England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

1.

This is an application by X Local Authority (the council) for care and placement orders in respect of two children A and B who are both under four years old.  The mother of both children is Ms W who opposes both applications.  The father of B is Mr M who does not have parental responsibility but has been joined as a party to the applications.  A’s father is Mr A who again does not have parental responsibility but has been joined as a party.  Neither Mr M nor Mr A have attended this hearing although they are both aware of it and have been represented by solicitors.  The solicitor for Mr M withdrew at lunchtime on the first day when all attempts to contact him had failed and Mr M had also missed his last contact appointment with B earlier this month.  The solicitor for Mr A withdrew on the morning of the second day when Mr A failed to attend at court despite promising to do so on two occasions.  Mr A latterly told his solicitor that he felt unable to attend despite knowing the importance of the hearing.  I am satisfied that both Mr M and Mr A have chosen not to attend this hearing and that it is in the best interests of the children to proceed notwithstanding the absence of their fathers.  The children themselves are represented through the Children’s Guardian, Mrs G who supports both applications.

2.

The background to the present applications has been very helpfully set out by Ms M in her case summary which I propose to adopt for the purpose of this judgment.

3.

A detailed chronology appears at pages 1a-h in the initial section of the court bundle. The initial social worker’s statement at B1-10 conveys a picture of what life was like for B at home prior to the proceedings, as does the parenting and risk assessment report at C83-86.

4.

To summarise the events that precipitated the proceedings: a home visit was made on 1 August 2008 when the social worker could not gain entry, but heard loud noises from within together with the sound of a child crying and in distress. Later, the mother told the social worker that the noises were Mr A punching her face and hitting her head against the fireplace. She said that whilst this was occurring B was sitting by the side of them crying and that he picked up a brush and hit Mr A with it (B3, D41). The mother said that Mr A had hit her previously (B4, and see police records at D18-19: police called to 2 verbal disputes and a physically violent incident in the early part of 2008). The home was found to be untidy, with dangerous items such as razor blades and glasses on the floor and numerous belts and scarves tied to B’s cot (B3). The mother spoke of Mr A forbidding her from going out (B3, B5). Social services were concerned that the mother did not recognise the emotional impact upon B of the situation at home. B was observed by the social worker to display aggressive behaviour (B4, B6). The mother’s relationship with B’s father, Mr M, had also been violent and abusive with the mother having to apply for a non-molestation injunction (see his account at pp 11-13 and 16 in the initial section).

5.

B was registered on the Child Protection Register under the categories of risk of physical and emotional abuse on 4 September 2008. When the mother began to disengage with the Child Protection Plan (see B6-8 particularly B8 setting out the home circumstances as seen on 3 Nov 2008), care proceedings were issued and B has been subject to an interim care order since 12 November 2008. Initially he and his mother were placed in a women’s hostel, then in 2 successive mother and baby foster placements. A was born during this period and was also made subject to an interim care order. On 4 September 2009 mother and children moved to supported accommodation at a hostel, but the mother breached the terms of her contract with the local authority by meeting secretly with Mr A on up to 10 occasions in August – October 2009. The local authority removed the children into foster care on 5 October 2009 after they had spent 3 days in hiding with the mother.

6.

The parents all concede that the threshold criteria are met. An amended schedule of findings sought appears at pages 27-29 of the bundle. Responses from the mother and Mr A follow and an earlier response from Mr M is at p.9-16 (referred to above). The mother accepts failure to protect B from emotional harm in that he was exposed to domestic violence and controlling behaviour from Mr A. She accepts that she prioritised her relationship with Mr A, and that Mr M was also a poor choice of partner. She accepts the safety issues and the lack of cooperation with the original Child Protection Plan. Mr A agrees that he has behaved unacceptably in part.

7.

The threshold is established in relation to A in terms of likelihood of significant harm based on what happened to B.

8.

I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the threshold criteria are met in this case. I approve the schedule of findings sought at pages 27-29 of the bundle and I make findings of fact accordingly. It therefore follows that at the time protective action was taken B was suffering significant harm in the form of emotional harm and neglect and both children were at risk of suffering significant harm in the form of neglect, emotional harm and physical harm due to the care provided to them or likely to be provided to them not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

9.

