[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) >> M (A Child; Welfare Hearing) [2017] EWFC B89 (24 November 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2017/B89.html Cite as: [2017] EWFC B89

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BLACKBURN

		64 Victoria Street Blackburn Lancashire BB1 6DJ
		24th November 2017

This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.
 


HHJ BOOTH:

1. This is my judgment in the second part of proceedings concerning a little girl L who is now 18 months old. I delivered a judgment following a fact-finding hearing which is reported on Bailii and can be found as Re M (a child) [2017] EWFC B79. Anyone reading this judgment will need to refer to that earlier judgment for a full picture of the background to this case.

The proceedings

2. These are care proceedings. The Local Authority issued its application for a care order on 10 October 2016. Subsequently the Local Authority made an application for an order under Section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989 allowing them to restrict father's contact to L. The mother has issued an application for an injunction against the father and as their care plan for L is one of adoption, the Local Authority have made an application for a placement order, inviting me to dispense with the parents' consent to adoption under Section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 on the basis that L's welfare requires their consent to be dispensed with.
3. At this hearing the Local Authority has been represented by Miss Wall. L's mother has been represented by Miss Woods. L's father has been represented by Miss Korol and L has been represented by Miss Bowcock and her Guardian is Miss Walwin-Home.
4. As in the first proceedings the atmosphere has been charged and emotional and I am grateful to all concerned for the moderate and sensible way in which these proceedings have been conducted.

The background

5. In the fact-finding exercise I determined that on 27 September 2016 L's father had caused and induced L to suffer an acute life-threatening episode which necessitated her urgent admission to hospital. She had stopped breathing and became cyanosed and floppy. She required resuscitation. I found that on 2 October 2016 L's father caused and induced in L a further acute life-threatening episode. She stopped breathing. Her peripheries became cold, she was floppy and unresponsive, and she required resuscitation. I found that on a balance of probability on both occasions the father caused the child's airways to be obstructed.

The issues

6. In the light of my findings the issues before the court now are relatively limited but no less profound in their consequences. L's father accepts that in the light of my findings he can play only a limited role in L's life in the future. He wishes to have contact with her if she is able to remain in the care of her mother. If my determination is that she should be adopted then he wishes to have a farewell contact with his daughter.
7. L's mother, of whom no complaint was made that she had harmed L in any way, wants to have her daughter returned to her care. L has been in foster care since October 2016. She has had regular and frequent contact with her mother and they have a good relationship. It is clear to all that L's mother is perfectly capable of providing all the practical and day-to-day care that L will need now and into the foreseeable future. The issue for L's mother which she acknowledges is whether she can effectively protect L from the threat to L posed by her father. To that end, L's mother is willing to do whatever it takes to allow L to be safely returned to her care. If that involves moving away and living a life under a different identity that is what she would propose to do.
8. The Local Authority position is that L's mother cannot protect L from the risk presented by L's father and has sadly concluded that L's future must be separate and apart from her mother with only an adoptive placement capable of meeting L's needs for the rest of her life. L's Guardian with, she says, a heavy heart, agrees with the Local Authority and supports the care plan of adoption and invites me to make a placement order.

