Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v CM & Ors

Introduction

Over the course of four days last week, I have been dealing with care proceedings in which the Local Authority seeks care and placement orders in relation to a very young child, F-L, (the Fourth Respondent) who was born on 30 November 2015 and who is now 7 months old. He appears in these proceedings through his Children’s Guardian, Ms Lianna Rojas. The First and Second Respondents are his parents. His mother, CM, (“M”), was born in February 1999. She is now 17 years old but gave birth to F-L when she was 16 years old. WH, (“F”), is F-L’s father. He was born in January 1999 and he, too, is now 17 years old. The Third Respondent is F-L’s maternal grandmother (“MGM”) with whom M is currently living at their home in Wakefield. The Fifth Respondent (“NE”) is a family member who had, at M’s request, put herself forward as a potential long term carer for F-L in the event that he could not return to M’s care. Toward the end of the hearing, and at a stage when M no longer supported her as a candidate, NE was discharged as a party and has thereafter taken no further part in the proceedings.

M and F began a relationship in or about August 2014 when they were both 15 years old. With the apparent blessing of MGM, and at a time when they had been together for less than a month (and certainly no more), F was allowed to move into the family home and thereafter they lived together as a couple. It was at about this time that M became pregnant. Sharing the family home with them was S, M’s half-brother who was born in November 2006. He is now 9 years old. His father (“SM”) was the man with whom MGM had lived for approximately 13 years. As she accepts, it was a relationship which was characterised throughout its latter stages by frequent episodes of domestic abuse. The relationship ended in the early part of 2014 following police involvement after MGM’s partner had been physically violent towards both M and MGM.

On 30 November 2015, the Local Authority issued care proceedings in respect of F-L and an interim care order was made on 1 December 2015. On 7 June 2016, following several interventions and developments, it issued an application for a placement order.

The timetable for these proceedings, which have been case managed throughout by Her Honour Judge Richardson, has exceeded the normal 26 week window as a result of the full kinship assessment which was carried out in respect of NE after a positive viability assessment at a fairly late stage of proceedings.

Thus, the issues which are before me are the following:-

This is a troubled family as everyone involved in the case accepts, including the parties themselves. Without exception, every one of its members (and for these purposes I include F-L’s father) has issues and difficulties which have required, and will continue to require, significant intervention and support in one way or another.

The issue of threshold is agreed as is 30 November 2015 in respect of the relevant date for determining whether the threshold criteria are met pursuant to s. 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. I need make no further findings in this respect, save to record the following agreed facts:-

What I shall need to decide is whether care and placement orders at the conclusion of these proceedings are necessary in order to provide F-L with a safe, secure and loving permanent home outside the care which his immediate family members are offering him. Whilst F now accepts that he will play no further substantive role in looking after his son in future, M, with the support of MGM, invites the court to find that the changes they have begun to make through therapy and other interventions are likely to lead to sustained progress which is sufficient, or ‘good enough’, to provide a platform of safe care for F-L going forward into the future.

Thus, as the proceedings began, F had effectively dropped out of the picture as a potential carer for F-L. His concerns about the care likely to be provided to his son by either or both of M and MGM were sufficient to bring him to a position where, reluctantly, he supported the Local Authority’s decision to place F-L for adoption outside the family. At a late stage, he recanted and invited me to allow M to look after their son with assistance from MGM. He said that he had adopted his previous position out of spite and that there was no substance to the concerns he had previously articulated. F is now involved in another relationship with an 18 year old girl who is herself in a fairly advanced stage of pregnancy. F maintains that the child is not his, which is probably true since their relationship is still in its early stages. He told me that he is committed to bringing up that child as his own although time will tell whether that is a realistic option. In any event, he is now living with his current girlfriend in the supported housing which has been made available to him by the Local Authority as a result of his ceasing to be a “looked after” child in the context of separate earlier care proceedings in which he was involved.

The Guardian supports the Local Authority’s final care plan to place F-L in an adoptive placement. She can see no possibility of realistic and sustained change in this family within a time frame which is compatible with the rapidly developing needs of a very young baby.

Together, M and MGM put forward three options in terms of their proposals for F-L. M’s first preference is for an immediate return of her child to her care in circumstances where she would look after him in the home she shares with her own mother. She proposes that, whilst she would be his primary carer, MGM would continue to be on hand to provide guidance and assistance. M is content for those arrangements to be put in place under the overarching structure of a final care order under which she would share ongoing parental responsibility with the Local Authority. That is Option 1. If the court finds that it cannot approve that care plan as a safe outcome for F-L, she offers to move out of her mother’s home and go to live with her maternal grandfather. He has played a significant role in her young life to date. At one stage, when she herself was removed from her mother’s care within care proceedings instituted in March 2001 (when she was just 2 years old), she was placed in her grandfather’s care. On that basis, under Option 2, F-L would effectively be brought up by his grandmother. M told me, and I accept, that in these circumstances she would find it very difficult to maintain any effective and enduring relationship with her son. The alternative carer in this scenario was NE, a cousin of the maternal grandfather. In this event, F-L would not reside with the MGM but would be brought up in NE’s home. I shall say something further about NE in due course. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that she has now been excluded as a possible carer.

The third, and final, option which the mother asks me to consider is a further period of assessment at a supported placement with a view, in the event of a positive outcome, to moving on to independent living with F-L in a home of her own. In this context, Miss Phillips has provided the court with some literature about a local family assessment centre in Yorkshire which is run by an organisation called “Twenty Four-Seven” at a residential assessment centre in G Road. This is a communal facility where up to six families can live with their children for periods of assessment and monitoring. They have separate bedroom accommodation but the other facilities in what is described as “a typical family house” are communal. In the event of a positive assessment, assistance can be provided in terms of support in looking for alternative accommodation at “the next stage”. The literature refers to the outreach services which can be made available at that stage in these terms:

“Subject to funding, Twenty Four-Seven provides an outreach service. This involves continued advice and assistance in making the progression from a high support environment to a less, or non-supported environment, and could include further Assessment work if required.”

Miss Phillips’s enquiries have established that Twenty Four-Seven has no current vacancies and it is likely to be “a few weeks” before they could consider offering M a place on this programme if she was considered, with F-L, to be a suitable candidate.

These are the options before the court in terms of a final disposal of the current proceedings. On behalf of the Guardian, Mrs Steele makes the very valid point that Option 3 (further assessment) not only involves further extended delay in decision-making for F-L; it also precludes the court, in effect, from a final disposal of the current care proceedings. In the event of an unsatisfactory assessment and/or the breakdown of the arrangements for any other reason, the Local Authority would be obliged to resurrect its application for a placement order with all that that would entail for this young child.

Before turning to the background to these proceedings, one headline point needs to be stressed very clearly. As the two prime candidates for his long-term care within the family, M and MGM love F-L dearly. Of that I have no doubt at all. To the extent possible in circumstances where he is being cared for in a foster placement, F-L is already at the centre of much love and attention from his immediate birth family. M, MGM and S, M’s younger half-brother, see him regularly. He is regarded by them as an integral member of their family unit and their dearest wish is to see him returned home to grow up in the context of the love and support which they, as a family, can offer. Nothing which follows in this judgment displaces, or in any sense dilutes, that finding which I make without hesitation. Their love for this child shone through from everything I heard and read about this case.

I can deal with the background in fairly short order since none of the significant events set out in the lengthy chronology compiled by the Local Authority is the subject of any significant or material challenge.

When she was less than four months old, M was the subject of a child protection investigation. At that point in time, her mother (MGM) and her biological father, CR, were in a highly abusive relationship fuelled, no doubt in part, by their regular use of heroin. M was seen with two cigarette burns on her neck which were allegedly caused by her father. Medical investigations were inconclusive as to whether or not these injuries were non-accidental. The following month, MGM took her 9 month old daughter to live with her own father, M’s maternal grandfather. Concerns continued for the baby throughout the next few months. She was losing weight. For periods, she and MGM were homeless. Nursery visits and health appointments were missed. In September 2000, M was placed in the care of her grandfather under an interim care order which was confirmed in March 2001. By the summer of 2002, MGM was living in her father’s home and caring effectively for M. She had ended her relationship with M’s biological father and was no longer using drugs. A decision was taken to discharge the care order.

Later that year, MGM met SM and began a relationship with him. In November 2006, she gave birth to a son, S, who is now 9 years old. The following year in January 2007, when she was not quite 8 years old, M reported that she had been digitally penetrated by an adult male the previous year (Footnote: ²). (He was not a family member but was identified and subsequently convicted for that offence.) Thus, before she celebrated her 9^th birthday, M was already a vulnerable child who had been physically, emotionally and sexually abused.

At the end of March 2012, there was a police referral to social services in respect of both M and her brother, S. They appear to have been present during an altercation between MGM and her partner (S’s father) which involved a heated argument during the course of which SM made threats to self-harm. There was a further referral to social services later the same year when M disclosed to a friend that SM had physically abused her and had given her two black eyes. There appeared to be a very significant alcohol problem in the household with abuse being perpetrated on a regular basis against MGM; she was aware of the harm which her daughter had suffered at the hands of her partner but failed to take any steps to protect her. M was subsequently to retract her allegations against SM and was supported in those retractions by her mother. At this stage, there appear to have been intensive efforts to support the family in a variety of ways.

At the beginning of July 2013, M’s school made a referral to social services in respect of both M and S. She had attended school bearing the mark of an injury to her right shoulder which she said had been caused by MGM’s partner, an allegation which her mother denied. By October 2013, there were sufficient concerns about M’s emotional fragility that CAMHS (Footnote: ³) became involved. This followed an incident where she had swallowed a quantity of domestic bleach and was admitted as an emergency to hospital. She was refusing to return home by this stage citing her fear of MGM’s partner and his ongoing verbal abuse. She was discharged from hospital into the care of her grandfather.

The following month, in November 2013, when she was 14½ years old, M was reported missing following a furious altercation with her mother during which she had threatened to “smash her [mother’s] face in”. MGM told the police she feared her daughter was taking drugs and had gone missing. M’s (then) boyfriend reported to the police that MGM’s partner regularly hit M.

The following month, in December 2013, M assaulted a 14 year old girl with a knife. A further referral was made. Over the Christmas period that year, M was returned home by the police on three separate occasions in what was described as “a paralytic state”.

By the beginning of January 2014, there were further reports of M absconding and being missing at 5am in the morning. Her grandfather reported to social services that MGM was “suicidal” and he could no longer cope with M in his home. He asked that she be taken into foster care for her own protection. Two days later there was a report to the police that M had assaulted both MGM and her grandfather and had run away to stay with her (then) boyfriend. She was found at his address but refused to return home.

By the end of that month, in January 2014, a decision was made to return M to the care of her own mother. Less than two weeks later, SM (MGM’s partner) had punched M in the face in the presence of her younger half-sibling, S. When the police arrived at the family home, MGM was heavily intoxicated. The following month, M went missing once again. As to SM, despite being asked to leave the family home after the assault on M, when the police returned to the property to make enquiries about M’s whereabouts, he was observed to be present in the home with MGM and had stayed overnight. Once again, S was present during a violent argument between his parents.

On 13 May 2014, the police made a formal referral to social services in respect of both M and S. SM was once again at the property and, at MGM’s request, was forcibly removed in the presence of both children.

Over the course of the next two months, M repeatedly absconded from the family home. There were further police referrals to social services on occasions when it appears she had been locked out of the family home by MGM. In July 2014, she was reported to be staying with F who had himself been involved in another relationship with a 20 year-old woman who was allegedly pregnant at the time. When social services became involved, F reported that both he and M were regularly self-harming. F’s self-harming was reported to have intensified since M had moved in with him. Later that month (September 2014), M attended hospital and complained of hearing voices. The hospital staff noted that her breath smelt of bleach. She was seen by the crisis mental health team. Following her release from hospital, and within a matter of days, MGM reported to emergency services responding to a call out that M was rocking backwards and forwards with her hands over her ears and complaining of smelling bleach and hearing voices. Neither she nor S had been attending school and there were uncorroborated reports from third parties that MGM was taking drugs and consuming alcohol to excess.