I must now consider what order, if any, to make having regard to the welfare principles in s.1 Children Act 1989 and reminding myself that it is the welfare of both children which is my paramount consideration.

There have been a number of assessments carried out within the proceedings, namely:-

·       Report of the first assessment foster carer Ms D 21 April 2009 at C9.

·       Original psychological report by Dr  R dated June 2009 at C38

·       Parenting and risk assessment dated 17 June 2009 at C74

·       Report of the second assessment foster carer Ms S Sept 2009 at C107

·       Addendum report by Dr R dated 12 Jan 2010 at C121 (and letter at C160)

·       Social worker’s viability assessment of Mr A 17 Feb 2010.

10.

It is accepted by the council and the Guardian that during the mother and baby foster placements the mother made significant progress in her practical parenting skills. However, it is important to note that:-

a.      Within days of Ms D’s report, that placement broke down. Whilst the mother attributes this to a breach of confidentiality on Ms D’s part, Ms D requested termination of the placement due to Ms W having lied to her about whom she was meeting – saying she was going to the cinema with her younger sister, when in fact she was meeting her other sister at the train station with that sister’s boyfriend and a man named H, see chronology entry 27/04/09. This was in clear breach of the contract governing the placement (see D12 clauses 3 and 5). Ms W’s account of this episode to Dr R is at C54-55 and Dr R’s comment is at C67 para 5.8. The concern here is Ms W’s dishonesty, together with her poor judgement in becoming involved with this man in this way.

b.     Towards the end of the placement with Ms S the document written by the mother and appearing at D28-34 was found on 1 September 2009 (see also C116 within Ms S’ report). This document not only sets out what seems to be a detailed plan for leaving the country with the children, but also indicates the strength of the mother’s feelings about having had to work with social services over the past year: “Over one year of my life has been taken. One year of complete hell. I suffered so much stress because of your justice system…I was placed into the homes of complete strangers with my kids. I was forced to be back at certain times. I have had my life completely torn apart”. (D29).

c.      It had been made abundantly clear to the mother in the series of contracts signed by her at the commencement of each placement that the children remained in her care subject to there being no contact of any description with Mr A and this was reinforced in discussions at meetings and at court. The 4 contracts appear at D4, D12, D144 and D147. The reason for this term of the contracts was clearly to prevent the children from becoming exposed to Mr A’s potentially aggressive and controlling behaviour. That has always been one of the main concerns in the case and must have been plain to the mother.

d.     Before the end of the placement with Ms S the mother had resumed contact with Mr A and met him with the children on numerous occasions in secret. This was at the very time when social services placed sufficient trust in the mother to allow her and the children to move into semi-independent accommodation. The fourth contract confirming that there was to be no contact with Mr A during the placement at the hostel was signed by the mother on 4 September 2009 (D147-8), and it is now evident that this was in the middle of the series of meetings with him (the mother herself confirms at p.37 para 2 that she allowed such contact “between the end of August 2009 and 2 October 2009”, and at B40 para 17-18 confirms this happened on she thinks possibly “no more than 10 occasions” including 2 October).

e.      Following the removal of the children into foster care, the mother’s initial reaction was to turn to Mr A for support and at that stage she sought to be assessed with him as joint carers.

11.

The assessments have also identified risk factors.  The parenting and risk assessment was carried out during March to June 2009 when mother and B were resident in the mother and baby foster placements. Whilst it recommended further work and support leading towards a move for mother and children to supported accommodation, it identified a number of indicators that would be likely to result in significant harm to the children (C100). These negative indicators specifically include:-

·       Mother breaching any terms of any contract with social services

·       Mother resuming a relationship with Mr A.

12.

The psychologist Dr R first reported in June 2009 while the mother and B were in the mother and baby foster placement. Then, after the children were removed into foster care, she was asked to prepare an addendum to her report in the light of the events of the autumn of 2009. In the first report Dr R did high-light some potential problems: such as mother ignoring or minimising the risk from her choice of relationships (C67 para 5.8); mother’s low self esteem and lack of assertiveness (C69 para 5.11); mother’s lack of positive support (C69 para 5.12). Therapeutic work was recommended (C70 para 5.13), although mother was not keen to engage (C71 para 5.15). Dr R gained the impression at that stage that the mother did not fully share social services’ concerns and that she was likely to test the boundaries as she felt “restricted and controlled” by professionals (C71-72 para 5.15).

