Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCC 17 (Fam)

In the County Court

Before:
HHJ X
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	X Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	   A Mother  	1st Respondent	
	And		
	A Father	2,d Respondent	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

			

Hearing dates: 7 April 2010

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WRITTEN REASONS

The written reasons are being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report, no person may be identified by name or location (Other than a person identified by name in the reasons themselves) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved

Judgement

1.	These are applications by the local authority in relation to DE, who was born on the 27th June 2006, and JR, born on the 12th April 2008. The local authority seek care orders and placement orders in respect of both children.  

2.	The children’s mother is HE.  Their father is JR.  He is named on the birth certificate as the father of one of the children but not the other and therefore has parental responsibility for one only.  

3.	This matter is listed for final hearing today.  

4.	For some time now the parents, who have become reconciled since July or August of 2009, have disengaged with the proceedings.  They have not attended today but are represented by Miss W and Mr. M.  

5.	The background is that mother gave birth to the first child when she was just 15 years of age herself.  There had been a pre-birth conference in May 2006 leading to the registration of her first child prior to birth in the category of neglect arising out of concerns over mother’s personal circumstances, life style and her parenting abilities.  

6.	Thereafter a series of incidents relating to inadequate levels of parenting and care afforded to mostly D and then to D and J and extensive violence within the relationship between the parents, which included specific incidents violence by father towards mother and an incident of J being burned and hospitalised in October 2008, led to active intervention by the local authority.  

7.	Their concerns are those referred to in the original threshold document which set out the findings that were sought.  They have been condensed today to a reduced document which reflects firstly, the local authority’s allegations and, secondly, the concessions which the parents have made to date in the course of these proceedings and which themselves in the mind of the local authority are more than sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 31 of the Children Act.  That amended threshold document bearing today’s date will be annexed to this judgment and thereby incorporated into it.  

8.	Intervention occurred on the 29th October 2008.  An interim care order was obtained on the 3rd November 2008 with mother’s consent and it has been renewed successively since then.  

9.	The allegations within the final threshold document in my judgment do constitute more than ample ground for satisfying the threshold required under section 31 and having applied my own mind independently to them - I do not simply or merely endorse the parties’ agreement about this,-  I come to my own conclusion as well that the requirements of the Act in relation to threshold were established in relation to both of these children at the relevant date which is agreed as being the 29th October 2008  

10.	That leads the court to the issue of how the application should be disposed of and what is to happen to D and J.  

11.	The parental position has changed from time to time.  

12.	Originally and for some months father played no active part in the proceedings.  The guardian gives a detailed account in one of his reports of the efforts made by him to secure father’s involvement, all of which were to no effect.  He  did become involved later  and gave as his explanation an account of deliberately withdrawing from the proceedings in order to enhance mother’s prospects of rehabilitation of the children with her.  

13.	Mother’s position was that she sought rehabilitation with her and latterly, as a secondary position, the placement of the children under one provision or another with the paternal grandparents.  

14.	Father’s position became the same, although so far as the court can tell, following their reconciliation last summer, their most recent position has been that the children should be rehabilitated with them as a couple, with the same secondary position of placement with the paternal grandparents.  

15.	The local authority’s final care plans are dated the 25th January 2010 and are for adoption of both children outside their birth families.  

16.	The local authority is supported by the guardian in his final analysis in relation to both applications.  

17.	The core issue in this case always has been and remains the relationship between the parents and mother’s ability  to prioritise the needs of the children over hers.  It seemed that at one stage in the course of the regular contact that occurred between the children and mother some progress was being made.  She gave an account of having ended the relationship finally on the 22nd December 2008.  Doubt was cast upon that  and the guardian observed father at mother’s home during January 2009 and on one occasion found him concealed in a wardrobe within the property.  Nevertheless in March 2009 mother applied for and obtained an order from this court under the Family Law Act 1996,  in the  form of an injunction against father, and for some time she lived independently of him.  However, by August 2009 she confirmed their reconciliation.  The position to date is that they remain as a couple.  

18.	In the course of these lengthy proceedings, as a consequence of these developments and the reintroduction of father into the case and into mother’s life, parenting assessments were undertaken of both of them.  These were undertaken by Miss PL, an independent social worker, and her report in relation to mother is dated the 20th April 2009.  

19.	In it Miss L gives details of her analysis of mother’s parenting capacity by reference to a number of considerations.  In terms of basic care she acknowledged the pride that mother took in her personal appearance.  She said, however:  “There is evidence relating to H’s inexperience in money management or recognition of child safety issues and her ability to prioritise basic child care when personal life style and stress factors were occurring.”  By that I think she means her inability to prioritise basic child care.  She said that when mother did acquire an independent home the children experienced a very poor standard of basic care and pointed out the allegation made by an aunt.  She concluded in relation to basic care that H has no insight into deficiencies in her basic parenting.  She disagreed with social services and said she did not think there was anything wrong in the way she cared for the children.  

