when he came to. Whilst I completely understand that JK’s behaviours were shocking, even horrifying the assembled congregation. Surely the focus should have been not on the assembled congregation, but on this deeply distressed little boy.

JK has spoken of his anxiety that there are demons inside him, a belief not confirmed by the father. Indeed, it was at that point, that he referred directly to passages in the Bible. But his stance was not reflected by the evidence given later by the mother. He did not seem to appreciate how truly terrifying it must have been to JK, who, after all, has not been brought up in a Christian background until placed with the parents, that he was unable then, and even now, to give JK the reassurance that he so obviously needed.

He spoke a little about the appeal and about the provision of therapy. He was asked about how it might be that bridges could be built, so that JA could return. It was at that point in his evidence that I was really struck and troubled that there appeared no real empathy, no real understanding where the boys are today, whether what the boys say is right or not. He spoke in trenchant terms of rules, expectations and behaviours. There was no sense that he actually saw anything wrong with what had taken place, or that he regretted it nor, much worse, even a simple apology.

He described the whole ghastly undignified scene when JK was manhandled into the shower; angry, lashing out, struggling, cursing, being lifted up by the arms, both adult and child getting wet. A more abusive and distressing scene is difficult to imagine. It was a good example of the father’s that lack of understanding, who is in all other respects a highly intelligent and motivated man. How could any right thinking adult consider such actions appropriate.

He did not appear to see either the potential harm caused by the publicity which has taken place at his behest. Indeed, he sought to excuse or explain it, because he says the courts and the authority have not approached this in a fair way. Nor did he see the harm, as far as I could see, of the covert, subversive provision of telephones, which his wife had quite unwittingly purchased for him, as a means for the boys to escape. Nor did he see anything wrong with the use of the tablet in subversive behaviour. Those are examples of things which, it seems to me, I would have expected this intelligent father to have understood how that might affect these two very troubled boys.

His explanation for what they had said in May 2014, now two years ago, was that they had hatched a plot, he could not explain why they had never retracted their allegations and indeed continued to discuss the regime provided by their parents. It has not led, despite everything, despite every enquiry, to any facing up by the parents to the boys’ own perspective, and that, it seems to me, does go to the very fundamental root of this case.

Mrs. M, the mother, was altogether a very different witness. At the start of her evidence, she gave a very long and articulate explanation as to how it was and why they had been involved with and later represented, by Christian Concern. Indeed, she told me her views as to what had occurred to the boys, repeating, in case she had not made herself clear, that she would be devastated if she thought that I, the judge, thought that she had traumatised the boys; she said “I would have let God down”. She told me that, in her view, the authorities had overreacted and that had continued to the present day.

The mother is a clear, intelligent, highly articulate person, that was reflected very much in her accounts of the occasions when she was asked about corporal punishment. The real problem, it seemed to me, was that she had difficulty remembering specific events and occasions. Some, she did. One, certainly she did, but many others she did not. I was left with the overriding impression that they were to her, in effect, and indeed she told me, insignificant events. “They were insignificant events. Why should I remember them?” Trying to piece together what actually happened was especially difficult.

Those undignified and wholly unnecessary occasions were a reflection of parenting which, in my view, was strict, to the point of being ritualistic, harsh and abusive, and from which I gained no sense of reflection, let alone, except perhaps to a very marginal extent, some regret. I was struck when she told me that when she contrasted between her own expectations as a professional teacher, knowing what she could and could not do as a teacher at school, with what happened to these boys and, to a lesser extent, although I think it is a much lesser extent, with her own biological children.

The exchanges at one point between counsel and the mother became fractious. She told me that she had deliberately kept her conduct secret from the local authority, obviously unfortunate, but it was an instructive prequel to the exchanges which subsequently took place between counsel and the mother about demons. “Demons”, the mother told me, “do the devil’s work. I believe in demons. I believe demons were affecting JK’s behaviour. I used to pray to God”, indeed I believe she still does, “to deliver him of his demons”. She had seen, she told me, people delivered of demons.

