London Borough of Wandsworth v Mother, Father and Children [2014] EWCC B38 (Fam) (21 January 2014)

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales County Court (Family)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales County Court (Family) >> London Borough of Wandsworth v Mother, Father and Children [2014] EWCC B38 (Fam) (21 January 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2014/38.html
Cite as: [2014] EWCC B38 (Fam)

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


		No.IL13C00273

IN THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

First Avenue House
42-49 High Holborn, WC1

21st January 2014

B e f o r e :

HER HONOUR JUDGE BRASSE
____________________

	LONDON BOROUGH OF WANDSWORTH	Applicant
	- and -
	The mother, father and the children of the subject family.	Respondents

____________________

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
One Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HR
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
[email protected]
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

JUDGE BRASSE:

I have before me applications for care orders. Those applications are dated 3^rd April 2013. The children with whom I am concerned are NC referred to as N, who was born on 12^th August 2006, so he is 7 years and 5 months of age; and MC referred to as M, who was born on 8^th February 2012, so she is 1 year and 11 months of age. The Local Authority also issued, on the second day of this hearing, applications for placement orders in respect of both of those children. However, in the light of evidence that was given by the child and adolescent psychiatrist and the family finder, to which I shall refer in due course, the applications for placement orders are no longer pursued and thus I will give permission to the Local Authority to withdraw those applications.

The parties to these proceedings are as follows. The applicants are the London Borough of Wandsworth. The first respondent is LN , who is the mother, and I shall call her "mother" henceforth. The second respondent is EC, who is the father, and I shall call him "father" henceforth. The third and fourth respondents are the children themselves, who act by their children's Guardian, Linda Reed.

THE PARTIES' POSITIONS

The Local Authority say to me that the threshold criteria are met and that their assessments show that the children cannot be safely returned to the parents or to either of them, either together or separately. The parents' case is that they are separate, and the mother would say that they have been so since after May 2012. The father would say that in fact an intimate relationship of some sort continued until late 2012. Either way, they say to me that they are separate. So, say the Local Authority, I should make a final care order in respect of both of the children on a plan to place the children with long-term foster carers, with some contact to the parents once they are placed long term, and the contact that would be proposed is three times a year between each parent and N, and four times a year between each parent and M. The Local Authority thus say that I should find that the children cannot be safely rehabilitated to either parent; that the only family member who puts herself forward is the maternal grandmother in an African country, but, say the Local Authority to me, the known risks in such a placement are too great to take and thus, they say, there is no option but to make a care order and, as I have already said, a care order on a plan to place them in long-term foster care and that they are no longer seeking an adoptive placement. The Local Authority say that they are committed to keeping the children together and, in the light of the family finding evidence that an adoptive placement for both children together was, in the view of the family finder, remote, the Local Authority have properly, in my view, not pursued any placement applications but seek a care order on a plan for long-term fostering.

Insofar as the parents are concerned, their position is that they both accept that the threshold criteria are made out. They make a number of concessions, and although each of them had filed evidence seeking the return of the children to their care, both parents at the outset of this hearing informed the court that neither the mother nor the father were putting themselves forward any longer as carers for the children. The mother and the father have individually told the court that they each recognised that they cannot care for the children and each now supports the application of the maternal grandmother. Each opposes the making of a full care order on plans to place the children in long-term foster care. Each asks me to accept that the children should be placed together with the maternal grandmother in an African country.

At the outset they were each seeking that I make such an order - i.e. to place the children with the grandmother in an African country - at the end of this hearing. However, as the case has unfolded, their respective positions have changed in that they each ask the court to adjourn the final decision to allow for further and full assessment of the maternal grandmother, with a view, they hope, to a successful outcome and then placement of the children with the maternal grandmother at the adjourned hearing. In any event, each opposes reduction in contact pending placement.

The children's Guardian's position is that she supports the Local Authority application in the making of full care orders. She submits that the threshold criteria are met. She had supported applications for care orders on a plan to place the children together for adoption, and thus placement orders. However, having heard the evidence and following that the Local Authority were no longer pursuing placement applications, she now supports the making of care orders on a plan to place the children for long-term fostering and together. She vigorously opposes any adjournment for further assessment of the maternal grandmother and considers that there is sufficient evidence before the court now to conclude that the risks in placement with the maternal grandmother are simply too great to take.

I have read the bundle of documents which has been filed with the court, together with those documents which have been produced during the hearing. I have heard the oral evidence of Dr. Butler, a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist; Ms. Hall, the family finder; Ms. Onya, the allocated social worker; Ms. Coker(?), an independent social worker who gave evidence by videolink from Nigeria; the maternal grandmother who gave evidence by Skype and videolinks from an African country; the mother and the father, and I heard from Ms. Reed, the children's Guardian. I have paid also considerable attention to the professional evidence which has been filed in this case but where the authors have not been required to give oral evidence. In particular, I have paid attention to the parenting assessments of both parents by the Woking Close Family Centre, and the report of Mr. Dowsett, a consultant clinical psychologist, who assessed the father. He was to have assessed the mother too but she did not attend his appointment. I have read and heard the submissions by counsel for each of the parties, and I am very grateful to all of the counsel who have been involved for the careful and considered way in which they have conducted this case.

