[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) >> B (A Child : guardianship order) [2017] EWFC B39 (09 June 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2017/B39.html Cite as: [2017] EWFC B39

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LEEDS

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF B, A CHILD

		9 June 2017

HHJ Lynch:

Introduction

1. In these proceedings I am concerned for B who is aged almost one and a half. He is the child of M and F, who I shall refer to in this judgment as the mother and the father. They were in a relationship between about January 2015 and June 2016 and both have parental responsibility for B. The mother is currently pregnant by her most recent partner, X, and her baby is due later this year. The mother and X say they separated in April 2017, the relationship having been somewhat on/off before that, but remain friends and X has attended this hearing to support the mother. X intervened in these proceedings for a time for reasons I shall come on to but is no longer involved.
2. B at the moment is living with his paternal grandparents and has been since December last year. The local authority had become involved because of bruising seen on B's face, received whilst he was in the care of his mother and X. B was initially placed with his father but then the father showed the local authority photos of what he said were earlier injuries, injuries which if inflicted could have been caused in theory by him as well as by the mother or X. That led to B moving to the care of the paternal grandparents rather than going into foster care. The couple have now been positively assessed as potential special guardians. An interim care order has been in place since December, the local authority having applied for such an order two days before it was made. Since living with his grandparents, B has had regular contact with both of his parents, three times a week with his mother and up to twice a week with his father depending on his work commitments, some of the contact for each of the parents being supervised by the paternal grandparents.
3. This case began because late last year after a local hospital referred the family to the local authority. There were concerns about bruising B had on his left cheek. That bruising in fact has not proved to be a matter of concern, but as the local authority got to know the family other matters were raised which have been looked at within the life of these court proceedings. Because, at the point when it was felt the bruising was possibly inflicted by one of the adults involved in B's care, his mother was in a relationship with X he was invited to become involved in the court case and he did. His involvement it has to be said was spasmodic. After it became clear the bruising was not an issue I discharged him from being involved as an intervener as nobody was seeking to say he had caused any harm to B.
4. The parents have been able to agree some aspects of the case which has reduced what I have had to decide at this hearing. The local authority's plan, supported by the Guardian, is for B to continue to live with his paternal grandparents under a special guardianship order. That is agreed by the father but not by the mother, who wishes B to be returned to live with her. The mother has been able to agree though what is called the threshold criteria. The threshold criteria are in effect a record of the reasons why, when this case began, B had suffered or was at risk of suffering significant harm due to the care likely to be given to him by his parents not being that what would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.
5. The sub-paragraphs which follow are what has been agreed by the parents, subject to me putting in real names rather than naming people by their role in these proceedings and also my reordering the paragraphs:

Harm resulting from adult relationships

a. Paragraph removed to avoid identifying details

b. During the relationship between the mother and father and afterwards, there have been several domestic violence incidents between them. There are significant tensions in the adult relationships.

c. On date removed an argument erupted between the mother and father over money and the father not having any cannabis, resulting in an alleged assault by him upon the mother involving his holding a knife to her face.

d. On date removed the mother was at home with a male friend when the father looked through the window, saw the male and threw a paving slab through the window causing damage. Glass fragments hit B causing injury to his head.

e. On date removed the father attended the mother's property following his being informed of B being injured that day and took him to A & E. He returned to the property later the same day and broke the kitchen window. B was in the kitchen at the time. Police advised the mother to seek legal advice regarding a restraining order.

f. On date removed the mother and father had sexual relations and subsequently an argument took place between them other and X, who had been told of what had happened by the father, when B was present.

Harm resulting from parenting issues

g. On date removed, whilst in the care of the mother and X, B sustained three linear areas of redness/marks to the left hand side of his face. The explanation given was that this happened when B, whilst unattended, rolled off the sofa on to the floor. This is indicative of a lack of supervision.

h. On date removed the mother and X had joint supervision of B who was left unsupervised on the sofa with a packet of crisps. This is a significant risk to a child of around nine months (corrected age) to self feed crisps.

6. This having been agreed means that I have been left to decide with whom B should live, what order if any should secure that placement, and also what contact arrangements there should be.

The Issues and the Evidence

7. In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter, including assessments by a local authority social worker of the mother and the father as well as a special guardianship assessment of the paternal grandparents, statements from the parents, and the Guardian's report. I have heard evidence in court from the social worker who was responsible for B until April and who did all the assessments and plans in this case, from the social worker who assessed the grandparents, from B's current social worker, and from the mother and Guardian. The father did not give oral evidence although he was at court for some of the hearing.

