[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) >> J, Re [2016] EWFC B38 (26 April 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B38.html Cite as: [2016] EWFC B38

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LEEDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002

		26 April 2016

Introduction

1. In these proceedings I am concerned for J, a girl aged almost two. Her parents are M and F and both parents have parental responsibility for J. The parents are no longer a couple. J has a half sister, Z, who is now eighteen years old and has recently moved back to live with her mother. Another half maternal half sister, Y, aged twelve, lives with a relative. A paternal half sibling has been adopted.
2. The local authority's application for a care order was issued on 27 January 2016, although prior to that the local authority had applied last October to extend a supervision order which was made for twelve months on 24 October 2014. Since then the local authority has applied for a placement order, that application having been issued on 12 April 2016. There is one other application I have to consider today as M applied on 30 March for a further assessment of herself by an independent social worker. She invites me to place J in her care in the community whilst this assessment is carried out over the next two months, her view being that there would be no risk to J in such a course of action.
3. Although J was living in her mother's care under the supervision order at the start of these proceedings, I made an interim care order on 3 February, approving her removal to a foster placement. Since that time her mother has had contact three times a week. Her father has chosen not to take up any contact whilst J has been accommodated, so his allotted one hour a week is instead given to M, meaning she sees J three times a week for two hours.

Background

4. There have been longstanding concerns about M's abuse of alcohol and also relating to domestic violence, formerly in her relationship with Y's father and subsequently with J's father. M's two older children moved to live with other family members due to M's difficulties, although the oldest has recently returned to live with her mother.
5. As a result of the concerns about the parents' older children, an assessment was undertaken prior to J's birth which identified a number of risk factors. Care proceedings were issued, with a plan for J to remain at home with her parents under an interim care order. I was the judge who had responsibility for those proceedings.
6. In those proceedings, as well as the social worker's assessment of the parents, a consultant forensic psychologist undertook an assessment of the parents. The assessment of the psychologist in September 2014 was cautiously positive, concluding that M was not at that time showing a dependence on alcohol, that the parents showed insight into the professionals' concerns, that M was at low risk of aggression and moderate risk of risk-taking behaviour, although her most prominent traits were those associated with difficulties in managing control over her emotions including anger, which had been exacerbated in the past by alcohol misuse. The psychologist felt both parents were showing insight into the concerns of professionals, could see what their past difficulties had been and how they might arise again in the future. The psychologist's view was that if M relapsed into alcohol misuse this would be likely to have a significant impact on her ability to meet J's needs as well as reduce her ability to protect J from harm.
7. On the basis of the psychological assessment and the social worker's own assessment, the local authority recommended J should remain living with her parents under a supervision order. The then children's guardian supported this plan. A final supervision order was made on 24 October 2015 to last for twelve months.
8. Sadly however quite quickly things went wrong. The parents' relationship broke down in December 2014. F had a relapse in relation to his drug use and an overdose led to a hospital admission. A written agreement was entered into, signed by M, stipulating that F was not to attend the family home due to the risk of domestic violence. Following this, M experienced low mood and an alcohol relapse. This led to a further written agreement being signed in January 2015 saying M should not consume alcohol whilst caring for J. An incident of domestic violence took place between the parents on 9 April 2015, at a time when M had consumed alcohol, and a further written agreement was entered into. That agreement was fuller and quite detailed, requiring M not to consume alcohol and to engage with alcohol services, her not allowing F to visit or live at the family home (and if he did she would inform the local authority and police), that she would attend the Freedom Programme to address issues around the impact of domestic abuse on children, and that she would inform the social worker if she had any concerns about her own ability to care for J.
9. In June 2015 M underwent an alcohol detox but the alcohol service advised the local authority she did not attend her follow-up appointments. M says that the particular follow-up treatment she wanted was not being offered to her. Soon after M admitted to consuming on average one and a half litres of cider per day. From September 2015 through to 1 February 2016 M disengaged from all alcohol misuse support services according to those services, although M does not entirely accept this.
10. Looking at other aspects of the agreement which the local authority says were broken, M admitted in August 2015 that F had been visiting and staying at her home the previous month, a breach of the written agreement. She went on to admit that they had been drinking and smoking suspected 'legal highs'. She further alleged that there had been incidents of domestic violence between her and F. She says she had been unable to withstand pressure from him when he had nowhere else to live so allowed him to stay with her and J.
11. Relationships between M and the maternal aunt and paternal grandmother, seen as protective factors in the previous care proceedings, have been strained as a result of M's behaviour. The grandmother has withdrawn from involvement with J; M says the aunt still talks to her but she does not seem to be as significant a figure in J's life.
12. On 6 September 2015 J sustained a bump to her head whilst at the home of P, a former partner of M. M informed the paternal grandmother who took J to hospital. The local authority were concerned because the relationship between M and P was extremely violent and was a factor in M's eldest two children being removed from her care.
13. As a result of all these concerns, the local authority applied to extend the supervision order. Early on in those proceedings given the level of concerns the guardian was querying whether in fact the local authority should issue care proceedings. The question of the parents' ongoing substance misuse was raised and hair strand testing ordered. These showed that F had used heroin between the start of September and the start of December 2015. Alcohol test results in respect of M confirm that she ingested substantial and excessive quantities of alcohol on a regular basis between the beginning of June and the beginning of December 2015, a time when J was in her care.
14. In November 2015 M entered into a new relationship with B, a relationship she tells people was merely platonic. Information from several sources showed that it would not be safe for him to be around J. Although M and B said they did not accept the concerns they agreed to B no longer visiting the family home and a safety plan was drawn up and signed by both of them in January 2016. The safety plan however was immediately breached, with B being found in the home, and over Christmas F also visited the family home. This led to the local authority issuing its application for a care order and to J's removal into foster care on 3 February.
15. Within these proceedings the social worker has carried out an updated assessment of M and there has been an updated assessment by the psychologist who assessed the mother before, both of which I shall return to later in this judgment.