THE PROCEEDINGS

The applications for care orders were issued on 3^rd April 2013. There was a contested application on 9^th May 2013 in the Family Proceedings Court. The Local Authority sought interim care orders on a plan to remove the children from the mother and to place the children with paternal aunts. In the event, interim care orders were granted and the children were placed with the aunts, who are T and AC. In fact I think there are three paternal aunts, all of whom live together in a well known area of South London. The parents were to have three times a week contact. Directions were given for assessments, to include parenting assessment of the parents, and for there to be a child and adolescent psychiatrist to assess the needs of the children. The case was transferred to the PRFD. In the event, the Local Authority appealed the making of the contact orders and directions because no submissions had in fact been made to the Family Proceedings Court and those directions and contact orders were made without the benefit of hearing any arguments from any of the parties. The case was, accordingly, transferred to the Principal Registry.

The appeal was in fact compromised, and the matter came before me for a case management hearing on 13^th June. Directions were then given for assessments and for timetabling. The matter came back before the court on 12^th July 2013 for a further case management hearing, and further directions were given, including for there to be a full special guardianship order-type assessment of the paternal and maternal grandmothers. These were to include translations into a European Language. The paternal grandmother in fact in July came to the UK and stayed with the paternal aunts.

Sadly, the placement with the paternal aunts ended in July, and the aunts said that they could no longer put themselves forward to care for the children. Indeed, they asked for the children to be removed from their care as soon as possible. All of the paternal family and the maternal family apparently had a joint meeting and together they all concluded that the person who should be put forward to care for the children was the maternal grandmother, and that they were all then supporting the maternal grandmother in an African country.

On 15^th August 2013 the children were moved to H, who is a new (as it has turned out) short-term foster carer, a single white parent, and the children have remained with her ever since. Indeed, she has made it clear that although she cannot put herself forward to care for the children long term, she will keep the children with her until they are moved to their long-term placement, wherever that might be, and she will assist with that move.

The matter then came before the court on 26^th September for an IRH, and this final hearing was listed. On that date the court found that the threshold criteria were indeed made out and satisfied on the basis of concessions that had been made by the parents, primarily that there was domestic violence as between them. Directions then were given for the assessment of the maternal grandmother in an African country, and contact was ordered to be weekly to each parent to M and fortnightly to each parent to N.

On 25^th November the matter came back before me urgently because the independent social worker, Ms. Coker, unfortunately was unable to obtain a visa to enter An African country and to fully assess the maternal grandmother. In that event, directions were given that if she were unable to visit an African country, then she could conduct the assessment as best she could by Skype and telephone.

THE LAW

Before a court can consider whether or not to make a public law order, the court must be satisfied that the section 31 threshold criteria are made out that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm attributable to a lack of reasonable parental care if an order were not made. The relevant date in this case is 4^th April 2013 when protective measures were taken. As I have already said, on 26^th September 2013 the court found that the threshold criteria were made out on the parents' acceptance of the domestic violence between them. There is now a composite document at A78, and para.9 sets out (between A79 and 83) the numerous findings that were sought by the Local Authority and the many concessions that were made by the parents.

The parents concede that there has been a very significant and extensive history of domestic violence between them and, as part of that, that the mother has made rape allegations against the father. She has made those allegations to the police and within these proceedings, and then withdrawn them. For his part, the father has always denied the allegations of rape, and no evidence has been adduced in this court in support of those allegations and nobody has sought for me to make any findings in relation to them, and I do not. However, both parents have accepted that they have both struck the other, and that the father was convicted of an assault on the mother on 21^st September 2009, for which he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. He has also perpetrated criminal damage on the mother's property. There have been numerous referrals to the police in relation to domestic violence. Further, it is accepted that during an argument the mother seriously injured the father's finger with an implement in May 2012.

Notwithstanding the parents' bail conditions not to contact each other, the parents have flouted the same, and the mother has allowed the father back into the home and to have contact with the children. The mother would say that she did not continue the relationship with the father in the summer of 2012 and after May 2012. The father, however, says that an intimate relationship did continue and he stayed with the mother on a number of occasions in August 2012 and then in the autumn. What is clear is that at a time post February 2012 when the Family Recovery Project were working with the mother to improve her parenting skills, and when all agencies made it clear that they considered the father to be a risk and that there should be no contact, the mother allowed the father to have extensive contact with the children, including overnight in Christmas 2012. Thus, the parents accepted that they maintained a significant deception and were dishonest with Social Services and with the police. These matters are contained, as I have said, in the composite document.

It seems to me important to note in this judgment that the Family Recovery Project had no less than 420 contacts with the mother over 13 months, and thought that there was no contact between the parents post May 2012, such was the level of the parents' deceit and ability to hide matters from the authorities. In the event, the Family Recovery Project considered that, despite intensive work with the mother, they were unable to effect any change. The mother also acknowledges a degree of neglect of the children, particularly of N, in missing medical appointments and some poor school attendance.