The Local Authority

8. The local authority invites the Court to make a special guardianship order in respect of B, leaving him in the care of his paternal grandparents. The local authority does not seek any orders in respect of contact, saying this is not necessary, but says that contact should be at least fortnightly for each of the parents, although could be more frequent if that were agreed between the grandparents and parents, in line with the Guardian's recommendation of weekly contact.
9. The local authority carried out assessments of both parents which were negative. In respect of the mother the social worker who carried out the assessment felt that placement of B back in her care would put him at risk of harm. The main reason for this is the dynamics in the relationships between the three adults, the mother, the father and X, and the potential for those to cause harm to B. The local authority says the mother lacks insight into the potentially damaging of effect of those relationships on B and she prioritises adult relationships over B's needs. The local authority says that the two intimate relationships the mother has had have both put B in harm's way and will continue to do so because the links between the mother and those two men will continue. The assessing social worker did seem to be of the understanding that there was violence in the relationship between mother and X, although in fact concerns reflected in the papers cannot be supported by hard evidence. She gave evidence though about the power imbalance in the relationship, as she saw it in her several meetings with the couple, and X's controlling behaviour, how the mother looked to X to speak for her. She had also learned in her discussions with X of mental health issues he has, as he had talked to her of being sectioned on two occasions and having had ongoing intense support from mental health services. She had not been able to get information regarding that from health services because he kept dropping out of proceedings and she had found him obstructive when she was trying to get that information. Similarly, she noted he had withdrawn from the court process at the time when the local authority wanted him to undergo hair strand testing for drugs. All of this gave real cause for concern about the level of risk he might pose. The social worker who assessed the mother also says that her acceptance of these relationships, and indeed her need for these men, stems from her own poor upbringing and the impact of that on her confidence and self-esteem.
10. In her evidence, the assessing social worker said she had on several occasions during the process raised with the mother the possibility of doing work to address her issues. She said the mother's response was that this was something she would like to think about but at that point in time she did not feel ready to give an answer or to be proactive. It was put to her that things have improved since her departure in April, that the mother is now on a waiting list for a suitable course. The social worker acknowledged evidence of some recent change, her separation from X in April and very recently accepting a referral to the Freedom Programme, a course designed to look at domestic abuse in relationships. The social worker though, like the Guardian, had some doubts about the level of separation the couple had achieved. The social worker's observation was that the mother is still at the very early stages of making the changes she needs to make to be able to give good enough care to B. She said waiting to see if she actually makes those changes would not be in B's interests, and that decisions need to be made now about where he is going to live during his childhood.
11. The local authority also takes issue with some aspects of the mother's parenting, although that is not as significant an issue as the problems arising out of the adult relationships. The social worker accepted that prior to the court proceedings the mother had been B's primary carer and concerns had not been raised. She also accepted the generally good quality of contact and that the mother had accepted advice when issues were raised. The social worker noted though that there had been the issues regarding parenting which are reflected in the agreed threshold document.
12. Ms Barker put to the assessing social worker that the risks she had identified in her assessment could be managed with B in his mother's care. The social worker acknowledged many of the issues around practical parenting could but she was adamant the risks posed by the relationships between the adults in B's life could not. She did not believe any contract of expectations could be sufficiently robust or that one could be confident it would be adhered to.
13. The local authority is of the view that the right order to secure B's placement with his grandparents would be a secure accommodation order rather than a child arrangements order. The assessing social worker said the changes the mother needed to make to address issues of concern were not such that they could be done quickly. She said B as a very young baby required stability and permanence and the best option him would be living with his grandparents. The permanence of that situation should be reflected by making a special guardianship order. She acknowledged this would make it harder for the mother to ask for arrangements to be reconsidered in the future but not impossible. She accepted it might be though that if the mother made the changes that she is beginning to make a child arrangements order may be appropriate. She acknowledged the same support could be available to the family under both orders.
14. Regarding the assessing social worker, I need to address at this point one matter which was raised by Ms Barker on behalf of the mother. It was put to the social worker that she had a closed mind, that she had written off the mother because of the initial concerns regarding B's injuries. The social worker was clear that that was not her position, that this would not be professional. Having heard her evidence and read her report, this is not a matter that troubles me. The social worker seems to me to reach the conclusion she does based on what she had read and heard. I accept she seems to have been in error as to the level of any violence in the relationship between the mother and X. She recalled something more significant which is not borne out by the papers. She had been told of a male party being reported as banging on the mother's door at two points in the early hours of a morning in February but she acknowledged there was not clear evidence that that was X. Putting however to one side whether there was evidence of domestic violence, she was still able to outline clearly her concerns about the relationship and why that led her to the conclusions she reached.
15. Going back to the plan for a special guardianship order, the author of the assessment of the grandparents also gave evidence, largely to address the issues which had been raised about the grandfather but she did talk about how she had considered the various orders which could secure B's placement with his grandparents if he remained there. She had recommended a special guardianship order because she did not see a planned rehabilitation to the mother's care and felt it was important that the placement was given as much stability as possible for B. She too acknowledged that the support plan could be put in place under either order.
16. Looking at contact arrangements, the local authority's care plan talks about contact reducing gradually to a level of at least fortnightly for each of the parents, whereas all the other parties in the case, and I am told the grandparents, would prefer contact weekly. B's current social worker struggled to answer questions regarding contact, referring back to the previous social worker who had formulated the care plan. He acknowledged that in his discussions with the grandparents there been discussions about weekly, fortnightly and monthly contact. He understood they were happy to facilitate it weekly but the plan he was still putting before the court was one of contact at least fortnightly as set out in the previous social worker's care plan. He said the grandparents had some reservations about whether the mother would be able to keep up regular contact due to her pregnancy, but did agree that they were willing to facilitate weekly contact nonetheless.

