[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> X (A Child) (care and placement orders) [2014] EWFC B59 (09 May 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B59.html Cite as: [2014] EWFC B59

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF X (CHILD)

		9 May 2014

Background

1. In these proceedings I am concerned for X aged six months old. He is the child of M and F and they both have parental responsibility for him. X is his mother's first child. His father has three older children, none of whom are in his care. B and A live with their mother and C it is believed has been adopted. Throughout this judgment I refer to the parents as the mother and the father, not out of any disrespect but simply to assist with anonymising this judgment later prior to it being placed on Bailii. At the present time, X is living with his mother in a foster placement, as he has throughout these proceedings, but his parents are very much still in a relationship and wish to care for X together. The father has contact twice a week. X is subject to an interim care order and has been since 29.11.13, shortly after the local authority issued these proceedings.
2. Proceedings were begun because the local authority had concerns regarding the father following findings being made against him in proceedings regarding B and A, to which I shall return. A pre-birth assessment felt that the question of risk from the father still needed to be dealt with and also the mother's unwillingness to acknowledge the potential for risk and therefore her ability to protect X. There were also concerns regarding the couple's relationship, ability to secure safe and suitable accommodation and their emotional health and wellbeing. As a result the local authority proposed that X remain in his mother's care but within the protective setting of a foster placement, whilst having contact with his father and whilst the situation was assessed.
3. Looking at the background to this case in more detail, as I have said findings were made against the father in care proceedings in 2011. When B was four months old, she was found to have a hairline linear skull fracture, her parents not offering any explanation consistent with this injury at the time. On 10.2.12, just before a fact finding hearing on the 13.2.12 and four and a half months after the injury was caused, the father admitted for the first time that he had dropped B on the morning of her injury. Following a hearing on the 13-16.2.12, HHJ Kaye QC accepted the father's belated explanation of B's injuries and said the following, which summary I take from Mr Brown's written opening but have confirmed against the judgment which I have read :

The father demonstrated a lack of empathy for the children.

The father was not patient with A, being very much the disciplinarian and shouting at him. He admitted regularly smacking him. He called him an idiot on occasions. He admitted hitting A so hard on one occasion it left the mark of a hand print on his thigh.

He would also shout at B particularly when she was tired and again demonstrated little patience with her.

B's mother found him controlling and manipulative of her and on occasions felt frightened and intimidated by him. On occasions he would hit or slam the doors and walls in the house out of frustration or anger.

The father was rather weak, immature, fairly self-centred and selfish; more concerned about this own priorities, worries and feelings than those of others. He tended to look for excuses for or to minimise his behaviour.

By his own evidence the father had a temper, shouts a lot, got involved in violence and fights at school, used violence towards members of his own family ... had regularly used excessive and inappropriate physical chastisement and discipline on his children, had a tendency to shout and use foul language excessively and far too frequently either at them or in their presence (calling them names and humiliating them) and intimidated them, such that they had both from time to time evinced fear of him.

All this points to a worrying propensity for uncontrolled temper and both verbal and physical violence and intimidation of which the father seems well aware.

B's injuries are to be categorised as accidental albeit negligent on the father's part.

There are very serious concerns about the father's pattern of behaviour as regards the children. He needs to address these issues and his history of impatience, temper, verbal and physical violence towards them.

4. Following that hearing it was recommended that the father have supervised contact with A and B which he did for a while. However, the father failed to engage fully in efforts made just prior to the ending of the supervision order to organise its continuation, meaning that he does not now have contact with them. I noted that the social worker in a document setting out work to be done with the family at the end of the case spoke of the need for the father to engage in counselling via his GP, noting there was likely to be a waiting list for this service.
5. In 2012 the father's other daughter, C, also suffered an injury, there being no suggestion the father was a possible perpetrator of that injury. Within those proceedings the father initially put himself forward as a carer for his daughter. However when social workers declined to assess him jointly with the mother in this case, who at that time was his new girlfriend, the father withdrew his cooperation and C was subsequently placed for adoption.
6. It was against that backdrop that these proceedings regarding X were begun. I dealt with the case management conference on 29 November. The parties were agreed that, unusually in this day and age, this was a case where there should be a full psychological assessment of both parents, and I agreed it was necessary in this case given the concerns. It was also agreed that it was important that X was kept in his mother's care whilst assessments were carried out so the local authority took the relatively unusual step of identifying a foster placement where mother and baby could live together, giving X I should say the best possible chance of a positive outcome. Sadly when the matter came back before me for the IRH on 10 April all the assessments of the parents had reached a negative conclusion and the local authority's plan for X had become one of adoption. Since then a placement order application has been issued to be dealt with alongside the care application at this final hearing.
7. In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter as well as a few documents and photographs which were added to it during the course of the hearing. I have heard evidence in court from Jo Hobson, the social worker; Claire Hunt who carried out the psychological assessment; the foster carer, the parents and Carole Curtis, the guardian.

