LB v LB

One of the findings made by the Judge was that the child had suffered significant emotional harm as a result of the actions of the mother and was likely to suffer further significant emotional harm as a result of the actions of the mother. This particular finding was contrary to the local authority’s conclusion that the threshold for public law intervention was not met. Having made that finding, prior to finally determining the private law applications and in particular the contact application, the parties and the court should have reflected upon that finding and what further role the Local Authority might have been required to play in fulfilment of their statutory obligations to the child.

The evidence of the clinical psychologist was that efforts to reinstate contact should be pursued. The effect of her evidence was that the child would suffer significant harm if his relationship with his father was lost. She considered that the harm he would suffer in his mother’s care could be ameliorated by undertaking therapeutic work to enable the mother better to meet the child’s emotional needs. She considered that if the mother did not make progress in her capacity to meet the child’s emotional needs the harm, he may suffer in her care could outweigh the harm that would be caused by removing him from her care. The decision to terminate contact and to end the proceedings without further investigation carried with it the inevitable consequence that the child would remain in the care of his mother and be exposed to the risk that Dr Duprey identified. The combined benefits of facilitating the re-establishment of contact and addressing the mother’s capacity ought to have led to the conclusion that further enquiries were required to address those issues. The court placed insufficient weight on the medium to long term harm that the child might suffer as compared to the short-term harm that he would suffer by the continuation of the proceedings or further work on contact.

Although no party had put before the court evidence of the therapeutic resources that could be deployed to address the risks identified by the psychologist it is clear that there was a gap in the enquiries made as a result of the parties not having been in a position to pursue to a conclusion the enquiries the psychologist recommended. In those circumstances the court should not have proceeded to a final determination that there should be no contact as there were still potential steps that could be taken to promote contact. The end of the road had not been reached.

course would require one to contemplate long-term, possibly life-long damage to the child and to his parents and this is simply unthinkable. Happily, the parties have now reached the point where they have begun to reflect on the past with a view to the future. The trust that both the mother and father have in the process and the individuals, in particular Ms Rickman and Dr Baker, has been key to them reaching that point. Whilst I am not complacent it does seem to me that the future indeed is now looking as rosy as it has for years and I very much hope that this family can work together to re-shape their future and in particular to prepare the child for his life as a young man and adult.

caring for this child and this family. I see it very much as a positive contribution by society; if society cannot offer support to a family which needs it, can it truly define itself as a society? I do not think that the process of repairing the structure of this family will be short-term. This is not a quick paint job where the scaffolding can rapidly come down. This is a much more careful project of restoration more akin to restoring Notre Dame; it requires skill, determination and will take place over the medium to long term. Perhaps more aptly from this family’s point of view it is more like restoring a steam locomotive which has languished rusting and neglected in some remote siding. If it is to be restored to its former glory it will take considerable effort and time.

respect of whether the proceedings should conclude with a Care or a Supervision Order.

A Supervision Order was both the least interventionist option but also the most likely to progress the therapeutic work with the parents and carried with it the least risk to that work. The Local Authority’s identification of a Supervision Order as the appropriate legal umbrella for the implementation of the care plan was based not on resource linked issues or on a mindset that viewed care orders as inappropriate with a child placed at home, but rather on its merits. It mattered not whether in the hierarchy it was viewed as a step down from an interim care order, what was key was the care plan and how best to implement it.

The evidence of Dr Baker and Ms Rickman identifies the vital component in the child’s future welfare as the work with the parents. That work is the key to making progress. Dr Baker and Ms Rickman identify a Care Order as carrying with it risks to the therapeutic process.

One of the key aims of the therapy is to enable the parents to develop a relationship which enables them to exercise Parental Responsibility. The experts recommended that a neutral third party was needed to promote that work but should be able to withdraw when appropriate. A Supervision Order was consistent with this; a Care Order was not. Dr Baker said the work would be promoted by a benign pressure in the form of the parent’s realisation of the need to effect change rather than a more overt pressure in the form of the existence of a Care Order.

A blockage to the therapeutic process would be an order which increased the child’s anxiety. A Care Order carried with it that risk as the child may catastrophise the existence of a Care Order into something to fear.

Dr Baker and Ms Rickman identified the removal of Parental Responsibility or the exercise of it by another as being potentially detrimental to the therapeutic process. If the central aim is to encourage the parents to co-operate and to exercise Parental Responsibility together the sharing of Parental Responsibility with the Local Authority is counterproductive. In particular it risks disempowering the parents who might be tempted to abdicate responsibility to the Local authority were they to encounter obstacles or that they would seek to get the Local Authority on their side

Further, the Local Authority are not able to identify any area in which there is likely to be a need for them to exercise Parental Responsibility in the future; schooling in particular is now not an issue due to the acceptance by the mother of a Prohibited Steps Order in relation to changes of school. Nor is removal an issue or foreign travel something which requires the Local Authority to exercise parental responsibility. With the parents seeking to work together there is no role for the local authority in exercising Parental Responsibility

The Care Plan should not be amended to refer to a Plan B, in particular a Plan B which involves the removal of the child. All are agreed that this would be very damaging for the child and that in many ways his mother’s care is good. It needs supplementing not replacing. Nor should a specific timetable be imposed as Dr Baker and Ms Rickman are clear that this could be counterproductive. Whilst goals or objectives and general timeframes are identified by them in their latest document and these may be appropriate, imposing deadlines is likely to build up pressure which will delay progress.

The Local Authority will deliver the services under the Care Plan and a care order is not required in order to achieve that. The Local Authority will not walk away at the expiry of a supervision order. The social worker and manager see the need for support in the short and medium term and are committed to them

A Care Order is essentially a safeguarding tool which is not required. Even if it is made the local authority must keep it under review as must the IRO and ensure that the child is in care no longer than necessary. If the parents achieve the goals, a Care Order will not be necessary and would fall to be discharged.