She gave a detailed description of an occasion when she said that JK was struggling with demons, how he had started growling, how he curled his fingers, how he had a grip almost like a dinosaur, and how curses were coming out of his mouth. “It was an awful thing”, she said. “He was gurgling in his throat, lashing out, kicking, wild and really frightening”, and she and her daughter prayed quietly in tongues whilst forcibly holding him down. “JK was urged to say Jesus, but he was unable to do so”. We kept urging him to say the name, but he could not. We were calling Jesus to help him and we told him”, such things, she said, were not uncommon in people where a deliverance occurs. She said that they were praying, his mouth was open, and they were urging him to give a cough so in that way he would be able to get rid of the demon. She sensed, on that occasion, that they were upsetting the demon, because of the reaction that they were getting from JK. JK, it need hardly be said, was very frightened and kept asking what was happening, but as the mother told me, “he was reassured by us that we were just helping him”.

That account is entirely reflected in what JK said in the authority’s assessment of June 2014:

At various points, it seems to me, both in relation to chastisement and demons, whereas it might be said to be just a figure of speech, in fact, here it was a reality. It did not appear to occur to the mother, especially in the light of his background and his experiences (that is to say that he is hypersensitive and hypervigilant) that simple reassurances, empathy and affection may well have been actually more appropriate, may well have been what he do desperately needed.

The use of soap as a punishment, investigated last time, was not a high point in the evidence. The mother was clear about it, indeed almost made light of it; it has never been retracted by the boys. In reality, she has not taken responsibility for how the boys viewed this conduct, as they (or any reasonable adult) might see it. It was, I am sorry to say, little short of bullying.

Ultimately, the mother gave an account of herself in the witness box clearly and unwaveringly. She has completely unfaltering views. I have no doubt at all that the mother was and is really well motivated, and focused to endeavour to make the life of the boys better. But the rigidity of her thinking, even now, suggests that she really is incapable of having the empathy which these boys require. After so many enquiries (this, after all, is the third time the matter has been considered by a court, even in the Court of Appeal) it is really disappointing that there is no change of thought or approach. It demonstrates to my mind just how deeply entrenched the difficulties, in fact, are.

The guardian’s advices were reflected in her reports and in her previous involvement. She has not said anything different in her final conclusions to the court. The care now provided to JA, she described as insightful, sensitive and understanding, that’s what he needs, and that’s why it is that he thrives in his environment. The carers are able to respond to him and manage him, and it is an openness which is not reflected, very sadly, in the parents’ continued attitudes and opinions as presented to the court, both in terms of behaviour and discipline.

The guardian was very clear indeed that the behaviours and attitudes and conduct of the parents was such that, whilst they may well have been able to parent their own children, and possibly other resilient children, having regard to these children and their own sensitivities, their approach continued to cause damage and trauma to them. There is, the guardian concluded, no evidence of change. Sadly I am compelled to agree.

I deal with matters of fact as well as a welfare analysis. This is a desperately tragic situation. The court is concerned with two deeply unhappy, troubled and traumatised boys, and two loving, respectable, educated and articulate parents who desperately want to provide the home, love and security that they set out to achieve, six years ago, believing then and now that they could help these two vulnerable boys.

Their reaction then and, to an extent, now is understandable, both in an emotional and a practical way. Their responses might be seen by some as understandable. But the court has to look at the situation as it appears today, and from the children’s perspective. I ask myself, firstly, what has gone so dreadfully wrong, and secondly, is it capable of any repair? It is not straightforward.

JK and JA of course, as I have recounted already, had unstable, troubled and abusive backgrounds. They were in care. They had had repeated and numerous foster homes, none of which were able to manage or contain them, though, to some extent, their last did. If nothing else, the long involvement of the local authority in their placement prior to adoption, which, after all, spanned three years, should have reinforced what a delicate, sensitive process this was.