13.

In view of the fact that the mother covertly resumed her relationship with Mr A in breach of the various agreements she had signed with the council the Local Authority no longer have any confidence that they can trust the mother to work openly and honestly with them and they cannot conceive of any situation where the children would be safe in their mother’s care at the present time.  The local authority supported by the Children’s Guardian proposes that the boys should be placed in the same adoptive family so that they can grow up together in a safe and secure environment. In order to meet the needs of both children, this is likely to be of a white British background, but with the ability to bring A up with an awareness of his own heritage.

14.

During the course of the hearing I heard oral evidence from one of the co-authors of the parenting and risk assessment, the social worker, the mother, Dr R and the Children’s Guardian.

15.

The parenting and risk assessment report can be found at page C74 of the bundle.  The co-author of this report has also written the letter at C103 confirming that his organisation were no longer prepared to assess Mr M in the light of him failing to engage with the two assessments offered to him.  The assessor confirmed that there had been domestic violence in mother’s relationships with both Mr M and Mr A and that B would have been affected by this.  At one point the mother went to live with her sister’s friend to escape domestic violence (C83).  However, sometimes there were conflicts between what the mother was telling the assessors and the information they received from other sources.  Much of the work of the assessment centred around domestic violence but there were times when the mother felt that she was being discriminated against and she told the assessors that had she been a wife observing a different religion there would not have been a problem.  The assessors pointed out that it was B’s interests that were paramount.

16.

The assessor felt that the mother appeared to move on during the assessment in terms of her understanding of domestic violence issues and he did not think that she could be unaware of the consequences of her resuming her relationship with Mr A.  He was surprised to learn that the mother had been seeing Mr A without the knowledge of the Council and he felt that this showed that she had been deceptive during the assessment process.  It concerned him that the mother resumed her relationship with Mr A so quickly and that she had not been open with the social worker.

17.

The assessor told me that by resuming her relationship with Mr A the mother was being dishonest and had placed the children at risk.  He said that for a plan (of rehabilitation) of this complexity to work there needs to be openness and honesty between the mother and social care and he did not see how the plan could work now.  He reminded the court that there were concerns in 2007 during the private law proceedings that the mother was allowing B to have unsupervised contact with Mr M so it was not the first occasion that she appeared to have gone behind the back of social care.

18.

Under cross-examination by Ms C the assessor accepted that when he began the assessment there had been a number of concerns but the mother had made progress in addressing some of these.  In fact, he felt that the mother had made significant improvements in terms of B’s basic care.  He accepted that the mother was honest in her understanding of domestic violence issues but this did not take away her vulnerability.

19.

The author of the parenting and risk assessment was questioned about his recommendation that the mother be allowed to remain in the mother and baby foster home for 12 weeks after the birth of A whereas she had moved to the hostel accommodation after only 8 weeks.  He told me that whilst he thought 12 weeks would have been preferable he did question how long continued support would actually be of any use.  He also told me that he struggled with the notion that the mother was vulnerable and scared at the time she resumed her relationship with Mr A and he was left feeling that she had not been completely honest.  He accepted that the mother would benefit from counselling and support but was concerned about the timescales for this. I accept this evidence.

20.

I next heard from the social worker who has worked with the family since 8^th June 2009.  Her statements can be found at pages B21 and B 28 of the bundle and she has also updated the chronology, prepared the care plans and Annex B reports and carried out the viability assessment of Mr A at C163.  The Social Worker was referred to the various contracts which the mother had signed and which can be found at D4, D12, D144 and D147 of the bundle.  She told me that she went through the documents with the mother before the mother signed them.  The last contract was signed on 4^th September 2009 by which time the mother had already met Mr A once but at no time did the mother mention this when discussing the new contract.  The mother was still living with Ms S at the mother and baby foster placement when she had this first meeting with Mr A but the mother also failed to tell Ms S despite having a good relationship with her. 