The Local Authority did seek further findings in relation to mother's lack of emotional warmth and ability to meet the children's, and especially N's needs. Clearly there are sufficient concessions to satisfy the threshold criteria as I have in the composite document. Where it is important, with regard to welfare issues, to return to any of the other matters which were set out in the first document of the Local Authority, I will do so. But suffice it to say that on the concessions that have now been made in the composite document, I find that the threshold criteria are satisfied, and that therefore should be read alongside this document.

When considering the law, the welfare of N and M is of course my paramount consideration and I must bear in mind the section 1(3) welfare checklist. I have been referred by the parties, and particularly the parents' counsel, to the case of Re B-S [2013] EWCA (Civ) 1146, and the Court of Appeal guidance. That was an adoption case. The President, in his judgment at paras.22 and 23, repeated the language that had been used in the case of Re B [2013] UKSC 33 by the Supreme Court, and repeated that the language was striking. Where orders are sought contemplating non-consensual adoption, placement orders and adoption orders, they are a very extreme thing, a last resort, only to be made where nothing else will do, where no other course was possible in the child's interests. Behind all this is the well-established principle derived from section 1(5) of the Children Act in conjunction with section 1(3)(g). The court should adopt the least interventionist approach. Although B-S was an adoption case, I remind myself of the Court of Appeal decision of W (a child) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2013] EWCA (Civ) 1127 and the judgment of Ryder LJ at para.94 where he said that it was:

"... not the place to analyse the extensive body of jurisprudence which now exists on the approach of the court to the decision as to which order is necessary and proportionate. ..... It is necessary, however, to recollect that the Supreme Court in [Re B] emphasised that care orders are a last resort. Whether the context is an adoptive care plan or not, Lord Neuberger's conclusion on the correct legal test for the making of an order was unambiguous:

"... it is clear that the judge cannot properly decide that a care order should be made in such circumstances unless the order is proportionate bearing in mind the requirements of article 8.

76. ... given that the Judge concluded that the section 31(2) threshold was crossed, he should only have made a care order if he had been satisfied that it was necessary to do so in order to protect the interests of the child. By 'necessary', I mean... 'where nothing else will do'."

Thus the principle applies not only to care plans for adoption but to those for permanent removal from the family which includes long-term fostering. Ms. Nicholls of counsel, on behalf of the father, referred me also to the similar terms of McFarlane LJ in the case of Re G [2013] (Civ) 965. Further, para.77 of Re B says that section 1(3)(g) of the Children Act states that the court must consider all options, which carries with it the clear implication that the most extreme option should only be adopted if others would not be in the child's interests. In Re B-S the President emphasised at para.34 that there must be proper evidence from the Local Authority and the children's Guardian. The evidence must address all the options which are realistically possible and must contain an analysis of the arguments for and against each option.

Thus, I must analyse each available option, assess the evidence for and against, make a global, holistic and multi-faceted evaluation of the child's welfare, which takes into account all the negatives and positives, pros and cons, before reaching a decision.

When I consider any findings of fact, I remind myself that the Local Authority are the applicants. The burden of proof lies with them. The standard is the ordinary civil standard - the balance of probabilities; is the fact in issue more likely than not? Further, when considering the credibility of each of the parents, I have regard to the guidance in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 to the effect that a conclusion that a person is lying or telling the truth about one thing does not mean that he or she is lying or telling the truth about another thing. A witness may lie for a number of reasons: through panic, through fear, through distress, or misplaced loyalty.

THE BACKGROUND

The father was born in 1983. He is now therefore nearly 31 years of age. He is from an African country. His parents live in an African country and have been married for 40 years. His father is half European. He has three sisters, the paternal aunts, who live together in the house in a well known area in south London. He also has an older brother in an African country and he has one in Canada. His account is that he had a good and safe childhood. His father has good employment. The father reports that he came to the UK in 1999. He completed the equivalent of GCSEs in an African country. He says that he came to the UK to study, that he did a foundation GNVQ course in engineering, and then started a two-year AVC business course. He completed one year of that course. It is not clear to me that he ever completed the course entirely. Certainly he changed courses, as he did not know what he wanted to do. He says that his family are disappointed in the way things have turned out, and particularly in his relationship with the mother, which was poor.

As to the mother, there has been, it seems to me, a considerable lack of clarity in the accounts which have been given to different professionals, even at one point as to her date of birth. What now seems to be accepted is that she was born in 1988 in an African country and so she is 25 years of age. She has two older sisters in an African country, an adult brother who is a year younger than herself and, in addition, she has two younger teenage brothers who are called H and G, who still live with her mother (the maternal grandmother), and she has a young 10-year-old sister, also called A, the same name as the maternal grandmother, who also lives with the maternal grandmother. She has never lived together with her youngest sister. Her mother is half from an African country and half half European.

The mother herself came to the UK in 2002 when she was about 14 years of age, and she came together with her older sister A. A would then have been about 19 years of age. They went to an area of north west England where there were some cousins. The mother said in her evidence to me that she only stayed with them for a couple of months and that they did not want her and her sister, and therefore she and her sister were placed in foster care. Her sister was placed there too, and therefore she must have been claimed that she was somewhat younger in order to be fostered.