The Position of the Parties

8. I shall first summarise the position of the parties. The local authority, supported by the guardian, has reached the conclusion that the only possible outcome for X is one of adoption. Ms Hobson, the social worker, acknowledges the warm and loving relationship between him and his mother which has developed but is clear that his needs, including his need for protection from harm, would not be met in the care of both of his parents or in his mother's sole care. She accepts the assessment of the parents by Claire Hunt and the conclusions the psychologist reaches. In addition she relies on the conclusions of her own parenting assessment and the observations of the foster mother, including concerns regarding poor living conditions, both parents' financial difficulties, the mother's inability to take advice and her unwillingness to access resources in the community.
9. The local authority's case can be divided into various headings. Key to the case is the risk from the parents, evidenced by the findings regarding the father and the psychological assessments of both parents. Then there is the parents' lack of engagement with services and their ability to work co-operatively with professionals and accept advice. A third heading would be their inability to maintain a tenancy, including getting into debt, and to maintain a satisfactory home environment. I shall return to all of those themes and the evidence relied upon to support them later in this judgment.
10. Ms Hobson concludes that the family would require ongoing and intensive input from the local authority. Her view is that the parents are not motivated to co-operate, given their lack of engagement with their GPs or other resources, particularly the father.
11. The local authority carried out viability assessments of potential family carers but these were both negative. The subjects of those assessments have not sought to challenge them, nor have the parents.
12. The parents oppose the case put by the professionals. Their wish is to bring up X together and only if this is not possible for him to be cared for just by his mother with contact with his father, or, as emerged during the hearing, for the father to care for him. The father puts an option before me of a residential assessment for the three of them all together as he says this would give me the best possible understanding of how they function of the family, evidence he would say is lacking from the case.
13. The parents have however been able to concede that threshold is met in this case and on the first day of this hearing an agreed schedule of findings was handed in. Entirely appropriately this is a very short document. It relates back to findings made in respect of B's injury, the mother not accepting that the father poses a risk to their son due to those findings, and the parents being unable to maintain tenancies resulting in homelessness. Whilst accepting that threshold is met however, the parents do not accept that the father at this time poses a risk to X. They do not accept the psychological assessments nor the parenting assessment in terms of their conclusions.

The Law

14. I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of X. I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family. The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and essential aim of promoting their welfare. In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders are "very extreme", and should only be made when "necessary" for the protection of the child's interests, "when nothing else will do". The court "must never lose sight of the fact that (the child's) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at least one of them" and adoption "should only be contemplated as a last resort". I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (supra) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the options for X, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer.
15. In reaching my decision I have taken into account that X's welfare is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I have to consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and the children as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. I am very conscious that any orders I go on to make must be in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of the children's rights and be proportionate. I am also conscious that I must have in mind the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.
16. I have to ask myself a central question in this case, namely whether X it should be placed in his parents' care, or in the care of just one of his parents, with or without statutory orders supporting that placement, or whether he should be made subject to care and placement orders with an outcome of adoption. I have to balance the pros and cons of each of the options being presented to me together with any other options which seem worthy of consideration. No party has invited me to make a final care order in respect of X with a plan of him remaining in foster care and given his age I would have to say that option would not be attractive. I am therefore focusing myself on the two alternatives of rehabilitation or adoption. McFarlane LJ in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 said "What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options." In addressing this task I have considered all the points in the welfare checklists contained in both the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and propose to consider the evidence in the light of those factors.
17. In respect of s38(6) and the law regarding when such an assessment is necessary, Mr Brown has referred me to the case of Kent CC v G and others [2005] UKHL 68 and I agree that contains the relevant law. The questions I ask myself are both whether the proposed assessment is within the scope of s38(6) but also whether it is necessary.