21.

The Social Worker was referred to the document at D28 of the bundle which Mrs S found in one of the bathrooms of her house on 1^st September 2009.  The Social Worker discussed this document with the mother a day or so after the mother’s move to the hostel on 4^th September 2009.  At first the mother denied writing it but then said it could have been a fantasy.  The Social Worker told me that on 2^nd October 2009 whilst carrying out a search of the mother’s room at the hostel with the police looking for anything which would help to locate the children who by that time had disappeared with their mother, she found a neater copy of the same document.  This led the Social Worker to believe that it was more than a fantasy. She said that the mother was clearly aware of the consequences of contact with Mr A and yet had nevertheless met him on a number of occasions without the knowledge of the council.  Accordingly, she could no longer trust the mother to work openly and honestly with her.

22.

The Social Worker said that if the council’s applications are granted she would wish to place both boys together in an adoptive home and she had been advised that this could be achieved within 3 to 6 months. However, any therapy for mother could take up to 12 months and it was not in the children’s interests for there to be this delay.

23.

Under cross-examination the Social Worker accepted that the mother has a good attachment with the children although B still displays some difficult behaviour at times.  The Social Worker had not done any further work with the mother since October 2009 but she was aware that other people had been working with her around issues of domestic violence and self esteem although these now seemed to have come to an end.

24.

Cross-examined by Ms Z on behalf of the children the Social Worker told me that B’s speech has improved since going into foster care but there are still concerns and he has been seen by a speech and language therapist.  There are also concerns about his behaviour as well as developmental delay and he may need a statement of special educational needs in the future.  He is seen to benefit from one to one attention whilst at nursery.  The Social Worker accepted that this could make B more difficult to place with an adoptive family but not significantly so and he is making progress all the time.  There are no concerns about A. I accept the evidence of the Social Worker.

25.

I next heard from Dr R, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, whose reports can be found at pages C38, C121 and C160 of the bundle. 

25.

Dr R told me that as a result of the court proceedings the mother has developed a partial insight into the impact of domestic violence on both herself and her children but she was not convinced she had a full understanding of it.  In particular, the mother failed to understand the emotional impact of domestic violence on B (C65) and at first the mother was reluctant to accept the recommendation of Dr R at C70 for psychological or psychotherapy sessions.

26.

Dr R was surprised when the mother resumed seeing Mr A because she thought that the mother understood the concerns of other people even if she did not fully accept the dangers herself.  When the mother did agree to therapy at the time of Dr R’s last report Dr R felt that this was because the mother believed that it was the right thing to do rather than her having a true understanding of the need for it.

27.

Dr R was asked about the availability of therapy and said that a referral through the mother’s GP would be necessary.  As stated in her report, Dr R believes that there is currently a waiting list of 30 weeks and that the therapy itself would take between 6 and 12 months.  However, these timescales would depend on how well the mother engaged with the service and the timescales indicated are inconsistent with the needs of the children, particularly B.

28.

Dr R was asked about the comment at page C161c of the bundle that therapeutic work could run alongside a possible rehabilitation of the children to their mother’s care.  Dr R emphasised that she was not recommending such a course of action but was merely pointing out in her report that such a course was theoretically possible.  However, in this case she felt that there were other risk factors which militated against this, particularly the mother’s ability to work openly and honestly with professionals.  Dr R accepted that there were some positives in the case particularly the mother’s attachment with the children but she felt that it was worrying that the mother had not taken on board the concerns about her personal relationships and had failed to work openly and honestly with professionals. 

29.

Cross-examined by Ms M Dr R told me that she had discussed the issue of risk with the mother but she felt that mother was more concerned about the risk of getting caught rather than of any risk to the children.  She reiterated that she was not recommending the return of the children to the mother but merely suggesting support services that could be offered if the court decided to return the children to her.  Dr R said that at the time of her second report she was not confident that faced with the same situation again the mother would not behave in the same way.  The signing of the last contract on 4^th September 2009, by which time the mother had already resumed contact with Mr A, was evidence of the mother not being open and honest with the council.

30.