M’s school attendance had not improved by the beginning of the new academic school year. She was reported to be living with F and “trying for a baby”. (Both were then 15 years old.) By the start of 2015, she was being home-educated.

In March 2015, the police became involved in an incident where both M and F were highly intoxicated and arguing in the street. A third party was involved and there were various threats of an assault with a knife. This was the occasion to which I have already referred during which M sustained two cuts to her hand and a puncture wound to her left knee.

Unborn baby F-L became the subject of a referral to social services as soon as it became apparent that M was pregnant. By that stage, the beginning of April 2015, M and F appeared to be living a peripatetic existence staying variously in the homes of MGM, M’s grandfather and, on occasions, at the paternal grandfather’s properties. Both were regularly self-harming and smoking cannabis daily. S, M’s half sibling, remained at MGM’s home. In mid-May 2015, he told his teachers at school that his mother had made him sleep in a tent in the garden. He reported that she was abusing alcohol, a fact which appears to have been borne out by subsequent reports of her attendance at the school smelling of alcohol.

In June 2015, MGM went on holiday to Benidorm in Spain. When a family nurse attended at the property during her absence, she found M and F living there together with no money for food. Following the return of MGM in July 2015, the family worker returned to the home and reported that she was smelling strongly of alcohol.

To her credit, in August 2015, MGM went to see her local general practitioner, Dr MS. She advised that she was drinking vodka and an arrangement was made to refer her to local alcohol services for help and support. The Local Authority contend that she did not follow through on this referral. MGM has a different recollection. I have seen a letter from Dr MS dated 17 June 2016. That letter contains various references to both physical ailments and the medication which was prescribed to treat the depression and low mood from which she was suffering. An earlier letter written on 18 April 2016 from her local surgery contains a reference to “consultation notes” prepared on 12 August 2015 which suggest that MGM “restarted drinking 1/12 [i.e. one month] ago”. I am satisfied that MGM has minimised the relevance of this entry in her medical records. She sought to explain it in re-examination by telling me that she had probably told the doctor that she “had had a drink or a couple of drinks on a handful of occasions”. By her own account, she has not consumed alcohol since October 2015.

By mid-August 2015, when M was about 6 months pregnant, the community midwife responsible for her care and that of her unborn baby made an urgent referral to Children and Young Person’s Services. She reported a number of concerns including M’s history of mental health problems, depression, self-harm, overdoses and auditory hallucinations. There was real concern over M’s lack of engagement with mental health services. Both she and F were regularly using cannabis and consuming alcohol. M was presenting with acute anxiety and depression and had made an attempt at suicide which was regarded as serious. MGM was herself reported to be consuming excess alcohol within the home which all three shared. F was struggling to control his temper and there were reports of violence perpetrated against various third parties. These now form an un-contradicted part of his criminal antecedent history.

There was a multi-agency meeting in September 2015, a matter of weeks before F-L’s birth. F confirmed that he was still smoking cannabis. As a result, a referral was made to ‘Parents with Prospects’ although neither M nor F completed the referral. A pre-birth assessment in November 2015 identified a number of singularly concerning risks and the unborn baby was made the subject of a child protection plan under the category of neglect. Less than two weeks before F-L’s birth, F attended a pre-proceedings meeting during the course of which he became verbally aggressive and told the social worker and team manager that “you should all pull [sic] a bullet in your head”.

F-L was born 11 days later and immediately became the subject of these care proceedings. It was considered unsafe to discharge him from hospital into the care of his parents. Instead, the recommendation was that M and F-L should move to a mother and baby unit for further assessment. Neither the MGM nor her own father (M’s grandfather) were considered to be suitable as carers for baby F-L.

On 1 December 2015, the court made an interim care order. On 4 December 2015, when F-L was 4 days old, he and his mother were discharged to the A unit and a 12 week parenting assessment was commenced.

That unit has produced two reports for the purposes of these proceedings. The first is dated 15 January and the second 12 February 2016.

The first report covered the professional assessment of M and F-L during the period between 4 December 2015 and 26 February 2016 (her intended discharge date). The report was compiled by JW, a social worker. The overall aim of the work undertaken was explained in these terms:

“…. to undertake a comprehensive assessment of parenting capacity based on the Department of Health Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families and under the direction from Courts in compliance with section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989. We aim to collate evidence of “good enough” parenting, assess the child’s relationship with parents and their development whilst in their parent’s care. Whilst ensuring the child’s safety and protection.”

During this assessment, M was permitted to have up to four hours away from F-L every week. She was advised that the Local Authority would not look favourably on unmonitored contact with F during these periods. F, in his turn, was permitted to have supervised (or staff-monitored) contact with F-L for 12 hours a week. Following a court hearing on 4 February 2016, F’s contact was reduced after he and M were observed to be “squabbling” during his visits to see F-L. MGM, with S, and M’s grandfather also saw F-L at the unit.

One of the central concerns at this point in time was the dynamic of M’s relationship with her own mother. JW records a conversation which she had with M about this as part of the initial assessment process. I set out an extract from the report below.

“I asked [M] to explain what she knew of her mother’s past and how she feels that this has impacted on her own life. [M] said, “You don’t know what it was like for her, none of them know, they’ve not been through it, it’s not happened to them, so they can’t say”. I suggested to [M] that she should not assume that she knows what other people have been through but one thing she could be sure of is that the Social Workers involved are trained to have an in-depth understanding of domestic violence and its effects. [M] was quiet and then said, “she couldn’t get away, no-one helped her, it’s affected her, you don’t know what she’s like, she’s scared of men now”. [M] stated that her mother had not had a relationship since she left her step-father and that she has had no intervention or counselling. I reminded [M] that the events we had just discussed happened only a couple of years ago, much less than ten years ago and that the Local Authority had concerns due to her mother not being a protective factor in her childhood, [M] said, “she was because she sent me to my granddad’s”. I acknowledge that her mother had taken a step towards protecting [M] however, I also made it clear to [M] that rather than end the relationship, her mother chose an adult relationship over her child. At this point she [M] raised her voice and put her head in her hands and said, “No, you’re not slagging my mum off, you’re not, you are not slagging my mum off !”. I explained to [M] that this was not the case; however I was trying to make things clearer for her so that she could better understand the situation and why the Local Authority has concerns. [M] had started to shut down and was crying quietly through the latter half of the session. [M] stated that her mother had not talked to her about the past and had never asked for any help from outside agencies to come to terms with the domestic violence she had encountered.”

At a later stage of her first report, JW records the following:

“[M] was emotional during the sessions around childhood and expressed that she did not like to talk about the past as it brought back bad memories for her and she only wanted to think about the future. The sessions around childhood were carried out in a sensitive way and it was fully explained to [M] why it was so important for her to talk about her experiences and for the assessing Social Worker to understand what her story was. [M] appeared to relax after a while however; it was felt that she was defensive regarding the topic of her mother and made it clear on a few occasions that she felt her mother was a protective factor in her childhood. [She] became upset when recalling what she had read in the Psychologist’s report stating that she did not agree what had been written about [her mother] and claimed that the psychologist “twisted what I said”. [She] appeared to think that the analysis in the report about [her own] experiences and about [her mother] as a parent was unjust and seemed to blame herself for the conclusions the Psychologist had drawn. It was explained to [her] that this was not the case and that the parent/adult has a responsibility to protect the child from harm and danger and that the professionals are all trained to identify the dangers and risks that children are exposed to and to ensure that the children are safeguarded; this was one of the reasons why the report reads as it does. [M] appeared to understand this albeit there appears to be an element of guilt with [M] where her mother is concerned.”

The A unit had available to it for the purposes of its own assessment of M and F-L an earlier psychological assessment of M which had been carried out in January 2016 by Ms Rekha Davis, a chartered clinical psychologist. For the purposes of that assessment, Ms Davis had seen M over the course of two individual sessions, each lasting approximately two and a half hours.

What she said to Ms Davis perhaps sheds further light on the mother/daughter dynamic as M was growing up. She reported to Ms Davis that she was able to recall numerous incidents and occasions on which there had been domestic violence between MGM and her partner, SM. The report continues in paras 2.11 to 2.14,

“As she got older the violence escalated and [M] said aged 13 she saw [SM] hit and kick her mother. In addition, he threw her down the stairs, put his fingers down her throat and smash[ed] a plate on her head. [M] recalled running to her bedroom after having witnessed the violence pretending it did not happen. She said her mother had not known that she had seen the incidents and she did not talk to her mother or indeed anyone.

[She] said she had witnessed such incidents until she was aged 14 and until she resided with her grandfather on a permanent basis. She said that after taking bleach she had told her mother that she did not like [SM] and no longer wished to live with him. In view of this her mother had agreed that she could live with her grandfather. [She] explained that she finds it very difficult to talk to people, even her mother or friends, about anything.

…. when she was visiting her mother, aged 14, [SM] punched her in the face. She said he had been drunk and described him as an alcoholic. Her younger brother witnessed the incident. [She] said her mother called the police and [SM] was arrested. Her mother separated from [him]. [She] advised that her mother and [S] moved in with her grandfather where she was still residing.

[She] does not accept that she was out of parental control adding, “There’s kids a lot worse than me”. She said she had read social services reports adding, “It’s ridiculous”.”

As to the MGM’s recollection of these events, the A unit was provided with a copy of the viability assessment which had been undertaken by LB, the social worker responsible for F-L, together with one of her colleagues. That assessment was undertaken in mid-November 2015 and is thus reflective of MGM’s state of awareness some eight months before I heard her oral evidence during the course of this hearing. When asked about M’s removal from her care as a very young child, she disputed some of the information which had been provided to the social workers stating that M had been removed “as the social worker at the time was seeking promotion and needed to have undertaken an adoption” (para 11). She claimed to have written material which supported that position. (She gave me a similar account during the course of cross-examination and said she could produce the material in question, although nothing had materialised by the end of the hearing.) When she was asked about her reasons for allowing M and F to live together at her home when they were both children themselves, she acknowledged that they were only 15 years old at the time but said she had permitted F to move in as “at least I knew what was going on”.

When she was asked about the relationship between F-L’s parents, MGM said that she did not believe there had been any domestic violence between them; that their relationship was good; and they were both trying and “telling each other they love one another a lot”. She was asked about the incident between them on 15 March 2015 and claimed that F had not hurt her daughter intentionally. She explained to LB that F had become upset because it was Mother’s Day (he had lost his own mother who died in March 2012 as a result of an aneurysm). On MGM’s account, with the intention of self-harming, F had removed a knife from the property where he and M had been attending a party and drinking to excess. It was whilst M was trying to remove the knife that she had been harmed. When a section of the contemporaneous police report was read to MGM setting out the testimony of an independent witness who observed F holding her daughter down whilst shouting at her, MGM had initially said she disbelieved the independent account. She went on to say that this incident had scared both M and F and that, ever since, they had been “more affectionate”.

When asked about the perceived risks for the (then) unborn baby, MGM responded by saying that her only worry was that M and F were both very young parents. She envisaged that any risks to the unborn child would be eliminated if they were offered a range of support services. When she was challenged by LB about F’s ability to cope with sleepless nights, teething difficulties and the like, she said, “I know he will not hurt their baby, I know that for a fact”. She felt that any issues could be overcome by F absenting himself temporarily. She assured the social workers that, in the event that she perceived any risk to her grandson, she would contact Social Services herself. In terms of the need to protect F-L from either M or F from the perceived risks if he was placed exclusively in her care, MGM said she did not believe that either posed a risk to their child. She was asked about her own difficulties with alcohol. She said that she had sought support from local services and was advised not to drink again. In other words, she was advised to remain totally abstinent. She had received support and had been able to stop drinking, although her social worker at the time said that she would be able to drink again after a year.