The leaving care provisions should not be necessary if the parents achieve their goals. The existence of a child in need plan or a child protection plan might also provide the benign pressure that Dr Baker spoke of. That would fall in the middle ground between a supervision order and a care order which is the hybrid that the court might consider as necessary.

The nature and magnitude of the communication requirements in the case. The linguistic and cultural impacts were important in understanding how we arrived at the present position and in recognising what the consequences of failure in communication would be.

The circumstances of this case illustrate the nature of the efforts and resources required to ensure that a deaf litigant can fairly participate. It is resource intensive and even in a well-structured and managed hearing the process in court places considerable pressure on the litigant and interpreters.

The mother accepts that the threshold must be established and the aspects which relate to the absence of any functional contact, the failure in communication, the development of the child’s anxiety, his problems with school attendance all properly feature in a summary threshold which identifies harm and risk of harm arising from the parenting that the child has experienced.

The process that has been undertaken since 2018 has given the court and others far greater insight into the complexity of this case. That has grown as the case has progressed. It allows a far more nuanced understanding of how we reached this position and how the court should now evaluate where the child’s interests lie. Ms Robinson and Mr Beckwith have not absorbed that information and understanding in the way that they might have.

The Stage that the proceedings have reached and the conclusion which is essentially agreed upon by all the parties looks cautiously positive. Both the parents are clearly committed to what is a well-constructed plan created and led by the experts. That all are agreed that the child should remain living with his mother, and that he should be given help with his anxiety and in achieving independence in association with an expectation that he will rebuild his relationship with the father and the paternal family is a significant agreement. The judgement of the court can play an important role in nurturing the plan. At a time of resource pressure, the devotion of considerable resource commitment from the local authority is significant.

The focus of this hearing which has been cooperative and forward-looking is a positive and it has helped to move the case forward. The court’s adoption of the unusual step of limiting the parent’s evidence in accordance with FPR 22.1 has to be recognised as a further contribution to the development of a cooperative environment for the parents.

The mother recognises the dichotomy which exists between what a care order and what a supervision order (including a child protection plan) represents. She sees the benefits in both but emphasises that the key is that the order should support the therapeutic work. She acknowledges that a care order carries with it potentially significant future resource for the family. However, there is also the issue of the potential for disempowering the parents as against empowering them which is central. With the right management of a supervision order that should ensure the plan works. Ineffective management of a Care Order would be worse. On balance Dr Baker and Ms Rickman were inclined against a Care Order.

If the court makes a Care Order, the court should establish clear messaging around it which is supportive of it being properly received by the parents and by the child so that it does not adversely impact on the therapeutic plan. The court should rule out the possibility of removal and any timescales should be no more rigid than those which the experts advise.

In respect of schooling Dr Baker and Ms Rickman will assist the parents and the local authority in addressing which option is best for the child in the light of Dr Baker’s updated assessment. If a supervision order is chosen this issue can be dealt with by a Prohibited Steps Order.

In respect of the child’s passport and foreign travel the court should not be concerned about the risk of abduction. The mother is in agreement with giving details and notice of any holidays. If a supervision order is chosen, the mother should have a Lives with Order.

The father is grateful to all involved in the process for the stage that has now been reached. Although he is sad that contact is not restarted, he hopes the current plan will result in its re-establishment alongside reducing the child’s anxiety and assisting his development into adult hood.

However, the history of the case suggests that whilst one can be optimistic one should not be complacent. The re-emergence of obstructive behaviour, or a failure on the mother’s part to work positively with the professionals would lead to significant concerns. It is clear that if the process were to be derailed the consequences for the child would be dire. Dr Baker in particular emphasised how precarious his position was at the moment and how urgent was the need for remedial action.

The father supports the formulation of the threshold as contained within the threshold document but is content with a summary formulation which will support the therapeutic process.

In support of his argument that a Care Order is the appropriate legal umbrella, the following points are significant;

The Care Plan should incorporate parenting work explicitly and should be commenced as soon as possible. This was recommended by the Guardian a year ago.

There should be some timescales identified in the plan in relation to indirect or direct contact. There is nothing which commits to that at present. The father invites the court to conclude that at about month four or five within the therapeutic process, mother and father should be addressing this issue. The Guardian identifies 10 important specific outcomes in her report which the local authority can gauge progress by. The father invites the court to endorse these.

If the court opts for a supervision order the father does not object to a Lives with Order but seeks a Child Arrangements Order for the child to spend time with him, a Prohibited Steps Order in relation to schooling and holidays and seeks a mechanism by which the child’s passport is retained.

The child’s identity as a CODA and as a child with autism are significant and bring a complexity to the situation which is significant. The unanimous view is that there is a critical need for change now. Dr Baker emphasised the extent to which the child’s anxiety is having a detrimental impact on his life saying that he would not want to be where the child is now. If it isn’t correctly addressed now it will have long-term consequences and these reach far beyond contact. This is not a situation which can be viewed in the short-term but rather is one where the medium and long-term consequences must be factored in.

Although there is optimism now and the Guardian identifies the child’s attendance at school with a friend as being a positive step forward, this has to be tempered with realism given the history.

The years of litigation, the father being unable to effectively exercise parental responsibility over many years, the previous failed local authority intervention, the fact that Prohibited Steps Orders were required, the failed child contact intervention and the many layers of communication difficulties all illustrate how complex the past issues have been and that this work is in its infancy. Now is the time for robust scaffolding to convert the optimism into reality

A Care Order should not be viewed in a negative light. The local authority has used the parental responsibility sensitively over the last year rather than punitively. It can be effective and responsive, but it does impose an obligation to proactively manage the child’s needs. The benefits it brings in a wider sense including that of the Independent Reviewing Officer are very valuable.