The Issues and the Evidence

16. In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter. I have heard evidence in court from J's social worker; from M; and from the children's guardian. F has not given his solicitor any instructions for a number of months and has not attended today. She has attempted to speak with him, even going to his home and leaving a note for him as he was not in, but he has not come to court. I am also conscious he has not seen J since Boxing Day. He is clearly choosing not to be involved in these proceedings and I am content that despite his absence it is appropriate to proceed with this final hearing.
17. M has been able to agree that the threshold criteria, the hurdle the local authority has to cross before I can consider making a care order, has been met in this case. This is what has been agreed :

A. The threshold criteria are satisfied as per the schedule of findings found by the court in satisfaction of the threshold criteria pursuant to s 31(2) on 24 October 2014, protective measures having been continuously in place since 23 May 2014.

B. The risks identified in the threshold criteria dated 24 October 2014 continued as at 27 January 2016 when the Local Authority issued its application for a care order, given that the following facts are proved;

(i) M continued to abuse alcohol and is alcohol dependant.

(ii) F continued to abuse non-prescription drugs.

(iii) The parents continued to be involved in volatile incidents together and in front of J.

(iv) The parents continued to breach written agreements with the local authority including;

(a) F visiting M's home; and

(b) B visiting M's home.

C. The parents are unable to prioritise consistently and provide for J's needs due to their :

(i) Inability to remain abstinent from substance abuse

(ii) Inability to understand sufficiently the impact substance abuse has their own lives and the risks this behaviour presents to J's welfare

(iii) Inability to engage consistently with support and treatment in respect of substance abuse

(iv) Inability to work openly and honestly with child protection and welfare professionals

together with

(v) M's continued formation of relationships likely to pose a risk of harm to herself and J.

D. By reason of the above J is likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm.

18. F of course has not given his solicitors instructions so this document is not agreed by him but neither is anything contained in it opposed. As a result, I have been able to focus today on the plans for J, whether her mother should be given more time to demonstrate that she can provide J with the care she needs and whether I should have a further assessment to look at that, or whether, as the professionals tell me, M has had long enough to prove herself and now I need to focus on finding a permanent home for J by way of adoption.