The Mother

17. The mother unsurprisingly disagrees with the assessment of her and therefore the plans for B's placement with the grandparents. She acknowledges there were problems in her relationship with the father but says she separated from him because of this and moved back to her home area, the appropriate action to take. She says she has nothing to do with him now and has no intention of resuming a relationship with him, although she accepts having sex with him at one stage during her relationship with X.
18. The mother equally says that she has separated from X, although she says that relationship was not abusive in in any way and she does not accept the local authority's view that it was controlling. The mother says her ongoing contact with X is simply because she wants to be civil given that they will both be parents of a child later this year. She wants things to be better between them than they have been between her and B's father. She described how X wanted to support her, that they go together to buy things for the baby, and they intend him to have contact with the baby when it is born. She acknowledged he came to her home when the Guardian was there and let himself in, which surprised her as she had expected him to come later that day. In response to questions from Ms Aldred she initially said they had little phone contact but then, when asked what her phone would show if people looked at it, she acknowledged it would show regular calls and messages between them. She also agreed that it would be possible for example for X to give her the money the her to buy things B but said it was his choice that they shop together.
19. The mother says that she will do whatever is needed for B to be in her care, including attending any courses, and is on the waiting list for the Freedom Programme. She said the assessing social worker was not telling the truth when she said that suggestion had been made to her during the assessment process to get involved in such work. The mother said she would take advice regarding aspects of her parenting and has already done so during contact. She will be willing to sign up for any other courses that were felt necessary.
20. The mother however when asked what she felt had been of concern in her parenting simply referred repeatedly to the lack of supervision which led to B rolling off the sofa. She did not herself in her written or oral evidence identify the issues in terms of relationships and how they might have affected B. The mother was also very clear there was no reason for the local authority to have any concerns at all about X. In relation to concerns about his sexual relationships in the past, she accepted his version of events. In relation to his mental health she confirmed the information that the assessing social worker provided but said there was no reason to worry about this as she understood he had been signed off by the doctor in the last two or three months. She had talked to his family who had no worries about him around children and she was satisfied with that. She acknowledged X had not cooperated with court proceedings and felt he should have done, and she even said it had made her suspicious, but ultimately she still said she did not feel he poses any risk.
21. If B cannot be returned to her care, the mother would now support him remaining with the paternal grandparents. In her final statement, she had expressed some worries but having heard the evidence of the social worker who assessed the couple, her concerns have been addressed and she no longer objects to that placement, subject to her clear preference for B to be placed with her. She agrees that the grandparents would make sure that she had contact with B and would treat her and the father equally, not seeking any order in this regard. Of course, as I have said already, she would want to have as much contact as possible.
22. The father supports B being placed with his parents under a special guardianship order. He accepts not moving back to live at his parents' home to ensure that can happen. He acknowledged in his written evidence his difficulties around cannabis use and the acts of violence in his relationship with the mother reflected in the agreed threshold document. He too would like as much contact as possible, ideally weekly.
23. The Guardian supports the plans of the local authority for B to live with his grandparents and agrees that a special guardianship order would be the right order to secure the placement. His reasoning is very much the same as the local authority's in terms of the issues around the mother's relationships and the impact of this on B. He described how in his view the mother remains enmeshed with X, how when he was visiting the mother on 5^th May X let himself into the house. The Guardian said X's explanation for being there was simply that he keeps in touch with the mother and calls to see how she is; there was no suggestion for example of this being for a pre-planned shopping trip. X somewhat took over the discussions, doing most of the talking, wanting to understand what was impacting on the mother having B returned to her care.
24. Ms Barker on behalf of the mother put to the Guardian that the risks which had been identified could be managed with B being in his mother's care under a care order. The Guardian agreed with the assessing social worker, that some risk could be managed but not all.