A Care Order should not be counter-productive given the mother’s evidence to the court which was in effect a game changer. She is open-minded about it rather than resistance. As Dr Baker emphasised both for the parents and for the child it is about positive messaging. A narrative about removal or extremes is not helpful; it is the wrong conversation. The court cannot predict what the plan B will be.

The duration of a Care Order is a benefit rather than a detriment. The expiry of a supervision order in 12 months’ time would be unfortunate in opening the door to further court action.

The child’s holistic needs are the key to unlocking the solution. As he grows and changes so the therapeutic work will change. The focus now will inevitably change as we look into the medium and long term. The extra support a care order brings will be invaluable.

Some sort of timescales are likely to be needed in order to ensure forward momentum. One does not want to reach the end of the therapeutic process and then to rush to complete aspects of work. Setting goals is not inconsistent with what the experts recommend.

8 rights of the mother and the father, the court must be satisfied it is necessary and proportionate and must take the least interventionist approach.

In particular Dr Baker and Ms Rickman’s were very closely entwined whilst that of Ms Robinson whilst it interlinked with the work of Dr Baker and Ms Rickman, was more self-contained. The written reports disclosed some divergence of approach and thinking, the experts meeting suggested a difference and the oral evidence when given, emphasised the divergences in approach. However, as I shall return to, they were all of considerable value in their own way.

When, how and by whom the child should be informed of the findings that hisfather has not harmed him?

In light of the work carried out to date, and planned prior to the final hearing,what tangible steps can be taken to help the child to have a relationship withhis father? Will the mother promote this positive relationship and how can shebe supported to do so?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the independent social worker'sproposals that there be respite care, (a) how would this work practically; and(b) could it used to support contact with the father?

"Please discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the child's current carearrangements with his mother and consider the long-term impact on the child.How can any harmful aspects be alleviated or addressed?

"What role can father and his family play in alleviating the ongoing risk ofemotional harm, as identified by the independent social worker, to the child?

"What are the advantages and disadvantages of the independent social worker'sproposal that removal is considered in six to nine months' time?

"What are the advantages and disadvantages of continuing or furtherproceedings?"

"If the child were to move away from his mother's care, please consider (a)what placement would be required; (b) what recommendation would you makein respect of contact, frequency and supervision; and (c) what support wouldneed to be available to the child, his mother and his father?"

Ms Robinson: I think it's really important that any placement has a really good understanding of the child's needs as an autistic child. I think realistically to get a placement where you've got foster carers who are very experienced in autism and also can use sign language is virtually impossible, I think you're looking at a needle in a haystack, certainly one that's local is going to be extremely difficult. So, for me the priority would be about understanding the child as an autistic child.

Mother might require referral to adult social care either for signposting or for day to day support.

Mr Beckwith: the child would need to be reassured that his mother is okay and that could be done virtually on a daily basis by use of Skype video call. I would recommend that the child would need a little period of time in placement to settle and maybe not see his mother for the first ten days to two weeks to enable him to settle but in that time, there should be video calls. The most important thing is that, as I made the point earlier, that mother gives the child permission to be away from her care and not to undermine any placement if it came to that. Hopefully, frequency of contact if the child was permanently removed could develop to a weekly basis. I would say that the same should apply to the father.

Contact with M and F would need to be supervised and with an interpreter with M. the child should remain in his school and have support from his SW/befriender. F wouldn’t need any specific support other than what he needs in understanding the child’s autism.

I do believe that the local authority should start either recruiting specifically for the child or a foster carer with an interest and a specialism and knowledge of autism so that if things haven't improved in six to nine months' time, they have a placement available for him. I think that's crucial because we can't just keep delay and delay and delay. plans need to be put in place as a matter of urgency if things don't work out.

Ms Rickman: We need to have the child’s autism assessment before we even try to think of the question. I think some of the risks are so high I really think that we need to get some more information and understanding of the child’s anxiety, is there a carer in the immediate locality who could (1) facilitate contact and allow the child to stay at the same school otherwise it's going to mean huge amounts of travelling or him leaving this school anyway, if he's settled there. There's just so many consequences that I think just trying to... so if he reaches the threshold for a care order, then the requirement to exhaust all possibilities of doing work clearly haven't been done yet so I think that's where we should just stay focused.

I just think we need to stay with the plan rather than trying to think about that next step although I certainly appreciate the intention is to say enough is enough, this is not okay. this child is suffering, and we need to do something differently. I really do appreciate that and I agree with it and I agree to work with, it’s important to work towards contact with father and the paternal family and really think the mother needs a lot of support to help her with a transition plan to help the child get to independence and I guess that's all built into the plan which I hope that people can accept or add to, develop, it's not that it's all right or comprehensive or that other bits can't change in it, not least from the parents' input. Anyway, that's my thoughts on that question.

Dr Baker: I'm finding it really difficult to think through the answers to some of these questions because we don't really know enough about the child at the moment. I think that's why we are here actually……I think to think about what placement would be required to help the child is really difficult, almost impossible to do, because we don't know the child well enough at the moment. And I think we might do in six- or ninemonths’ time when things haven't progressed although, as we said before, we think they will progress, so again I'm finding that really difficult. Recommendations in terms of frequency and supervision, I really don't know. I think that assessment would have to be made at the time when the placement is seriously being considered, and like Chrissie said, that would only happen once all other avenues have been exhausted so I can't really answer that now either.

Please could you confirm whether or not you would still be willing to provide thetherapeutic work if timeframes with proposed outcomes were required or whether yousee it as so counter-productive that you would not be willing to work under suchconditions?

Whilst they do not object to timeframes and objectives, they can be counterproductive, particularly specific timeframes. Objectives can be identified for the therapy but predicting how progress is made towards them is difficult to estimate.