20.	The second aspect of her analysis related to safety.   Miss L regarded it as one of the most serious areas of concern in the case because mother had not been able to keep herself free from physical attack from a man with a serious violent record.  She acknowledged that mother had attended the Women’s Freedom Programme and had made enquiries about becoming a volunteer for the Women’s Aid Group and whilst accepting that this was commendable personal progress Miss L concluded:  “It is not in my view significant in terms of her ability to yet keep her children safe.”  She also observed that in the course of contact it was noted that H finds it difficult to meet the safety needs of both children simultaneously.  She said the history of the case points to the fact that whilst her children were living with her she was not capable of keeping herself or the children safe.  Her inadequacy is not just related to difficulties arising from domestic violence .  She also observed further that whilst mother was improving in the imposition of boundaries on D’s behaviour D continued to behave in an unsafe way or unsafe ways towards his little brother.  

21.	In terms of emotional warmth Miss L’s conclusion was that mother’s ability was unevenly divided between the children, D receiving more time and attention and focus than J.  She acknowledged that mother’s feelings for her children are genuine, but concluded that over the past two years mother has suffered a considerable amount of physical abuse and emotional trauma.  She has given her children as much warmth and affection as she has been capable of.  This has not been enough to ensure the children’s secure attachment to her.  The children need more warmth and security than she is able to give.  In terms of stimulation, contact confirmed that mother did now play with the children well in terms of guidance and boundaries.  Over three months with help from staff mother had learned to set limits and used strategies to enforce those.  

22.	The conclusion that Miss L felt forced to was this:  “I have reached the conclusion that the children’s needs are now so great and H’s rate of progress is so slow that there will still be a considerable risk of disruption and that the negative impact of such disruption cannot be justified given the children’s previous history.”  That context, she was referring to was the prospect of mother resuming care of her children.  She said unequivocally:  “I have reached the conclusion that Miss E cannot provide good enough parenting for her children.”  

23.	In relation to father Miss L’s analysis of him was of an immature young man who has not yet separated from his own parents and has no experience of independent living.  She acknowledged that the picture was not entirely negative in relation to father but said that in the main the life style that Mr. R and Miss E led was volatile, unstable and centred on their own adolescent choices and developmental needs.  Mr. R did not put his theoretical child care knowledge to good use but instead allowed his children to suffer inconsistent and unsafe care.  She concluded that he had problems controlling his aggressive impulses over a long period and that he was in denial about this aspect of his behaviour.  She said there was no evidence to suggest father could care for his son as a sole carer living independently from his parents.  She pointed to the obvious difficulties that would arise in the event of a joint care regime being implemented so that father and his parents undertook the care of the children.  Inevitably as both his parents were working, it would involve father being in charge of the children and the care of them during the day, something that Miss L was not prepared to recommend. She said that even if one of the parents gave up their job to help, the issues around Mr. R’s volatility and the provisions for Miss E’s continued involvement remain unresolved, and Mr. and Mrs. R -- father’s parents -- were not in a position to make an informed choice about the future in this respect.  She was concerned about the level of conflict that would arise in relation to mother and father.  

24.	She did recommend a further assessment of Mr. and Mrs. R, one which she then subsequently undertook, and the outcome was that Mr. and Mrs. R decided not to proceed further on the basis of Miss L’s clear view as to what the children need.  

25.	She said in her report that when she interviewed Mr. and Mrs. R for the second time, she put it to them that the patterns of interaction that the children had displayed was so contrasting to what she had ever previously witnessed. She felt that both boys were really struggling to undo the damage.  She was referring to acute opposition and aggressive behaviour displayed by D in particular in the course of contact and she put it to the couple that there was a danger that the children would be placed into a context of long term conflict if a family placement went ahead. She informed them that she had reached the conclusion they would not have the capability to manage such conflict and she suggested to them neither child was resilient enough for a conflicted family placement to be considered as a better option than placement into adoption.  She said the couple were saddened at the conclusion but said that their main concern was the welfare of the children and they would not wish to make things worse for the children in the long term.  

26.	In terms of practical possibilities, a thorough exploration of the position of the paternal grandparents alongside an unchallenged decision -- the right decision in my view -- by the local authority not to proceed with an assessment of mother’s father and stepfather left no other avenue open as far as the wider family is concerned.  

27.	Dr. M undertook an extensive psychological investigation of mother and the children.  In relation to mother he came to firm and definite conclusions by reference to six different considerations. 