Since the fact finding hearing

9. Let me set out a little bit more of the background information since the fact-finding hearing in May of 2017. At the time of the fact finding hearing the Local Authority plan was for L to be rehabilitated to her mother's care. That was a plan which had the tentative support of L's Guardian, a plan which, with the benefit of hindsight both the Local Authority social worker and L's Guardian have now concluded was probably a premature plan.
10. On the first day of the fact-finding hearing L's mother admitted that she had secretly resumed her relationship with L's father in or about February 2017 and had continued in that relationship up until shortly before the hearing. In order to maintain that pretence she accepted that she had been dishonest, firstly in not admitting what she had done when she knew that L's social worker and L's Guardian would not approve and secondly in positively lying about encounters with L's father said to be by chance, said to have made her very frightened.
11. Immediately following the hearing and having heard L's mother's sister give evidence together with assessments of her that had been underway, the Local Authority proposed a plan of placement for L with her maternal aunt pending the final determination of the case as the Local Authority were keen that L should be restored to her maternal family if that was possible. That plan was shared with the parties in the period after the hearing and before I delivered my judgment. L's father deliberately undermined that plan by attending at L's maternal aunt's home, threatening her and her children and her partner and brandishing a knife. L's maternal aunt immediately withdrew wishing to protect her own children from L's father.
12. Since I delivered judgment which was formally handed down on 2 August 2017 having been circulated in draft some time before, the assessment of L's mother and father has continued, both have been seen by Dr Hellin, a consultant psychologist. They were seen after the final hearing and before the judgment and again after the judgment and I have two reports from Dr Hellin.
13. L's social worker has continued her work with the family. She has provided further evidence culminating in a final statement setting out her concluded view.
14. L's Guardian has also continued her involvement with the family, meeting L's mother on three occasions and her father once and speaking to him by telephone and has prepared a single report dealing with all the issues that I have to deal with.

The evidence

15. During the course of this final welfare hearing I heard evidence from Dr Hellin, from L's social worker, from L's mother and from L's Guardian. L's father was present throughout the hearing but did not take up the opportunity I offered him to give evidence.
16. The first issue I have to decide is whether I can conclude this hearing on the basis of the evidence as it currently stands. Miss Woods on behalf of L's mother and Miss Korol on behalf of L's father identified two matters that might present a difficulty. Firstly, although L's social worker has continued to see L's mother face-to-face at least monthly and by telephone at least weekly, she accepted that she had not sat down with L's mother for an extended period of time of several hours to carry out a final assessment of L's mother particularly in the light of L's mother's reaction to the judgment and to make an assessment of where L's mother was up to in her acceptance of the dangers that L's father poses and to put that assessment in the context of all the factors that are at play in this case. L's social worker conceded that it would have been better had she carried out such an exercise but, however, was confident that she had covered all the ground in the series of meetings she had had with L's mother and was in any event informed in her ultimate views by the assessments of Dr Hellin who had sat with mother for two extended periods of time running to approximately four and a half hours in total. That said, as will be apparent, there is a difference of view between Dr Hellin and L's social worker.
17. The second matter that it is said is not covered adequately is how to deal with both parents' contact in the event that the court does decide that L's future can only be met by an adoptive placement. This is of particular importance in this case because L has a difficult and traumatic life-story to learn as she grows older and input from her birth parents into that life-story will be very important. Her final contacts with her father and her mother potentially have a critical role to play in that process.
18. In order to determine whether I can conclude this case, I need to review the whole of the evidence and put those accepted deficiencies in the Local Authority case in their proper context.
19. The overarching feature of this case is the danger that L's father poses to her welfare in the future. I have set out the bald findings that I made, the full details are in the previous judgment. At the conclusion of that judgment I said the following:

At paragraph 122:

'I found L's father a disturbing witness. He appeared able to ignore reality and the truth without a second thought'.

At paragraph 123:

'I am satisfied that this father is capable of doing things to his daughter that most parents would find abhorrent. It is likely that his motive for behaving in this way was a warped perception that this was the best way to restore his relationship with L's mother and that as before, tragedy or near-tragedy would draw them back together… In my assessment, he is a very dangerous man'.

20. What was Dr Hellin's assessment of Father? From paragraphs 1.38 to 1.45 she said the following:

'He has narcissistic personality traits… Father's relationship with mother has provided him with a relationship in which his narcissism has on the whole been gratified… He was certainly emotionally abusive and controlling. He was this way in order to make sure that L's mother remained bound to him and available to meet his emotional needs… When L's mother has defied him in whatever way he will have experienced this as an attack on his superiority and self-esteem. He has responded with anxiety and fury. He has resorted to lies and manipulation to get her back because he is raging, hateful, frightened, and desperate. This is an example of "attachment rage". It was at the christening in September 2016 and thereafter when L's mother held firm in her assertion that the relationship was over. I am suggesting that this unleashed attachment rage in L's father which resulted in him obstructing L's airways on two occasions in the hope and expectation that L's mother would take him back… His narcissistic personality, his deep insecurity and/or his assumptions of his superiority and entitlement has driven him to extreme measures. He is a grave danger to other people. It seems he has little if any compunction in using/harming another person, even his own baby in order to get what he wants… There is no therapy that I can recommend for L's father'.