The Position of the Local Authority and the Guardian

19. The local authority, supported by the guardian, is of the view that J should not be placed with her mother and, in the absence of any other family member having been assessed as able to care for her, the best option for a permanent home for her would be for her to be adopted. The professionals rely on the assessment of the social worker, the assessment by the psychologist, and the history of this case. They say that, whilst it may be that very recently M has again started to make some improvements in terms of her alcohol misuse, set against the history of this case I cannot rely on that as a predictor of future success. They point to the hair strand testing which shows that over a six month period in the latter part of 2015, at a time when J was in her mother's care, her mother was drinking to excess.
20. Looking first at the psychological assessment by The psychologist, she of course had assessed M back in 2014 and provided indicators then for future risk. The psychologist's view of M two years later was rather different to her former more positive view. She said that M was now likely to meet the criteria for an alcohol dependence disorder. The psychologist noted M reported current excessive alcohol use and there was evidence that she is using alcohol as a way of managing negative emotional experiences. She observed that M's overall level of distress had increased and she was notably more anxious and stressed. She continued to be impulsive, impatient and quick-tempered, traits which were exacerbated by excessive alcohol use.
21. The psychologist assessed M as presenting a moderate risk of engaging in aggressive behaviours in the future, an increase in her risk compared to the previous assessment. The critical items were considered to be problems in relationships, problems with substance misuse, parenting difficulties, victimisation, problems with instability, low self-esteem, problems with treatment and supervision, problems with professional services and plans, and problems with stress and coping.
22. Looking at M's insight into her situation, The psychologist said M appeared to have some difficulty in seeing the manner in which her use of alcohol has pervaded areas of her functioning, and this is particularly relevant in relation to her parenting. She said : "M's substance misuse began in her adolescence and has developed into a way of escaping strong negative emotions. This has led to the development of a lifestyle where alcohol use has taken centre stage. It has served to protect M from thinking about painful and difficult experiences and in my opinion, has led to physiological and psychological dependence. As a result her judgement has become impaired and her priorities have become distorted, meaning that her daughter's needs have not always been attended to." [E40]
23. She concluded : "In my previous assessment of M I indicated that should she relapse into alcohol misuse, or should her relationship with F deteriorate or should she not fully engage with services then her capacity to protect J, in my assessment would be compromised. It is regrettable that this formulation of risk has been realised since September 2014 and in my view this raises significant questions about M's ability to protect J from harm and consistently prioritise her needs. This is likely to be compromised if she does not address her alcohol misuse or if she were to enter another dysfunctional relationship which would expose J to the risks of harm associated with domestic abuse. I have expressed my concerns about the level of motivation M currently presents with; even with an increased motivation this, in and of itself is unlikely to be sufficient to help her maintain a lifestyle which meets the needs of her child both now and in the future. Unless M engages fully in further alcohol misuse interventions to address these factors she may not be able to fully recognise the risks to J and take appropriate steps to manage these risks." [E40]
24. Looking at the local authority's assessment of M, it is inevitable that her alcohol misuse is a key part of their assessment. The social worker notes that M's alcohol misuse spans an eight year period. Whilst noting that since J was removed M has made great efforts to combat her alcohol abuse and reports having significantly reduced her drinking, the local authority says her efforts are not sufficient for one to have confidence for the future. The social worker points out M has been able to address her alcohol use issues in the past for short periods of time and then she has relapsed. The social worker's view is that M minimises her alcohol use and has not been open and honest about it. Prior to the hair strand testing being done in these proceedings M had told the social worker she was having only a couple of glasses of cider at night when J was in bed, when of course the test results were indicative of a very much higher level of consumption. M was noted at contact smelling of alcohol on 3 March; when challenged about it she admitted having a drink the previous evening with her adult daughter at a pub, a fact she had not volunteered. The social worker's view is that she also smelt of alcohol on a visit to social services on 17 March although M denies that.
25. The social worker was also concerned that M does not recognise the impact of alcohol on her behaviour. In her assessment she noted that M was insistent she was not drunk after drinking and that when she had she was in control of herself. She did not believe her alcohol consumption interfered with her parenting of J. The social worker's observation was M could function after having alcohol but her emotional state of mind and her responses were very different. She had been observed to be argumentative and volatile in dealing with social workers and could not regulate her behaviour. The social worker was also concerned that such behaviour was witnessed by J who did not react, suggesting this was "normal" to her.