25. The unmanageable risk as the Guardian saw it was the involvement of X. He pointed out, as the social worker had, X had disengaged from being assessed at several points in proceedings and one would have to draw a negative inference from that. He had been at court during the hearing, with the mother either wanting that or being unable to prevent it, both of which would cause the Guardian concerning terms of the dynamics of their relationship. The Guardian was satisfied that X does pose a risk from what is known about his background and that has to form part of an assessment. He said the mother did not fully understand the concerns regarding X. As a result, whilst to her credit that she wanted to have a civil relationship with him, she had not considered ways in which this could be done without direct contact between them, for example keeping him up-to-date about the baby by texting or social media, or him giving her money to go purchase things for the child or buying them himself separately so they did not have to be together. The Guardian pointed out the mother had had the duration of these proceedings to demonstrate that she could put clear distance between herself and X and she had not done so, even though she said they had separated, a significant concern for him. The Guardian pointed out that due to the mother having a baby with X he will be a permanent part of her life as there will be a permanent link between them. X had told the Guardian he had a clear wish and desire to be heavily involved with his unborn child and became quite fired up about the potential court process. This of course would mean he would course be around B if B were in his mother's care. The Guardian's view was that there could be no support package that could ensure B's safety in that scenario short of a presence twenty-four hours a day.
26. Looking at the improvements in the mother's life, the Guardian acknowledged the positives in the mother's situation, the fact that she seemed to be moving on slightly in terms of what I would call the Cycle of Change, having now moved to the point of getting herself on a waiting list for the Freedom Programme. The Guardian made the point though that the transition phase can potentially be for an indeterminate period of time, differing from person to person. The mother is only at the very beginning of that stage of the cycle. The timescale for the work she needs to do is not compatible with B's timescales. B cannot wait in limbo until the mother starts this work, engages with it, and hopefully successfully completes it. Decisions for B need to be made now so he can have permanence in his life.
27. It is that need for permanence for B at this early stage in his life that led the Guardian to support the local authority's plan for a special guardianship order. He acknowledged that to date the grandparents have been able to care for B whilst the parents had parental responsibility and the parents had not sought to undermine that placement. He acknowledged that that could suggest the grandparents did not need the enhanced parental responsibility which would come with a special guardianship order. However, he said it was important to B to have the sense of long-term belonging which a special guardianship order would give. Such an order would also guard against any difficulties which might arise in the future if the family disagreed about plans to B. He was very clear that that would not mean the grandparents should exclude the parents from matters of importance regarding their son and he gave the example the scenario of the grandparents telling the mother about and involving her appropriately in medical appointments.
28. The Guardian disagrees with the local authority's proposal for contact to be at a minimum of fortnightly, being of the view that weekly contact for each of the parents would be appropriate in this case. The relationship between B and the grandparents is already well established so there is no need to reduce contact to allow him to settle as is often the case. Equally the mother is known to the grandparents and they already supervise some of her contact, as well as the father's, so it is known that they can manage this, and he says when he spoke with them they were supportive of the idea of weekly contact. The quality of the mother's contact is good, and the father's so far as I know. The Guardian says a higher level of contact than might be normal in a case such as this would be a positive benefit for B, enabling the positive relationships he has with his parents to be maintained.
29. The Guardian was confident that no order was needed in respect of contact. He said the grandparents in discussions with him were very open in respect of contact and talked about ways to make it flexible. He found them welcoming of discussion and keen for some sort of guidance as to how arrangements might be varied. It was they who had raised with him concerns that the level of contact being suggested by the local authority was too low, that contact worked well for B and they felt weekly would be a much better frequency. They saw that as striking a balance between B having a meaningful relationship with both of his parents but it not being too intrusive in terms of their day-to-day family life. The Guardian's comment was that he had the sense they had thought that through for themselves and they had reached their own opinion before he shared his views, which were very similar.
30. Decision
31. I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of B. All judges start from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family. In reaching my decision I have taken into account that B's welfare is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I have considered the Article 8 rights of the adults and the children. My decision inevitably involves an interference with the right to respect to family life. Having given very careful consideration to the orders I am going on to make, I am satisfied that those orders are in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of the children's rights and are 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 a child.
32. I have also reminded myself of the words of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050, para 50 : "Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done."
33. I have to ask myself the central question in this case, whether B can be returned to his mother's care or should remain living with his grandparents. Following on from that, if I decide he should stay where he is, I must consider what order is most appropriate to secure that placement and whether I should make any orders in respect of contact. I must 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 checklist and propose to consider the evidence in the light of those factors.