21. L's social worker in her assessment of L's father expressed herself simply as follows:

'I am of the view that L's father is a very dangerous man and poses such a threat to L and/or other children that any contact could be fatal'.

22. L's Guardian in her final report came to these conclusions:

'L's father poses a serious threat to both L and her mother. He has sabotaged a potential placement with family members and exhibited threatening and unpredictable behaviour… L's father is intelligent and resourceful. He made no bones in discussions with me about his intention to seek out L if she is placed with her mother or anyone else known to him. It is not a question of if but when this occurs in my opinion… The risks to L's welfare now and for the rest of her minority stem from her father. There can be no confidence in predicting his behaviour, he is a very dangerous man, and L requires protection from his behaviours'.

23. In the light of what I learned during the fact-finding hearing and what has been added to my knowledge as a result of this final welfare hearing, I am satisfied that the risk that L's father poses to L is a risk of serious injury or death. How imminent or real is that risk? In my judgement that risk is immediately imminent and very real. If there were any doubts about the assessment by Dr Hellin they have been confirmed by further actions by L's father. He has targeted another vulnerable young woman who is now pregnant with his child. Care proceedings have been started in respect of that young woman's existing child. L's father has presented himself to her as the victim within L's proceedings with an expectation that he would not only be exonerated but that there would be no criticism made of him. He continues to be dishonest. He continues to pose a real and imminent threat.

The law

24. What is the law that I have to apply? Counsel prepared an agreed note of the law for which I am grateful. I can summarise the applicable principles as follows:

a. Throughout my deliberations I am concerned first foremost and throughout with L's welfare which must be my paramount consideration.

b. As it is the Local Authority who bring these proceedings it is for them to prove any fact upon which they intend to rely on a balance of probabilities.

c. The threshold for the making of public law orders is crossed as a result of the findings I made in the previous judgment.

d. The court can therefore go on to consider what statutory orders should be made in the best interest of L, starting from the premise that no order should be made unless it is necessary and the least intrusive order if I have to make an order.

e. The welfare of the child is the court's paramount consideration and in coming to its decision the court should apply the Welfare Checklist in Section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989.

f. The court must scrutinise the care plans of the Local Authority and determine whether they are appropriate and capable of being implemented. The court should not approve a care plan that is inchoate. It is not the role of the children's Guardian to make up for any deficiencies that they identified within the care plan.

g. The court should adopt the least interventionist approach commensurate to the risks which the child is facing Re B (Care: Interference with Family Life) [2003] 2 FLR 813 where Thorpe LJ said:

'Where the application is for a care order empowering the Local Authority to remove a child or children from the family, the judge in modern times may not make such an order without considering the rights of the adult members of the family and of the children of the family. Accordingly he must not sanction such an interference with family life unless he is satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential end of promoting the welfare of children'.

h. In Re B (A Child) [2016] UKSC 4 the Supreme Court emphasised the need to ensure that a care order where the plan is for adoption is a proportionate response to the harm identified. Lord Neuberger described such an order as 'a last resort' and expressed the view that, 'Before making an adoption order in such a case the court must be satisfied that there is no practical way of the authorities (or others) providing the requisite assistance and support'.

i. In Re A [2015] EWFC 11 the President of the Family Division confirmed the test to be applied where the Local Authority seeks a care plan for adoption as follows, 'In an adoption case it is for the Local Authority to prove on a balance of probabilities the facts on which it relies and if adoption is to be ordered to demonstrate that "nothing else will do" when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child's welfare'.

j. In considering the evidence of the parties the court must give itself a Lucas direction. A person may lie about a specific matter but that does not mean that they will lie about everything. An important part of the assessment is what the court thinks about the reliability of the parents' evidence. A court may be concerned if someone is found to have lied about something but that does not necessarily mean that person has lied about everything. The court will keep in mind the warning in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 that:

'If a court concludes that a witness has lied about a matter, it does not follow that he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons, for example, out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion, and emotional pressure'.

k. There must be a holistic evaluation of all the options which might be available to the court prior to the court making its final determination that nothing else will do. Such evaluation must consider what services and support the Local Authority could provide.

l. In carrying out the holistic evaluation the court must carry out the following task as described in Re Y (Care Proceedings Proportionality Evaluation) [2014] EWCA Civ 1553 where Ryder LJ said:

'The process of deductive reasoning involves the identification of whether there are realistic options to be compared. If there are, a welfare evaluation is required. That is an exercise which compares the benefits and detriments of each realistic option, one against the other by reference to the Section 1(3) welfare factors. The court identifies the option that is in the best interests of the children and then makes a proportionality evaluation to ask itself the question whether the interference in family life involved by that best interests option is justified'.

m. 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 – Re G (Care Proceedings Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965.

n. In the event that the court determines that the adoptive care plan is appropriate it must go on to consider whether the placement order should be made.

o. The court, in reaching that decision, must have as its paramount consideration the child's welfare throughout his life, Section 1(2) of the Adoption of Children Act 2002. The circumstances in which the paramountcy principle applies include those where the issue is whether or not to dispense with parental consent to placement and/or adoption. As such, the court must consider the impact on the child throughout its life if it is removed from the care of its family.

p. The court in reaching that conclusion must have regard to the adoption welfare checklist in looking at all the circumstances of the case as set out in Section 1(4) of the Adoption of Children Act 2002, (a) the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision (considered in the light of the child's age and understanding), (b) the child's particular needs, (c) the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adoptive person, (d) the child's age, sex, background and any of the child's characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant, (e) any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989) which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, (f) the relationship which the child has with relatives and with any person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the question to be relevant including (i) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its own doing, (ii) the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives or of any such person to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop and otherwise to meet the child's needs, (iii) the wishes and feelings of any of the child's relatives or of any such person regarding the child.

q. The court must always consider the whole range of powers available to it in the child's case. The court must not make an order unless it considers that making an order will be better for the child than not doing so.

r. In dispensing with the parents' consent the judge must apply Section 25(1)(b) as explained in Re P (Placement Orders Parental Consent) [2008] 2 FLR 625.

The options

25. I indicated earlier in this judgment the limited range of options open to the court. A placement within L's maternal family was the preferred option of the Local Authority initially with a return to L's mother and then to her maternal aunt. L's mother scuppered the first of those plans by resuming her relationship with L's father. L's father scuppered the second of those plans by making threats to L's aunt leaving her, perfectly understandably, to put the interest of her own children first. I would have expected her to do nothing else. Investigations of other placements within the wider family have come to nought. In any event, they would have been always likely to flounder when measured against the threat posed by L's father.
26. Looking at the two options let me consider the obvious merits and demerits of each in turn. Firstly that of placement for adoption. The positives would be that L would be safe from the risk of significant physical and emotional harm and the threat from her father. She would have the security of a long-term family committed to her with wider support from other family members. She would have the highest level of legal security. Her location would not be known to the birth family and so the likelihood of her being located and placed at risk of harm would be significantly diminished. She would have permanence without any statutory intervention with her placement supported by after adoption services. What would be the demerits of such a placement? First and foremost she would be deprived of a relationship with her birth family and in particular her mother. There is always the risk of an adoptive placement breakdown and adoptive families are no more immune to serious illness and death and divorce than any other family. The plans for the Local Authority are for a closed adoption so that L would not be able to maintain direct contact with her birth family.
27. That potential scenario should be compared and contrasted with the placement of L with her mother. It was accepted by Miss Woods that this could only be properly be done with L subject to a full care order and with the benefit of injunctions to keep L's father away. The positives of such a placement would be that L would continue to have a full relationship with her mother and that her mother would be able to meet her basic needs for physical and emotional care. L would be able to maintain her relationship with her extended family and in particular her maternal aunt and her cousins and of course such a placement would recognise that the court has made no adverse findings against the mother save insofar as they relate to her relationship with the father and her deceit.
28. What would be the demerits? Firstly there would be a serious risk of death or significant injury from L's father. That risk would not diminish as L matured as he is a dangerous man and his ability to injure the mother or L is not limited to obstructing the airways of a small baby. L's father is unpredictable and it would be difficult to judge what his next move might be. The fact that he has a new relationship or relationships in the future would not necessarily diminish his desire and ability to cause problems for L and her mother. L's mother has been unable to stay separate from L's father in the past. She is vulnerable to his approaches. L's mother has lied and actively deceived the Local Authority and all the other professionals working with her and her own family about her ongoing contact and relationship with L's father for a period of four and a half months in the early part of 2017. That leads to the concern that there may be no basis for a relationship of trust which is essential for an effective working relationship with professionals. L's mother is vulnerable to inappropriate relationships in the future. L's father has stated to L's Guardian and to L's social worker that it is his intention to seek out L for the purpose of pursuing contact. L's mother may be vulnerable to further episodes of depression and periods of low mood. If L's mother moved away she would be isolated from the support upon which she relies including her family, the workers she is currently engaged with and mental health support. She would need to develop a new support network when she is shy and reticent and this would be difficult for her to do. Throughout her period as a child in care, L would be subject to statutory intervention, there would be meetings about her, and she would be potentially stigmatised by her peers as a child in care.
29. How realistic is the proposal from L's mother that she would be able to keep L safe and would distance herself from L's father if necessary by moving away? The first part of the assessment must be as to L's mother's understanding of the risk that L's father poses. She told me this:

'He suffocated her on two occasions. He is a great risk to her. He could do anything to her. He is a massive risk to her. I have to protect her. With help, I could protect her'.

30. The question of mother's appreciation of the risk that Father presents was the subject of Dr Hellin's assessment. L's mother is herself a vulnerable young woman. Her formative years were characterised by physical and emotional neglect and by physical and sexual abuse. Her parents were drug addicts. Her father committed suicide and her mother died when she was in her teens. She was brought up by her aunt who was in turn a drug addict who died when she was in her teens. She has had episodic depression since 2008 when her aunt died. She has been suicidal in the past and has made suicide attempts most recently after her first child died. She self-harmed. However, Dr Hellin has confirmed that there is nothing to suggest that she is currently suicidal or prone to self-harm. Her early history has left her with low self-esteem, prevailing beliefs about her relative worthlessness and a lack of self-confidence and assertiveness. She is inclined to sacrifice her own needs in order to gain others approval and acceptance. Dr Hellin confirms that people with a history similar to Mother's are more likely than average to develop emotionally unstable/borderline personality disorder. The fact that Mother has not done so points to a degree of resilience and strength in her. Because her emotional needs were poorly met as a child she sought to have those needs met in her relationship with L's father. She sought parenting and protection by him. They have spilt up periodically but each time their mutual need of each other has drawn them back together. Dr Hellin commented that the process of realisation of what Father is really like and what he had done has been a gradual, faltering and slow one but in Dr Hellin's view L's mother now has full insight into the risks presented by L's father. Dr Hellin says she is shocked and horrified.
31. Looking at some of those point in a little more detail, Dr Hellin said this at paragraph 6.26 of her first report:

'L's mother perceived him [L's father] as someone who could take care of her. She has insight into the fact that in him she sought parenting and protection by him. Her formative experiences have left her with distorted beliefs about what comprises a good quality relationship'.

Paragraph 6.27:

'I do not mean to imply that L's mother should have known about L's father's risk that he was a danger to his child. His is extreme and unusual behaviour and I doubt that even a very well-adjusted person would have known what was going on.'

Paragraph 6.28:

'Because L's mother has been very dependent on L's father, because the relationship began when she was extremely young and she has had no other relationships with which to compare the one with L's father and because they have been together most of her life, it has been extremely difficult for her to reach the point of truly believing that he deliberately inflicted potentially fatal harm to their daughter. A process of realisation has been a gradual, faltering, and slow one'.