26. Prior to J being removed M had been clear she did not see any point engaging with alcohol support services as they did not help her in the way she wished. The social worker accept that M now has re-engaged with alcohol services and she has spoken to M's support worker. The social worker records the positive comments of that worker in her assessment, although noting that he had commented he did not feel M would ever be abstinent from alcohol and that he felt she would go back to social drinking. He said he had referred her to another team where she could engage in a mindfulness group, although I note M says she is waiting for that hear from anyone in this regard. Again the social worker notes the similarity of this to the assessment of M in the previous proceedings, where she was engaging well with alcohol services at that time but which did not continue to be the case.
27. In her assessment looking at alcohol matters the social worker concluded: "The most significant concern in relation to M's alcohol misuse, when considering planning for J, is the fact that she has been given numerous chances, support and opportunities to change her pattern of behaviour; she has been at risk of loosing [sic] J previously, has had two previous children removed from her care because of her lifestyle and choices yet this is not been enough to motivate her to abstain from alcohol. Sadly the addiction to alcohol has taken preference and it is believed there is no evidence to suggest this pattern of behaviour will not continue for the duration of J's childhood." [E79].
28. The social worker also has concerns about M's relationship history and alcohol and domestic violence have figured highly in this, particularly with F of her older children and J's father. There are also concerns about her relationship she formed during these proceedings with a man called B. Although M now denies that was ever a romantic relationship, the social worker's evidence was that M had told her it was, having started as a friendship, and I noted that The psychologist described it as a relationship. B was in the family home on several occasions in November but claimed to just be a friend who was visiting. He smelt of alcohol and was aggressive and intimidating. F told the social worker theirs was a relationship but they were not telling professionals because of B's alcohol and drug misuse problems. B himself however in December told the social worker that they were in fact in a romantic relationship and had been for some time, and the health visitor encountered him in the house in a state of undress. Concerns about B led to the local authority requiring M and him to sign an agreement that he would leave the property while a risk assessment was carried out. That safety plan was breached on three occasions, including on the day M signed it, M denying B was in the house but he was found there. On one of those occasions he drank two litres of cider whilst the social workers were there for an hour. There was a domestic violence incident on 7 January when the couple were described as being heavily intoxicated and reports suggested M had assaulted B. Again worrying the couple were seen together by a social worker on 2 February, the day before the interim care hearing when this court approved the removal of J to foster care. M denied that at the hearing but I preferred the social worker's evidence.
29. Professionals were also concerned that F had visited J the family home on two occasions in December, a breach of the earlier written agreement. M's response at the time was in the social worker's view to minimise the potential risk from such a visit. M says now that he simply came with his mother to collect J and that she had not agreed to that happening. I make no findings about whether anything more significant happened but I note from these incidents that F at least came to the property on those occasions, which may be relevant for the future.
30. The local authority acknowledges M has been committed to attending contact and clearly loves her daughter. The social worker says contact has overall been positive although there are concerns about M's inability to enforce boundaries. This is not seen to be a problem for J in her foster home. The social worker also identified that when J had been at home there was a lack of routine for her and she went to bed late, probably linked to her mother's drinking habits and lifestyle. Concerns to this effect had been expressed to the social worker by the paternal grandmother. In addition, in a viability assessment carried out in relation to M's adult daughter as a potential carer, Z confirmed M used to allow J to stay up very late.
31. In essence, for the social worker, although M has recently begun to re-engage with support to address alcohol misuse and although M has been committed to contact and loves J, the risks of her failing to maintain these changes which are in their infancy are too high when set aside the mother's history.
32. The local authority's view is very much endorsed by the guardian whose reports I have read carefully. The guardian was not the guardian in the previous proceedings and I know will have approached this case with an open mind. He too acknowledges that M has engaged with alcohol services since the J was removed two months ago. The guardian has spoken to the support worker there who confirmed M had engaged with him between August and September 2015, then disengaged until February. He was positive about her attendance since then and she is taking medication to assist her cravings for alcohol.