As to M’s psychological state, Ms Davis’s conclusion about her in January 2016 was that she was “a vulnerable young woman with unmet psychological needs”. She described her coping strategies as “generally poor and inadequate with little active attempts to cope with stress”. Ms Davis prepared her addendum report in March 2016 at a time when she and F had ended their relationship and were living separately. M and F-L were still living at the residential assessment unit at that stage. The purpose of that addendum report was to consider the following issues:-

Ms Davis described M during their second meeting as “rather withdrawn, reluctant and avoidant during this assessment” (para 1.4). She records her responses as being monosyllabic. As the interview continued, M became increasingly agitated and at one point walked out of the room briefly. When she was asked for her perception of how matters had moved on since the first psychological assessment, Ms Davis describes her somewhat sarcastic response in these terms:

“I’ve been in here [i.e. the residential unit]; what can happen ? Nothing at all – what can happen ?”

When she was asked about her understanding of why she had been in her current placement at the A unit, she had replied,

“’Cos you said I had to come here. I don’t know why.”

And later,

“I don’t want to know the reasons for coming here – I’ve done it and passed it.”

M told Ms Davis that she had had no support over the past three months because she did not need it. She expressed concern that CAMHS was unwilling to work with her until she was in a stable environment and, when asked about her understanding of why CAMHS has become involved, M replied,

“I apparently need therapy. I don’t need therapy.”

Of her relationship with F, she said that she was not allowed to be with him, adding that

“…apparently it’s an unhealthy relationship …. It’s pathetic – I disagree with it…… I am not in a relationship with [F] and that decision was made by social services based on the psychological report. I disagree with that and believe I should be in a relationship with him.”

In terms of her early life experiences in her mother’s care, she maintained that nothing in the care she received or the time she spent exposed to MGM’s abusive relationship with SM had affected her in any way: “I just got on with it”. At that point in time she did not see any need to engage in any course on domestic violence. At this point M had stormed out of the session but returned ten minutes later, saying that she had felt patronised.

Of the future of her relationship with F, Ms Davis’s report records the following at para 2.11:

“[M] maintained that she does not need help to understand how her childhood experiences might impact upon her functioning currently as an older person and as a parent. She firmly said she does not intend on having any other relationships “after everything that’s happened”. She was unable to be more specific. [She] advised that she will not resume her relationship with [F] and indeed she has asked for a restraining order “so social services know I’m being serious that I’m not going to get back with him”. However, she has been advised that at this point in time there are no reasons for a restraining order. Having said this [M] then stated, “I don’t accept social services reasons for concerns about my relationship with [F]”. Despite such feelings she said she will not resume her relationship with [him] even after social services withdraw as “I know they will get involved again and I don’t want that”.

She was able to acknowledge F’s tendency to “get angry over the smallest of things” and that this could pose a risk to F-L. She thought that she might give their relationship “a try” but would end it if it was not working. She appeared to have the insight to recognise that F was dismissive of any suggestion that he had issues over anger management. Similarly, she was able to recognise that one of the reasons for her reluctance to end the relationship was her fear of being alone.

In terms of support once she left the A unit, M told Ms Davis that she could not see how social services might provide that support. She felt that her mother and grandfather would provide all the support she needed. Of her own mother’s earlier shortcomings as a parent, she expressed the view that people can change. Furthermore, she did not consider her own childhood experiences were relevant in any way to her present situation. Whilst she was prepared to engage with CAMHS, she told Ms Davis that she saw no need for this intervention.

During the course of her second session with Ms Davis, M described her relationship with her mother in these terms (para 2.22):

“[M] described her relationship with her mother as good and strong. However, she advised that she has not always had a good relationship with her mother. Prior to her meeting [F], [M] said she was dismissive of her mother’s advice and often ignored her. [M] said that when she was assaulted by [SM, her mother’s former partner], her mother moved in with her and her grandfather. It was then that she built her relationship with her mother. [M] failed to consider the negative implications of her mother’s abusive relationship upon her younger brother. She said her brother was always at his friend’s or his paternal grandmother’s home although she admitted he had continued to live with his mother. When asked ….. whether she believes her brother suffered any harm in her mother’s care, [M] said she is unsure and added, “I don’t think I suffered any harm in the care of my mother”.

Of the proposal in the Local Authority’s care plan for F-L that the next stage of the assessment process would take place outside the A unit in a mother and baby foster placement, M told Ms Davis that she was very unhappy at the prospect of such a move. Whilst she was aware that the timing of the proposed move was imminent, she was uncertain how long she would be able to remain there with F-L.

In terms of MGM’s input into the second assessment with Ms Davis, she was able to admit that both children were aware of SM being “drunk and abusive”. She had coped by taking the children out when he became verbally aggressive although she agreed that she continued the relationship nonetheless. She rationalised her decision to remain in a relationship which had become abusive for three years by stating that she thought he might stop drinking if he found a job and she hoped that in this event the abuse might cease. She accepted that she should have ended the relationship in circumstances where she was aware that M, as a young girl, did not feel safe at home. She acknowledged that she had failed to protect her despite very clear warning signs such as the self-harming episodes involving her daughter drinking neat bleach when she was 14 years old. She said that at the time she had considered M had simply fallen in with the wrong crowd and begun smoking cannabis.

As to her drinking, she explained to Ms Davis that her intake of alcohol had increased significantly towards the end of 2013. She put the escalation in her consumption down to her relationship with SM, although she acknowledged that, at times, they had consumed alcohol together, and to excess. She had confided in her father in October 2014 that she realised she was alcohol dependent. She accepted that M had been exposed to her drinking and was aware of the problem. She started a detox programme at the beginning of January 2015. After 10 days on the programme, she was totally abstinent. Since then she has had the odd glass of wine or beer when out for a meal. When she was challenged about the fact that S’s teachers had smelt alcohol on her breath first thing in the morning on at least three occasions in June and July 2015, she said that she had consumed a glass of wine the previous evening and had not brushed her teeth in the morning before delivering S to school. She has since undertaken liver function tests through her GP. (I shall return to the results of those tests shortly.)

As at March this year (2016), MGM had not embarked on any courses to help her gain insight into the effects of domestic violence or excess drinking despite the fact that social services had provided her with details of courses relating to both.

Ms Davis asked her about her relationship with F whilst he and M were living in her home. MGM reported to Ms Davis that she had observed aspects of F’s controlling behaviour towards her daughter. She recorded how he persistently followed M when she went to the lavatory. She raised these with M when she was about 4 months pregnant. When she was asked why she had allowed this state of affairs to continue, she told Ms Davis that she had tried to ask F to leave in the summer of 2015 but he had dismissed her concerns in a “belittling manner”. Because M threatened that she, too, would leave if F was not permitted to remain, MGM had, in effect, “backed off” as she did not want her daughter to move out. She explained her decision to let F live at her home with her 15 year old daughter as a lapse of judgment which she put down to her excessive consumption of alcohol at the time. She accepted that she was effectively allowing a stranger into her home at the time since she hardly knew him at all.

Of their separation whilst M had been living at the A unit with F-L, MGM explained to Ms Davis that she was aware that M had tried to break off the relationship a couple of times. F had “badgered her” to resume it which M had done after about 4 days. This did not appear to come as any surprise to MGM who had not even bothered to tell social services of the apparent separation. She recalled that M had tried to end the relationship with F on at least two or three occasions before being given an ultimatum by social services in January 2016.

The second session did not appear to end on a productive note. By the time Ms Davis was ready to embark on a joint session with M and her mother, M had disengaged completely. She was unwilling to talk and did not respond to questions. She was unwilling to say anything at all and did not speak despite encouragement from her mother.

It was thus perhaps no surprise that Ms Davis concluded that M was “extremely ambivalent” about her separation from F. She concluded that M demonstrated little understanding of the risk which he posed and the reasons for social services’ concerns about their relationship. She regarded it of “significant concern” that, despite the nature of their relationship thus far, M had considered resuming her relationship with F with a view thereafter to co-parenting F-L. At paras 5.2 and 5.4, Miss Davis said this of M:

“[M’s] dependant personality trait is particularly relevant as this would indicate her tendency to be reliant on others for nuturance and security. [Her] early life experiences are likely to have had an impact upon the development of a positive self-esteem and self-confidence leading to her perceiving herself as weak, fragile and inadequate with a poor sense of self. In view of this there is a tendency to seek nurturance from others and present as passive and compliant.”

“Overall, it is my view that [M’s] ability to maintain a separation from [F] is very limited and in my opinion it is highly probable that she will resume her relationship with him. I am concerned that her decision to separate was not initiated by her but rather after she was placed in a position to choose between him and her child. Whilst it is positive that [she] chose to prioritise her child it is of significant concern that she demonstrates little insight into the reasons for … the Local Authority having concerns regarding her relationship with [F], that she has resumed her relationship with him following previous periods of separation and she has more recently maintained contact with him.”

In para 6.1 of her conclusions, dealing generally with M’s insight into the risks for F-L, Ms Davis said this:

“This assessment would indicate that [M] has little understanding of the negative implications of her childhood experiences upon her current functioning as an older person and as a parent to [F-L] and her ability to protect him from future harm. This is consistent with [M’s] little insight into the need for therapeutic input and her reports that she does not require such input. [Her] limited understanding of the risk in respect of domestic abuse and her tendency to maintain abusive relationships is reflected in her difficulties n separating from [F] until such point when she was put in a position [of] having to choose between him and her child. Indeed, … it is of concern that [she] has maintained contact with [him] following her separation from him.”

In relation to M’s ability to engage with CAMHS in order to effect positive changes, Ms Davis had clear reservations about her ability to do so given what she describes as the “significant concerns” highlighted in her second assessment. These changes are only likely to be achieved, in the expert’s view, if M acquires sufficient insight and motivation for such change. Ms Davis was clear that any such therapeutic intervention should only be commenced at the conclusion of the current care proceedings and in circumstances where M has achieved stability in relation to her medium to longer term accommodation plans.

As to her conclusions in relation to the mother/daughter relationship and the prognosis for the future in terms of safe-guarding, Ms Davis’ conclusion is set out in paras 9.1 and 9.2 of her second report.

“Both [M] and [MGM] reported an improvement in their relationship and both acknowledged past difficulties. Despite this, however, given the extent of the past difficulties in [their] relationship there has not been any professional input such as relationship counselling. It is of concern that [M] does not perceive any negative implications of her early experiences and relationship with her mother as having any impact upon her current emotional state and functioning.

It is my overall view that issues within the relationship between [M] and her mother remain and this is likely to impact on [her] ability to care for F-L. I do not believe that [MGM] is a protective factor in any concerns regarding [M’s] ability to protect [F-L] in future and [M] in my view is likely to struggle to take advice from her mother. Additionally, it is of concern that [MGM] has minimised violence in her past relationship with [SM] and minimised concerns regarding alcohol use as reported by the school.”

By way of overall conclusion, Ms Davis expresses a clear view by the end of her second assessment that, sadly, M lacks the ability to care for F-L independently for all the reasons set out above. She continues to harbour concerns about M’s ability to engage fully in any therapy irrespective of where she resides and irrespective of any support which can be put in place to redress the damage she has suffered in her childhood. She expresses that clear view because of the lack of insight on M’s part into the need for such therapy. She concludes, “Without insight, motivation and acceptance of the need for therapy, any positive outcome is very limited. Indeed, agencies would not be prepared to offer therapy if the individual did not acknowledge and accept the need for such input.”

Against that somewhat pessimistic conclusion reached by the expert psychologist has to be set the report which the A unit filed on 12 February 2016. M had been able to express to JW that she had become aware that her self-harming behaviours were not her fault; rather they were an outlet for the way she was feeling at the time. At the conclusion of the assessment at the A unit, it appeared that she was still considering an engagement with CAMHS when she left the unit.

She was observed to have displayed love and affection towards F-L “giving him kisses and cuddles” which appeared “natural and instinctive”. A degree of positive attachment between the two was observed and comment was made about the contented baby noises made by F-L who appeared to reciprocate his mother’s affection. JW recorded in her report that M was able to demonstrate consistent care for his basic needs.