Analysis

18. Possibly the most significant factors for me to consider are the question of any harm which X has suffered or is at risk of suffering, and linked to that how capable each of his parents are of meeting his needs. Here it is really a question about future harm to X given his age. It was the potential of harm from his father, and linked to that the mother's ability to protect from that harm, which led to the local authority becoming involved with this family. The local authority relies on the findings made by HHJ Kaye QC in respect of the father's older two children when assessing that risk, not just in respect of B's injury but in respect of the wider finding is made in terms of the father's parenting as summarised in paragraph 3 of this judgment. I am clear that those findings provide the starting point for my thinking. They show on the face of things a risk posed by the father and the question is whether that has changed already or could be reduced to a satisfactory level in X's timescales.
19. The evidence of Claire Hunt is key in terms of risk to a child in the parents' care due to their mental health issues and their psychological make-up and so I am going to look at her assessment in some detail. She met with the parents in January and reported at the end of that month. She then answered some additional questions put to her after evidence had been filed, her response being dated 24 April.
20. Ms Hunt noted that there had been findings made by the court that F accidentally injured his daughter and was negligent in seeking appropriate medical care for her, therefore failing to protect her from serious harm. She said therefore it must be concluded that F poses a degree of risk, by virtue of these historical factors.
21. Her summary in respect of the father, based on testing she carried out and her own clinical observations, reads as follows : "F reports a number of difficulties consistent with a significant depressive experience indicating moderate or severe depression. In addition, he is currently experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety. F's personality assessment indicates a number of traits which are likely to interfere with his functioning and relationships. He has a history of involvement in intense and volatile relationships. In these relationships, he tends to be preoccupied with fears of being abandoned or rejected by those people important to him. F can be expected to have serious anger problems that affect several areas of his life. His anger appears to be rooted in difficulties attributing the actions of others as motivated by purposeful hostility and a tendency to ruminate and dwell on issues rather than being able to move on."
22. The father's problems then are in simple terms both depression and anger/emotion management. His depression is significant, being in the moderate to severe range. I remind myself this assessment was carried out at a time when the father was not consistently taking medication (his last prescription for anti-depressants would have expired if they were taken daily or if he had been taking them erratically would mean he was not getting the prescribed dose). Given that this was Ms Hunt's assessment, I cannot agree with the possibility offered by the GP that he may not have sought a repeat prescription as he was well again. This is clearly still a live issue for the father and, from the evidence of Claire Hunt, according to NICE guidelines, would best be managed by a combination of anti-depressants and therapy.
23. The father acknowledged that until very recently he had not gone back to his GP for repeat prescriptions since the end of last year. His explanation for this was that he had let too many things get on top of him, X, his work, the new flat, the restrictions being placed on the mother. He told me however he had been back on his medication for three weeks now.
24. The other issue for the father is his difficulty in managing his anger and other emotions. Claire Hunt said there was a clear need for the father to undertake significant therapeutic intervention to address this aspect of his functioning. In her evidence she spoke of how these difficulties would be likely to have a significant effect on his parenting. She gave the example of how his difficulties in managing older children led him to lose his temper with A resulting in him being hit (and I remind myself on one occasion that included a handprint being left). She said this issue would be likely to impact on parenting in the future without intervention. She noted the father had accepted this problem had affected him at work, in his relationships and in his ability to get on with other people.
25. Claire Hunt said treatment of the father was relatively straightforward. In addition to medication he requires CBT. From when he started to work with a therapist, on the basis he would engage fully, the work would take three to six months. However she said her view was that the prognosis for the father was quite poor. She noted that in January he had articulated a reasonably high level of motivation but since then has had difficulties in engaging with therapy, and we are now more than three months further on.
26. The question of the father's motivation is a particular concern for me. I am not sure he was entirely upfront with Ms Hunt when he met with her in January regarding his level of engagement with the Safe at Home project or with his medication. I note he also told the social worker in the pre-birth assessment that this project had told him after the first session he did not need to get further sessions which the project says would not have been said. He accepted he misled the social worker and indeed the mother regarding his involvement with the project. It seems that his view was that the project was not right for him. Claire Hunt acknowledged it would not have been sufficient to deal with his issues but would not have been harmful. I certainly would have expected him to engage with the project to show his commitment to making change in his life or to find therapy with which he could engage. In fact he did nothing about seeking more appropriate in-depth therapy via his GP, the appropriate route for this. He talked to Claire Hunt of having sought a referral from his GP in November but that is not borne out by the GP's letter. Certainly since seeing Claire Hunt he has taken no steps to be referred for therapy. The social worker spoke of offering to assist him accessing counselling by his GP and asked for permission to speak to the GP but that consent has never been given.