33. For the guardian, sharing the local authority's concerns, there is a real concern about the question of further delay for yet more assessment of M. His evidence was that that could only be considered if it would be beneficial for J and he did not feel it would be. M in her discussions with him had been completely unable to acknowledge the concerns about her alcohol misuse and how it would have impacted on her daughter. She did not feel J should have been removed from her care or that J was at any risk. She could not see that the presence of B in her home exacerbated the risks posed to J. Her approach was to blame others rather than accept responsibility for herself, even when reminded of written agreements she had breached. This for the guardian was a major obstacle to change. As he said in his oral evidence, you cannot address concerns unless you can acknowledge them, that is a necessary first stage.
34. The guardian in his analysis of the options available for J was of the view that her mother was not in a position to keep J safe or meet her needs. He had considered whether this would be possible with support but felt any support the local authority might be able to offer plus any limited family support that was available would be insufficient to provide the level of monitoring needed to keep J safe in her mother's care and promote her welfare.
35. For the guardian, this was not a case where M had had only a short period to show that she could do what was needed for her daughter. He pointed out she had in effect had a period of at least eighteen months since the supervision order was made to make and sustain the requisite changes to her lifestyle. The guardian concluded : "…I acknowledge her commitment to contact, her belated re-engagement with (the alcohol misuse service), and her stated intention to work openly and honestly with professionals involved in promoting the welfare of J. Sadly, the history in this case does not give me the confidence that M can sustain any recent progress she may have made. History is the best predictor of future behaviour, and…..M has had at least 18 months to acknowledge and address the identified concerns. In my opinion, M is at the very beginning of a potentially long journey and her timescales are not compatible with J's needs for permanency." [E126]
36. M in her final statement acknowledges that it is since her daughter was removed that she has begun to make changes to her life. She says previously she resorted to drinking excessive alcohol when in times of stress and also when she felt lonely, but she now realises that has to change. She says that since J was removed she has considerably reduced her alcohol consumption and has re-engaged with alcohol support services. She has been prescribed with Acamprosat which reduces cravings for alcohol. M she is now coping well and will be able to maintain her situation. She accepts having had a drink whilst out with Z on 3 March. She says that she was advised she should reduce her alcohol intake rather than stopping all together as this could have an effect on her health, although she has filed no evidence to that effect from her alcohol worker. She says in any event she was not under the influence of alcohol when she attended contact. M said it was only when she had a major problem with F that she started to drink alcohol excessively. Since then her alcohol intake has reduced and she believes she can control the amount she consumes. She therefore does not accept if J were in her care there would be any possibility of her again consuming alcohol to excess.
37. In terms of relationships, M's view is that she would not see F again and there is no reason to think he would come to her home if J were there. She accepted she had let him live in the home again last summer, saying she must have been 'an idiot' as she knew the social worker had said he must keep away because of J's safety. She said she has not seen B since J was taken into care, but in any event repeated in her evidence that he was just a friend who helped her out and kept her company. She does acknowledge however he had a drink problem, "a bit of a drink problem" as she put it in her oral evidence, which could give rise to unpredictable behaviour hence she accepted she should keep away from him now. She actually acknowledged in her evidence she saw he was a risk to J but nonetheless just let him in. She later admitted this was repeating what she had done a few months earlier with F. She said she had only visited her P to allow her daughter to have contact with Y, and did not see that this put J at any risk. Her view is that she does not now associate with individuals who could be considered a risk to J.
38. I did not have a sense that M herself felt more assessment of her as a carer was necessary, given that she does not accept J would be at risk of any harm in her care. She is willing to be further assessed though with J in her care and for these proceedings to continue whilst such assessment takes place, and I have her application in respect of this to consider.
39. I do not have any up-to-date knowledge of F's position as he has taken no active role in these proceedings, despite legal representation. His solicitor tells me when the care proceedings were first issued he supported the local authority's plans for his daughter but they have had no instructions since, despite his solicitor's efforts. I note the result of the drug tests at the end of last year indicative of use of heroin by him between September and December 2015. It seems that F is not in a position to challenge plans for his daughter at this time and he clearly recognises that.