Cross-examined by Ms C Dr R said that the mother’s willingness to accept therapy occurred in the final half of their last session together.  However, whilst the mother seemed more interested in therapy Dr R felt that the mother believed that this was expected of her.  She would therefore question the mother’s motivation.  She believes she still has mixed feelings about it.

31.

Dr R accepted that the mother has shown commitment to the children and she does not doubt that she loves them.

32.

In terms of therapy, Dr R said that she would initial think of about 20 sessions which would take place either weekly or fortnightly and whilst this can take place with the children at home, in this case there are other risk factors and she accepted the Guardian’s view that the therapy could de-stabilise the placement if the children were returned home.  Given the history in this case Dr R also questioned how the risk would be managed if the children were returned prior to the completion of the therapy. I accept the evidence of Dr R.

33.

I next heard from the mother, Ms W whose statements can be found at B16, B37 and B43.  There is also a position statement at page 37.

The mother told me that in both foster placements she had learnt a lot about managing B’s behaviour.  She got him into a good routine and he started at nursery. As a result of this she became more relaxed in her handling of B.

34.

The mother told me about the time when she was in the first mother and baby foster placement when she would occasionally go and see her sister.  On one occasion she was introduced to a man by the name of H and she went to the cinema with him.  It is disputed as to whether she was allowed to do this whilst in the foster placement but in any event she ended the relationship when she found out about his past.

35.

The mother was asked about the resumption of contact with Mr A in August and September 2009.  She confirmed the content of her statement at B38.  Mr A asked for the mother’s telephone number and she gave it to him.  She accepted that this was a silly thing to do.  On a previous occasion she had seen Mr A and told the social worker about this but on this occasion she was worried about the consequences if she told anyone about the meeting.  At first it was not in her mind to see Mr A again but after a few days he telephoned and they agreed to meet.  Altogether they met on between 5 and 10 occasions in the park, at the home of a friend and also at Mr A’s home in another nearby town.  The mother realised that what she was doing was wrong but Mr A threatened to tell the social worker if the mother stopped seeing him.  When the mother learnt that the council were going to remove the children she was in shock and she telephoned Mr A who came for her in a taxi.  Initially they went to a park together but then the mother went to a friend’s house in the local area where she remained for 3 days before returning with the children to the hostel.  During this time she did not see Mr A but spoke to him on the telephone.  She decided to return because she realised that she could not provide a normal life for the children.

36.

Following her return Ms W entered into a relationship with Mr A and went to stay with him.  On 16^th October 2009 she attended at court and asked to be assessed jointly with Mr A.  However, she then realised that she had to fight for the children and so decided to end the relationship.  Since then she has had no contact with Mr A except when attending at court. The mother said that if she is given another chance the relationship with Mr A is over and she knows that she would receive support from the social worker.  She would be prepared to go to a residential unit or to another foster home.

37.

The mother was asked about the document at D28.  She said that this was essentially a diary entry which she started to keep after A was born.  She was feeling depressed and wanted to escape but it was never really possible to do so.  She said that a female friend of hers was also involved in this by the name of ‘H’.  She is someone the mother knows through G and she is someone who was also unhappy with her situation and wanted to escape.  The mother said there is only one copy of the book and she disputed that the social worker had found another copy when her room was searched at the hostel.  After the children were removed from her care the mother tore the pages in question from the book as she did not really see the need for them.  The mother denied that the document represented a plan to go abroad with the children.

38.

Mother told me that she currently has a key worker at the hostel where she is living and she has seen C from a support organisation on 2 occasions.  However, she is not receiving any other ongoing counselling or assistance at the moment.

39.

Mother is currently seeing the children twice per week at a contact centre in a town over twenty-five miles from her home address which involves her travelling by both bus and train. There are no concerns about this.

40.

Mother wants to pursue a college course in building and has made some enquiries about this.  She told me that she has not asked her GP to refer her for counselling although she has tried other avenues without success.  She said that she will now co-operate with therapy although this was not previously the case as she did not see the point in it.  She is trying to form a new circle of friends and has been given a tenancy in a local area which is currently being repaired prior to her moving in.  If she moves back to this area she will have support from her friends, grandfather, cousins and uncle.  The mother told me that if the children are returned to her she believes that she can provide a warm loving and safe environment for them.