In terms of M’s future parenting capacity, the A unit was keen to focus on F-L’s prospects for a safe and secure placement at home. In February 2016, when M was asked how she intended to provide the baby with a stable home life, she replied, “I don’t know; I’ve never had one”.

The plan for the next stage was for M and F-L to move to a mother and baby foster placement. It was explained to M why this was a necessary step if serious consideration was to be given to a rehabilitative placement of F-L at home with M and MGM. It is agreed by all that this was a plan with which M was in complete disagreement. She had resolutely set her face against such a move. She told one of the key workers at the A unit,

“Everyone is saying what they want, but no-one is listening to what I want; what about me ?”

The final report from the A unit continues in these terms:

“The assessing Social Worker informed [M] that, as much as her wishes and feelings were important, this assessment was about her parenting capacity of [F-L] and that [his] safety and wellbeing were the priority in this assessment. The Social Worker asked [M] what she wanted the outcome to be. She replied, “I don’t know”. She was asked again to think about two scenarios, for example, if the choices were, [F-L] was to be removed or she was given the opportunity to go into a foster placement with [F-L], what would she like to happen ? [M] stated again that she did not know. The question was posed again. She replied, “Even if he gets taken off me, he’ll go to someone better than me, he’ll get everything I can’t give him”. [She] was asked why she felt this way and she stated that she knew that someone else would be better able to care for him and be a better parent to [F-L]. [M] was asked ultimately what she wanted from the outcome of the assessment, as it was felt that she was not sure about what she wanted. She looked the assessing Social Worker directly in the eye and said, “To be completely honest with you, I’d rather not have had him yet”.

Of the proposed placement in a mother and baby foster unit, M said this:

“I’m not having someone sitting and judging me. It’ll wind me up and I’ll end up walking out.”

Despite those reservations, M did eventually agree to move to the Local Authority’s proposed placement. On 29 February 2016, she and F-L left the A unit and, in accordance with the care plan, moved to the proposed mother and baby foster placement. It broke down almost immediately and, after a week, M left F-L with the foster carer and refused to return. Thus, for the last 20 weeks of his life, F-L has remained in the full-time care of his foster mother with no more than contact visits from his mother. It is accepted by everyone that this was a traumatising period for M who was deeply distressed by the move. As she herself had predicted, she was completely unable to cope with the one on one scrutiny in the confined space of someone else’s home where she felt a stranger. She was, as I accept, vulnerable and confused. It quickly became apparent to both the MGM and the Local Authority that no amount of insistence or cajoling would persuade her to return to the foster placement. There was an urgent court hearing before Her Honour Judge Richardson on 16 March 2016. M attended that hearing. An agreement was reached outside court that, over the following week, her contact with F-L would be increased in duration, progressing to overnight stays with a plan for her to return to the placement on a full-time basis. That agreement was confirmed in court to the judge. I have within the papers a copy of the Local Authority’s rehabilitation plan which sets out the work to which the authority was committed over a two week period in order to provide support and advice to M with a view to reuniting her with F-L in the foster placement. To their credit, the social work team led by LB had given considerable thought and a great deal of care to that plan and ongoing support for M’s own needs were a parallel feature, in addition to safeguarding aspects for F-L. By now, the child was nineteen weeks old. Contact with M and MGM had continued since 4 March 2016 when M had returned to her mother’s home. On the whole, this had gone well although it was noted that MGM had had to take the initiative in relation to some aspects of F-L’s care when M had to be prompted, for example, to make up a bottle for his feed.

On 22 January 2016 at a further hearing, M was put to her election as to whether or not she proposed to continue her relationship with F. By this stage, it appeared that F’s life was moving on. M subsequently accepted, as recorded in a position statement filed on her behalf for the hearing, that she was aware she must end the relationship if the ongoing assessment of her care of F-L was to have any chance of a positive outcome. That was a difficult decision for her and it is much to her credit that she was able to take this step at a difficult personal time when many, if not most, of life’s storm anchors were lost to her. There were signs that she was beginning to recognise the impact upon her of controlling or abusive relationships. As to her bond with F-L, it is apparent to me from the contents of the final parenting assessment report prepared by LB on 15 April 2016 that M was, at times, ambivalent about their attachment. She was reporting to those who supervised her contact sessions with him at the contact centre that he no longer appeared to recognise her as his ‘Mum’. She is said to have responded to the social worker’s concern about her apparent indifference by saying, “Why would I be excited to see someone else’s baby ?”. She referred to the foster mother as “his new Mum”. That aspect of the Local Authority’s case was not challenged in cross-examination.

With effect from 17 March 2016, M’s contact with F-L moved from the contact centre back to the foster home. This was a planned stage of the care plan which was designed to facilitate M’s return to the foster placement to resume full-time care for her child. It looked as though this move might have been partially successful in its aims. M was observed to interact well in terms of responding to F-L’s needs. She took him on walks with the contact worker. Whilst it was remarked that she lacked confidence in her interaction with F-L, she was once again engaging both with F-L and those around her. Nevertheless, the concerns around M’s ability to work with the social workers remained. This is an acknowledged fact in the context of these proceedings. Neither M nor MGM has a high opinion of the social work profession. There is already evidence that S has been contaminated by their views. M has been, and is, quite open in her views about her mistrust of LB and the team she leads in this case. On one view, this is perhaps not surprising since she herself has grown up in a house where she has been exposed to her own mother’s negative views, reinforced, no doubt, by her own experience at a very vulnerable time in her life of social workers as people “who take babies away”.

The following extracts from the final parenting assessment reveal the basis of the Local Authority’s resistance to any long-term rehabilitation between M and F-L.

“[M] is an extremely vulnerable young parent who has experienced neglect, physical, emotional and sexual abuse throughout her childhood and adolescence. [M’s] mother and maternal grandfather did not protect [M] from such harm. [MGM] remained in relationships with [an] abusive partner, she has suffered from drug and alcohol problems, and [MGM] and [M’s] grandfather did not provide [M] with the stability she needed as a teenager who displayed significant emotional difficulties.” (para 12)

“For the first three months of [F-L]’s life, his mother provided him with consistent, loving and good physical care. [She] was able to meet [his] demands and she appeared to enjoy caring for him.”

“[Following the breakdown of the placement] [M] did attempt to return to the placement and adjust to caring for [F-L]. However, [M] gave [F-L] limited interaction and warmth and … was clear in stating that she did not want to return to the placement and would not begin to have any overnight stays at the placement with [F-L]. As [M] was not in a position to return to the placement and resume care of [her child], it was agreed that [F-L] would remain in care separated from his mother.

The change in [M’s] mood and behaviours towards [F-L] will have resulted in [him] becoming afraid and anxious and most likely impacted on his early development and attachments. Whilst [M] does not feel able to return to the placement, she has wished to continue to be assessed as [F-L]’s main carer. Within the assessment sessions she has been able to demonstrate some knowledge into how [F-L] would be affected by exposure to domestic abuse, and the difficulties [M] may have experienced if she were to care for [F-L] at her mother’s home. However, this insight remains limited and it is felt that if [M] continues not to meaningfully engage with an extensive package of support, she will continue to be at risk of entering abusive relationships and she will continue to possess poor coping mechanisms.

Should [M] verbalise a wish to resume care of [F-L] in an alternate [sic] type of provision, it is not felt that this could be safely managed. Support was already given to help [M] return to [F-L]’s current placement which [she] has not been able to engage with. Concerns have also been raised about the progress in supervised contact sessions. [M] has not consistently attended sessions and at times she has [had] to be prompted to respond to [F-l]’s cues. Whilst it is acknowledged that [M] is a young parent who is finding it difficult to manage the contact, [she] needs to be able to prioritise [F-L]’s feeling and need for consistent care and attention above her own needs.

In the light of [M] not demonstrating an ability to care for [F-L] in the long term and consistently respond to his needs, alongside her not feeling able to work with professionals to address concerns relating to her vulnerability and parenting capacity, I do not recommend that [F-L] is rehabilitated back into the care of his mother.”

That was the Local Authority’s view in mid-April 2016, some three months or so before this hearing began. It remains its view now.

The Guardian’s final report is dated 29 June 2016. It contains a comprehensive and detailed analysis of F-L’s young life to date and the impact upon him, and others, of life events and the milestones of this litigation. I am grateful to its author, Miss Rojas, for the evident care she has taken to assist the court with her work.

Of the dynamic in the mother-daughter relationship between MGM and M, the Guardian says this at para 42 of her report:

“[M] wants to resume care of [F-L] with the support of her mother. I am aware that there has continued to be friction between [them] throughout these proceedings, although this has in my view been minimised by both parties. I am also aware that there have been several occasions when [M] has been unable to meet [F-L]’s basic needs despite the support and encouragement of her mother. There are also times when she has ignored her mother’s advice. Therefore I have very little confidence that [F-L]’s needs would be consistently met by his mother even if she has support from her mother.”

Whilst the Guardian is well aware of the proposed intervention of CAMHS and the work which M has already undertaken towards an understanding of the effects of abusive relationships, she agrees with the conclusions of the psychological assessment undertaken by Ms Davis that the necessary intervention will be outside F-L’s own timescales.

In relation to the presence in the home of MGM, the Guardian notes the positive progress which appears to have been made in recent weeks but states that “these changes are relatively new and therefore it is unclear whether [MGM] will be able to sustain them” (para 49). She is in agreement with the Local Authority about the concerns focused on MGM’s negative attitude to the social work profession and her ability in future to engage constructively with the Local Authority so as to care safely for F-L. In para 51 of her final report, Miss Rojas says this:

“The Special Guardianship assessment of [MGM] concluded that ‘whilst [she] would be capable of meeting some of [F-L]’s needs, she would not be capable of meeting all of [his] basic, emotional and long term needs to a good enough standard and protect him from harm’. I am in agreement with the Local Authority’s concerns as by her own admission, [MGM] failed to protect [M] from the risks posed by [F]. Rather, it is my view that she facilitated their relationship. This not only placed [M] at risk but also her 9 year old son, [S].”

Later, at para 53, she concluded,

“I cannot feel confident that [F-L] would be protected from volatility between his mother and grandmother as there have been ongoing incidents throughout these proceedings. The most recent incident was in May 2016 when [M] reported that her mother ‘kicked her out’. Much of the friction between [M] and her mother appears to have been related to [F-L]. Therefore, if [he] were to be placed in the care of his mother or grandmother I would be very worried about him continuing to be exposed to their volatile relationship which would place him at risk of physical and emotional harm as well as neglect.”

The Guardian’s clear recommendation following her child impact and early permanence analysis is that F-L should be made the subject of care and placement orders.

Before turning to consider the oral evidence and the submissions from the parties’ advocates at the conclusion of the hearing, I need to say something at this point about the law which I must apply to the facts of this case as I find them to be.

There is no disagreement between the parties’ legal representatives as to the fundamental principles which apply in this case.

As to the statutory framework, the court’s power to grant care orders is to be found in section 31 of the Children Act 1989. The power to make a placement or adoption order flows from sections 21 and 46 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I propose to refer to these two Acts of Parliament respectively as “the 1989 Act” and “the 2002 Act”.

Where the court is satisfied that the threshold criteria in s 31(2) of the 1989 Act are made out, the court has jurisdiction to make a care order and must decide whether or not to do so by reference to the child’s best interests under s 1(1) evaluated in accordance with the welfare checklist set out in s 1(3) of the 1989 Act. By section 1(5), the court must not make any order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all. Here, as I have already indicated, it is not disputed that, as at 30 November 2015 (being the date of his birth), and absent protective measures, F-L was likely to suffer significant harm and that such harm was directly attributable to him not receiving the sort of care which would be reasonably expected from a parent. All parties, including his two parents and his maternal grandmother, agree that there was a need for the interim care order which was made within hours of his birth. Since his reception into care, F-L has remained within the protection offered by the hospital and, later, the A unit, followed by the mother and baby foster placement where he continues to reside. He is now 7 months old and there is an imperative for swift decisions as to his future.