Decision

40. I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of J. 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 proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the 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".
41. It is not for the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering is not permitted. In YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 967 it was said : "Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and….everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to 'rebuild' the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing."
42. 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 J, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer.
43. In reaching my decision I have taken into account that J's welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I am also conscious that I must have in mind the general principle that any delay in determining a child's future is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.
44. 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.
45. There is also the question of M's application for further assessment of J in her care. Under s38(6) of the Children Act 1989, where the court makes an interim care or supervision order, it may give such directions as it considers appropriate with regard to assessment of the child. Under s38(7A) a direction for an assessment may be given only if the court is of the opinion that assessment is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings justly. S38(7B) sets out factors the Court should take into account when considering an application. In Re H-L [2013] EWCA Civ 655 the President said : 'The short answer is that 'necessary' means necessary…… If elaboration is required, he went on to adopt a formulation from Re P [2008] EWCA Civ 535, namely it 'has a meaning lying somewhere between 'indispensable' on the one hand and 'useful', 'reasonable' or 'desirable' on the other hand', having 'the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable.'
46. A placement order is sought by the local authority in respect of J. The court cannot make a placement order unless the parents have consented or the court is satisfied that the parents' consent should be dispensed with. A court cannot dispense with a parent's consent unless either the parent cannot be found, or lacks capacity to give consent, or the welfare of the child "requires" consent to be dispensed with. In that context I am conscious that "requires" means what is demanded rather than what is merely optional.
47. In this case I have to ask myself whether J should be returned to her mother's care, maybe with further assessment as sought by her, or whether she should be adopted. I have to balance the pros and cons of each of the options being presented to me. 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.
48. I have to consider J's particular needs, and also her age, sex, background and any characteristics of her which are relevant. As the guardian says in his report, as with all children, J's primary needs are for stability, security and continuity of care in an environment that will safeguard and promote her welfare. She is a young child, not yet two, and is very vulnerable. All of her needs have to be met by the person caring for her.
49. J's wishes and feelings cannot be identified or taken into account in any significant way given her young age. I can assume that she would want to grow up in her birth family if that were safe for her.
50. Very important in this case is the issue of any harm which J has suffered or is at risk of suffering. Linked to that is how capable her mother, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting her needs. The likelihood of future harm as at the time this case began was accepted by M in the threshold criteria which I have set out above at paragraph 17. From all the evidence I have read and heard I am satisfied that that risk of harm is just as likely now. M's change in her drinking habits is very recent when set against the background of her long history of drinking. She is not abstinent of alcohol as evidenced by her drinking at the very least as recently as six weeks ago on her own evidence. That fits with what her support worker said to the social worker, that she would be likely to revert to social drinking. I also note that Z in her viability assessment as a carer spoke of M still having "a drink" but that she is not drinking every day. Set against her background of past alcohol misuse, that leaves the door open for future problems. M accepted that she has in the past drunk when stressed, accepted by her in her own evidence and in what she told the psychologist. She has not dealt with the issues in her past that have led to her drinking and I do not see any suggestion within the information I have from the alcohol services that that is something about to be tackled. When Ms Anning asked M why she had not done this, she said that she was too busy with court dates and going to the Job Centre, which to me says she does not recognise the importance of tackling her underlying issues rather than just relying on medication to discourage her from drinking.
51. The reality is if M is caring for J she will have stresses again and I think it is very likely that F would turn up at her house. Nothing in her evidence reassures me that she would have any better ability now to deal with stress other than by turning to alcohol. I am also conscious that Z is living with her and will be part of J's life. Z has admitted to losing a job recently after she turned up at work drunk and helped herself to a drink from behind the bar. That M was drinking with Z on 3 March alongside this information satisfies me that alcohol is still more prevalent in this family than M can acknowledge, and whether or not that is drinking to a problematic level is not the only issue. Social drinking, as has been shown in M's life so far, can easily tip into problematic drinking and stopping that is not a quick process.