41.

Cross-examined by Ms M the mother told me that she could not recall when she wrote the entry at D28.  She was asked why she had originally denied writing the diary and at this point the mother became evasive and was unable to give me a clear explanation but I was left with the impression that as the mother was not aware that copies of the document had been taken she tried to suggest that Ms S may have written it herself.  The mother conceded that she did find the assessment process “complete hell” as set out at D29.  She accepted that there had been breaches of the contract (D12) by meeting the man H whilst she was still living in the first foster placement.  She also accepted that the contents of D28 set out her feelings at the time.  The mother accepted that on the face of it the document appeared to be a detailed plan to disappear.  She reiterated that there was only one version of the document and that after the children were removed she tore the pages out of the book.

42.

The mother was asked about the reference at D28 to the person named “H” and it was put to her that in fact this was a family nickname for Mr A.  Mother denied this and said that the name was “H” her female friend.  Mother was then referred to page D31 where the name “H” is more clearly written.  She again denied that this was Mr A’s nickname and claimed it was another reference to her female friend “H”.  Once again I found the mother’s evidence on this point both evasive and dissembling.  I am in no doubt that the name which appears at D28 and D31 is “H” and that as suggested by the council this is a reference to Mr A.  The whole of the document is concerned with B and A and the mother’s feelings about the assessment process.  There is no mention in the document about her female friend “H” and at page D32 the references to passports, tickets and clothes refer exclusively to the mother and the two children with no mention of mother’s female friend H.  Whilst I accept that some of the financial aspects of the plan would have been difficult for the mother to achieve I am satisfied that it is a clear expression of her wish to disappear with the children (whether or not she could achieve it) and of her feelings towards the assessment she had been undertaking.

43.

Mother accepted that she was still living with Ms S when she first met Mr A in the park.  She had the children with her at that time.  She was asked why she had not confided in Ms S given that she had a good relationship with her and she said that she was worried about the consequences particularly as she was looking forward to living independently and thought that any disclosure would jeopardise this.  Whilst I accept that there may be some element of truth in this I believe it is quite clear from mother’s own statement at B38 – B40 that she genuinely enjoyed being in Mr A’s company with the children notwithstanding the concerns of the professionals about the risk Mr A posed not only to herself but also to the children.   She met with Mr A, by her own admission, on up to 10 occasions and even went to a friend’s house and to a different town to avoid being seen.  In my judgment, this was a significant deceit on mother’s part.

44.

Mother told me that she let her emotions get in the way as she was feeling sorry for Mr A.  She knew she was not supposed to see him because of his behaviour, his controlling influence and the risk of emotional and physical harm. When she met Mr A for the second time she had already moved to the hostel accommodation although she remembered signing another contract when she moved.

45.

Cross-examined by Ms Z the mother told me that she had met Mr A at G’s house about 4 times.  G and her female friend H were also present as well as Mr A.  Mother accepted that there had not been any checks of these people by the council but she could not see any risk to the children as a result of this.  When she went to the town where Mr A lived with the children she visited him in his own accommodation which he shares with a number of others but again she did not perceive there to be any risk in this.  I regret to say that I believe that even now the mother has not been completely honest with the court and I was not wholly convinced by her evidence.

46.

Lastly, I heard from the Children’s Guardian, Ms G whose report can be found at C169.  The Guardian accepted that during the early part of the proceedings mother had made improvements particularly in managing B’s challenging behaviour and she therefore supported the mother’s move to semi-independent living at the hostel accommodation.  It therefore came as a shock to the Guardian to learn that mother had resumed contact with Mr A and that this had started whilst she had been living with Ms S.  The Guardian was unclear as to whether mother’s behaviour was simply impulsive or would have happened at some point anyway.

47.

The Guardian confirmed that she had heard nothing during the course of the hearing to cause her to change the recommendation in her report and if anything she was more concerned that the mother is very resentful about official intervention in her life.  She said that as a result of the mother’s behaviour the social worker had lost the ability to trust her and she did not know how this could be restored.

48.

The Guardian did not feel that therapeutic help would be readily available to the mother and as the children are relatively settled now it would not be in their interests to move once again to a semi-institutional setting whilst mother undergoes therapy.