32. The next limb in the assessment of mother by Dr Hellin was to look at whether their current separation as a couple looked at from L's mother's perspective is a permanent and lasting one. Dr Hellin dealt with the point thus at paragraph 6.31:

'My instructions are that she and L's father have definitively separated. From her account at the second interview I believe she has separated physically and emotionally from him and I would be very surprised if they were to reconcile. She is very concerned about the risks that he would pose if contact were ordered. I think she would and will be hypervigilant regarding such risks and would do everything she could to protect L should the court order contact between L and her father'.

Dr Hellin went on at paragraph 6.33:

'She appears to be truthful and straightforward which means that professionals can be better assured that she is really collaborating rather than pretending compliance'.

Dr Hellin was asked about that in her evidence. She accepted that L's mother is a dependent person and that if isolated she would be likely to be more lonely and less able to protect herself in those circumstances. Dr Hellin's assessment was the L's mother would be terrified if L's father sought her out but not if it was she who had initiated contact.

33. That assessment of L's mother's ability to separate from L's father and to be honest is not a view shared by L's social worker. In all her recent written evidence to the court L's social worker expressed her concerns following her own interaction with L's mother and felt she simply could not trust L's mother to be absolutely straightforward and honest. Inevitably her view was very largely affected by the deception practiced upon her by L's mother for the four and a half months in early 2017 when she and L's father resumed their relationship. L's social worker was concerned about the way in which the relationship had resumed at the beginning of 2017 where L's mother described herself in resuming her relationship with L's father as that relationship feeling safe and normal and that she fell back into his spell. It was L's social worker's assessment that L's mother presents as a naïve and gullible individual who is vulnerable to manipulation and that the co-dependency obvious to those working with L's family and between L's parents had led the social worker to the conclusion that despite L's mother's current vocalisation that the relationship has ceased, she will be vulnerable to L's father's efforts in manipulating her into resuming their relationship again.
34. The social worker acknowledged Dr Hellin's view and that Dr Hellin had not reached that conclusion lightly but the social worker had formed the view that the risk of this possibility occurring is too great a risk to take. The social worker acknowledged that L's mother is wanting another chance to prove to professionals that she is trustworthy and that L would be safe in her care and she noted that L's mother is working with the Wish Centre, residing in a refuge and saying that she aspires to move away from the area. She noted that L's mother had completed the Freedom Programme and was due to commence the Domestic Abuse Recovery Toolkit imminently. L's social worker felt unable to separate out the risk posed by L's father and the dependency of L's mother when looking at her assessment of L's mother's ability to protect. She ultimately put in this way:

'The vulnerability of L's mother to bow to the pressure of L's father and his capacity to exert control and manipulation is what causes me grave concern when considering whether L's mother can provide safe and effective care of L throughout her childhood. L's mother has affirmed that she did not realise how serious the situation was until the finding of fact hearing and in particular when she heard L's father give evidence. L's mother presented herself to professionals that she accepted the concerns of the Local Authority prior to the finding of fact hearing. Furthermore she had information relating to the medical assessments of L that were indicating that there was no identified medical cause but still she maintained a relationship with L's father and held his views in higher regard than anyone else's'.

And she goes on to say:

'L's mother and father have been inextricably linked by their shared loss and grief and it is this co-dependency that continues to be a significant cause of concern when considering L's future care plans. It is the view of the Local Authority given the length of their relationship and their reliance upon one another which has been concealed from professionals that L's parents may struggle to sever their ties with one another and in time the risk would be that their relationship is once again resumed. Therefore it is deemed that the risk to L would be too great if she was to be placed back in the care of her mother'.