They would feed back to the monthly team around the family meetings and would explain or describe what progress was being made and/or the blocks to progress.

They would estimate that in six months the parents would be in agreement about the progress they had made. Objectives of the progress would be the parents continuing to develop a shared understanding about each other and how they can cope parent the child and secondly the child’s anxiety becoming less of an interference with his and his parents lives.

Their first goal is the plan to help address the child’s anxiety and understand his autism which would be achieved by

The second goal is to achieve better communication between the parents.

The third goal is restorative practice with the parents to look at the impact of past misunderstanding on the child’s anxiety and working towards good coparenting in the future.

The fourth goal is the child’s transition plan;

The fifth goal is education where the school professionals and parents think about which educational setting would best meet his needs. This to be done by January 2021.

The six goal would be in relation to social care and the child keeping his current social worker.

The seventh goal would be the withdrawal of Dr Baker and Ms Rickman.

They identify a number of features which would indicate progress was being made either by the parents or by the child.

Progress between the parents would be made in the couple’s sessions. Progress in terms of the child’s anxiety is not currently subject to a well-defined plan.

They identify that both parent’s participation in sessions, their focus on the child and his needs and their desire to better understand his autism are hopeful prognosticators.

They identify unhelpful matters as including anything that increases the child’s anxiety, parents entered objectives, ongoing parental conflict, and taking away parental responsibility and decision-making from the parents.

Given that the child's responses to anxiety are becoming maladaptive and restricting his development, I recommend that both parents and the child are offered both support and an intervention to help the child manage his anxiety. Mother has already been asking for support to do this.

In the context of the court case, enabling the child to manage his anxiety more effectively will enable him to eventually receive direct communication and meet with his father.

Any support and intervention will need to be holistic and take into account the child's ASC and his CODA identity, together with support for his mother as a Deaf woman who uses BSL, and his father who has not spent time with the child for three years. It may not be possible to provide an intervention to the child directly, given his history of refusing to engage with professionals in relation to the court case. However, it may be possible, and indeed more effective, if Mother is supported to provide the intervention to the child.

The intervention and support are more likely to be successful if based on a recent and holistic assessment that would include the following:

I have agreed to provide the assessment outlined in point 1 and 2 above. This will provide clear recommendations for a proposed intervention (3).

I can provide such an intervention, either directly with the child and his parents, or through his parents. The family and school may also want to consider whether they can refer the child to a local CAMHS clinical psychologist for the intervention and support, to whom I can offer consultation for the aspects of CODA, Deafness and sign language. However, the waiting list may be lengthy, and the child may not agree to see another health or social care professional given his recent rejection of several visits of professionals to his home during the court case.

The experiences of Deaf people ("Deaf" refers to the psychological, social and cultural aspects of experiencing life as a deaf person) vary, but many share similar experiences that signify the importance of communication, access to information, poor literacy, inclusion-rejection, a visual culture and a sense of interdependence rather than independence. Consequently, the expectations and behaviour of Deaf and hearing people are often different. Mother communicates using BSL but with reduced vision she is prone to miss aspects of signing. The learning opportunities for Deaf people throughout childhood both formally but informally in what they absorb from their environment (parents and others) often result in a reduced range of knowledge and vocabulary and so limit their communication skills.

The provision of a BSL interpreter does not solve all difficulties in communication and understanding. Some of the previous engagements with the mother whether by professionals or the court may not be wholly reliable because there does not appear to have been a full appreciation of the limitations on her ability to communicate. Conclusions that she has fixed thinking, that she does not understand the child’s needs and that they have an enmeshed relationship may be impacted by communication issues.

The mother is not currently experiencing clinical levels of depression or anxiety. Her levels are elevated. He considered she was a woman with a somewhat resilient character who is resourceful and outgoing, who has a support network and there is some evidence that she is able to adapt, reflect on herself and to learn through a variety of mediums accessible to a deaf person. She has no intellectual disability, significant mental illness or thought disorder.

The child is fluent in BSL an communicated in both BSL and English. BSL is his first language. He demonstrated traits which were consistent with autism. On the day trip his behaviour and the way he managed the trip are typical of someone with ASC. However, he did cope with the trip and this provides some evidence of him being able to manage uncertainty within a specific context. He was visibly anxious when asked about his thoughts and feelings relating to his father. He said he was being bullied every day at school and that he didn’t really want to see his father. He said he was not interested in his father’s letters. He said he wanted to go to a specialist autism school and to move away from Horsham linking it to his father’s presence in nearby Crawley. He became clearly anxious showing physical signs of arousal which led Dr Baker to distract him and calm him down by changing the subject.

The child’s diagnosis of autism means that he has some significant difficulties in social communication, social imagination and some limited or stereotyped behaviours or interests. The impact of his autism will have a significant effect on his development if adaptations are not made to reduce their effect. His identity development as the child of a deaf adult is also important. Hearing children of deaf adults often grow up with a sensitivity to both hearing and Deaf communication and behaviour which can at times be conflictual. This is relevant to the child's specific situation as he has grown up in between the two worlds of his Deaf mother and hearing father. His understanding of how hearing people may misunderstand his mother and his own identification with a deaf identity are relevant when considering the relationship between the child and his mother. He had been doing well in school being predicted in summer 2019 to get grade fours. (I note that the recent email from the school from November 2020 identifies a deterioration in his predicted grades due to his absence from school during lockdown and is restricted interaction with teaching in the autumn term). The further assessment will address anxiety in the context of his autism but also issues relating to the difficulties he has with his mother, father and the school. One cannot necessarily separate all of the issues. Applying normal developmental assumptions to a child with autism is problematic. They process things differently.