49.

Cross-examined by Ms M the Guardian told me that any plan to place the children with the mother would be too risky and particularly as the mother’s preferred option would be for the children to live with her at her new tenancy in a local area.  It is the Guardian’s view that the mother has returned to previous patterns of behaviour.

50.

Cross-examined by Ms C the Guardian said that mother’s resumption of contact with Mr A had brought up a whole range of issues which are insurmountable.  She did not accept that the trigger for the resumption of contact was mother’s move to hostel accommodation as contact had already taken place whilst mother was living with Ms S.  The Guardian said that she formed the view that the mother is looking for counselling rather than the therapy recommended by Dr R and that whilst no one is ruling out mother as a parent in the future because there are too many positives, it is a question of timescales so far as B and A are concerned.  The Guardian acknowledged that there were positives in mother’s care but said that one must first consider the question of risk and in her view the risk can not be overcome in this case.  She agreed that trust can only be built over time but felt that time was not on the children’s side.  The Guardian told me that it is essential for B to be settled in a permanent home before he moves into full-time school.  The Guardian cannot conceive of an environment where it would be safe to place the children with the mother until the therapy has been completed. Again, I accept the evidence of the Guardian in full.

51.

In her closing submissions to me Ms C accepted on behalf of the mother that this case is now about disposal and the welfare of the children.  She reminded me of the significant progress made by the mother up to August 2009 and the consistent account that mother has given regarding the resumption of contact with Mr A.  She reminded me that mother has the tenancy of a house in a local area and is looking forward to starting a college course.  These factors have all the makings of a new life for the mother and she is committed to the return of her children to this new life.  Mother acknowledges that she has broken the bond of trust with social services and that it will take time to rebuild.  She also accepts the need for therapy as recommended by Dr R. On behalf of mother Ms C invites me to make a further interim care order with a view to the council amending their care plan so as to provide for a further period of assessment of the mother. However, Ms C was unable to expand upon this and I was left unclear as to who would carry out the further assessment, when it would be carried out and where the children would live in the meantime. It was also unclear as to where the provision of therapy for mother would fit into this plan.  Finally, Ms C reminded me of the Article 8 rights of the children to be brought up in their birth family and she reiterated that mother does not consent to the placement application.

52.

I have considered this matter carefully.  I accept that there are many positives in this case, particularly the attachment between the mother and the children which all the professionals have acknowledged and the fact that mother is on the whole able to meet their day to day care without difficulty or concern.  The single issue in this case is mother’s ability to protect the children from the emotional and possibly physical harm which stems from domestic violence caused by mother forming relationships with unsuitable partners and, in so doing, placing both her own needs and those of her partners before the needs of the children.  I accept that up until the beginning of September 2009 the mother had made significant improvements and appeared to have insight into the impact which domestic violence had had in both her own life and that of B.  However it is now apparent to me and I believe all the professionals involved in this case that this was only a partial understanding of the impact of domestic violence and furthermore the document at D28 sets out graphically in my judgment mother’s true feelings about her resentment of the assessment process. 

53.

In Dr R’s addendum report dated 12 Jan 2010 she sets out her “summary of conclusions” in para 1.3 at C124 which in my judgment graphically illustrates mother’s position: “ …Ms W is a young woman who is vulnerable within her personal relationships. Although Ms W often has the intention of putting the children’s needs before her own, at times she finds it difficult to distinguish whose needs are being met in a particular situation. Whilst there are indications that Ms W now has more insight regarding issues related to domestic violence, there continue to be gaps in her understanding and a tendency to under-estimate potential risks. Ms W has a propensity to be guided by her emotional response rather than a more logical weighing up of the consequences of a situation. The historical pattern indicates that Ms W has found it difficult to be consistently open and honest with professionals, and this makes it difficult for support to be provided or risks to be managed effectively”.

54.