27. Claire Hunt's assessment is that the father is in the Contemplation stage in terms of the Cycle of Change. In essence he knows what needs to be done but has not reached the point of acting on that knowledge or even preparing to act. I would have to say he has known what has been needed for over two years since the last proceedings. In that context her views in respect of prognosis are particularly important.
28. I do accept that in the context of the two contact sessions each week there are no concerns about the father's care of his son. The notes show his father meeting X's needs and being a caring and hands-on father. The mother talked about never having seen the father be anything other than loving to X. In respect of her own relationship with him she sees this as entirely positive, not in any way abusive, and says she experienced him losing his temper although he has talked about feeling angry.
29. The father was articulate when giving his evidence and acknowledged the issues he had very openly, which can only be a positive. He said he did not spend much time at home because he found being in the house depressing, reminding him that his son was not with him. He talked about how he had shut himself away in the previous court proceedings and he did not want to go back to being like that. He was clear that he did not pose any risk to a child and indeed seemed to be saying he had not since the point when he faced up to what he had done in the previous court proceedings. It seemed to me he thought that act in itself was protective, that he then saw the need to change and he has. However the reality is he has not. In those two years he has had none of the pressures of bringing up a child and yet still struggled with his life, including having time off work. His problems seem to be somewhat circular. He is not motivated to get help with his issues, possibly because of his depression. He therefore needs to be on medication to deal with his depression but he is not motivated to do that either.
30. Having considered all the evidence I have read and heard, I am satisfied that the father would pose a risk to a child in his care in the future and that will remain the case until he addresses his psychological problems. I accept the evidence of Claire Hunt that he needs to be both on medication and engaged in CBT for that to be achieved. It is clear that were he to do what is needed, to take his medication consistently and engage in CBT, in a relatively short space of time there is the potential for him addressing these issues. However we are no further forward regarding the father than we were at the outset of these proceedings. He has done nothing to demonstrate that he is tackling these issues, quite possibly due to the problems he faces, and I am afraid this means I can have no confidence that this will change within X's timescales.
31. Can I make very clear though that the risk the father poses is not his fault, as I am sure he feels it is. We are all the product of our upbringing and of the lives we have led and the father cannot be criticised for having the problems he does. He struck me as a caring and conscientious man and it is tragic that he finds himself in this situation. I know this will be of little comfort to him, but if he can engage in the work he needs, which means going back to his GP to get referred for CBT to deal with managing his emotions, whatever the wait, then I believe in the future he could be a good father to another child.
32. Turning to the mother, as I said earlier at the outset of this case it was felt the issues in respect of her were around her ability to protect X from any harm his father might pose. Before X's birth she had been very clear that she did not accept there were any risks as a result of the previous proceedings and it was evident from what she said in court that that remains her view. She accepted she had seen papers from the previous proceedings and after she had read them, she and the father had talked. When being asked about how the father had acted to his older children, although she had seen the court papers, she repeated that she had not been around then as they had not been allowed to be in contact. She said everybody had good and bad points. She was able to acknowledge leaving a handprint on his son was not acceptable but she still said that personally she did not think he needed help with that. She said neither the father nor she believed he was a risk to X and she felt he had learned from his mistakes. They had not talked about any work he had done around anger but she said she did not ask about it. In evidence she said "If it's not about X it doesn't interest me". I thought it illuminating that she did not see that anger management work was in any way "about X". It is very evident that she puts a lot of store by her own observations of the father's behaviour and that is entirely understandable. I remind myself though she has never seen him being a full-time parent and did not seem able to extrapolate from how he cared for his older children and see why there might be concerns about him as a full-time carer of X. She also said in evidence she understood that professionals were of the view he needed to do anger management work and I am afraid I did not have a sense she could balance that against her own observations.
33. Ms Hunt in her report looked at the mother's understanding of any risk the father might pose. She said : "M does not accept that F poses a risk to her son. There is a danger in my view that if she invests in perpetuating the belief that F does not pose any risks to either her or their child she may choose to ignore information and events that should disconfirm her belief." Having heard the mother in the witness box I would have to agree with that assessment. At this time the mother is unable to protect X from the risks I have found his father poses and that will remain the case until work can be done with her.
34. I am also conscious that the mother took X to visit her grandmother which brought him into contact with her uncle. The social worker became aware and her inquiry showed that he had convictions for violence to the level of MARAC involvement. The mother it seemed was aware he had numerous convictions but did not see that as significant in terms of X's safety. We know that when the social worker tried to draw up an agreement with her on a Friday afternoon requiring not to visit her grandmother's while the situation was assessed, the mother reacted very strongly, tore up the agreement and stormed upstairs. In her evidence she was able to acknowledge this was not the right way to respond, that she "took a step too far". The foster carer later told the social worker that the mother had said she could not help it. This shows me her lack of understanding of risk goes wider than just any risk posed by her partner.