When she gave her evidence, L's social worker maintained her position and she reiterated that when she first became involved back in October 2016 L's mother expressed the view that L's father was a risk and she noted no change in L's mothers expressed thinking before or after the judgment. She was asked about the resumption of the relationship in early 2017 and she said she had no idea the relationship had been resumed and that having thought back about it a great deal that she could think of nothing that she had missed that would have alerted her to the fact that that relationship had been resumed. Her assessment of L's mother's ability to protect came back on each occasion to the risk posed by L's father, with the fear that he could seek out L and her mother, that in any event L and her mother would have to be in a state of hypervigilance for the foreseeable future, impacting both on L's mother but in particular impacting on L. L's social worker said that she accepted that in looking at mother she would have been better to have carried out a proper assessment session once or twice for an hour. She was looking for help from the psychological assessment from Dr Hellin and acknowledged that that had come in late making further assessment of mother more difficult. She said that there were multiple strands to her assessment, consisting as it did of frequent and regular contact with L's mother both by telephone and face-to-face and that she had not closed the door finally once and for all on L's mother once she discovered the deception at the time of the finding of fact hearing. She said that ultimately the context in which her assessment had to be placed was the risk of death for L and that that risk was a great risk and it was in that context that she placed her concerns that she was not confident in the changes in mother as assessed by Dr Hellin. But more importantly she needed to be able to believe what L's mother told her. She said this, 'I don't know what to believe and what not to believe. L's mother's relationship with me is superficial. Nothing raised my suspicions when they got back together. She presents herself so well'.

35. What was the position taken by L's Guardian? Miss Walwin-Homes provided me with a detailed assessment weighing up the pros and cons of the various options and trying to put them in context. She started from the premise that it was clear from the evidence before the court that L's mother had an extremely complex history where she had experienced unimaginable trauma. Her view was that L's mother is likely to require ongoing therapeutic support to enable her to come to terms with her childhood, her abusive relationship with L's father, the deaths of her children and the fact that her partner whom she trusted caused L to lose consciousness on two separate occasions. Her view was that therapy would be challenging and potentially destabilising. Miss Walwin-Homes considered the proposal by L's mother to move away and if necessary into semi-secure accommodation, to break many of her ties and she tried to consider what life would be like for L and her mother even if L's mother could maintain her resolve to have nothing more to do with L's father. She explained that L's mother would have to remain hypervigilant at all times both at home and out in the community concerning L's father and it would only be a matter of time before L herself became aware of the level of vigilance that was being exercised concerning her safety. She came to the conclusion that the life that L would inevitably have to endure would be likely to have a serious and detrimental effect upon L's emotional and psychological welfare in the future. She too had her concerns as to whether L's mother had finally separated from L's father, describing social media searches by L's mother for L's father and his family to ensure that they had not created new profiles. Miss Walwin-Homes was concerned that this may be an indicator that she remained emotionally connected to L's father. But she too went back to the threat posed by L's father's behaviour which is both unpredictable and uncontainable and which could undermine stability and security of the placement of L with her mother both immediately and in the longer term and whilst acknowledging that a number of safeguards could be implemented to protect L she concluded that, 'The predisposing factor which makes L's placement with her mother unsafe is primarily L's father's unpredictable and violent behaviour'.
36. I had the opportunity of seeing L's mother give evidence for a second time. If anything she appeared to me to be more comfortable giving evidence, a little more confident although I must make all allowances for the pressure she must have been under given what is at stake in this case. Again I must put her evidence in the context of the professional assessments of L's mother. Her descriptions of life away from her family, a life something akin to the witness protection scheme but without the support of the police, a life of constantly looking over her shoulder and a life of inevitable isolation, were, in my view, both naïve and unrealistic and she has no experience to draw upon to assess what such a life might be like. She has throughout her life been dependent on others, primarily her older sister. From the age of 10, dependent upon L's father and secure in a community of family and friends where she has been all her life. I have little doubt that as she stood in the witness box she was expressing her firm intention to be and remain separated from L's father. I am satisfied that when she told me she wants nothing more to do with the man who has harmed her child that she was telling me the truth. The issue is whether she can maintain that resolve in the face of the threat by L's father to search out for L and potentially, as he did in the early part of 2017, wheedle his way back into L's mother's life. Her vulnerability leaves her highly susceptible not only to L's father but to other predatory men. It is that vulnerability that presents the greatest difficulty for L's mother in this case.

Have I got all the evidence that is needed?