The Local Authority submits that as a result it is not possible to formulate a plan that will keep the children safe if they return to their mother’s care until therapy has been completed and I agree with this.  It is clear to me that by the beginning of September 2009 mother was willing to resume her contact with Mr A regardless of the consequences for the children and her pleasure at resuming that contact is clearly set out in her own statement at B 38 – 40.  I agree with all the professionals that it is impossible to conceive of a situation where B and A would be safe living with their mother until such time as she has received the necessary therapeutic help which she accepts she requires.  I say this because contact with Mr A resumed whilst the mother was living at Ms S’ home and continued whilst she was living at the hostel, both of which were supportive and semi-supervised settings.  Despite the support offered in both of these placements contact with Mr A continued and the children were exposed to the risk of harm.  What then if I were to delay making a final order until such time as the therapy has been completed?  On the timescales given by Dr R therapy would take somewhere between 12 and 18 months to be completed and there would then be a need for a further assessment before the court could be satisfied that the therapy had been successful. By this time B will be at least 5 and A will be approaching 2.  Having regard to the children’s specific needs, B has suffered a great deal of disruption in his life so far and he is showing signs of delay both in his speech and his development generally. His behaviour can also be difficult to manage at times. A has not experienced the same degree of disruption as his brother and he is meeting all his developmental milestones but he still has the same needs as any child for a secure home environment (C189). At page C188 the Guardian states that both children have an urgent need for their futures to be determined and that they have developed a strong relationship with each other which has the potential to flourish into a lasting sibling attachment (C188).  I accept this evidence and I am satisfied that it would not be in the best interests of either child to delay decisions about their long-term care until such time as the mother may have successfully completed her own therapy, there being no guarantee of success in any event.   On this basis I am satisfied that despite the love which the mother undoubtedly has for her 2 children and the disappointment which this judgment will bring, she is not able to safely parent either child either now or within a timescale which is consistent with their best interests.

55.

Neither Mr M nor Mr A have attended this hearing to contest the applications before the court.  Mr M has failed to co-operate with 2 parenting assessments at a Family Centre and has been inconsistent about contact.  Mr A is a failed asylum seeker with no family ties in this area and the viability assessment recently carried out by the Social Worker at C163 does not support either child being placed with him.  I am satisfied therefore that neither Mr M nor Mr A are in a position to offer appropriate care to either child and there are no other family members who have put themselves forward as potential carers for the children.

56.

I accept that it is the right of every child to be brought up in their birth family wherever possible but equally they have a right to be brought up in a safe loving and secure environment such that sometimes only state intervention can provide for this.  I believe that this is such a case and the only orders I can make are care orders to the Council which I now do.

57.

I now turn to the placement applications.  As A and B are of young ages they both require a permanent, stable and loving home where all their needs can be met throughout their childhood and into adolescence. In my judgment this can only be achieved through adoption. Both children were considered by the council’s Adoption Panel on 11 December 2009 as being suitable for adoption and the council have informed me that if a placement order is made both boys can be placed with an adoptive family within 3-6 months. Although A is of mixed race it is likely that such a placement will be of white British background, but with the ability to bring A up with an awareness of his heritage. It is acknowledged that both children have a significant attachment to their mother and to some extent to their current foster carers but it is hoped that given time and a patient and supportive home environment they can make firm and lasting attachments to their new carers (C189). However, the sooner this change of placement occurs, the easier it will be for both B and A to begin to form new attachments.

58.

The mother does not consent to a placement order being made and I can only proceed to make such an order if I dispense with her consent which I am asked to do on the grounds that B and A’s welfare requires that parental agreement be dispensed with. This, of course, mirrors the test which I must apply in considering the application generally, namely that the paramount consideration must be the welfare of both children throughout their lives.

For the reasons I have already given, and applying the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, I am satisfied that the welfare of B and A dictates that  placement orders should be made so as to safeguard their future care, and that for the same reasons the consent of Ms W should be dispensed with.

59.

In arriving at this decision I am aware that neither B nor A will  be brought up in their birth family and will have only limited contact with their birth parents through the council’s letter box scheme, but I am satisfied that these arrangements are the best that can be made in the circumstances and will help meet the needs of both B and A for information about their biological families as they grow older

60.

I therefore dispense with the consent of Ms W and make placement orders in favour of the Council in respect of B and A. In doing so, I approve the care plans.

61.

Heard by a District Judge on the 22 – 24 February 2010 with judgment delivered on the 2 March 2010.