35. Ms Hunt's report in fact went rather wider in terms the issues raised than just the mother's ability to protect. Ms Hunt had this to say : "M's childhood and adolescence is marked by exposure to drama and traumatic experiences. There is extensive research evidence and clinical opinion that such familial factors will have a detrimental impact on the child's development particularly in the areas of attachment, psychological and emotional functioning, health and education with implications for children's safety and welfare both in the short and long term. This is reflected in M's increased vulnerability as an adolescent and in her early adulthood, M has begun to unintentionally replicate her experience of early attachment patterns. Her psychological assessment reflects a significant number of problems in her current functioning. Her personality style is primarily emotionally unstable but there are also features of dependent, avoidant and self-defeating behaviours."
36. Later she says : "M's assessment indicates that she is experiencing a number of psychological difficulties related to emotional instability and traumatic stress. Without the opportunity to address her difficulties in managing her low mood, and maladaptive attempts to alleviate stress and anxiety, there remains the likelihood that she could make impulsive, reckless decisions whilst in contact with her children."
37. In her evidence she spoke about the mother experiencing significant depression and anxiety as well as having an emotionally unstable personality style. She said this would manifest itself in frequent mood swings with recurring periods of depression, anxiety or anger. Ms Hunt said the mother's emotional instability would affect how she presents and would make it difficult to her to get out of a low mood. She would find it hard to express her emotions, and Ms Hunt gave the example of the mother writing a diary which she showed the father rather than explaining how she felt.
38. In terms of the mother's depression, it is clear from a report from her GP that she has had an ongoing issue with depression since she was fifteen. She had not taken antidepressants whilst pregnant but started again very soon after X's birth. From the letter it seemed she had regular prescriptions other than in the month of March, the GP saying that as a result "compliance appears to be a little bit questionable". Unlike the father then she has been rather more consistent in obtaining and taking her medication, although not entirely so. Claire Hunt was clear she would need to comply with her medication for depression or it could impact significantly on her parenting. She spoke of how mood swings may mean some difficulties in consistently attending to a child's needs.
39. Ms Mason put to Ms Hunt that although she set out a lot of therapy which the mother would benefit from the primary issue was in fact one of depression. Claire Hunt disagreed, saying the underlying issues which had impacted on the mother to date were of most significance. She said these were enduring and had impacted on her life in many areas and probably had some impact on the depression itself. She said therefore treating the depression as a stand alone issue would not be sufficient. She said personality would not change once one was the mother's age but work could be done around personality traits to help an individual to recognise them and successfully manage them in the future. She was clear that "talking therapies" were needed in the mother's situation, that practical factors like having a different partner would not be sufficient. She acknowledged having a healthy functioning partner could be a protective factor. However she said when she talked about the mother maintaining a non-abusive relationship, she said that went wider to require a relationship that was stable and not chaotic, and this was not the case here.
40. Ms Mason put to the guardian that a psychologist works on a snapshot and short meetings to make assessments. Whilst that cannot be disputed the psychologist also carried out a number of tests, the purpose of which is to show deep-rooted personality traits, and the battery of tests is meant to give the strongest possible picture of a person. Ms Mason made the point to the guardian also that a psychological assessment is to some extent a theoretical opinion, which the guardian acknowledged but said that is why you needed a social work assessment alongside it.
41. If I look then at the social worker's parenting assessment, in conjunction with the foster carer's evidence, Ms Hobson would say that the psychological assessment conclusions were borne out in her assessment of the parents. This was carried out in the latter half of February and early March, giving the mother the best possible chance to settle in the foster placement and both parents time to deal with their mental health issues.
42. The foster carer said in placement the mother's "moods have been up and down", for example being high when seeing the father but returning home in a low mood. Also when challenged by anything she became sulky and unresponsive. It seems clear from the foster carers evidence and the social worker that the mother cannot accept advice from professionals. She disregarded advice regarding when weaning X and also gave him chocolate having been advised not to. This may not sound the most significant thing but hearing the mother give evidence about this was enlightening. In the witness box she became more stressed at the questioning and eventually became tearful. She initially said she took the health visitor's advice rather than other people's, saying the health visitor had said she could wean from sixteen weeks to six months. It was then pointed out to her by Mr Brown that on 3 February there was a contact recording that she had said she was giving X rusks and was not going to tell the health visitor as she would be told he was too young. Faced with that the mother said she was going on instinct. When asked why she ignored the advice she said that he was nearly fifteen weeks old at the time (which in fact was not right, as he was rather younger) so she felt it would not be a problem as he was ready for it. She understood the advice was that he should not be given solid food too early as it could mess up his digestive system but she still felt no one knew X in the way she did which was what was frustrating her.
43. Another example of her not taking advice was when she was told she should not take X to the home of particular family members as it had not been approved. Her response to the foster carer was "you can't stop me" and she went anyway. Again in the witness box her response to this was to say "If I can't do something with my son there's something wrong there." I had no sense at all that she would take advice unless it suited her and this seemed to be a strong part of her character. I accept in respect of some matters she seemed able to accept the situation later and did not necessarily repeat her action but I would not be confident relying on this.