This is not the appropriate time for me to review the adoption process, but the adoption agency allowed itself to be persuaded by the intelligent, articulate focus of the parents. The documents before the court suggest that the boys would need separate homes. I am confident that the reason there was a change of that assessment was because of the force of the parents’ focus in assessment to which I have already averted and, when placed together, that all the evidence available to the agency suggested that everything was well, indeed more than that. The parents were 100 per cent committed. The boys were described as “doing brilliantly”. Both boys were attending CAMHS and there were other supports and courses, and it appeared on all fronts that everything was much better than could possibly have been expected.

Sadly, all was not as it seemed. As the mother accepted, had she in fact been transparent about the boys’ behaviours, and in particular their own particular style of parenting (which she kept secret), it is most likely that the adoption would not have been supported by the authority. The evidence demonstrates clearly that the parents effectively and actively misled the social workers at that time, and since have misled the court too.

As I mentioned during the course of my review of their evidence, trying to identify precisely what occurred has been especially difficult, though two pieces of the evidence remain consistent, and those are important issues; one in relation to physical discipline, and I conclude, having regard to all the evidence that the mother has told me, and indeed the father too and the boys, they are not inconsistent, here was a household of rigid, controlling disciplines. Here was a household where the boys were treated in a way which is, I have to say having regard to these boys’ backgrounds, unthinkable and unsupportable.

I have no doubt that the parents wholly underestimated the task which confronted them, and I do not blame them for that for a moment. They had hoped, through the force of their personality and focus, together with their enduring and loving marriage and their circumstances, to be able to overcome it, and I think that that is an entirely understandable response. They took the view that their love and their many qualities, which are set out in C524, C526 and elsewhere, would ultimately overcome everything.

Perversely, the manifestation of their efforts ultimately obscured the boys’ perspective from their own determinations. It should have been overwhelmingly obvious from everything that I have heard, then and now, that the rigid disciplines and thinking of the parents were such that, in the cases of these boys, they would be overwhelmed and disrupted, the parents’ conduct effectively would exacerbate their previous abusive experiences.

I am sorry to say it, but how any civilised adult in a modern, decent society can really argue that washing the mouth out with soap, as it has been described to me, something which may have occurred half a century or more ago, but not now, or the forcible immersion in shower is a suitable or remotely appropriate punishment, is frankly beyond me. Those are behaviours which are in no circumstances ever acceptable.

The parents still feel that they were disrespected, but I do not consider that that is the case. It was the boys who were disrespected. What occurred then was way beyond what these boys (or probably any child) could possibly endure. Of course, I have regard to the strong advices of Dr. Horrocks, but it is only one part of the evidence. As a matter of common sense, the admitted way in which the boys were treated has frankly caused them emotional harm and has, I am sorry to say, overwhelmingly clearly re-traumatised them, because it has maintained and strengthened their own insecurities.

Those insecurities arose in their very abusive early lives. These children felt unsafe. They felt rejected and abandoned. They felt confused, equating violence and love. I have absolutely no doubt that that is why JA says, on the one hand, that he wants to return, but, on the other, that it is conditional, either on the basis that he believes his parents have learned their lesson and will not do it again or, in any event, on the basis that it will not happen again.

So the central question is, in fact, was there a causal link? Was there some link between the behaviour or the boys, as it transpired, and the parenting style? Does the evidence demonstrate that that is something which has caused or contributed to their behaviours? The clear, unequivocal and overwhelming answer is “yes”. The extreme nature and extent of the behaviours of the parents is such that it is obvious that the parents’ conduct has created this schism. I have no doubt that the parents had the best intentions. I have no doubt that, concentrating on the future, they endeavoured very much to try and provide a good home for them.

When the matter was reviewed by the court, now nearly 18 months ago, the court was misled as to the extent of the factual acceptance, as the evidence before me has vividly demonstrated. From the outset, the father has never really accepted the threshold triggers and did not accept, neither did the mother, that he had caused any harm.