The father is a level 2 sign language speaker which would indicate he is able to hold a basic conversation on a limited range of topics but is not able to cope with fluency, ambiguity and abstract ideas. Aspects of the previous assessments which considered that the father had lower than average reflective functioning, but he is set in his ways, had found it difficult to meet the child’s emotional needs, and was not aware of the difficulties in their marriage until the mother and the child left should be considered in the context of a man marrying a deaf woman and caring for a son with autism who is a child of a deaf adult with BSL as his first, preferred language. He does not have any psychiatric disorder which limits his everyday functioning.

He may have struggled to understand the mother’s experience and to be able to ameliorate the potential difficulties within that family unit. He may have experienced that as oppression, rejection or abuse by the mother. He may have felt rejected from the close mother-child bond and his status as a hearing person and the child’s identification with his mother might have positioned the father as an oppressor towards his deaf mother and by extension to himself. The father will need further support to negotiate any relationship with the mother and the child both of whom require others to adapt their communication and behaviour towards them.

Both parents have the capacity to meet the child’s needs but are not currently able to exercise it. The mother has been protective of the child which has been good but now is unhelpful as it prevents him developing the ability to deal with situations himself. Both demonstrate areas in which they can provided good parenting but the complexity of the situation, between them, M being a Deaf adult and with the child’s autism and his being CODA make it much

Having considered each member of the family, my opinion of the family dynamics is once again contextualised within the observation that their communication and behaviour are negotiated through different languages and cultural identities. The cultural identities are Deaf and Hearing, which describe behaviour and expectations related to the different experiences of growing up deaf with a visual language and hearing with a spoken language. It is important to recognise that this occurs within the dominance of a majority hearing culture. For the family, issues of power, communication, and inclusion-rejection can be better understood within this context.

In order to determine an effective intervention, it is more effective to focus on a description of the behaviours and historical context of the family system rather than use a diagnostic framework that places a focus for difficulties within an individual (i.e. "implacable hostility" and "alienating parent") (Polak & Saini, 2015). This approach is more successfully taken in a wide range of psychological interventions and will be the approach I will take in forming an opinion about future support for the family to improve the family dynamics.

The mother continues to disagree with the two findings that she lied about any of the allegations about the father or that she has primed the child to say things. She attributes the findings to communication difficulties. She is not against the child having contact with the father providing there is no risk to him and that he agrees. Dr Baker considers that regardless of the conflict between the mother and father she would support the child to have contact if the child agreed and felt safe.

The mother is aware of the implications of the child not having contact with his father but considered that the father did not provide good parenting to the child. She said ideally the father would have good communication and be aware of spending quality time with the child and making him happy. She said the father should be kind, respectful and supportive and said he could be aggressive, non-communicative excluding and did not understand the child and his difficulties.

The child finds it very difficult to talk about his attitudes towards his father and doing so generates a high level of anxiety. The mother has kept the letters in a box. The child’s behaviour may not be solely due to him having negative attitudes about his father as he has previously enjoyed contact with him. His attitudes are either variable or not related to the father’s behaviour. His position is highly dependent on him feeling safe about discussing contact or having contact. His anxiety about various issues is currently the dominant

The intervention and support for the child and his parents needs to be holistic taking account of his ASC and his CODA identity, support for his mother as a deaf woman who uses BSL and for his father who has not spent time with him for three years. The intervention needs to be based on an understanding of his autism, of an assessment of his current functional adaptive behaviour and to be adapted for a family with a child with ASC and anxiety.

The child’s anxiety is currently the dominant feature. The reasons for it are complex but his experience of anxiety is complicated by his ASC and treatment for it is not the same as treatment for people without ASC because the psychological processes are different. It is therefore more of a challenge for the mother and father to understand how to cope with it. Issues relating to communication between the child and the mother, the mother and others and the child and the father have all played some part in its development to the problematic level it is currently seen at and which affects his home and school life.

At present the combination of the child’s anxiety and his need to develop into a teenager and then on to adult hood in a healthy way are reaching a crisis point. There needs to be a change as it is reducing his quality-of-life and preventing him developing the skills needed for adult hood. His quality-of-life is currently decreasing. The issue of the child’s contact with his father is secondary now, albeit that is what led to the case being in court. Unless the child is able to learn to manage his anxiety and to develop his independence, he will not be able to make a successful transition to adult hood. Addressing those issues of anxiety will assist in the question of contact though.

It is not possible to predict what should occur in the event that progress is not made through the programme that has now been agreed. There are significant concerns about the child’s development in his mother’s care but his autism and identity as a CODA are significant factors in predicting the impact on him of being removed from his mother’s care. Without a full assessment of the child’s autism, it is not possible to give an opinion on the impact on him or where the balance of harm might fall. The arguments for the child not residing with his father still stand in particular the issues over his understanding of the child’s condition and his ability to cope with the child’s emotional responses or contact with the mother.

At present it is not possible to discuss his understanding of the findings that were made that the father does not pose a risk to him. Further time in a therapeutic and trusting relationship needs to be spent before that subject could be opened. Both parents need to move on in their positions in order to help the child. The development of trust between them would help the child feel safe.

The work that Dr Baker and Ms Rickman have done is in its infancy. He has not commenced therapeutic sessions with the child as yet. There is 6 to 9 months of work in order to make good progress. Over that period, one would expect to see the parents engaging positively with the process, to developing trust in each other, to developing some form of communication and being able to show some understanding of the others position. Both parents have engaged well so far, and we have seen some, albeit limited progress in building trust although we have not solved the communication problem yet. They both see positives in the process so far. The mother accepts that the father has the child’s best interests at heart and vice versa. They both clearly want what is best for the child and to help him overcome his anxieties, to succeed at school and to make a transition into adult hood. Addressing the previous findings is not currently productive. We are looking forwards not backwards. When progress has been made in developing trust and communication the parties may come to understand how the findings came about. If the parents leave sessions or refused to come back next time that would indicate that progress has stalled, and we would report that to the team around the family for weekly meetings. That might lead to consideration of further support that might need to be brought in or to looking at alternatives including whether the child should be removed from the mother’s care. That is impossible to predict at the current time.