44. There was another occasion when she asked for a lift to an appointment, having overslept, but the foster carer could not take her. She began to sulk and went off to her bedroom where she spent all day with X. The mother's evidence was that she nonetheless played with him and interacted all day but it is not indicative of someone entirely focused on their child's needs.
45. In terms of the foster placement, the local authority had taken a gradual approach to what was expected of the mother, allowing for her depression, so although throughout the placement the mother has been responsible for X's care, initially the foster carer did a lot of practical tasks such as cooking, cleaning and washing. Responsibilities gradually passed to the mother for such matters and what is very clear is that there were repeated issues around matters such as the state of the two bedrooms she occupied with X and also concerns at times about her leaving washing up, particularly X's bottles, and also the washing of their clothes. I have seen photographs of the state of the main bedroom and I have to say the clutter was appalling. One has to remember that the concerns about the father stem from him dropping a child when tripping on clothes on the floor so it is hard to understand how the mother could not see the potential harm in her room. One night she woke the foster carer, saying she had picked X up and stumbled and he had hit his head. She seems later to have told the social worker and the doctor she fainted, a different version of events. Her response when asked in the witness box whether she accepted this was not a safe environment was to agree with that but say in her own home only her bedroom would be untidy and X would not normally be in there.
46. I was interested to hear from the foster carer that things did seem to have been better in the last three to four weeks. Looking at her notes, at points in March the mother seemed to lift herself out of her lethargy for a couple of days and then revert back to type. However the foster carer said in the last three to four weeks, since she prepared her statement (which was dated 9 April), the mother had made much more effort about the house, something having seemed to click. She said the rooms had been tidied up and the mother was doing the washing and bottles. X's possessions were kept carefully although she was not so precise about her own possessions.
47. The foster carer was not able to put a finger on what had brought about the changes. Indeed the mother could only say she had felt different in herself, doing things herself rather than relying on her medication to lift her. I too can only surmise about this. It is hard to imagine it was linked to the mother's antidepressant medication kicking in, as March seems to be the time she did not pick up a prescription, her first appointment after February being on 10 April, and it was possibly therefore more a result of her newfound motivation. I note the mother's statement was dated 26 March and the father's 9 April, which again could mean that on discussing this their lawyers the local authority's evidence they had realised they needed to demonstrate change. That would fit with the fact that the father has been back on his medication only in the last three weeks. What is clear though is that change has only been seen in the last four weeks and that is not much upon which to base a delay for further assessment.
48. Again, I do acknowledge that the duration of these proceedings has been a very stressful time for the parents, the mother in particular who has been separated from her partner and living in an unfamiliar environment. My view is that the mother was fortunate that the local authority went to the effort of identifying this placement and I certainly believe she would have found a residential unit with professional assessment and a high level of monitoring far more stressful. I also acknowledge that she has despite her difficulties clearly formed a very good attachment to her son and has loved and nurtured him in a delightful way. The guardian acknowledged that in her evidence, saying that it was to the mother's credit that he would be able to manage whatever change happened in his life now. She has also met his practical care needs, again despite her depression and psychological difficulties, and all of this goes to her credit.
49. As I said at some point during the hearing, this is not a case where X has suffered harm in his mother's care, despite her depression and her psychological problems. There is also no question that she would ever deliberately harm X. The issue for me is one of future harm, whether being the person she is, through no fault at all of her own, X would come to harm in her care were she in a relationship with the father or caring on her own. Given all the evidence, particularly the psychological and parenting assessments, I am satisfied there is a risk of future harm of X in his mother's care, whether as a sole or joint carer. I do not accept that the positives seen in the mother's care to date outweigh the psychological evidence as to future harm. There is much in the social worker's evidence and the foster carer's evidence to show that, despite those positives, there are markers for the future in terms of how the mother would parent without therapy.
50. Again, I would emphasise that it is not the mother's fault she has the problems she does. Like the father she is the result of all that has happened to her in her life and I am quite sure none of us could have come through that unscathed. The evidence has shown me that she too has the potential to be a good parent in the future and it is crucial that she keeps up her medication and goes for the therapy the Z Centre is offering, even though it may feel pointless to her if X is not in her care. She is only a young woman and I am sure will be a mother again one day, and she needs to take steps now to make herself the right kind of mother, not to wait until another child is born and possibly more care proceedings begin. She owes it to herself not to give up but to do what is necessary to put right some of the wrongs that have been done to her earlier in her life.