Whilst the first and succeeding interim orders have not been challenged, I am asked to exercise my discretion afresh in considering the Local Authority’s current care plan and thus, whilst threshold is not in issue, I have to be satisfied that a final care order with a plan for adoption is a proportionate outcome bearing in mind the engagement of the Article 8 (Footnote: ⁴) rights of each of the family members who are parties to these proceedings, as well as F-L’s own rights to a life growing up within his birth family. The provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are also relevant. If the State is to intervene in family life, as it seeks to do here, the parties are entitled to expect the court to exercise rigorous judicial scrutiny of the Local Authority’s plans and to ensure that the outcome which is sought is a proportionate response: see In the Matter of Re B(A Child) (FC) [2013] UKSC 33 reported sub nom Re: B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] 2 F-LR 1075.

This approach involves two stages. First, the court must undertake a global holistic evaluation and analysis of the child’s welfare needs. It must then go on to evaluate proportionality by conducting a balancing exercise in which each of the realistically available options for meeting those identified welfare needs is evaluated. That analysis has to be undertaken with whatever degree of detail is necessary to highlight the internal positives and negatives in order to reach a decision as to which option is the most proportionate means of meeting the child’s needs, having regard to the court’s duty to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the child with whom it is concerned.

The option in this case which is supported by both the Local Authority, the Guardian and (until very recently) F is an option of last resort. As such, it requires a high degree of justification and is to be made only in exceptional circumstances where nothing else will do. This, in turn, will require careful consideration of the realities of the life of the child with whom the court is dealing. The paramount consideration has to be the child’s welfare “throughout his life”: s 1(2) of the 2002 Act. A vital starting point in this exercise is the parallel checklist of factors which is set out in s 1(4) of the 2002 Act albeit that these are not, in every case, an exhaustive set of criteria. The question is not simply whether any other course is possible but whether there is another course which is possible and in the child’s best interests. Thus, in reaching my decision in this case, and as I have already said, I shall need to have a very careful eye on the provisions of both s 1(3) of the 1989 Act and s 1(4) of the 2002 Act.

Further, the court cannot make a placement order unless either the parent has consented or the court is satisfied that the parent’s (or parents’) consent should be dispensed with: s 21(3) of the 2002 Act. In this case, I can only dispense with parental consent if this is what the child’s welfare requires: s 52(1) of the 2002 Act. The use of the word “requires” is important in this context: it has the Strasbourg meaning of “necessary”, or, in other words, “the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable”: see Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2 F-LR 625, paras 120 and 125. It is a stringent and demanding test as has been emphasised by the Supreme Court in Re B (A Child) (above).

I must bear in mind the three points which emerge so clearly from the judgment delivered in Re B by Lord Neuberger.

First, although the child’s interests in an adoption case are paramount, the court must never lose sight of the fact that those interests include being brought up by the natural birth family, ideally by the mother and father, or at least one of them, unless the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare make that an impossible outcome. Second, the court is under a clear obligation to consider all the options before coming to a decision. Those options in any given case will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case before the court. At one end of the spectrum, there may be the option of making no order at all. No one supports that outcome in this case, even the parents. An adoption order for F-L lies at the other end of that spectrum. I must bear in mind that, in between, there may be orders providing for the return of F-L to the full-time care of M or a family member with the support of a supervision or care order. Alternatively, the child might be placed with relatives under a residence or special guardianship order or in a foster placement under a care order. Third, any assessment I make of M’s, or alternatively MGM’s, ability to discharge their responsibilities towards F-L must take into account the further assistance and support which the Local Authority and others might be able to make available in order to keep him at home growing up in the midst of his birth, or natural, family.

These matters were fully ventilated by Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division in the now well-known case of Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. As his Lordship made clear, there are two essential prerequisites whenever a court is being asked to approve a care plan for adoption and when it is being asked to make a non-consensual placement order. First, there must be proper evidence from the Local Authority and from the Guardian. This evidence must address all the options which are realistically possible and must contain an analysis of the arguments for and against each option. Secondly, it is incumbent upon me to produce an adequately reasoned judgment from which all parties can see and understand not only my decision but the reasons for that decision. As McFarlane LJ said in Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, at para 50, what is required is “a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child’s future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child’s welfare”.

As is equally clear from the President’s later decision in Re: R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re: B-S did not change the substantive law. It did not set the hurdle any higher in respect of placement orders than that set out in the 1989 and 2002 Acts. It recognised that there will be cases where adoption is indeed in the best interests of the child or children with whom the court is concerned. In those cases, it is incumbent on the court, after a full analysis and evaluation of the realistic options, to make a placement order if that is what the child’s or children’s interests require. As Re R makes abundantly clear, a child should not be kept within its birth family if such a placement compromises his or her future welfare. Here, pursuant to s 1(4) of the 2002 Act, it is F-L’s welfare throughout the rest of his life with which I am concerned. That is my paramount consideration and, as Macur LJ said in Re M-H (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 276, that is the aspect of the test which qualifies the concept that “nothing else will do”. The exercise of balancing the pros and cons of each realistic option for F-L is what is required in order for me to discharge my duty under s 1(4) of the 2002 Act. In this context, the term “realistic” is key. Only sensible, practical options require analysis.

In this context, the options presented to me by the local authority and the guardian as the realistic options for F-L are care and placement orders.

By contrast, by the conclusion of the case, M invites me to consider, in descending order of priority in terms of her preference:

Those options are espoused by MGM save that her second option would be an order which saw M return to live at the family home on the basis that primary responsibility for F-L’s care would be acknowledged to lie with MGM. She would be her grandson’s primary carer on the basis that he would, for the foreseeable future at least, share a home with his mother. If that option is rejected by the court, her third option or proposal would see M move out to live with her maternal grandfather. Each of these arrangements would acknowledge the continuing status of the Local Authority in F-L’s life; that would be achieved by the making of a final care order.

The last point to be made before I leave the law is that this mother’s relative youth and the fact that, as all acknowledge, she herself has been a troubled and vulnerable child until recently does not mean that there is any presumption, formal or otherwise, that she is unable to care for F-L: see Re R (Child of a Teenage Mother) [2000] 2 F-LR 660. Every case turns on its own facts and much will depend upon the quality of the support which is, or may be, available for both the mother and the child.

For the sake of completeness, I should add that F does not seek any substantive orders in respect of his own future role vis à vis F-L. He accepts that there will be no future contact between them save for a final “goodbye” visit which the Local Authority has undertaken to arrange.

In terms of oral evidence, I heard first from the two lead social workers in the case. LB is F-L’s key worker. CY is the key worker for M and F. I collected the clear impression that each is fully and professionally invested in this case. LB’s written evidence was extremely thorough and meticulous in its detail. By the time I came to hear her oral evidence, I had a more or less comprehensive understanding of the case and the content of the various assessments which had been undertaken prior to the final hearing. LB’s input extended to no fewer than six of these. In addition to F-L’s pre-birth assessment in November 2015, she had also prepared viability assessments in relation to MGM and the maternal great-grandfather; a contact assessment in relation to F; a special guardianship assessment of NE; and the (important) final parenting assessment of M. This last, and most recent, assessment (to which I have already referred above) was dated 16 April 2016.

In essence, LB remains opposed to any attempt at a rehabilitative placement for F-L with his mother. Her concerns continue to centre around MGM’s ability to protect adequately either her daughter or her grandson. Whilst she gives MGM full credit for the steps she has taken to date to address her problems with alcohol, she remains concerned about the potential fragility of her recovery. Her abstinence is relatively recent and there have been lapses along the way. LB harbours concerns about a future relationship which might see history repeating itself in terms of domestic abuse. She considers that MGM lacks insight into the depths of the problems with which M will continue to struggle because of the legacy of her own abusive childhood. She sees their relationship as volatile and one which is fraught with risk for F-L on whatever basis he is placed within a home which the three of them share. She has no confidence in the ability of M or MGM to work constructively with professionals. Whilst she acknowledged without hesitation that M did very well whilst at the A unit, she views the proposal she advances for a further assessment as one which would introduce yet more delay for F-L whom she now observes to be a clingy and unsettled baby which she tells me is a far cry from the happy settled child who spent the first three months of his life in the full-time care of his mother. LB told me that recently and on more than one occasion M has missed one of her thrice weekly contact sessions. On balance, LB does not view the early positives as indicative of permanent change which can be achieved within the child’s time frame. She does not wish F-L to remain any longer than necessary in foster care and sees the safety and security of a placement order as the optimum outcome for him in terms of his lifelong needs. Whilst LB has no concerns about M’s ability to meet F-L’s basic care needs in a safe and controlled environment, she sees the risks of a home placement as too great given that she has no confidence in MGM as a protective factor or influence.

When she was cross-examined by Mr Worrall, LB accepted that she had not enjoyed a good professional relationship with his client. Whilst she acknowledged that her concerns in relation to future drug-taking were minimal given the 14 or 15 years of abstinence demonstrated by MGM, she told me that she continued to harbour concerns about her continuing use of alcohol as a tool for controlling stress. She pointed to relapses since MGM completed a detoxification programme in January 2015. Some nine or ten months later in October 2015 when LB attended at the family home on a pre-arranged appointment (which the family had forgotten), she observed MGM in an apparently intoxicated state, slurring her words and moving unusually slowly. Despite some ambiguity in the material from her general practitioner, LB’s evidence, which I accept, was that she had been told by the surgery that MGM had not taken up the advice she was given to engage with a referral to local alcohol services. Whilst the liver function tests which MGM had volunteered were a factor in reducing some of the Local Authority’s concerns about her use of alcohol, the risk of a relapse remained as did fundamental concerns about the volatility of the mother/daughter relationship. Given MGM’s inability properly to understand the risks in relation to M’s care of F-L, LB’s clear professional opinion was that F-L would be at risk within any home which they shared. As recently as May 2016, M had complained that her mother had “thrown her out” of her home.

LB does not support a placement with MGM on the basis that M was excluded from the home and she told me that MGM had in fact undermined much of the support which the Local Authority had tried to provide for M because of the wholly negative view which she held about social services. At the end of the day, she told me that, despite her deep love for her grandson and the commitment which MGM has shown to contact, the Local Authority cannot support any option other than a placement order as a “safe enough” option for F-L.

CY was the second social worker from whom I heard. She is the key worker for M and S (her half-sibling) and it was she who undertook the assessment of MGM in November 2015. I replicate below part of the section headed “Conclusions” in relation to MGM.

“[MGM] has minimised and struggled to accept the concerns of the Local Authority in relation to her own involvement with Social Services and the risks that [M] and [F] may present to their unborn baby. It is of concern that she is unable to see any risk to her grandchild despite attending the Child Protection Conference the previous day and having viewed the Child Protection Conference report which clearly evidences concerns and risks. During our visit, [MGM] either minimised or disputed each concern that was discussed. She feels strongly that there is no risk of harm from [M] or [F] if the baby remains in their care. Whilst [she] acknowledges that [they] will be young and inexperienced parents, our concern is that [MGM] fails to recognise the risk around [F] given his behaviours and mental health issues.

It is also of concern that professionals have reported their concerns around [MGM] drinking alcohol over the past few months. This has been reported from different agencies: school, social workers and her general practitioner. Despite this, [MGM] denies that she is misusing alcohol and disputes that she visited her general practitioner in August 2015 around issues of drinking vodka and her concerns around this. Although a full medical would be undertaken should [she] progress to a full fostering assessment, it is of significant concern that [she] received alcohol counselling from December 2014 – February 2015 and completed a detox in February 2015 but is continuing to drink. [MGM] states that she was told she was allowed to drink after a year. If this is correct then this would take her to the start of 2016. [She] speaks of drinking every 3 months and has been doing so since at least the summer period of 2015.