34. The first aspect of the welfare checklist I am going to look at is what B needs from his carers, particularly given his young age and the vulnerability which flows from that. I have made reference in particular to B's age because a young child needs all their needs to be met by their carers. B needs the people bringing him up to be able to meet all his physical needs for care and also his emotional needs, acknowledging though that one is not looking for perfection. Society of course accepts diverse standards of parenting but it needs to be good enough for B. And that is not just a question of feeding him, supervising him, caring for him and loving him. It includes giving him an stable home in which to grow up where he will not experience physical or emotional harm.
35. The question then is where can he receive such care, where would he be best placed. To address that I need to look at two interlinked factors from the welfare checklist, any harm which B has suffered or is at risk of suffering, and how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs.
36. The mother accepts that B suffered harm in her care, as set out in the threshold criteria. That falls in effect into two sections. One relates to harm due to parenting, the fact that B fell off the sofa when unsupervised at a very young age and that he was left feeding himself packet of crisps at an age where that was not appropriate. Dr Kelly in her report addressing B's physical injuries raised both of these as matters of concern and the local authority sees it that way too. The other matters in the threshold criteria relates to problems arising out of the tensions between the mother, the father and X. There were physical assaults perpetrated by the father on the mother, one of those resulting in a cut to B's head after his father threw a paving slab through the window. That happened on occasion when the mother was at home with a male friend whilst in a relationship with the father. The mother and father have different views as to whether he had any cause to be concerned about what she was doing but certainly his response resulted in harm to B. Then on the day B went to hospital with his injuries, the father went to the mother's property and broke a window when B was in the kitchen. Just ten days later the mother had sex with the father at a time when she was in a relationship with X which resulted in an argument between her and X when B was present.
37. The local authority says the potential for harm is greater though than just that which is set out in the threshold criteria. The social worker who assessed the mother says that there was violence in the mother's relationship with the father when they were together, leading to their separation, and then the two incidents afterwards. In relation to X, the assessing social worker was of the view there had been some mention of some violence in their relationship. This is denied by the mother and certainly not supported by X's criminal record or his offender records. X's offender records show matters which might be of concern but these never resulted in a conviction and the local authority has not sought findings in relation to them in these proceedings. I therefore proceed on the basis that this was not a violent relationship. The social worker was clear though what she had seen of the relationship between the mother and X concerned her, and this was mirrored to some extent by the Guardian's observations of the couple when he met them. The mother it seems was not able to prevent X coming to court during this hearing. The professionals say the mother's vulnerability because of the poor parenting she received makes her needy in terms of intimate relationships and willing to tolerate situations which could put B in harm's way.
38. And there is the information provided by X and the mother regarding his mental health. No one is sectioned under the Mental Health Act without cause and X has been sectioned on two occasions on his own account and the mother's. Within this court process great efforts have been made to involve him, to assess him, to have hair strand testing for drugs given his previous drug misuse, but that led to X backing away. I can only infer from that that there are matters which could put B at harm. From the information provided by X and the mother and from the observations of the assessing social worker and Guardian, I am satisfied that there is a risk of harm to B from ongoing links between his mother and X. Also, if B were in his mother's care, both X and the father will be part of her life and it seems to me very likely that the situation that there was prior to B's removal will occur again. The father will have cause to be keeping an eye on the mother again and will have concerns about her relationships with other men, X will remain involved and indeed the mother intends him to in his own child's life. Until the mother does the work she needs to to cut ties to a much more significant extent with X and starts looking at changing herself, making herself stronger, there is a risk of future harm to any child in her care.
39. I do acknowledge that the mother seems to be at the beginning of that process and I would urge her to follow through with that work, something I shall return to in a postscript to this judgment which relates to her unborn child. I agree with the Guardian though that people move around the Cycle of Change at different paces and indeed we know that some people move both forwards and backwards around the cycle, adding to the time it takes to make lasting change. I also agree with the Guardian that the mother's timescales are not in line with B's who needs permanence now.