Having undertaken the assessment with the child, the parents will need to be involved in doing some of the work so it will help the mother to manage his anxiety and in due course the father will be able to as well. That will be parallel with the work the mother and father are doing with Ms Rickman. When the child has learned to manage his anxiety conversations about his father, may then be possible. The mother is supportive of him and she wants him to be independent and not anxious, but she also wants to protect him, and she does not currently have the knowledge and skills to adapt her way of managing him.

The complexity of the current situation with its various different components requires quite a complex package to be in place. The work of Ms Rickman and Dr Baker is one component of that but it requires support from and for his school, it requires better communication for the mother with everyone involved including the father, it would benefit from some neutral third-party coordinating and overseeing it all to keep all of the components working together with the aim of reaching the point where the parents are able to exercise parental responsibility together. This is what we have called a team

Making progress with the child is harder to predict. Objectively he has missed out, but he does not see it that way at the moment. I think the father has struggled to develop his awareness of autism and how it affects the child as he develops. Many families struggle with autistic children. This is not unexpected particularly when families separate. Over six months we would have looked at addressing his anxiety and would hope to have talked about the father and his understanding of the position relating to his father. His anxiety prevents him being able to talk about or think about his father. Putting deadlines in place does not help address the anxiety. He should not be under that pressure. There can be a plan to make progress without imposing deadlines. An automatic change of care if progress is not made will be unhelpful; the pressure that it will create will impede progress.

The local authority sharing parental responsibility under a care order is not a block to the therapeutic work; it can be presented and framed to the child as a positive thing. His problems are more to do with his immediate response to the unexpected but there is a risk; it depends on how it is presented.

The parents have worked well together so far. In terms of the couple’s she has worked with these parents are at the much better end of the spectrum of cooperation and engagement. They engaged in the assessment to the best of their ability although neither present as naturally psychologically curious. Both have enough reflective functioning to undertake therapeutic work and are motivated by wanting the best for the child although disagree about what that looks like. They’re focused on the child and finding solutions to address his needs. They are beginning to make the transition from the courtroom to the therapy room. In the therapy room they are required to work together to unpick previous misunderstandings with the benefit of new knowledge. It takes time to build trust after being in conflict for so long. She did not think either parent was being manipulative or deceitful.

They have been able to discuss the child’s autism with the father gaining information and insight from the mother and the mother being able to communicate that to the father. Both parents would like the child to become independent but have different views on how to achieve that. This is a discussion the parents of any autistic child would need to have. They need support to gather information and discuss the issues around this including education.

Poor communication has been important in the development of the conflict between the two as each misunderstood the other and they were unable to resolve these misunderstandings due to the communication barriers. Neither did the parents have sufficient information about the child’s difficulties and

It emerges that like the parents some of the professionals have differing views of his level of autism which requires an updated assessment. His anxiety also needs assessing.

The triangle of challenges the child faces is the interplay between his experience as a child caught in parental conflict and family breakdown in conjunction with his autism and his experience as a child of a deaf adult with a bilingual/bicultural family. Those involved with the child need to have an integrated understanding of those difficulties. The three aspects are interwoven and potentially heighten the child’s anxiety at times of stress as well as increasing the risk of confusion and misunderstanding in his parents. the child is capable of working through his fears and difficulties in doing so would potentially build his resilience and his sense of mastery and skills to manage life. A step-by-step plan for reintroduction to the father can be followed but introducing a specific timescale would result in counter-productive pressure.

The parents are exploring how they can communicate more effectively. Communication is core to understanding the problem between them. Whilst the father can sign it is insufficient to deal with nuance, complexity and abstract concepts which parenting and being a couple involves and in particular dealing with a child with autism will involve. This communication breakdown also involved the child as neither parent really understood what was going on with him and how he experienced things. His autism was not diagnosed until he was 10 years old.

Over about six months the child has been at the heart of the work the mother and father have done. Further work with the child is needed to understand how his responses to feelings of anxiety function to keep him safe. His responses have become maladaptive and more restrictive for him and his family which requires intervention. At present he thinks very rigidly about his relationship with his father because of the anxiety. When he is not in that rigid box of thinking it will be easier to get him to see his father. That part is likely to be easier than the part they are currently undertaking.

The mother accepts that she needs help with her parenting of the child and has been in contact with Dr Baker and Ms Rickman on several occasions to ask for such help. Focusing on the mother’s non-acceptance of the facts found by judges will be less productive than reflecting on the mother’s understanding, her intentions and the impact of her actions on the child.

It is essential to bring together all the elements of the family’s experience so that one aspect is not seen in isolation. The parents need to have a clear understanding of how the child may continue to suffer significant harm unless there are major changes. This will help both parents understand what needs to change and what progress needs to be made.

The team around the family should be initiated to bring together a network of professionals and parents to assist in understanding and keeping in mind all the elements of the child’s experience and development and the work that needs to be undertaken. They will report back to the team around the family both progress but also concerns.

The future work would involve fortnightly sessions for the parents and weekly one-to-one sessions together with therapeutic work between Dr Baker and the child. This would take place over approximately six months. The programme for the parents is called restorative practice which builds trust and safety in contrast to the court process which has exacerbated hostility and mistrust. Both of the parents will find it difficult at times. With the end of the court case and the development of communication and working together this should contribute to The child managing his anxiety better. If it is not addressed, it will get worse and impinge upon his ability to develop educationally and socially. The sort of work which is being proposed was some years ago.