51. Against that backdrop I ask myself if the mother would engage in the therapy she needs as without this that risk of harm cannot be reduced. It was extremely clear in the mother's evidence that she does not want to deal with issues in her past. Her response is in the witness box were entirely consistent with what she has told all professionals in this case, that she does not want to talk about her past. Her view was "What's in the past stays in the past and does not need to be brought up again". However she said she would start the therapy and hope by the time addressing these issues was necessary she will be able to. Claire Hunt agreed that an experienced therapist should be able to engage someone in the mother's position in getting beyond this resistance. However Claire Hunt was clear that this would have an impact on the timescales for her therapy as it will take time to build relationships. Therapy for the mother could take months rather than years and the twenty sessions envisaged by the Z Project might be optimistic. We know in any event if she is to have her therapy there then there is a three to six month waiting list before it could start.
52. Before moving away from psychological issues I should comment on the fact that this is a case where both parents suffer from depression and have personality difficulties. Ms Hunt noted : "Clearly it is a concern that both parents appear to be suffering from significant depression and this would limit the opportunity that would be available to them from their respective partners. When one parent is suffering from mental health problems, it is possible that any risk to the child can to an extent be protected by the presence of a healthy functioning parent. Sadly, in this case, this does not appear to reflect the mental health status of both parents." She said further : "It is notable that many of the personality characteristics that have been identified as potentially problematic in this case are shared by both the parents. There is research evidence and clinical opinion that couples who present with personality challenges of the type indicated in the assessment of F and M, experience difficulties in communication, power struggles, and unrealistic expectations. This is likely to lead to high levels of stress in their relationship which would have an impact on their ability to prioritise their child's needs and would expose the child to high levels of tension and anxiety, which would have a detrimental impact on the child's psychological and emotional well-being."
53. Again, given that the parents' very clear preferred option would be to care for X together, what Ms Hunt says about the particular problems of two such parents bringing up a child together has to be of concern. She was clear that there was likely to be high levels of stress in their relationship and that would clearly impact on X. More worryingly, the father's evidence about how he had felt stressed when caring for his older children, at the time when his parenting was extremely harmful to them, would leave me very concerned as to how stress when co-parenting with the mother would result in X being harmed.
54. Both parents have told me that they would separate if this meant one of them could care for X and I have considered this carefully. I have watched them together in court and they present very much as a couple. They demonstrate care for each other, they have sat close together, and I had a strong sense that they form a real unit. Clearly this relationship meets needs which they both have and gives them a sense of being valued. I heard Claire Hunt's evidence about how the relationship meets both of their psychological needs and what I saw confirmed that. I hear what they say about separating but they have been together for over two years now and I think it would be very hard for both of them to make a go of things on their own. And that would only be worth doing if one of them on their own was an option as a long-term carer for X and the psychological and social work evidence is against that.
55. Another matter which concerned the local authority was the parents' inability to maintain a stable home and manage their finances. The couple have been together for slightly over two years. In that time they have lived at the home of the paternal grandmother, then the maternal grandfather's, then in a tenancy of the father's which was terminated in disputed circumstances, then in the home of the father's uncle, then with family friends, then the father moved out to another property due to the local authority saying they should not live together, and then he was rehoused. Both parents accumulated rent arrears and, to give them the prospect of having a home together, they managed to pay off the father's. However I understand he is now in debt in the sum of over £500 and the local authority have been told by the housing association he is now at risk of eviction. The father seemed very unaware of his current situation, thinking he had made an arrangement for the arrears to be paid off gradually by way of a direct debit. He had apparently not checked payments were being taken and it seems now they were not. The mother's arrears are much more significant, around £1300. In the last month or two she says she has been paying £20 a week, again possibly rather too little too late.
56. A further matter of financial concern is that the mother was overpaid benefits when she first moved into the foster home. I am told the foster carer warned her about this and she was advised to put money aside in case it was demanded back. The money has been spent however and the mother still does not know if she is going to have to repay money.
57. The father's home is very sparsely furnished and inadequately carpeted. Out of their joint income they have done little to prepare it for a child although they had had items donated by friends and family and felt they could do more if I were to say and they could come back to their care. I also accept it is entirely possible the local authority could financially support furnishing the property were X to be going home.
58. My concern regarding these matters is I believe they are probably linked to the parents' ongoing depression and psychological difficulties. Neither seems able to manage money or be motivated to address their housing difficulties. This lack of motivation may have been addressed in recent weeks but against the backdrop of the longevity of their problems I can have no confidence whatsoever these problems will not resurface. In their care X would face an uncertain future in terms of a secure home which could impact on his schooling as well as many other areas of his development.
59. I have considered carefully whether there is support the local authority could offer to address the issues of harm and the parents' ability to meet X's needs. Putting aside financial considerations, the local authority could fund all the therapy the parents require to avoid waiting lists, could pay off the parents' rent arrears or provide a bond for a private tenancy, and could furnish a home. However that would only be worth it if I felt the parents would engage fully with therapy such that all their problems could be addressed and I do not believe they would. Over the last six months they have not demonstrated an ability to address their problems and changes made in the weeks leading up to a final hearing cannot be the basis of a positive prognosis of the future.