It is very unclear why the mother and A were sent to the UK. It was the end of the war in the African country. However, the brothers all stayed with the family in an African country. The mother has said to professionals that she believes she came as an asylum seeker, but the maternal grandmother when giving her evidence said that it was the maternal grandfather's idea that they should come here to study. It is also very unclear to me why, when they could not stay with relatives in north west England, they were not brought home to An African country. The maternal grandmother says that she went to pick them up when they were in foster care, and that A had stress and so she brought her back, but L (that is this mother) stayed and that she therefore has remained isolated from her family and in the UK ever since. The maternal grandmother accepted in her evidence that it had not been a good idea, in retrospect, to have sent L to the UK and that things had not gone well for L.

The mother describes herself as having been a difficult and argumentative child and adolescent. The maternal grandmother gave evidence of the mother having difficult behaviour. She described the mother, that is L, as growing up like a rebel - those are her words. The maternal grandmother admitted that she had given L a slap when she was difficult, but she said she could manage L's behaviour, but that the maternal grandfather would give in to L and that she would get what she wanted.

However, there was a completely different account given to Dr. Butler when she interviewed the mother. The mother now either denies that she said them at all, or that Dr. Butler has wrongly recorded them. However, I accept Dr. Butler's evidence on this, and therefore I read from G162 at para.69. Asked about her childhood and what had happened when she was living in an African country, the mother said to Dr. Butler as follows:

"I asked her if her father would hit her and she said that he would. She said she would get a good beating in Africa. 'They beat you with everything', and she laughed. She said her mother would give her a slap. She described herself as a very difficult child, horrible. She said she was wild and would never listen, and said 'I'm paying for my sins now', and she laughed again."

Further, the mother has told professionals, including Dr. Butler, that her father was violent towards her mother. She described an incident when her father burnt her mother's wedding dress, and that he would beat her mother, and that she felt sorry for her mother. The mother, L, now says that her parents did have arguments but it was not that bad and that there were only a couple of incidents and, again, that these matters have not been properly recorded.

The maternal grandmother, for her part, denied that there was any domestic violence between herself and the maternal grandfather when the children were young. She says there has been some violence but it has been in the latter years, and so she and the maternal grandfather have separated, although they now get on well enough that he does assist with some of the child care.

Thus, there is no clear picture of the mother's childhood or early adolescence, although it is clear that she was left in the end all alone and in the UK. After leaving care she spent some time in north west England and in London and between the two places. In 2004, she met the father, E. She was 15 or 16. They met through a mutual friend. In 2005 the two of them were watching a TV programme about health matters. They both underwent testing and were both found to have a serious illness. It would seem as though the father has taken this information calmly. He says to me that he takes his medication daily, that he sees the doctors regularly, and that he is well. The mother is also on daily medication, although there is evidence that at times she has forgotten to take her tablets. She has described getting very tired, having headaches and fevers and hallucinations. Her medication has been changed, which she says is better. It is clear to me that the mother's physical health and diagnosis of the serious illness, has, not surprisingly, caused her significant emotional difficulties, and Dr. Butler considered that the mother was not accessing emotional support to help her to deal with it.

N was born in August 2006. The first reported domestic violence between the parents was the week before his birth. The parents were said to be returning home from a late night out. The father was said to be drunk, and an argument ensued in which it was said that the father slapped the mother many times to the face. There were then several further incidents reported to the police during N's first two years of life. Reports were made of the parents hitting, kicking, punching, and of the use of implements to include using an ironing board and a knife. The police assessed the risk of serious injury between the two parents as high. They made a referral therefore to Social Services and there was a section 37 investigation, which was concluded on 14^th May 2007, and I am reading from A3 of the chronology. What was said at the end of the section 47 investigation is as follows:

"The assessment concluded that the mother acted appropriately by calling the police, but it is extremely concerning that she needed to protect herself with a knife. Mr. C's attack on her was violent. N could have easily been hurt during the incident. Ms. N needs to seriously think about her reasons for remaining in the relationship with the father. The father has assaulted her a number of times."

One has to remember that that was May 2007, and I am now dealing with a case in 2014.

The mother was asked about the domestic violence between them by Dr. Butler. She said the following at G160, para.57:

"I asked about the domestic violence, and her foot started to tap. She said it started when she was pregnant with N and at its worst she said he cut her face and body with a knife, and spent seven months in jail. She then told me again that there was no respect whatsoever between them, and they would be kicking and slapping and punching each other. She said she started hitting back but denied that she would ever hit him first. She talked about how shocked he had been the first time she fought back."

The father described the violence to Dr. Butler and he described it as follows at G151, paras.11 to 13:

"I asked when the difficulties started, and he said it was a year after they started seeing each other. The arguing increased. He agreed that there had been a number of misunderstandings between each other which were usually over small things. He said that sometimes he did not even know why it started. He wondered how it developed into violence and he said that the arguments just increased in their level of anger and it was just the next step. He told me that they were both hitting each other. I asked how it had been at the worst, and he said it was really bad. He described how there were weapons used, and he then listed a knife, a kettle, and he repeated the word 'knife' again in a disconnected way. I wondered if he would give me an example, and he described how they came home from a party one night and both had had a drink and were arguing. Ms. N went to a neighbour's house to cool down, but when she came back she was angry. She picked up a knife and slashed his cheek, and he showed me the scar. He said 'I did the same to her', but his knife was not so sharp and did not cut her. He said, however, 'The blood made me lose it'."