In the meantime, a transition plan to support the child with services into adult hood should be developed.

There are disadvantages to supervision orders in their lack of teeth but a Care Order which allows the Local Authority to share Parental Responsibility might affect the mother’s position in terms of working together. A Care Order will also mean the social worker changes which will not help. A Care Order could undermine the empowerment of the parents of working to exercise Parental Responsibility together. If progress stalled the local authority would be able to make an application if they thought that was necessary. What is needed is caring supportive pressure. The comprehensive plan which has been developed is more important than the legal framework under which it is delivered. The benefits of an Independent Reviewing Officer need to be balanced against the undermining effect of a Care Order.

Incorporating into the care plan some default provision for a removal of the child from the mother’s care would be counter-productive and the impact on the child and the mother would be devastating.

At present she did not see the benefit of respite care. It might give him an experience of being independent, but it might also raise the question of whether he is being punished. Essentially it is a sleepover with strangers.

There are two major issues in the case; firstly, the issue of contact between the child and the father and how this could be facilitated and secondly the parenting skills of the mother.

The child is deemed to be at risk of significant harm as a result of the threshold criteria being met. The significant harm relates to the emotional care that the mother affords him. Their analysis needs to focus on what changes can be made to improve the parents ability to ensure that the child receives the emotional care he requires for the remainder of his minority

They did not find evidence that the mother was reflective or had the ability to be so. She does not accept the findings of the court. The mother does not appear to promote a positive image of the father to the child and is unable to move away from her own narrative of abuse and discrimination by the father. Her own childhood leads her to a view that the child does not need a father in his life. It is not clear whether the mother is deliberately sabotaging attempts to present the father in a positive light or that her understanding of his importance is limited, and she does not have the skills to present him in a positive light. Her status as a deaf person is likely to have limited her acquisition of knowledge and information throughout her childhood and her life. She does not have the toolkit to move the child on into a place where he is accepting of his father. The work of Ms Rickman is hoped to go some way towards addressing this.

The mother’s personality is not reflective but rather places responsibility on others. Her childhood and the lack of communication between herself and other family members has affected her own social and emotional development. She sees herself as an excellent mother. To some extent she is a good mother. However, she is failing in relation to the emotional harm that the child is suffering either because of deliberate actions in relation to his relationship with his father and his development or because of her lack of knowledge and understanding of appropriate parenting. Her minimisation of concerns and propensity to blame others is worrying and leads to an extremely poor prognosis for change.

The mother emphasises the child’s autism rather than seeking to normalise his behaviour. Her approach to his autism magnifies it. He does respond to appropriate structure and boundaries as demonstrated by the school’s evidence. The mother needs to develop her understanding of child development to help the child move to the next milestone and to reach maturity having developed the necessary skills to live independently. Currently she infantilises the child and does not promote his independence. The case is not just about CODA and autism but about the mother’s attitudes.

It could be that the mother wishes to foster a relationship with the child whereby he is dependent upon her which would meet her needs.

Overall, the mother provides good basic care to the child; a stable home environment, meeting his physical and medical needs and putting him at the centre of everything she does. Her weakness and our concerns relate to her ability to allow the child to grow and develop into an independent adult and maximises his potential. Her inability to put her own feelings about the father to one side and to promote a relationship with the father is another concern.

The mother’s deafness makes it likely that the mother experiences barriers to parenting on a very frequent basis particularly when she needs to liaise with professionals. Her ability to communicate in email or by writing and otherwise mean she can misunderstand situations.

The mother needs to develop similar strategies to those developed at school to manage the child’s anxiety rather than to make concessions which exaggerate his differences. She needs to take more control and remove it from the child. This affects the power dynamic in their relationship and places too much responsibility on his shoulders.

The mother has a strong support network of deaf friends and receives some support from her mother.

We have concerns about the mother’s understanding of the current proceedings, the risks of harm and the possible outcomes. She became extremely upset and agitated when they discussed the fact that the child is on an interim care order and when she was asked what she needs to do to change. She does not like being challenged or criticised. She is stuck in her narrative.

Any services offered to the mother must be accessible. This would best be done by a deaf person using a BSL interpreter. This is also an issue in that the mother is more likely to buy into services if delivered by a deaf person. However, it is also necessary because specialists are more likely to understand the mother’s starting point, her gaps in knowledge and to be able to explain concepts in a culturally deaf appropriate way.

The father seems to appreciate that the child has some special needs but not to the extent the mother suggests. He recognises the child is a CODA but finds it hard to understand that the child will reply to him in BSL. He recognises he may need guidance in relation to the child’s autism. He recognises the lack of contact will have impacted upon his relationship and that it will need to be rebuilt slowly and should not be rushed.

He could adequately meet the child’s physical needs and provide stimulation. We are unable to give an opinion on his ability to meet his son’s emotional needs. He has a supportive network of family. The father has the capacity to develop.

The father identifies the concerns as relating more to the mother than himself. He does not want to enter into a battle.

The child could not successfully be placed with his father at this time. Contact would need to be re-established. It would also assist in promoting the reestablishment of contact if the parents could resolve some of their differences. Conflict resolution is key and both parents need to actively engage in the work proposed by Ms Rickman. The mother needs to give her permission for the child to have a relationship with the father.

The current situation cannot be allowed to continue. Contact is now a secondary issue. If it does the child will be ill-equipped emotionally and developmentally to enter the adult world. It is essential he develops a sense of independence as soon as possible. The nature of the mother son relationship needs to change dramatically otherwise he will remain totally dependent on his mother in adult life. It is emotionally harmful to him at the moment. This change will take time. The mother requires bespoke training around autism and parenting training and both parents need to commit to the work recommended by Ms Rickman and Dr Baker. The window of opportunity is narrowing.