[M] alleged that she was being physically abused by [SM], her brother’s father, and [MGM]’s partner, when they all lived together. The family continued to live together until February 2014. When living together, [M] absconded regularly, she talked about being physically and verbally abused by [SM], she stated that she did not want to go home, and on one occasion said she was too scared to go home. Despite [MGM] witnessing [SM] punch [M] in the face and being violent towards her, she does not accept that he had ever physically hurt [M] prior to this. [MGM] ended the relationship following an assault [SM] committed against [M] in February 2014, but as highlighted does not accept or believe [M] when she made previous allegations about [SM]. Furthermore, whilst [MGM] witnessed [SM] punch [M] in the face, she allows her son, [S], to have regular contact with him every weekend.”

The assessment concludes with a clear recommendation that no steps should be taken either to allow MGM to be assessed as a “connected carer” for her grandchild or to place F-L with her under any type of legal order.

By the time I heard CY’s oral evidence, we were some seven months further down the road. Whilst she recognised that progress had been made on some fronts, she told me that, if anything, some of her concerns about MGM were heightened. She queried the extent to which MGM had gained a true insight into the effect upon her children of the domestic violence which they had witnessed in the home in which they were growing up. She recounted a conversation she had with MGM about the extremely difficult time M had growing up when she was constantly moving between her mother’s and her grandfather’s homes; when she was often reported missing; when she was associating with people who were a clear risk to her. Her impression was that MGM put the problems down to “hanging out with the wrong crowd”. CY was troubled by the fact that, even in circumstances where M was articulating her unhappiness at home because of SM’s violence – to the extent of drinking bleach – MGM had maintained her relationship with him until he was arrested for punching M in the face.

CY points to the fact that MGM is still maintaining that she does not understand why her son, S, is the subject of a ‘Child in Need’ plan. She was particularly concerned that MGM does not appear to appreciate the effect upon him of the many changes which have taken place recently in his home environment. His parents have separated; his half-sister has become pregnant, had a baby and has left home to move into the A unit before returning some twelve weeks later; he is aware of these proceedings and is expressing negative views about social workers at school. The school has offered further support in order to help him understand the shifting home dynamic but CY is concerned that MGM may not appreciate the full impact of these changes upon him. CY spoke of MGM’s negative attitude throughout her and LB’s involvement with the family; she told me that it was an attitude which had contaminated other family members and had undermined the work they had been trying to do with the family. Whilst she was quick to concede that MGM had always attended meetings and kept in touch by telephone, she was concerned that, despite many attempts to explain the nature and depths of the Local Authority’s concerns, MGM still lacked clear insight into the reasons for those concerns.

When she was cross-examined by Mr Worrall, CY acknowledged that MGM had demonstrated a clear commitment to the assessment process. She told me, too, about the very warm way in which she had bonded with her grandson at contact sessions. The fact that she had referred in her special guardianship report prepared in March 2016 to the absence of a significant relationship between them was no more than a natural consequence of the restriction on the amount of time they spent together.

On the whole, I found CY’s evidence to be a careful and balanced exposition of the course of her dealings with MGM. She accepted that MGM had been able to put behind her the earlier issues of drug-taking. She was able to give me some insight into the troubled adolescence which MGM had herself experienced after the death of her own mother at a very early age. She had become pregnant at 15 at a time when she was in a violent and abusive relationship. CY also told me that she recognised the steps which MGM had taken to address her later issues with alcohol, steps which were designed to demonstrate to child services that she was engaged and addressing the issue.

Nevertheless, CY felt unable to support any plan which involved a return of F-L to MGM’s home, with or without M. She told me that the passage of time since she prepared her report had not diluted the concerns she had expressed in that document. In particular, she did not believe that MGM was capable of providing the sort of care which the three children under her roof would require. Each has very different needs. The arrival of a very young baby needing 24 hour ‘round the clock’ care would, in CY’s view, significantly detract from the care and support she could offer to M and S, each of whom had significant issues which would need to be addressed in a therapeutic or supportive environment. In her report, CY had said this (internal page 21):

“There would be concern for [F-L]’s emotional and mental health if he were in the care of his mother or grandmother. [MGM] was unable to protect her daughter [M] from emotional harm, physical harm or sexual harm. Whilst [MGM] has been able to demonstrate that she has gained some insight into her past experiences and that she would make some different choices, in many areas [MGM] remains convinced that her actions were correct. There is considerable anxiety that [F-L] would not be fully protected from harm as [MGM] fails to recognise the risks posed to children in certain situations and also parental responsibility to protect children fully from harm. When efforts are made to discuss concerns with [MGM] she can be pleasant and polite, however she can also be tenacious and obstinate. When professionals attempt to share any concerns with [MGM] she can be dismissive and contemptuous which makes working with her in the interests of children difficult. [MGM] demonstrated a difficulty working with the local authority historically an currently and this factor has serious implications for [F-L] in the future if he were to be placed in the care of his grandmother, either as his main carer or in a supportive role. Whilst [she] loves her family it is felt that her opinions against the local authority and social workers are entrenched and she would therefore destabilise any placement within her home. When the concerns highlighted within the assessment are considered alongside the view of the psychologist that [MGM] is not a protective factor, sadly it is not deemed to be in [F-L]’s best interests to be cared for by [MGM] or to be cared for by his mother with [her] support.”

In common with her colleague, LB, CY was happy to acknowledge that in recent weeks, with the input she had received from the Rosalie Ryrie Foundation, MGM was moving in the right direction towards a better understanding of these issues, but she had significant concerns about whether sufficient momentum in that progress could be achieved within F-L’s timescales. She believes that MGM’s view of her own ability to co-parent F-L with M regardless of who takes the primary role as unreasonably optimistic in circumstances where the current difficulties between mother and daughter are long-standing and have been evident throughout M’s early adolescence. She saw boundless possibilities for the flash points of conflict between them to continue ‘behind closed doors’ once these proceedings were concluded. In CY’s professional opinion, the absence of any substantial basis for believing that this family would ‘self report’ any ongoing difficulties would put F-L at significant risk of future harm.

When CY was asked questions by Mrs Steele on behalf of the Guardian, she highlighted her concerns about a recent incident concerning S. In the light of his current difficulties, a family health worker, AG, had been identified as someone who might provide additional support for S whilst the family was under the microscope of these current court proceedings. Her specific role was to explore S’s own wishes and feelings in circumstances where it was acknowledged that he was feeling marginalised and somewhat forgotten. AG attended at the family home on 7 June 2016, a pre-arranged appointment. Some fifteen or twenty minutes into her work with S, and at a point where AG describes significant progress having been made, MGM interrupted the session and made it quite plain that she wished to move the focus of discussions onto F-L and plans for his future. This resulted in considerable distress to S who abruptly left the room and locked himself in the bathroom. When he was coaxed back into the living room, he refused to re-engage in any meaningful way with AG. In the context of his status as a ‘child in need’, CY points to this episode as demonstrating that, despite her best intentions, MGM is unable to prioritise the needs of the children in her care with any sufficient degree of insight. Whilst one small vignette, and only one part of a much greater evidential backdrop, she invites me to find that this very recent example illustrates graphically the extent of the Local Authority’s concerns were F-L to be introduced into the existing family dynamic on a full-time basis. His acknowledged need for a higher level of consistent care would not, in the local authority’s opinion, be met regardless of whether M or MGM assumed responsibility for that care on a day to day basis.

When M gave evidence, she presented as a troubled and anxious young woman. I can well understand the pressure which she must have felt as she answered questions from a number of experienced legal practitioners, the majority of whom – in her eyes – had an agenda to remove her baby son from her care. As she found her feet in the witness box, I felt her visibly growing in confidence. She answered questions directly and was clearly considering her responses. This was painful territory for her and there were tears at points in her evidence but she was able to maintain her equilibrium and was able to paint for me a picture of her much loved baby son which shone with the detail of her description. Of her devotion and commitment to him, I have no doubt whatsoever. Within the limits of her experience of life to date, she has cared for F-L in the best way she knows how. She herself accepts that she is continuing to learn. She was justly proud of her progress at the A unit, despite the fact that she had no wish to be there. She was accepting and appreciative of the skills she had been taught in terms of F-L’s day to day needs. In my judgment she was rightly proud of what she had achieved as a very young mother. The demands of a first baby can, and often do, challenge any new mother and even those who are perhaps better equipped by life to deal with the unrelenting commitment which new motherhood represents.

It was because of that progress that M regarded the proposed move to a mother and baby foster placement as a regressive step. She told me that she felt herself under scrutiny on a ‘round the clock’ basis. She felt inhibited and under constant surveillance in the home of someone who was a stranger to her. She described feeling helpless and overwhelmed by being unable to care for F-L on her own. She was very honest in her evidence that if a similar foster placement were offered to her as an adjunct to a further parenting assessment, she would not take up the placement because it would inevitably break down once again.

She told me that after she had left F-L alone in his foster placement, she felt desperately low and was unable to cope with contact sessions. In terms of outcome in these proceedings, what she wishes above all else is to take her baby home to live with her mother and brother. If that is not possible, she told me that she would wish to undergo a further assessment in a facility such as “Twenty Four-Seven”. Whilst she rejected the suggestion that this would simply be a repeat of the work which had been undertaken at the A unit, it was clear that she had no real concept of what might be involved in a further assessment. She had not had time to absorb the content of the literature which had been provided to the court by her solicitor, Miss Phillips. She stressed to me that all she really wanted was to do was to care independently for F-L, however that was achieved. She said that contact was going well and, over the last few weeks, she had grown in confidence and realised this was not the end. As she put it, “I can fight the adoption and try and get my own way”. (By that, I have no doubt that she meant “my own way of caring for F-L”.)

She was asked about her often troubled relationship with her mother. She readily acknowledged that they did fall out from time to time but said that their relationship had improved as these proceedings had moved towards a conclusion. She was nonetheless protective of her mother and initially resisted any implied or overt criticism of the manner in which she herself had been raised. She said, “To me, our relationship is how a mother / daughter relationship should be”. She described her mother as her “best friend”. She explained how their sessions at the Rosalie Ryrie Foundation had helped them to find a way to speak to one another like adults and to find a way through the arguments. The work on understanding her mother’s role in her own troubled adolescence was something upon which they had not yet touched, but it was work which was planned for the future.

When she was asked questions by Miss Reed on behalf of the Local Authority, M accepted candidly that her relationship with her mother had not always been easy and that there were times when they had clashed. She admitted that, as recently as 17 May this year – a matter of weeks before this final hearing – she had called LB in a highly distressed state after “walking out” of home. Thereafter she spent four nights with her grandfather before agreeing to return to her mother’s home.

In this context, it was noticeable that, throughout significant parts of the hearing, M and MGM sat behind their respective representatives locked in what appeared to be a fairly tight embrace. Whether or not this was designed strategically to emphasise to me the closeness of their current relationship or whether it was a genuine need to hold and support each other through stressful episodes of the evidence, I am prepared to accept that, at least for the time being, they have found a way through some of the past difficulties and are negotiating their way towards a calmer understanding of one another. It remains to be seen whether this is a new and stable dynamic but I am wholly persuaded that there is much work still to be done, despite recent progress. Both MGM and M accept that these are relatively new developments which have to be seen against several years of a volatile, and at times, febrile atmosphere within the family home.

Significantly, M accepted that she needs to undertake the therapy which has been recommended by Ms Davis. This will last for at least 18 months. She recognises that this cannot start until these proceedings are concluded and she is settled at home. She described to me how she had developed coping strategies to manage stress. She had a small orange ball which she squeezed from time to time whilst she was giving her evidence. She told me how she would try to think of happy memories in moments of stress. If she was feeling under significant pressure, she described how she would “take herself off for a five minute walk”. She is clearly close to her grandfather and explained that she felt able to talk to him about most things. I heard about a code or “trigger” word which she and her mother both used now if they felt an exchange was getting out of control. That word is “rainbow” and there is a tacit agreement between them that if either uses that word, discussion will stop so as to leave a space where each has time to process the situation and calm down.