The parents both agree that N would have witnessed the violence, and I have to add that it is just fortunate that he was not in fact caught in between the two, because had he been, he would have been at risk of physical injury himself. But the parents admit that he would have witnessed the violence. The father said at G151, para.15:

"I asked if N had seen the violence, and he said 'He did see some of it'. I wondered how he reacted, and he said 'He wanted us to stop', and he would say to his parents, 'Why are you shouting?' and would try to break them up. He said 'I think it did affect him emotionally'. He described N as 'getting confused because we were supposed to be taking care of each other'."

The mother in evidence agreed that N witnessed domestic violence. She said he would see her being hit and he would see the bruises afterwards. "He wanted us to stop, and he would try to break us up". It is to be remembered that he was a very small boy indeed. One can only imagine just how frightened and scared he would have been that the people who were meant to be taking responsibility and looking after him were acting in this way one to the other.

Due to the police involvement and N's presence during these domestic violence incidents, there were referrals to Social Services. In January 2008 it was alleged that the father attacked the mother with a knife. There were bail conditions not to contact the mother. In July 2008 the father smashed the front windows of the mother's home with a brick. On 19^th August 2008, N was made the subject of a child protection plan, category physical abuse. In September 2008 the father went to an African country for a few months to look for work, and there was a period of calm. The mother had housing difficulties and so she was temporarily accommodated. In June 2009 she was rehoused in secure accommodation. The father returned to the UK, and by August 2009 it seems that Social Services had closed the case. They said that N appeared to be thriving. But later that month the father was convicted of ABH on the mother, and he received nine months' imprisonment. On his release in February 2010 he resumed contact with the mother. There was a further core assessment about the mother and the child. The parents said they worked towards parenting and they would work on the domestic violence issues. However, on 25^th February 2011 the father was convicted of causing criminal damage against the mother's property and he was sentenced to 42 days' imprisonment. There were further police notifications in March and August.

On 18^th August 2011 there was a multi-agency risk assessment conference, and it was concluded that this was a high risk case. There was a further section 47 investigation. The mother said she did not want a relationship with the father but he continued to contact her. The investigation - that is the second section 47 investigation - concluded that the mother was stuck in a cycle of abuse and although she says she does not want to be with the father, she does see him and she lets him into her home. The mother was now pregnant with M and so the conclusion was that N and the unborn baby were at risk of significant harm. On 13^th October 2011 N was made the subject of a child protection plan with a category of emotional and physical abuse. There was a decision then taken that there ought to be a legal planning meeting. On 7^th December 2011 the unborn baby was also made the subject of a child protection plan. It was evident that the domestic violence was continuing. The school were concerned about N's punctuality and the fact that he was not able to make friends. On 8^th February 2012 M was born, and a referral was made to the Family Recovery Project. (I pause for a moment because when looking at this chronology, the amount of work and referrals and assistance given by Social Services, one has to wonder why perhaps legal planning meetings and these proceedings were not taken earlier. I will go back to the chronology.) So M was born. The referral was made to the Family Recovery Project because of the concerns over domestic violence. The Family Recovery Project is a multi-agency support service. On 6^th March 2012 M was made the subject of a child protection plan. In May 2012 the school were very concerned about N's behaviour.

The father was not engaging with professionals. On 9^th May 2012 the mother was arrested and charged with grievous bodily harm on the father for causing an injury with a knife to his finger. She was bailed. In June 2013 that charge was not proceeded with. The mother then made a counter-allegation that the father had raped her, and she was arrested and bailed not to contact the mother and not to go near her estate and to report to the police station. I make it clear that the mother made the allegations of rape first to the police and then in these proceedings, but she later withdrew the allegations to the police, and she has not proceeded with those allegations within these proceedings and thus I make no findings. But it is, it seems to me, part of the overall background of allegations that were being made. The mother was offered temporary accommodation as it was deemed not safe for her to stay at her home address. However, she refused that in the end, and she returned to her family home, against advice. The father was referred for a programme to address the domestic violence and anger management.

Throughout the summer of 2012 until the early part of 2013, the Family Recovery Project were involved with the family in an intensive way, as I have already set out. Assistance was given to the mother with routines with the baby and for routines with N. N was referred to Kids Company for therapeutic support at school. In December 2012 both children were to remain subject to child protection plans, and at that point the current social worker, Ms. Onya was allocated. There were numerous concerns reported about the mother's care of the children. It was said that the mother found it difficult to put her children's needs before her own. She would cite physical illness and fatigue for reasons why she could not care for them in terms of not only their routine but making sure they had regular meals and taking them out for activities. She said that she suffered panic attacks, and she felt unable to provide the basic care.