52. M's view is that her care of J has not been affected by her drinking and would not be if she were again to care for J but I disagree. I look at Z and Y's experiences in her mother's care and then at the experiences J has had to date including lack of routines and witnessing domestic abuse. That is reflected in the threshold document which was agreed with M and I believe this accurately reflects the potential for future harm to J.
53. Like the guardian I have considered whether there is any support which could be put in place to keep J safe in her mother's care, but this is the exercise I went through at the end of the last proceedings. Then there was both local authority support under a supervision order and significant support available from family members. The latter of those is no longer the case and in any event the level of support which was available did not keep J safe from risk of harm. Nothing I have heard in these proceedings makes me think there is a support package which could be put in place such that J would be safe in the care of her mother for the foreseeable future.
54. I also do not believe M could be trusted to keep to any agreement as put in place by the local authority. In this regard I simply have to look at the experiences since I made the supervision order and the number of agreements broken. M states clearly she has not breached those agreements but then goes on to acknowledge that she has drunk alcohol whilst J has been in the house, albeit she says J has been in bed, and I remind myself of the actual level of alcohol she must have been consuming according to the hair strand tests. She was she says told not to stop entirely but that is not the point; she had signed an agreement not to drink and did not raise this with the social workers at either point of signature. She has also allowed F into the house which she accepts, although not really accepting her responsibility for this. She also concealed B's presence from the local authority on more than one occasion, knowing she had broken the agreement by letting him into the house. She may not currently be seeing either of these men but I have no confidence if they or any other risky individual came to the property M would act appropriately.
55. I am afraid M has had her opportunity in terms of proving herself when it comes to stopping drinking alcohol and addressing her problems. As the guardian says, the past is the best predictor we have of the future. I thought the assessment of Z made poignant reading when considering the implications of M's drinking problems. Z has also spoken of her anger at her and her half sister having to be removed from her mother's care. She believes her mother can make and maintain these changes for J as she is more attached to J; I am afraid I do not share that confidence.
56. Were J to be placed with adopters, there would be no real risk of harm to her given the assessment process prospective adopters go through. Those carers would be able to meet all of J's physical and emotional needs. I have to accept that adoption would mean J would lose a relationship with her parents and there will be some emotional harm as a result of that. That harm could be ameliorated by life story work, with J growing up with a real understanding of her origins and how she came to be adopted.
57. I have to consider the likely effect on J of any change in her circumstances. She is currently in foster care and of course will have to leave that placement whatever decision I make, which will have an impact on her. She has been placed for something approaching three months and of course if the plan is one of adoption she would remain there longer. The loss of that carer will have an impact on J but that is inevitable given that she can remain with those carers throughout her childhood. Again I know the local authority will mitigate that as best it can in terms of any rehabilitation plan to her mother or a gradual transfer to an adoptive placement.
58. When considering a plan for adoption for J, I must consider the likely effect on her throughout her life of having ceased to be a member of her original family and become an adopted person. Adoption will legally sever J's relationship with her birth family and the plan is for no direct contact with them throughout her childhood. That will be a loss to her, and I shall return to this shortly. The guardian points out in his report that it would be the local authority's responsibility to assist J to understand her personal history. J will have a life story book prepared to assist her and information will be shared with J in an age appropriate way in the future. The guardian notes that the parents will be invited to contribute and their contribution would help J to gain a sense of identity and an understanding that her parents did not reject her.
59. It is important when balancing options for J that I look a her relationship with her family, the likelihood of that continuing and the value to J of that happening. I accept that J has a good relationship with her mother, evidenced in contact, and indeed also with Z and no doubt other members of her extended birth family. All of that would continue if J were in her mother's care and will be lost if she is adopted. I do not minimise the importance to her of that family network and of course if she could be safely placed in her family that would be best for her. Very sadly the only family members who have offered to care of J have failed viability assessments; other family members have not put themselves forward. As result there is no relative who can provide J with the secure environment she would need to develop and otherwise meet her needs.