Since M found out she was pregnant, she has left school and, until F-L’s birth, was being home-schooled. She has thus lost day to day contact with a number of her peer group and friends. I asked her about her friends and how she thought she would make time for them if she was looking after F-L at home. She told me that, if F-L is allowed to live with her at home, she would not see her friends but would devote herself entirely to caring for him. This was a sad answer and, in my judgment, an unrealistic response. M appears to have little insight into her own need to grow and develop with her contemporary peer group. With the right choices, I have no doubt that they would provide a healthy and grounding part of her ongoing social development. I understand why she might have wished to impress upon me her willingness to devote her time entirely to F-L and his needs, but she is a young woman who has very definite needs of her own. Those needs are not necessarily inimical to her ability to look after F-L as a full-time carer but I was sad to listen to M’s somewhat closed horizons in terms of her own needs.

On a very positive note, I sought to explore a little with M what she had envisaged for her own future before she became pregnant with F-L. Her eyes lit up instantly. She became engaged and animated as she told me of her long held ambition to become a farrier. She is a keen rider and has already explored which college courses she would need to attend in order to qualify. She spoke about a three year course which would require her to live on campus for part of the time. She had already made enquiries about the sort of child care which was available on site. MGM confirmed in her own evidence that she had told M that she would be there to assist with child care in order to enable her daughter to further her education.

In terms of a time frame, M has no clear plans at the present time. She accepts that there is likely to be a high level of intervention if F-L is permitted to live with her on a permanent basis. She believes she will be able to cope with this degree of pressure although she hopes that it would “settle down” in time to the point where it stopped altogether. She has not yet considered how long she would live with F-L at the home she currently shares with MGM and S. She told me she would wish to move to her own accommodation “when I feel ready to move out and be independent”.

M has difficulty in recognising any potential instability within her mother’s home at the present time. However, she told me that she accepted that it would be very difficult for her to engage fully in the therapy she needs “if it all went wrong”. She also has the insight to recognise that F-L would suffer significant emotional harm if he were to be exposed to ongoing friction between her and her mother. She admitted that both she and MGM had struggled in the past to cope with the intervention of social workers and she acknowledged that she has a poor view of the profession generally. However, despite the fact that – as she accepts – S is now carrying these negative reports to his teachers at school, she believes that she would be able to put these feelings to one side and co-operate with the fairly intense level of ongoing supervision which would be required if F-L is permitted to live with her at home.

If the court is not prepared to sanction that course, her second choice would be for F-L to be raised by her mother and to share a home with S. In this event, she envisages she would move to live with her grandfather. She would be “happy if my Mum was in charge because F-L would be with his family”. When asked about whether she was aware that she would have to take a back seat, she said, “It would be hard but I would just have to concentrate on what I want to do”. Her third choice would be for NE to care for her son. She told me during the course of her evidence in chief that she believed NE could provide the baby with a stable home and the loving family which he deserved.

I make no criticism of M in adopting this fall back position. I accept that the prospect of losing F-L to adoption is acutely painful for her. However, the fact that she was supporting a placement of her infant son with NE has to be seen against what she knows of this lady. I have already indicated that NE is no longer a contender as a potential carer and I have discharged her as a party to these proceedings. However, at a time when M was fully supportive of her candidacy for the role, she was aware of the headline points which emerged from a viability assessment which had been completed in relation to NE on 6 April 2016.

NE is the cousin of M’s father. She lives alone in her home and is currently unable to work because of long-standing health issues including chronic asthma and breathing difficulties. She is in receipt of ESA benefits and has no other source of income. She has two dogs and the assessment records both social workers’ observations that there was in the home a strong smell of dogs and possibly urine or faeces. (One of her dogs has since been re-homed.)

NE’s antecedent history records several criminal convictions for fraud and shoplifting. These relate to a period when she accepts she was misusing alcohol. She has experienced domestic violence in a partnership which ended some eight years ago. One such episode resulted in her receiving a broken leg, a stabbing injury from a fork and a fractured cheekbone. Her former partner was imprisoned for these assaults. Whilst she denied any inappropriate use of drugs or alcohol now, there had been problems in the past and social services contacted a local group who advised that NE had been referred to them some time ago for support.

Of her relationship and/or connection with M, NE told the social workers that they had virtually no contact until M was 15 years old. They met up a few times and exchanged messages on Facebook following F-L’s birth. That is a factual account to which M offers no challenge. As this final hearing began, NE had never had any contact with F-L despite the fact that she appears to have tried to visit M whilst they were staying in the A unit. M appears to have visited NE’s home on a couple of occasions but she accepts that she and M do not have any meaningful relationship. NE has no parenting experience although it appears that she cared on a part-time basis for a friend’s children whilst that friend was coping with drug addiction.

Whatever M’s motives for proposing NE as a potential carer for F-L, it demonstrates in my judgment a lack of insight into what this child will need in terms of structured stability within a nurturing and supportive environment. I can well understand that she is willing to countenance any alternative in the face of adoption outside the family but it is hard to see how this placement might have offered a very needy and demanding young baby the sort of start in life which M clearly wishes for him. Whilst it is much to NE’s credit that she was prepared to step into the front line for M, and much to M’s credit that, by the end of the proceedings, she had withdrawn her support of NE as an appropriate carer, it says much to me that M was prepared to recommend this as a placement option for F-L in circumstances where she knew so very little about NE.

Of her relationship with F, M accepted that he was now seeing someone else and that they were no longer involved in a sexual relationship. She told me that they maintained contact through text updates about F-L. She accepted that whilst they were living together F-L had been exposed to verbal and physical violence as a result of the altercations between them and that F posed a risk to their child. She was very candid in her acceptance that she had not told the truth about various points of contact between them in her written evidence. She acknowledged that she was indeed trying to hide the fact that she had spent a night with him in May 2016, albeit that there was no resumption of their physical relationship. Of her mother’s decision to allow them to live together under her roof when they were both 15 years old, M paused and swallowed. She said nothing for a few moments and then acknowledged softly that “my Mum might have failed to protect me from harm when she must have seen the warning signs”. At this point in her evidence, as I could see from the bench, F became distressed. MGM was sitting next to him and she wrapped her arms around him in a gesture of comfort and support. Whilst this might be seen on one view as no more than an instinctive reaction to his distress on her part, I confess that I found it somewhat puzzling. MGM gave me clear evidence about the risks which she perceived F posed in the past both to her daughter and to F-L. I have to ask myself whether she genuinely appreciates the nature and full extent of those risks and will, as she says, do whatever may be required to protect them both from further risk of harm.

With NE now out of the picture as a potential carer, M now invites me to focus on her alternative option of a further residential assessment if the court considers an immediate return home is ruled out as an option. She recognises the inevitable point which the Local Authority makes about what follows such assessment in terms of “the next steps”. She herself has adamantly ruled out a return to another mother and baby foster placement. She points to the stability which her mother would provide at the end of a 12 week placement and anticipates that she would move from a fresh assessment back to her home with MGM and S where she would carry on with her own therapy. Whilst she recognises the risk of a breakdown in that placement, she regards the risk as “really low”.

I heard briefly from F who went into the witness box to tell me why he had changed his mind about supporting the Local Authority’s plan for care and placement orders. He is clearly a young man with issues of his own and I can see from the detailed chronology many of the problems which have shaped the influences on his own early childhood. Nevertheless, he is an articulate young man who spoke from the witness box with considerably more confidence than M. I have some difficulty in accepting at face value his apparent volte face in the face of the weight of the evidence which is currently before the court. He told me that he and M were not getting on when, over the course of some weeks, he maintained support for the current care plan. Despite sitting in court throughout the hearing, he now seeks to minimise the concerns he had formerly expressed in relation to M’s ability to look after their son safely. Indeed, those concerns appear to have evaporated in his current support of both M and MGM. He describes M as “an amazing Mum” who is “brilliant with [F-L]”. His support is now offered to a placement in their home on the basis that “[F-L] deserves to be with his Mum”. I understand and accept that F may be trying to do his best to make matters right for his son but in my judgment his own life experiences to date do not equip him properly to weigh and evaluate the options for F-L. He has many challenges of his own on the horizon over the coming months if it is genuinely his intention to take on the care of the child whom his current girlfriend is expecting. He accepts that he is not the father of that child and there were aspects of his evidence which caused me to wonder how committed he was to that relationship in any event. These are not matters which concern me for the purposes of this judgment but I regret to say that I consider I can place little, if any, weight or reliance on F’s current support for M and MGM as carers without a much greater and in depth analysis of the other evidence which is available to me. I am satisfied that he was genuine when he told me that he just wants what is best for his son. I intend no disrespect to his rights as F-L’s father but, in my judgment, he lacks insight into many of these issues and, on his own case, will have little – if any – further involvement in his son’s life once these proceedings have run their course.

Having set out in some detail the scope of the written and oral evidence which was before the court, I turn now to consider that evidence in the context of the law as I must apply it.

I begin, first, with a consideration of F-L’s welfare needs. He is still a very young baby who is not yet 8 months old. The entirety of his life to date has been spent outside a permanent and settled home environment. He moved, first, with his mother from hospital into the A unit where he remained for the next twelve weeks of his life. His next move, to the mother and baby foster placement, was never intended to be a permanent move but a further stepping stone along the assessment process. After four days, his mother left that placement. Save for the purposes of contact, she has had no further active involvement in meeting his day to day needs. Those needs have been met by his foster mother who I am told has significant experience in this role. To that extent, I have no doubt that F-L’s basic day to day needs have been met, and met well. But that is not sufficient by any stretch in terms of his welfare “throughout his life”. It is essential if he is to develop and grow into a happy and confident child that he has a stable and permanent home where he knows he belongs and where he can develop those secure attachments which are so vital to his long term wellbeing. It is already late in the day in terms of his early need for secure attachment. I am satisfied that the absence of his mother from the placement after four days has indeed impacted on his wellbeing. I am not surprised to hear the evidence from the social workers that he became distressed and clingy after her departure.

What is essential now is finality and a clear plan for his future. He needs to be settled in his permanent home at the earliest opportunity. That long-term home must be one where he is protected by the adults around him, and, in particular, where the person or persons responsible for his primary care can also provide the emotional love, nurture and understanding of his needs which every child is entitled to expect. In this context, I bear well in mind that F-L has a clear interest in being brought up by at least one of his natural parents or, if that is not possible for whatever reason, within the wider circle of members of his birth family. The reasons for such an expectation are too trite to develop at any length in this judgment. His sense of self and identity will be informed principally by his knowledge of where he has come from and, absent other contra-indicators, he has a right and entitlement to grow up with that sense of “family” and “belonging”.

One of the tragedies of this case is that both M and F have, to an extent, experienced a childhood which has been blighted in one way or another. Damage done during the very early years is inevitably reflected in the legacy carried into later life. Thus it has been for this father and this mother who have each struggled in their different ways with the consequences of damaged childhoods.

What are the realistic options now for F-L ?

I have already discounted the option of NE as a full-time carer for this child for reasons which I do not need to rehearse again.

Given that his interest in a placement at home with his mother is self-evident, I turn first to consider the option of a further 12 week placement for assessment in a unit such as “Twenty Four-Seven”. That is not M’s preferred option but I propose to deal with it first because, in my judgment, it is the easiest option to remove from the list of possible outcomes.

If successful, it would have the distinct advantage of securing a home for F-L with his mother in the family home. It would ensure that he was able to grow up in the knowledge that he was being cared for by one of his birth parents. It would preserve his familial ties with his extended birth family. However, the caveat is an important one. I can only consider this option as a realistic and viable option if I have confidence in a successful outcome. Were the assessment to fail, we should be effectively back to square one but in circumstances where there had been further delay in settling F-L’s future. In a little over four months’ time, he will celebrate his first birthday. As things presently stand, there is no guarantee that M would have been offered a place on another assessment course by then. Even if a place is available, the process will be in its very early stages. As both social workers accept, there is no issue about M’s ability to meet F-L’s day to day needs within the supported confines of a residential assessment placement. She did it before at the A unit. The difficulties only started when the time came for her to move on to the ‘bridge’ of a supported mother and baby foster placement. She is adamant that she will not engage with that next step. With no options on the table at that stage, it seems to me that we would be simply treading water or marking time for all practical intents and purposes. F-L cannot wait; of that I am sure. If a return to the home of MGM is a safe, realistic and viable option, I can see no useful purpose in interposing a further residential assessment which will do no more than introduce more delay and uncertainty when what is needed here is a final outcome for this child.