37. Would my decision-making be better informed by a further assessment of L's mother by L's social worker late in the proceedings, post-judgment and ideally post the report of Dr Hellin? Miss Woods argues that it most definitely would and that such an assessment ought to be carried out by an independent social worker given that L's social worker has effectively closed her mind.
38. I am not persuaded that that would add anything of value to the process. I have the benefit of Dr Hellin's assessment conducted over four and a half hours with L's mother. I have the benefit of the assessment of L's social worker who has worked with L's mother since October 2016 with regular and frequent contact and who has provided the court with a plethora of written statements and assessments conducted at various stages during this case. I have the overview of L's Guardian who does not support further assessment of L's mother. Of least value but as part of the matrix, I have my own assessment of L's mother from the witness box.

Analysis

39. It is not the vulnerability of L's mother in isolation that requires assessment - it is her vulnerability put in the context of the risk posed by L's father and the threat that he poses to L and her mother. The two are indivisible. That is a risk to L of serious harm or death. Even a small chance that that risk might eventuate is a risk that the court would be very slow to countenance.
40. Both welfare checklists direct my attention to the harm that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. In my judgment that one factor is the magnetic factor that weighs far more heavily than any other factor in this particular case.
41. Can L's mother, given her vulnerabilities, protect against that risk? In my assessment, she cannot.

Proportionality

42. L's mother asked me to approach this from a different perspective and to ask why L should be punished by being deprived of the opportunity to be brought up by her birth mother when the circumstances that have led to their separation had nothing to do with the actions of her mother who is a capable mother able to meet her physical and practical needs. In reality that is a particular way of phrasing the proportionality test. Where the court sanctions an interference in the family life of a child that interference must be proportionate to the harm or the anticipated harm that that interference is designed to ameliorate. Is the interference with L's family life with her birth mother by terminating it a proportionate response to the very real risk of serious harm or death for L at the hands of her unpredictable and uncontainable father? In my judgement it is.

The effect on L's mother of my decision

43. One matter I must weigh in the balance is that depriving L's mother of the opportunity to be a mother to L is compounding yet further trauma on top of the unimaginable trauma that she has suffered in her life so far. I cannot know what emotional harm my decision may lead to for her but I have to put L's welfare as my paramount consideration. I cannot risk the death of another child in this family. I hope that with the benefit of time and therapy she will come to recognise that the safety of her daughter had to be the matter uppermost in my mind when I made this difficult decision and that in doing so I was ensuring that L had a life free from the threat of her father, a threat that no matter how well-intentioned, her mother would inevitably have struggled to keep L safe from.

Conclusion

44. L's Guardian concluded in her report that it was with a heavy heart where L's mother is concerned that she strongly recommended care and placement orders to the Local Authority. I echo those sentiments. I feel desperately sad that I cannot endorse a future for L with her mother but I cannot be satisfied that L would be safe. I cannot be satisfied that L's mother has the tools at her disposal to protect L from her father. The fact that she does not have those tools is a reflection of her own history and her own vulnerability and is not a criticism of her. Her inability to distance herself from L's father and their resumption of their relationship early in 2017 was a manifestation of that vulnerability.
45. I therefore conclude that L's welfare, for all the reasons I have articulated, requires me to dispense with her parents' consent to adoption and to make a placement order as L's welfare needs compel me to make such a decision pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
46. In arriving at my decision I have taken into account both welfare checklists to which I have referred. The key matters which drive me to the conclusion that I have reached are the harm that L is at risk of suffering and the inability of her mother, through no fault of her own, to protect her from that harm.
47. There is further work to be done in the preparation of life-story work and in considering where within that life-story work final contact arrangements between L and both her parents fit in. How L's history is to be imparted to her as it must be will require considerable expert thought and deliberation. It will be traumatic for L unless she grows up with this knowledge from a time before she can understand it. She has to learn about the untimely death of her two siblings. She has to learn about what happened to her in September and October 2016 at the hands of her father. She will have to know something about the vulnerabilities of both her parents, her mother in particular, to understand why it was that she could not be brought up by her mother within the bosom of her birth family. The Local Authority are to provide me with further information and a revised care plan dealing with all of these matters in the period at the end of the final hearing and before this judgment is formally handed down.