Placement of J with her mother

60. Turning then to balance the options for J, I look first at the possibility of her returning to her mother's care. This would mean she would grow up in her birth family which would bring obvious benefits to her in terms of her identity and sense of herself. She would have a real and meaningful relationship with not just her mother but wider members of her family. I know she would be loved by her mother, who obviously wants to do what is best for her daughter, and J would have a very real sense of that, being in her mother's care.
61. The problem is that J would not be safe from harm. Even if her mother manages not to resume drinking in the near future, given the history I believe she would do so at some point. The impact of that is obvious because her other two daughters have experienced it and have not been able to grow up in her care. A child in the care of someone who is drinking alcohol to excess is not safe. This mother has brought unsafe people into the lives of her children and has had violent relationships. Even if she was not in an intimate relationship with B, he is a man with a criminal record for violence who M accepts had a drink problem. It should have been self evident to her that he should not be part of the life of her daughter but she could not put J first over her own need for company. I do not believe anything fundamentally has changed for M, even if she has not drunk alcohol for six or seven weeks, and I have only her report as to that to go on. She needs to address her own deep-rooted problems before one can be confident that there is a solution her drink problem, as she needs to address why she is drinking. As the guardian says, if she cannot see she has a problem she cannot tackle it.
62. Much has been made in this hearing about where in the "Cycle of Change" M was or is. The psychologist thought she was in the Contemplation stage when she saw her in January. The guardian from what he had seen felt M was nearer the Denial stage, whilst accepting the psychologist had a different view. Even if the psychologist were right at that time, Contemplation is in fact one of the early stages in the cycle, a point at which a person is aware a problem exists but is not yet committed to doing something about it. It could maybe be argued that M has moved on from that stage given that she has now reduced her drinking. However what is accepted by anyone working with the Cycle of Change is that people often relapse and move round again - the description I have heard is that it is a spiral where one learns from each relapse and moves through the stages again. One cannot therefore see it as a linear movement where someone simply moves from one stage to the next. There is always the potential for relapse and to move backwards in the cycle, and am afraid that is very much the case for M when one looks at her history.
63. Knowing where she is in the cycle does not help me knowing when she will successfully complete the process. An assessment carried out over the next couple of months as proposed by M would tell me nothing about the durability of any changes she may be making at this time, and that means it is not "necessary" for me before I can make any final decision. It would I suspect take a year or more of real abstinence for me to have any confidence in her ability to break a pattern which has been part of her life for nearly two decades and the question is whether her daughter can wait for that. The guardian says the prospects for success are not good enough and I agree.

Placement for adoption

64. If J were placed for adoption I would know she would be safe and all of her needs would be met. She would have a permanent stable placement in a home where she will be enabled to meet her full potential. There will be no more local authority involvement in her life. She would lose the potential for any meaningful relationship with her birth family, including her mother and siblings, but would have knowledge of them through annual indirect contact.

Conclusion

65. Balancing those two options I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of J being returned safely to her mother's care, and that her 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 this little girl is a proportionate interference in J and her parents' family life and in her best welfare interests. I therefore make a care order, adopting threshold as agreed and approving the local authority's plan of adoption. I refuse M's application for further assessment, having concluded that it is not necessary to enable me to make final decisions for J. I also dismiss the local authority's application to extend the supervision order. Finally, having concluded that J's welfare requires me to dispense with the parents' consent to placing her for adoption, the word "require" here again having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, "the connotation of the imperative", I make a placement order authorising the local authority to place J for adoption.
66. 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 J up. I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment must be released by the Local Authority to J's adopters so that it is available to her in future life; that release however is on the basis that it should not be disclosed beyond them or any medical or therapeutic staff working with the child or family. It is very important therefore that the judgment is passed on to the Adoption Team to give to them. I have written this not for the benefit of the adults but for J and wish to be sure it reaches her.
67. Finally I also make an order for public funding assessment for all the respondents in this matter.
68. 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.