60. I acknowledge that the local authority's plan for X will also mean harm for him. He will be separated from the care of his mother who has cared for him since birth. We now know he cannot remain with the familiar foster carer and will have to move to another placement. I cannot deny that that will cause him emotional harm and I have to balance that against the harm he would experience if he remains in his mother's care.
61. There are other factors I need to consider under the two welfare checklists. X is too young for anyone to ascertain his wishes and feelings but it is reasonable to assume that he would wish to be raised within his birth family if at all possible. He has the physical, emotional and educational needs of any child of his age, to be loved, to have his practical care needs met, and be kept safe from harm.
62. I acknowledge that the local authority's plan means significant change for X. Within the next week he would have to move to a strange foster placement and at some point in the future would move to an adoptive family. He will go from being in his mother's care all the time to seeing her five days a week, along with the father, and then his contact with his parents will gradually reduce. As I have acknowledged, this will impact on X. Remaining in his mother's care or being placed with his father would leave him with a familiar figure which would have to be the best possible outcome. That is one factor I have to balance when reaching my decision.
63. Very importantly, I have to consider the relationship X has with his parents, the likelihood of that continuing and the value of that to X. This is something I cannot underestimate as X has only ever known his mother's care. It is clear from contact he benefits from the time he spends with his father. The parents have built up a good relationship with X and he will lose this if he is adopted. In weighing up the options for X this has been a key part of my thinking. X will also lose relationships with his wider family, although these are obviously much less significant to him. He will also lose the potential for a relationship with his half siblings, although I note the father is not in contact with any of those children which may make it less likely X would ever know them. C has been adopted and were X to be adopted there is in fact the potential of them having some relationship in the future.
64. Looking at the likely effect on X of having ceased to be a member of his original family were he to be adopted, I agree with the guardian that early on he will have no concept of the changes to his identity and legal status that will result from adoption. Later he is going to need help to understand his history, including by way of life story work, and hard as it would be, I think that these parents would engage with that were I to decide he should be adopted.
65. Considering then all of the above, as I have done when hearing this case, I believe the balance comes down in favour of adoption for X and I am satisfied it is the only possible order I can make. I am clear it is a proportionate order given the need to protect X from harm. The changes his parents need to make are significant and are not in X's timescales. His father seems to know what is required of him, his mother maybe less so, but neither of them is yet engaged in that process. The small evidence of change there is dates from the last four weeks and is not a basis for purposeful delay. I am not confident either parent will successfully engage in therapy, although I very much hope for their sakes they will. Delaying for a residential assessment of the whole family, whilst it would give me additional evidence, would have to be justified in light of the prognosis for the parents and I cannot say would be. There would be no point in pursuing a residential assessment of just X and his father whilst the issue of the harm the father poses remains unaddressed. He would have to take his medication and engage in CBT before that risk could be reduced such that a residential assessment could be pursued and that is not in X's timescales.
66. The guardian in her report summarised her conclusions as follows : "It is clear, in my view, when considering the totality of the evidence before the Court that M and F do not have the capacity to provide X with parenting of a good enough standard to ensure his continued safety and wellbeing in timescales compatible with his needs. They are limited by their respective experiences which have impacted on their psychological wellbeing. They have significant personal difficulties to address before I could be confident that X would not be at risk in their care." This is the conclusion I have also come to.
67. In this case then, having carried out the balancing exercise that I must, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of X living safely in the care of either or both of his parents, and that his needs for stability and permanence can only be met in an adoptive placement. I am satisfied that the local authority's final care plan for X is proportionate and (in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002) in his best welfare interests. I therefore make a care order approving the plan of adoption. In respect of the placement order application I am satisfied that X's welfare requires me to dispense with the parents' consent to placing him for adoption, the word "require" here having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, "the connotation of the imperative". I therefore make a placement order authorising the local authority to place X for adoption.
68. There is one further direction I wish to make. I think it is hugely important for children who are adopted that they have information available to them, through their adoptive parents, so they can make sense of their early life. This judgment, in setting out what I have read and heard in court, gives at least a summary of that start. Whilst it will be placed in an anonymised form in the public domain it is important that it is easily available to those who will be bringing X up. I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment should be released by the Local Authority to X's adopters so that it is available to him in future life.
69. Finally I also make an order for public funding assessment for all the respondents in this matter. I hope that my reasons as given are sufficient but if the advocates require any further detail to be given I would ask them to let me know.