Thus, I reject the option of further assessment outside MGM’s home and I turn now to consider M’s and MGM’s first option which is a return home to their care, or to the care of one of them.

As part of the wide-ranging holistic survey which I am required to undertake in discharging my statutory obligations, I have to consider very carefully the situation into which F-L would arrive were he to leave his foster placement and move to the family home in Wakefield.

MGM has made very positive strides forward in addressing the many issues she has faced over recent years. She has confronted her demons in relation to her former use of heroin and I am satisfied that she has been abstinent from any drug-taking for a number of years. I regard the risk of a relapse on that front as low and manageable. However, her road to full sobriety is still in its early stages as far as alcohol is concerned. Like many people, she has in the past turned to alcohol in order to manage stress or moments of crisis in her life. She told me that she was able to stop using heroin almost as soon as she had made the decision to do so. She described it as equivalent to a “light switch being turned on in her head”. She asks me to look at her track record in this respect and trust her to deploy similar coping strategies and willpower in relation to her decision not to drink and/or resort to alcohol in moments of extreme stress.

There is evidence of recent relapse in the papers. The school has expressed concerns. LB and her colleague expressed similar concerns when they attended at the family home in October 2015. I am unable to accept the explanations which I was given by MGM that she had simply forgotten to brush her teeth after a drink the previous night or that the medication she takes to help her sleep (Zopiclone) makes her speech slightly slurred or “fuzzy” during the early parts of the day. The fact that she appears to have reported that her abstinence, or dry period, need only last for a year is of concern. MGM has not yet achieved a full year’s sobriety and, whilst I accept that progress may well be linear with slips along the way, I have to bear in mind this possible risk factor in the context of authorising the return of a very young child to her full-time care, or, at least, to a home where she is a full-time presence. That, in my judgment, is a more substantial risk than the risk of a relapse into the world of drugs and drug-taking.

In the context of seeking to satisfy the court of her sobriety, MGM has undertaken a number of liver function tests. The results of these most recent tests were made available to the court on the third day of the hearing. They cover the period from 26 November 2015 to 20 April 2016. She appears to have been tested at six-weekly intervals. Her Serum gamma GT levels range from 130 (November 2015) to 68 (February 2016). The most recent test (20 April 2016) shows slightly raised levels at 73. She was unable to explain to me the reason for that last result. Whilst I accept that this is some positive evidence of progress and abstinence, the road to full recovery and total abstinence is likely to be long and she will need help and support in the coming weeks and months to continue the good work she has undertaken to date.

Thus, I must ask myself the question: can that risk of relapse be successfully managed ? In this context I have to bear in mind that the demands on MGM’s time and energies will be very significant. She has in the past struggled to cope with the challenges of M’s behaviour. In my view, those challenges will remain regardless of whether F-L returns to the family home. As Ms Davis has confirmed, M is little more than a child herself. She has had to grow up very quickly in the circumstances of F-L’s birth. She has had to cope with loss. She has been separated from F, and I am satisfied that the end of their relationship was not a free choice by M but rather the result of an ultimatum imposed by the Local Authority. She has had to cope with the separation from her son, whom I accept she loves dearly. Ms Davis’s professional opinion is that what is required to address M’s present difficulties is intensive therapeutic input over a sustained period of one and half years. Without that input, the issues from her childhood and their impact upon her ability to function as an independent person and a parent, as well as upon her mental health and self-harming behaviour, will remain unaddressed. In the absence of that therapy, Ms Davis’s professional view is that M’s mental health is likely to deteriorate. No one who has listened to the evidence in this case will wish that outcome for this young woman who has already been through so much in her short life to date. With the right support, she has the potential to overcome these issues and develop into a happy, healthy and fulfilled adult. Of that I am confident; but it is going to take time, and a great deal of professional input. I want her to know that she has my admiration and respect for the steps she has taken to date.

One of the reasons why it is often necessary to look to evidence of past events is their potential to provide indicators as to future risk. In this case, MGM’s care of her children has exposed them to risk over a 16 year period. Whilst some of those risks may have reduced, others remain live concerns in this case. I am concerned by the fact that MGM thought it appropriate to allow M and F to live together in her home when they were only 15 years old. I am concerned that she took no steps to remove him from the household when she was alerted to the risks he posed to M. That was a repetition of behaviour she demonstrated some years before when she failed to protect M from SM’s violent behaviour despite being told in clear terms that her daughter was frightened of her partner. I was concerned when I observed her manner towards F as we sat in court. It suggested to me that she still lacks the insight to understand the damage he has caused to her daughter. I suspect that M’s road to recovery will not be straightforward. The next two years or more will be a challenging period both for her and for MGM. She will need all the love and support which her mother can provide. As for MGM herself, she will not only be caring for M; there is also S to consider. He has particular needs of his own which is why he is currently the subject of a Child in Need plan. Both children will require a great deal of nurture and support. I have no doubt at all that MGM loves both her children and will do her very best to provide for those needs. I hope that, for these purposes, she will receive as much assistance and practical support as the Local Authority can give and I would encourage her to take up that help and engage with the professionals who will be on hand to give it. It seems to me inevitable that there will be periods of volatile confrontation as M begins to test the boundaries which MGM will have to set for her. They are learning together how to cope with these moments of stress but it is still very early days. In my judgment, there is a substantial risk that each may revert to alcohol or self-harming behaviours to cope with that stress. I cannot ignore the fact that as recently as May this year, just weeks before this final hearing, there was a further incident between M and MGM which resulted in M leaving home for four days in a highly distressed state. Her point of refuge then, as so often in the past, was her grandfather. It is not without significance, in my judgment, that this episode occurred after MGM had completed a crisis intervention course. Whatever strategies she had learnt on that course were obviously not deployed on that occasion, or not deployed to good effect.

I am deeply troubled by the impact on this fragile household of the full-time presence of a very young baby who is bound to present with significant needs of his own. In the early days of any new placement away from his foster mother, he will need a great deal of one to one nurture, care and attention as he begins to form new attachments. He will undoubtedly need a period of calm stability as he begins to settle into his future home. Above all, this must be a permanent placement. His next move must be his final move. Given all that I know about this family and the difficulties with which they have struggled and will continue to struggle for the foreseeable future, I cannot be sure that a placement with either M or MGM would be a final move for F-L. Whilst I have no doubt that either or both of M and MGM would have the basic care skills to meet his needs, it is a situation fraught with risk. That risk has to be seen against the background of their ability to make and sustain significant changes in their lives. The Guardian does not consider that a return home is a safe option for F-L at this stage of his life and, weighing all these matters in the balance, I agree with her. I do not consider that any assistance or support which the Local Authority could offer is likely to reduce that risk to an acceptable or manageable level. There is an abundance of evidence in this case which demonstrates the extent of the mistrust between the family and the social workers with whom they have become involved. Whilst both MGM and M assured me that they were prepared to engage with the Local Authority in future, the deep-seated nature of their feelings and their inability to take on board past concerns expressed by the social workers does not fill me with confidence. Further, I suspect that their experience of these proceedings and their fear that F-L might once again be removed from their home may well result in them failing to report matters which might be of concern.

Could the situation be made ‘safe enough’, and the risk to F-L managed, if M were to move out of the family home in Wakefield and move to her grandfather’s home ? In my judgment, this would be the worst option for M herself and it would be wholly destructive of the existing family dynamic. Despite what she told me, I do not believe she would cope knowing that her mother had primary care of her son. I do not believe that, together, they could manage the difficult territory of the boundaries which would need to be put in place in terms of M’s contact with F-L or her future involvement in his care. It would deprive her of the opportunity to undergo much-needed therapy from the base of a stable and settled home life. S would be confused and distressed about the enforced absence of a much loved sister from the family home. MGM herself might find the situation too stressful to manage. M has already advertised the fact that she might not be able to see her mother at all were she caring for F-L in a home which M could not share. Having considered matters carefully, I am driven to the sad, but inevitable, conclusion that this scenario would represent a potent cocktail of risk factors all of which point towards the probability of highly dysfunctional family relationships. This situation, should it develop, is the complete antithesis of what F-L needs right now. MGM would find it impossible to prioritise his needs and I am not confident that she would have the insight to take whatever protective measures were necessary if these circumstances were to materialise.

Nothing which I have said in these preceding paragraphs detracts from my fundamental finding that F-L is a much loved child. I am absolutely persuaded that each of M, MGM and S loves this little boy. I am also satisfied that M and MGM would give of their very best in order to make a success of a family placement at home. Neither could have done more in their presentation from the witness box to persuade me that he should come home. However, their journey is just starting and F-L’s needs are such that he does not have the time to wait. I am required to take into account his particular needs, his age, any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering in the future and the ability of M and/or MGM to provide him with a secure environment in which he can develop (Footnote: ⁵). I am also required to have well in mind the likely effect upon F-L (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of his birth family, the existing relationship which he has with his family, the likelihood of that relationship continuing and the value to him of that relationship in that event (Footnote: ⁶). He is too young to articulate his own wishes and feelings but his future welfare is my paramount consideration. I must balance these factors in the context of looking at what he needs now if he is to develop and grow into a happy and contented child whose upbringing in his early years will provide the platform he needs to become a mature adult with the ability to exploit all the potential he will then have to lead a complete and fulfilled life. That is what we all want for him. I bear well in mind that a placement order at this stage of his life will effectively bring to an end his connection with his birth family. That is a significant step which demands the most exquisitely careful judicial consideration. I have to take into account the likely effect upon him of any change in his circumstances and the range of powers available to the court in these proceedings (Footnote: ⁷). There is bound to be a period of difficult adjustment for F-L when he leaves his current foster placement whether he moves to an adoptive placement or returns to the family home. However, my obligation is to ensure that the steps which are taken now are those which will give him the very best chance of a happy, stable and fulfilled life both as a child and, later, as an adult. For all the reasons which I have set out above, I have reached the clear conclusion that there is no course other than placement with a view to adoption which is both possible and in F-L’s interests. In my judgment, it is the only viable option and it is what his welfare requires.

In the circumstances, I make the orders which the Local Authority seeks and I dispense with the parents’ consent on the basis that F-L’s welfare requires me to take that step. I do so because, whilst a drastic step, it is one which is required in the circumstances of this case. I am not satisfied that anything less than placement and adoption will do in this case because all else has failed and I am satisfied that there is no practical way in which the authorities can provide the requisite support and assistance which might provide me with a viable alternative. I am unable to accept MGM’s case that the risks of an alternative course are manageable. Conscious of the very significant step which I am taking in F-L’s best interests, I can see no alternative but adoption which I recognise will require his removal from his family on a permanent basis. Whilst I have at the forefront of my mind the fact that the test of necessity was, and is, an extremely demanding and stringent test for the Local Authority to surmount, they have persuaded me from the body of evidence which has been placed before the court that it is indeed necessary for me to make these orders in respect of the child in their care.

I approve the Guardian’s proposals for a gradual reduction in contact in accordance with the amended care plan. I shall deal with any other directions which may be required on the basis, in the first instance, of written submissions. In the event that an agreed order can be drawn without further intervention from me, I would ask the parties’ legal representatives to liaise with my clerk, Mr Denman.

I recognise that this is a lengthy judgment. I have wanted to ensure that these parents and MGM should know that I have considered all the evidence which was put before me before reaching my final conclusions. My decision will be a difficult one for them to accept because I accept that each loves F-L and will suffer as a result of his loss. However, I would encourage them to continue to engage with whatever assistance and support is made available to them in terms of the future. I hope that, with support, some of the concerns for both M and F can be ameliorated and the emotional toll of this litigation can be put behind them.