The mother, as I say, was similarly forthright. But the evidence overwhelmingly illustrates that what lay at the root of this disruption, at the root of the fracture of this family was the mismatch between two vulnerable, troubled boys and two parents, who, whilst undoubtedly motivated highly and undoubtedly educated and articulate, were simply too rigid, too extreme and too tunnel led in their views evidenced by their admitted conduct, views and behaviours.

The parents told me that, until April 2014, they could not really think of any particular difficulty and they presented themselves as a “normal family”. All the evidence suggests something entirely different. The parents’ case in the Court of Appeal rested on the lack of support, not just in the sense of actual support, but also on their perspectives and consequent care.

But, as I have made clear already, they never sought any support. They were, I think to a degree, resistant to it and, whilst, of course, it is a matter of enormous public concern that support should be given to adopters who take on particularly troubled children, there is no question here, it seems to me, that these highly educated, highly informed and very well read parents, as the evidence shows, really thought there was any need for support. Indeed, had they done so, I am entirely confident that the mother, in particular, who is highly articulate and focused, would have requested it, demanded it, she would have absolutely insisted upon it.

I acknowledge, of course, that the support for JK had been suspended at his own request, albeit that it was kept open for a while with CAMHS. That avenue of support remained open, and indeed or the lack of has absolutely nothing to do with this case at all, nor of its breakdown, as the parents openly acknowledged.

A rather more important question is whether or not, with some degree of support or perhaps a different regime, JA could return home. That seems to me to be the crucial question. Before I consider that, I need to finally examine the parents’ current attitudes. As I have already said, this is the third occasion that there has been a judicial adjudication, but the views of the parents remain firm, un-eroded. They provided a strict, rigid, harsh structure. They indulged in behaviours and conduct, which the boys found uncomfortable, distressing, frightening and ultimately completely undermining and overwhelming. I doubt any child in the modern world would have ultimately reacted very differently.

The evidence historically, and since, is sadly totally overwhelming. It satisfies in every degree much of which, in any event, is admitted. The threshold triggers now sought by the local authority, not just at para.19, which I import into this judgment (and which is attached as Appendix 2) of the written submissions of the local authority, but also the subsequent submissions, at para.22, in relation to subsequent behaviours.

I find that the triggers are overwhelmingly made out. There unfortunately has been no real moderation. In fact, if one thinks about it and stands back, the evidence of the parents and the boys is not so divergent. The parents engaged in a particular style of parenting, so they held the balance of power, and it was ultimately, as the boys found it, totally destabilising and undermining. It was what Dr. Horrocks described as a coercive imbalance, and it is that total lack of real sensitivity which ultimately really troubles me and is decisive. It is what most people would call empathy, and it was that harshness, that lack of empathy which led to the breakdown. The incident of 14^th May was just a flashpoint.

I would have hoped that, after all this time, and all this enquiry, all this heartache, the parents now would have seen that their approaches were such that they were inappropriate and unhelpful. They might see that, from the children’s perspective, it was damaging and had to be put right. I would have hoped that their views, as indeed they described them to me, about, for example, the demons, were such that they would see that, from the boys’ perspective, it was something which they found unpleasant, not just unsupportive, but actually which they found distressing.

It is (and it is sometimes unhelpful to make comparisons, but it is important to do so) in stark contrast to the approach which JA’s current foster family offer. They appear to me to be described as and evidenced by sensitive, empathetic and insightful parents, that gives him security. It is in very stark contrast to the style of the parenting, not the home, but the style that lies at the root of this case.

I make it quite clear that I would very much have wished to return these boys to their home. It is where they should have been, if at all possible, and it should not be thought that I approach this case with a closed mind, nothing could have been further from the truth. Had the parents satisfied me that they had shifted their positions (accepting that that solid foundation is what lies at the root of their faith, it is what gives them certainty) but, had they been able to reconsider their positions, it may be that I could have considered it differently, but that has not happened.