The mother now says in oral evidence that although she does not accept all of the particular matters which are alleged, she does accept - and she said to me - that she was struggling to cope, such, it seems, that she would struggle to keep to any sort of routine, despite the intensive help of the Family Recovery Project. The school reported that N was lethargic, tired, that he was falling asleep in class, that he was often hungry. He told his therapist that his mother was often too ill and too tired to make him food. There were concerns he was underweight. Often he attended school inappropriately dressed and smelly.

By early 2013 the social worker observed, and I accept her evidence on this, that the mother was often impatient and angry with both of the children. N would look wary of talking to his mother, and that he then would come across as challenging. The mother would speak negatively of N and there was sometimes a lack of warmth in her reaction and interaction with both children. N was reported by the school to often be fretful and unsettled and refusing to work without one-to-one support. He could be easily angered and would hide under chairs and tables. He could be destructive, throwing and pushing furniture around. His emotions would fluctuate. He often presented as confused and guarded, and he worried about his mother's health and her wellbeing. Further, there was some non-school attendance and some lateness. The mother would say that this was due to her illness. Thus, there were serious concerns as to N's social and emotional wellbeing, and lack of educational attainment.

During the work of the Family Recovery Project, it is right to say that at times the mother showed she could meet the children's needs, but she was not able to do so consistently. By March 2013, the Family Recovery Project concluded that, despite their intensive support by a range of professionals, they were not able to effect change in the mother. There were only limited improvements, and these were not sustained, and so they took a decision to end their involvement.

Given the deterioration in the mother's parenting of the children, the Local Authority decided to bring these proceedings, and they applied, as I have already set out, to the court to remove the children to foster care and then to assess the parents under the auspices of care proceedings.

Although the professionals who were involved with the family - i.e. the police, Social Services, the Family Recovery Project - thought that post-May 2012 there had been no contact between the parents, it became clear that the parents had maintained a significant deception. The father says that he had no contact with his children between May and August 2012 but that after that he renewed something of a relationship with the mother and stayed regularly at her home and saw the children, and would sleep with the mother, and this continued to the end of November 2012, and that he had the children to stay over Christmas. In the second week of January 2013 he said they had an argument over an accusation over him having a girlfriend, and then the contact ended.

The mother has denied that there had been any contact post May 2012, although she accepted that he did have the children overnight over Christmas 2012, and she agrees that she allowed him to take them early in January 2013. The mother admits being dishonest to the professionals involved but she does not accept that the father was spending time with her and the children in the autumn of 2012. It is difficult to be clear. Both parents have accepted that they have deceived the professionals involved and been dishonest. I find it is more likely than not that the father saw far more of the children and the mother after August 2012 than the mother will admit to, and that he regularly stayed over at her home. Although the mother has denied this in her evidence to me and in her written evidence, I note that at the contested hearing at the Family Proceedings Court on 9^th May 2013, she said as follows, at B48 to 49. This is at the May hearing in the Family Proceedings Court. In answer to cross-examination by the Local Authority, the mother admitted she did not tell the Family Recovery Project workers that she was allowing the children to see their father. She told N not to say anything to the workers if he wanted to see his father. She agreed that it was unfair to put N in that position and that it was emotionally harmful for him and potentially upsetting for him to be in that kind of conflict.

Thus, at the time when both parents were subject to bail conditions not to contact each other and when the mother was alleging that the father had raped her, she was allowing contact to take place and, as I find, the parents were seeing far more of each other than the mother will admit to, and N was involved in that deception, as the mother admitted on oath in the Family Proceedings Court.

THE ASSESSMENTS

Both parents underwent assessments which were conducted by the Woking Close Family Centre. As to the father, this was conducted between 4^th July 2013 and 8^th August 2013. Unfortunately, he missed a number of sessions, including contact with the children. The Woking Close Family Centre concluded that he was unable to understand the children's needs, that he was inconsistent in the process, and had not undertaken planning in relation to housing and finances. The father is unemployed and he has no fixed abode. He has been sleeping at different friends' homes. He could offer, said the Woking Close Centre, short-term basic care, and when he was present in the home with the mother, then N was better cared for, but he was not able to provide this long term. Woking Close were also very concerned that the parents might still be in a relationship together. Thus, they could not recommend placement with the father. Further, although he spoke of the domestic violence and that it was not good for the children to witness this, he could not expand on this area and he did not demonstrate a significant insight into these concerns. He was, they said, at a pre-contemplation stage.

As to the mother, they conducted an assessment of her between 9^th July 2013 and 19^th August 2013. There was concern that the mother had struggled to meet her own needs, both in the past and currently. She was not able to organise her finances. She was at risk of eviction for rent arrears. She was still adjusting to her health issues, and struggling to manage her day-to-day health needs. They did not consider that she was able to be mindful of her children's basic and more complex needs and that she struggled to meet her own needs. She had difficulty understanding the children's developmental stages. Her relationship with them appeared to be damaged by the neglectful care they had received from her in the past. N related to the mother in an anxious and disorganised way. Her missing contact sessions and her difficulties in engaging in the assessment raise questions about her overall commitment. As to her ability to provide a safe and stable home for the children, they said as follows at G297:

"Historically the mother has found prioritising the children's basic care needs as difficult, especially prior to the removal of the children. N's attendance and punctuality at school became poor and he was reported to be hungry, tired and sad at school. N was severely underweight. The mother did not appropriately address his health needs as she missed two community dietician appointments, and N's weight did not improve until he was placed in the care of his paternal aunts. The mother has minimised the concerns about her neglectful care during this assessment time. She denied that N went to school with dirty clothes, with the exception of one occasion, and she denied having parties or causing noise or sending N to school tired. The mother said that N's school and the children's social worker were against her, and would exaggerate issues to put her in a poor light. She said that she had problems with some of the neighbours in the past and that they had made malicious allegations about her to the housing association. The mother has received support in this area in the past, intensive support from the Family Recovery Project, but she still did not address or fully appreciate the concerns of a number of professionals involved in the work."