Consideration should be given to the child having respite care. That may assist in changing the nature of the relationship between the child and the mother. His school should remain unchanged.

Contact should only commence when it is appropriate and guided by the work of Ms Rickman and Dr Baker. the child’s anxiety is one of the major issues in the case. Achievable goals should be identified and form part of a schedule of expectations.

If there are no positive changes in 6 to 9 months the Local Authority should consider removing the child from the mother’s care. A Care Order is appropriate. We are more pessimistic than Dr Baker and Ms Rickman. The Local Authority should be able to intervene on issues; as 1/3 party who have opinions, they can help the parents make decisions. The absence of change over the last four years shows there needs to be a change and there needs to be local authority oversight. There needs to be a lot of scaffolding and support to this process. Being looked after will give the child priority on resources which may not come without a Care Order.

from it are clearly of some relevance to how she approaches contact. Her description of how one of the child’s friends’ fathers was a good role model was rather idealised. The fact is the father is as he is, but he is the child’s father. The therapeutic process will hopefully give the father some more insight into the child’s condition but also who the child is and more insight into how to communicate better with the mother but ultimately, he is who he is. The mother’s experiences of him do not define him as the child’s father and she will hopefully come to see that although he may have flaws (as does she and as do we all) that he has much to offer the child as he is. The mother clearly has a sense of humour, a commitment to others (running a marathon for charity) and a desire to live her own life as well as protecting and promoting the child. She remains close to her mother and has a social network and would like to work again.

himself in the child’s shoes and the mother’s shoes more. The father needs to develop a greater tolerance of other’s positions; he may not agree with aspects of the mother’s parenting or attitudes because they do not coincide with his but that does not mean they are wrong. There is plenty of scope for differing approaches which are entirely valid. Separated parents often encounter difficulties over parenting styles – with a child with autism these become even more problematic – but it seems to me that as the mother needs to see the father as a good father, despite his flaws and their differences, that so does the father need to see the mother as an essentially good mother despite her flaws and to understand more fully that some of her flaws are a product of her life experiences as a Deaf woman. The father clearly has a work ethic, is community minded (he is involved in the scouting movement) and has a strong sense of family remaining close geographically and I think emotionally to his parents and brother. He has much to offer the child.

hostile and obstructive. It seems to me that a significant component in her ability to engage with others is how they communicate with her and how trusting she is of both the communication and the communicator. Her engagement with Dr Baker and Ms Rickman as compared with her engagement with Ms Robinson and Mr Beckwith is as different as could be imagined in the context of this sort of case and at its heart lies that issue of the mother’s trust in the communication and the communicator. I saw the mother that Dr Baker and Ms Rickman saw. I suspect His Honour Judge Thorp saw the mother Ms Robinson and Mr Beckwith saw.

mother than as a safety net waiting to catch the child. Dr Baker and Ms Rickman, the social worker and the Guardian did not believe that it would be either helpful to the therapeutic process or sufficiently predictable to include. The difficulty with identifying alternative options in the future is that there are so many variables in play that it becomes a matter more of speculation than sensible prediction. What may be appropriate in the future will be a complex function of what has happened to the child and to his parents over the period of time which passes between now and any future re-evaluation. Dr Baker noted that he was unable to give an opinion on the impact on the child of removal even at this stage given he had not yet completed his assessment of the child's autism. What will be appropriate for the child in the event of any breakdown in this process is almost impossible to predict. One might as easily incorporate in the care plan the conclusion reached by His Honour Judge Thorp namely that all efforts at contact should cease. One might speculate that the removal of the child into some sort of boarding school or residential unit might be plan B. None of them are capable of being sensibly predicted or formulated. It seems to me that if the current plan does not progress in the way envisaged that the response to such a failure will depend upon the nature of any progress that has been made, the situation of the mother, the father and most importantly of the child at that time.

care order whilst the child remains at home or that it is resource linked. The resources which the local authority have already dedicated to this case and which they are prepared to invest in the reconstruction process, particularly in a hard-pressed local authority in the current climate, would not support a resource driven decision.

of or anxious about. Dr Baker, the social worker and others will be able to convey the message if a Care Order is made that it is a positive for him, and advantage.

St Clair also has some personal investment in the child and his family’s future which will be difficult to replicate. However, Ms Sinclair may not remain the child social worker in any event; her life extends far beyond her responsibility for the child likewise her manager. If it is at all possible, I would urge the local authority to allow her to remain involved in the child’s case to ensure that the translation of the care plan from paper into day-to-day reality takes place. With a Care Order comes in Independent Reviewing Officer who has an individual responsibility for the oversight of the care plan and the child’s welfare, and I’m satisfied that this will be a valuable part of the process to ensure that words become reality.

would result in it falling for consideration of renewal at around the nine-month mark. It is at the 6 to 9 month mark that the process of therapy will be coming to its apex and it would be potentially damaging to that process for the parties to be distracted by the thought of extension of the Supervision Order, discussions in meetings of how it was to be approached with the small but significant risk that a bump in the road at that stage might tempt one of the parties to reconsider litigation as a better alternative. All of that would be wholly counter-productive. A Care Order will not carry with it the same element of risk. It will of course be open to a party all the Local Authority to apply to discharge the care order and indeed the Local Authority is under a statutory duty to review the need for the child to remain on a Care Order. However, given that I have identified the resolution of the complex issues of risk and their solutions as being at least medium if not long-term a 12-month Supervision Order is inconsistent with those sorts of timeframes; even allowing inclusion of the possibility of renewal. Although it is a relatively minor point, I also note that a Care Order will involve fewer statutory visits by a social worker to the child which may be an advantage in allowing Dr Baker and the child to develop their rapport as they seek to make progress in relation to the child’s anxiety and his relationship with his mother and father.