40. In reaching this conclusion I do not ignore the fact that concerns were not being raised about B prior to him being injured. That does not however mean that all was well and would continue to be well. B was both physically and emotionally harmed whilst in his mother's care, even though that was not something of which Social Care were aware.
41. There are other factors in the checklist which I have not dwelled upon in this judgment as they are not as significant. B is too young for his ascertainable wishes and feelings to be relevant. In terms of the likely effect B of any change in his circumstances, I acknowledge moving back to his mother's care would be a change but, were I to feel that was the right place for him to be, my view is that would be a change that could be managed with the cooperation of the grandparents who I know would put their grandson first.
42. My decision therefore is that B should remain in the care of his grandparents and the question is under what order. Given what I have said about the changes the mother needs to make, I agree that B cannot wait for her to make those changes and needs permanence now. It seems to me appropriate that his placement is secured by a special guardianship order, to give him that permanence and sense of long-term security. I acknowledge neither the mother nor the father has sought to undermine B's placement but that has been whilst an interim care order has been in place and therefore the local authority has had what is in effect enhanced parental responsibility. The mother clearly has strong views regarding her child and raised concerns at court that she had been excluded from medical matters. I can see the potential for difficulties in the future, despite the reasonably cordial arrangements that seem to exist currently between grandparents and the parents, albeit not between the parents themselves. I acknowledge that making a special guardianship order does give the grandparents enhanced parental responsibility but I do not believe they will abuse this. I am going to make an order releasing this judgment to them as it gives me an opportunity to speak direct them, given they are not parties to these proceedings. It is always going to be in B's best interests for the adults in his life to get on and work together. The mother and father will continue to have parental responsibility for B and should know what is happening in his life and be involved appropriately but I am not going to seek to dictate arrangements. For example, the mother may well want to be involved in medical matters but so may the father and I suspect both attending with the grandparents would not be appropriate. The grandparents will need to consider how best to involve the parents in matters to do with B's upbringing, medical appointments, choice of school, in matters such as attending parents evenings and receiving school reports. They will need to be creative in ensuring that the parents continue to have a real link with their son whilst he is growing up in his grandparents' care. From everything I have read about them though, I can trust them to do that and indeed it seems to me that the parents trust them too. I therefore make a special guardianship order in respect of B in favour of his grandparents. Having conducted the required balancing exercise, I am satisfied that the making of that order is proportionate and in the context of s1(1) Children Act 1989 in B's best welfare interests. I am satisfied there is no need in this case for any statutory orders as the local authority will remain involved under a Child in Need Plan.
43. Turning finally to contact, I am not going to make any order because if I am satisfied that a special guardianship order is right then it is appropriate that decisions about contact are left the grandparents. Again, though it seems right to set out here my thoughts having heard the views of all the parties and the professionals involved in B's life. The reason restrictions are often placed on the amount of contact is because of the potential for it to undermine a child's stability. The grandparents are the people best placed to know how to balance B's need for stability with his need to have the best possible relationship with his parents. If they think that weekly contact would work for B then that is the level it should be at, and certainly the Guardian has made a convincing argument for that in his evidence. That level may change over time and the arrangements I am sure will need to change. Contact can take place in their home or without, and it could be at family gatherings as well as one-to-one contact. Indeed, it might take place at his birthday party or the grandparents may feel this could be additional contact, depending on the parents' ability to get on. As B gets older there may be some additional contact, for example the parents going to see him in a nativity play or a school concert. The grandparents as the people bringing him up I am sure will instinctively know what he needs.
44. And there is going to need to be flexibility on all sides. Of course, as the mother nears the end of her pregnancy there may need to be changes to contact and may be weeks where it cannot happen. When she gives birth, she will be unavailable for a short time but equally B may like to meet his new sibling so maybe that could be considered. There will be times when maybe the grandparents are away on holiday and contact will need to be missed for a week. This is why making an order would not be helpful, because it is so hard to set in stone what is going to be right for B throughout his childhood. However, this is a family where I am confident they can work it out themselves and making an order would take away all the flexibility which is required.
45. The only order I am therefore going to make in addition to the special guardianship order is to direct that a copy of this judgment (without the postscript which will follow) should be released to the paternal grandparents. I also make the usual public funding direction in relation to the costs of the respondents.