So they concluded, at para.84, G298:

"If the children were placed back in her care at this point, we believe a similar pattern of neglectful care would occur, and we do not think she is able to meet their needs at this time. She has unmet emotional needs herself and so a difficulty to meet the children's needs."

The project were concerned that the mother had come to the UK when she was only 14, that she had had two children at a very young age, that she had found herself to be unwell at the age of 17, that she had been in a violent relationship, and that she had had, thus, no nurturing or emotional support from 13 onwards. I have to say that the court too is sympathetic with the mother for all of those reasons. They found that the mother's lifestyle was generally chaotic and disorganised, and that she was thus a highly vulnerable and very fragile young woman. She tended to minimise the Local Authority's concerns of her neglect of her children. Thus, they could not recommend that the children be placed with her. They did, however, identify a number of areas where the mother could benefit from support and focused work. They said that she could have work in the future to deal with domestic violence and future relationships; that there could be attachment-based interventions with her; that she could have help with budgeting and with a positive parenting group, and therapeutic support for some of the traumatic experiences she has had in her past. All of these apparently could be provided at Woking Close Family Centre. It is, much too late, sadly, for these children, as the mother has already recognised. But I say this to her: she is young, and I would hope that she will take up these recommendations and suggestions for her own sake, for the future. These suggestions are set out at G300 to 301 of the bundle. I am not going to read them out, but it does seem to me that this was a very carefully considered report and that it recognised the vulnerability of this young woman, and I only hope that she will seek to be referred for the sort of assistance to assist her in the future.

The next assessment was that of Mr. John Dowsett, the consultant psychologist. He was to have assessed both parents, but the mother did not attend, and so he only assessed the father. He stated that the father acknowledged a lengthy violent relationship with the mother - G322:

"The father acknowledged that there has been a long and continuing pattern of conflict and at times violence in their relationship. He suggested that they had both been violent to each other on a number of occasions, although he had never reported the mother's violence to the police. He was asked to be specific about his violence towards the mother, and he referred to having slapped her in the face and having punched her on at least one occasion. He also referred to a particular incident where a knife was involved. His account of this was that the mother was the one who picked up the knife and went for him. She cut him on the cheek, and he showed me the scar. He acknowledged that he tried to retaliate by picking up a different knife, and he scratched her. He also seemed to have punched and kicked her on this occasion, and he ended up in prison."

The father acknowledged that N had been exposed to the domestic violence at G325:

"The father acknowledged that N was exposed to some incidents of violence. These included the parents both shouting and fighting with each other. I noted that he tended to speak about these in a rather detached manner and did not show any obvious evidence of distress, sadness or guilt. He did, however, acknowledge that 'I feel we let him down. We didn't think about him being present. We didn't really know how it would affect him'."

At G327 he said:

"The father said that when he was arguing with the mother, N would often say 'Stop shouting'. He feels that N may be hurt and confused by what he witnessed but did not appear to have any more in depth or empathetic understanding of what N might have experienced."

He concluded therefore that the father was in a state of denial, G330:

"However, he [the father] would appear to be in a state of denial about the full extent of his behaviours towards the mother. I have also observed him to be detached from his emotions and in particular was unable to readily experience any remorse, sadness or guilt about what N had been exposed to. Similarly, I felt he lacked an adequate, empathetic and emotional connection with N, such that he could really think and talk about N's experiences and how they have impacted on him."

I have to say that when I heard the father give his evidence, my view concurs with that of Mr. Dowsett. I too thought that he lacked any real empathy or emotional connection when he was speaking about N, and that he was detached from his emotions, and that he did not show full remorse.

As to the risks for the future, Mr. Dowsett says as follows at 332:

"There are significant risks of the parents living or being together as a couple, and there is little reason to suppose that the relationship would be any less free of conflict in the future. It is a volatile relationship with a lot of history involving violence, and it is clear it is would not be safe for the children to grow up in. Clearly there is a risk of future conflict and domestic violence in any further relationships with partners as to the father. I think that there would certainly be some potential risk of the father and the mother having to deal directly with contact. There has been a risk in the past of the parents being deceitful, colluding with each other and going against the wishes of the Local Authority. There was little in the father's presentation to be reassured that this might not happen again in the future."