28.	He said firstly that his findings on examination indicated clearly that Miss E had experienced significant difficulties in the area of establishing stable and supportive intimate relationships with male partners.  He said that in his view JR may well have exhibited pathological levels of jealousy in relation to her.  He went on to say:  “It is clearly very concerning that despite experiencing these extremely high levels of mental and physical abuse in her relationship she was not able to end that relationship and it appears to be the case that when in the past she attempted to end a relationship it seemed that she quickly re-established it.”  He said he was very concerned that mother appears to have given little or no consideration or thought to the ability of JR to meet her own emotional needs and those of the children.  He was concerned about the very impulsive and reflective way that she ended the relationship and said of this very significant and crucially important aspect of the case that all of his findings, only some only of which I have referred to, suggest that HE’s own deep-seated and unmet needs for security and support may well have overwhelmed her ability to think about the very serious risks posed by JR for both her own safety and the safety of the children.  It seems that HE’s own needs for attention and affection overwhelmed her capacity to think rationally about her relationship with JR.  

29.	He turned, secondly, to mother’s personality function, pointing out that individuals with self-defeating personality disorder, which he diagnosed, have a tendency to behave in an obsequious and self-sacrificing manner and to allow others to exploit and take advantage of that.  Individuals with avoidant personality disorder tend to be mistrusting. They tend to believe that only by active withdrawal can they protect themselves.  He said of this:  “These findings help to highlight the major difficulties that HE appears to be experiencing in her first relationship with other people and it is my opinion that the very significant personality difficulties she is experiencing have had a very negative impact on her capacity to reliably and sensibly meet the emotional and physical needs of the children.”  

30.	Thirdly, he considered what he identified as mother’s problems in the area of establishing supportive and stable friendships, something which he said was important because of research indicating that women who lack social support are at an increased risk of difficulties including parenting problems and mental health problems.  

31.	Fourthly, he expressed concern about the quality of care experienced by the children, something which I have already commented upon.  The findings that there were raised concerns about the quality of care the children received and he said it was very concerning that D in particular was exposed to high levels of domestic conflict and violence whilst living with his mother.  He said that during her interview with him Miss E told him that D was probably exposed to at least ten episodes of severe domestic conflict and he was extremely concerned to hear of fearful and anxious behaviour by D.  This was associated, too, with concerns he had about problems in the provision of adequate levels of parental boundaries.  He concluded that he was very concerned about mother’s capacity to provide the children with the quality of care they provided.  

32.	Fifthly, he dealt with mother’s insight and understanding which he described as “extremely limited”.  He also said that she dramatically underestimated the potential challenges she would be likely to experience if she were to resume the care of the children.  She had very limited understanding of the concerns of social services and other agencies.  She has not worked in an open, honest and constructive manner with social services and has indeed broken agreements in the past. 

33.	Sixthly, he correlated her own current problems with those of her childhood, findings which he said were important because they suggest that mother has developed a rather idolised and unrealistic view of her own childhood experience.  Research suggests that negative childhood experiences and memories can continue to exert a negative impact on various aspects of later psychosocial function especially when there is an attempt to deal with negative past experience by avoidance and denial and idealisation.

34.	By reference to all of those his conclusion was firmly against the prospect of mother resuming control and care of the children.  

35.	In dealing with all of that evidence and in addition to the evidence of the social worker in the case and the guardian’s analysis at different stages, I remind myself that the children’s welfare is the paramount consideration.  I consider all the circumstances as well as specific criteria in section 3 of the Children Act 1989 - the welfare checklist.  

36.	The guardian has undertaken an analysis by reference to the checklist and I can find no fault with the conclusions that he has reached in relation to that.  

37.	In terms of the ascertaining of wishes and feelings of the children they are  too young to express views as to their future.  It is clear from the observations made of them that they are settled and enjoy themselves within their current joint placement.  It is clear as well that whilst they have related with mother and to some extent father in the course of contact, since going into foster care there have been occasions when they have not related well in the course of that contact. 

38.	In terms of their physical, educational and emotional needs those of course are the needs of any young child to a safe, secure, stimulating, loving environment with their physical needs and their emotional needs being addressed. But in the context of the sad history that these two children have experienced they have particular needs which have been identified by Dr. M in his report under the heading of ‘Future needs’.  He  succinctly and clearly states what it is that these children are going to need to address the difficulties which they have undergone thus far in their lives.  He says, taken together, findings from this assessment clearly indicate that D and J are vulnerable children who despite their young ages have been exposed to high levels of adversity.  Results from his assessment highlight a number of ongoing concerns and issues in relation to their psychological function, particularly the psychological functioning of D.  