I remain, I am sorry to say, profoundly disappointed that I am unable to grant the orders which they seek, particularly so because the parents are bright and well intentioned people, but they do not accept the threshold triggers which I find overwhelmingly made out, and there is no hint that that might or could ever be so. There is no hint of any sense of reflection. Notwithstanding that I entirely understand their sense of desperation and isolation, their current involvement in public campaigns is sadly yet another example of this.

They have within the proceedings consistently failed to cooperate with the local authority, seeing no real reason why they should do so. Indeed, they have on many levels done their level best, especially, I think, the father, to undermine the enquiries and protections offered by subversive, self-indulgent and ultimately immature behaviours, as I think he would accept.

I do not see how the provision of support, even if it were accepted (and I doubt it would be, with this factual matrix) would be such as to enable to the children, in fact, to return home, either of them. It would be difficult for anyone to work with the parents, and on any long-term basis, it would be impossible. There has been absolutely no change, the boys have been in limbo now for two years. That delay has caused them, not just unhappiness, but real distress and uncertainty.

So, whilst I weigh the commitment and the love that the parents can offer and, in particular, JA’s apparent wishes (that is only one aspect of it, albeit conditional, to return to his parents) I weigh very much his right and indeed the court’s wish that he should be brought up by his family. He is a troubled boy. He is content where he is; he is settled and thriving. He has some health issues, but that is largely as a result of the developmental trauma which has impacted significantly on his development. He needs to develop a confidence, so that he can face the world. He needs a parenting style which allows him to develop as an individual, not one that crushes him.

I also take account of the fact that he is a confused, distressed, and, I think, an angry and shocked little boy. He needs is stability. He has suffered harm unquestionably from his birth family, but he has also suffered additional and compounding harm from his family before the court. He is not in a position to return home. His needs are not understood by his parents in any real sense.

So that causal link between the boys’ behaviours and needs, and the parenting style of the family remains unmodified, and on the evidence is not capable of modification. JA’s behaviours and needs are such, therefore, that the court is driven to approve the makings of an exceptional order, concluding that it is not possible to rebuild this family. Such an order is appropriate to the plight that JA must now deal with, and such an order is necessary to protect him. I am interfering with his and the parents’ rights to live together as a family, but I have concluded that his overwhelming need for a predictable, nurturing, loving home takes precedence. I am satisfied that nothing less will do, that, sadly, is my conclusion, and the order which I am compelled to make is a care order, it being obviously necessary and proportionate in taking all the different considerations together to do so. I accept and adopt the care plan.

In relation to contact, I propose to make no other order. If, as I hope, the dust settles and the parents are able to work with JA (they love him, I know) and are able to work with the local authority, despite their distress and even anger, I hope very much that it will be possible, provided that they are constructive and not undermining, for contact in due course to develop. It will be very much to JA’s advantage if it can. Other than that, I propose to say nothing at the present time. It would be unhelpful to that if the parents continued their political campaign, although ultimately that must be a matter for them.

I am also asked to consider an order under s.91(14). For the lay-parties in court, that means to prevent any further application being made to the court for a period of time. It is a draconian measure and one which, from time to time, the courts make where the children’s welfare requires it. There are many considerations which can and are frequently taken into account when concerning that application.

There is no suggestion here that the parents have engaged in repeated applications. They may have appealed, but they were entitled to do so. The appeal was successful, they were entitled to have a re-hearing. I leave aside and out of my mind any question of the final paragraph of the appellate court’s judgment. It seems to me that it might have been possible for some reflection to have taken place, but that has not occurred. In any event, it seems to me that, at this stage, I am not satisfied that it is necessary to make an order under s.91(14).

However, I shall make an order that any further applications are reserved to me, and that any application issued is referred to me, that the children are not told until I am able to make directions. In that way, I will be able to steer any applications. The boys have been badly affected by these prolonged proceedings. It has not been in their interests. I hope very much that, after this long and unhappy chapter, it will be possible for the parties and for JA, in particular, to rebuild some relationship with his parents and for them to rebuild some relationship with him.