39.	He said “Given the above, it is my opinion that the main need in relation to D and J is to be able to grow up in a family environment where they can receive high levels of warmth, stimulation and boundaries that they desperately require.  Further experiences of adversity and instability are likely to have a very negative effect on these young boys and it is therefore very important that any future experiences of adversity and instability are kept to an absolute minimum.  It is my opinion that in order to have a chance of reaching their full potential D and J will need to grow up in an environment characterised by high levels of structure, boundaries and affection, that is they will require parenting which is more than adequate in order for their psychological development not to be further harmed.”

40.	He deals with their attachment and problems and contemplates a situation in which they might be returned to their mother’s care, something which he describes as likely to have a very negative impact on their psychological functioning and development.  

41.	I add nothing to what the guardian has said about the children’s age, sex, background and characteristics.  There is nothing of significance in that respect in relation to the decision which the court faces.  

42.	As far as any change of circumstances is concerned, I have already addressed that I dealing with the contemplation of Dr. M  in the event of a return to mother.  The likelihood is, given the attachment they have currently in the foster placement and their ages, that they will, albeit facing some initial disruption, be able to make secure attachments in a structured and adequate environment elsewhere.  

43.	In terms of the harm that they have suffered, I have already dealt with that prior to the relevant date and it is conceded that allegations within the amended document are proved.

44.	In addition however Dr. M in his analysis of each of the children deals with it specifically in these terms.  He says that it seems that D has developed a complex and rather confused view of his relationship with his mother and it may well be the case that D experiences rage and contradictory thoughts and feelings about her. The recordings of the contact sessions indicate there are times D is happy to see his mother and times during the contact sessions when he does enjoy interacting with her and having her attention.  On the other hand findings from this assessment are also clear in indicating that D clearly experiences a range of angry and hostile feelings towards his mother.  

45.	Taken together the above findings indicate that D has formed a very insecure attachment relationship with his mother and that this relationship is characterised by high levels of avoidant, hostile behaviour.  He describes the fact that D showed no distress when initially placed a very worrying finding which further highlighted the very insecure nature of the attachment. 

46.	In relation to J he said that  based on two contact sessions that he observed between J and his mother, he was struck by the fact that often when H had tried to initiate interactions with J he looked and tried to move away from his mother and he noted that J rarely spontaneously approached the mother.  Taken together he says the findings clearly indicate that J has not established an emotionally important attachment relationship with his mother.  

47.	Findings from this assessment suggest that when J was in the care of his mother and his normal attachment requirements were not being adequately met and that he is now experiencing significant attachment-related difficulties.  

48.	In terms of the capabilities, I have dealt with these issues already in the observations made earlier in the course of the judgment. 

49.	I have also considered the range of decisions that the court may make.  

50.	As far as the placement applications are concerned I consider separately the criteria in section 1.4 of the Adoption of Children Act of 2002.  Where those considerations mirror those in the Children Act of 1989 I reach the same conclusions.  They differ in two respects.  I have to consider the relationship which the children have with any relatives and with any other persons considered by the court to be relevant for this purpose.  The only persons with whom the children have had a relationship which has been developed recently has been that with the paternal grandparents.  There is no other person with whom they have a significant relationship.  In my view that relationship with the paternal grandparents is insignificant when set alongside the compelling needs identified for the children’s future by Dr. M.  

51.	I also have to consider the lifelong effects of adoption on the children.  Those again in my judgment fall to be considered in the context of what Dr. M has said about their very compelling needs for high levels of stability and structure and emotional warmth at this stage.  That, too, has lifelong implications for them in the context of children with damaged attachment relationships with their parents.  In terms of the familial situation there are in my view no lifelong implications of significance in view of  Dr. M’s considerations and conclusions.  

52.	In my judgment the outcome should be that the care order should be made and the care plan approved and the placement order made.  That is because when I take into account all of the considerations I have just referred to there is in my judgment a very compelling case in terms of the immediate needs for these damaged children that they be placed in placement outside their family in order to redress the harm which has been done to them.  There is no placement within the family which is available and capable meeting those needs.  Rehabilitation with the parents is not an option.  In my judgment rehabilitation with either of them without further evidence would not be an option that the court could properly conclude would meet these very compelling needs.  I have considered the children’s right to family life.  Their right to a loving, structured, stable, stimulating and supportive environment are very compelling.  Their needs override other considerations and in my judgment in the particular context this is the justified, proportionate and in fact least intrusive method available to meet the welfare of these two little children.  

53.	For those reasons I am going to make the orders sought, there being no other order within the range of orders available to me under the Children Act which is capable of meeting those welfare needs.