At the relevant date (when protective measures were taken on the 13^th May 2014) the children were suffering and/or were likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to them, and likely to be given to them by their parents, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

The parents adopted the children in 2013 and at placement in 2010 both children had significant psychological, emotional and behavioural difficulties as a result of neglect and abuse suffered before they were removed from the care of their natural parents.

The parents have smacked, shouted, and physically restrained the children which has been perceived as unfair and excessively punitive by the children. Their parenting style has been re-traumatising for the children (due to the children’s experiences with their natural parents) and the parents have failed to consistently provide the high level of nurturing, accepting care which these very vulnerable children need.

It is acknowledged that these parents love the children, are committed to them and took on a huge task in caring for them.

The children were both extremely vulnerable and traumatised children when they came to live with the parents. The parents knew that they had been physically abused as well as neglected in the care of their birth family and may also have been sexually abused. The children needed to know that they were safe and secure and unconditionally loved. In spite of their extensive training the parents failed to make the children feel safe, secure and unconditionally loved.

The parents believe in what they perceive as strict parenting methods and this includes the use of corporal punishment as a form of discipline. They believe that corporal punishment can be given lovingly. They strongly share the belief of Christian Concern, a political pressure group; that the state should not interfere to prevent the use of corporal punishment.

The parents used corporal punishment on their birth children (A14) and continued to use it on JK and JA (A25). In light of their vulnerabilities and backgrounds the use of corporal punishment was extremely distressing and damaging to both children and caused them significant emotional and psychological harm. It frightened and re-traumatised them and they could not understand why their parents, who said they loved them, were hurting them. (Dr Horrocks).

The father has been preoccupied since the removal of the children with his belief that it is his right as a parent to use corporal punishment as it is not against the law and is not “child abuse”. He has caused further significant emotional harm by failing to apologise to the children and by telling JA that he had hit/ smacked him because he loved him.

The father attempted to give JA literature during a contact session explaining that corporal punishment was legal in the UK. This would have caused further significant harm to JA if it had not been intercepted.

The regular corporal punishment included slaps on the hand, the bottom and the legs and being hit on the bottom with a flip flop. The children had soap put on their lips.

JK has been physically restrained for excessive periods of time and both boys have been put in cold showers as a punishment and/or to calm them down when they were angry. On one occasion the father carried JK through the house and held him under the shower while he struggled and screamed. This treatment was frightening and distressing for the children.

The parents are evangelical Christians and interpret the bible literally. They believe that the devil has the power to “possess” an individual and the church to which they belong carries out “deliverances”. The parents have told JK that he is possessed by demons who cause him to hear voices in his head and/or misbehave. On one occasion in 2011 the mother, with the assistance of JK’s adoptive sister, held JK down on his bed when he was in a distressed state and tried to “deliver” him of his demons. They prayed in tongues over him whilst he was being physically restrained and called on Jesus to deliver him. The deliverance was extremely frightening and traumatic for JK and caused him significant emotional and psychological harm (mother’s oral evidence).

On an occasion in the late winter/early spring of 2014 JK was physically restrained at a prayer meeting held in the family home. People prayed over him in tongues and the experience was frightening and traumatic and caused him significant emotional and psychological harm.

The parents continued to tell JK that his anger and behavioural difficulties were caused by demons who had taken possession of him and this caused JK further significant harm.

On the 14^th May 2015 the mother slapped JK round the face whilst she was driving the boys to school. The slap caused Jk to have a nosebleed and the incident caused extreme distress to both Jk and JA.

The parents caused further harm to the children by lying to ….(name redacted) County Council and to treating therapists at CAMHS about their use of corporal punishment and their belief in demonic possession. Their lying and/or withholding of crucial information meant that JK was not believed when he told his therapist at CAMHS that he was being hit by his father – his allegations was not taken literally (CAMHS report C188) and Jk was caused further significant harm by being disbelieved.