The third assessment was that of Dr. Butler, the consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist, who reported to the court in July 2013. She was asked to carry out psychiatric assessments of both children, to consider their attachments with their parents and to consider their needs in terms of long-term places. As to N, in her opinion, he has got significantly distorted attachment development and evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder. His unresolved trauma is in relation to the domestic violence he witnessed and his very complicated feelings about his relationship with his parents. As to M, she considered that she shows signs of developmental maladaptive attachment strategies within her relationship, particularly with her mother. However, the doctor thought in July that having been with her aunt since March she had had consistent and nurturing care, and that that had allowed some of her maladaptive strategies to be contained. N, said the doctor, had experienced frightening, intrusive and neglectful parenting from infancy. Any emotional and/or behavioural difficulties that he displays are related to that parenting that he had received. N not only experienced significant levels of domestic violence between his parents from infancy, but he had also had to deal with a mother who is extremely chaotic and often depressed. She describes this further at G198, para.18:

"He [N] was neglected to the point that at times no meals were provided for the children, alternating with other times when the mother was intrusively negative towards him. He also had to deal with her possible use of drugs [I have no evidence about that] and alcohol as well as there being potentially risky adults around the family home. I have no doubt that at times the mother has also been positive in her interactions with N, but even when she has been positive and happy with the children, it is in a highly aroused and quite stressful manner. So I think for N his relationship with his mother is characterised by very high levels of arousal, trying to track what she is doing and what is going to happen next, and her unpredictability, all of which have made it very difficult for him."

She said that N presents as a child who is hyperaroused and always vigilant to the adults around him, waiting for a situation to change. His attachment strategies are such that he demands a lot, particularly from the adults that he feels are most risky. She said of his time with his father that he will have experienced his dad as much calmer and mindful and nurturing. However, at times when he became extremely violent, that would have been very frightening for N. She says at para.22:

"I think at times in the past N has been very depressed. Certainly the school have described him as tearful and withdrawn. He would come unkempt, often coming late or not being picked up in the afternoon. The fact that he bit himself and talked about stabbing himself in the head indicates he has very low levels of self-worth and he was overwhelmed in his anxiety around his relationship, particularly with his mother. N struggles within his relationship with peers because of that very high level of arousal and agitation. He will be bossy and controlling and other children will not tolerate it."

When the doctor herself spoke to N about the violence, he spoke of knives on the floor, and he became increasingly physically aroused, walking around in circles. The doctor did observe the father as being quiet and persistent and calm in a contact with the children, in contrast with the mother being more unpredictable.

M, says the doctor, has experienced emotional abuse and physical neglect since her birth, largely in the care of her mother, who was depressed and withdrawn at times, and at other times angry and unpredictable. M is extremely cut off emotionally in her relationship with her mother, and she is a compliant child who does not make a lot of demands. The descriptions from the Family Recovery Project workers is of the mother either not having M in her mind or, when she does, being angry with her.

Dr. Butler concluded that neither parent was in a position to meet the children's needs. At G215 she says at para.4.1:

"In relation to the mother, she is an extremely vulnerable young woman who continues to live a very chaotic lifestyle, as evidence by her inability to even get to contact on time. A lot of intensive work has been done with her and it has not produced any significant change. In my opinion, the changes she needs to make will not be done within the children's developmental time frame."

In relation to the father:

"He shows a lot of very positive skills with the children but I think in terms of his own needs he is still vulnerable at the moment. I do not think he would be in a position to manage the children by himself. He needs to have therapeutic support around the violence in the relationship. He also needs ongoing support about his physical and emotional health in relation to his ill health. He needs to improve his self-esteem in terms of getting his education and work life back in balance."

She thus recommended therefore that there be alternative care. At the time of her written assessment, assessments of the grandmothers in an African country were being conducted. Her concern then was that there would be a need for N to have therapeutic support, and it was not clear that this was available in an African country. She said in her report that if the assessments were not positive, then she would support long-term fostering of the children together.

Since Dr. Butler's report, the children have had to move from the paternal aunts where they had been settled, and that was a further loss for them. They have been placed with a foster carer in mid-August. Considerable evidence has been filed from the foster carer as to the difficulties in N's behaviour, particularly his waking at night, and there has been evidence from the school and the therapist there. The assessment of the maternal grandmother had, unfortunately, to be completed by Skype interviews and telephone, and was therefore necessarily not as full or complete as a full direct assessment would have been. Nevertheless it was positive. The Local Authority had also filed their care plans initially to place the children for adoption.

So it was in the context of this new information since her report that Dr. Butler gave her oral evidence before this court, and she brought her recommendations up to date. She said that, given the children's Guardian's conversation with N that he did not want to go to an African country, and the disturbing behaviour that there had been whilst he was with the foster carer, she was concerned about a placement with the maternal grandmother. She therefore considered that it was in the children's best interests to be placed together and in the UK. N needs certainty in terms of his placement. He needs to remain with his sister and have psycho therapeutic input for at least a year whilst he is in placement. He has high levels of agitation and distress, particularly at night. His symptoms indicate traumatic memories for him and a level of fear, and without therapy he will be left open to a risk of ongoing anxiety, and that would jeopardise his placement. The children, she said, should be placed together as the descriptions are of a positive relationship. If they were separated, there would be further trauma and loss for both of them. She said that N has said he does not want to go to an African country. If he went, he would lose his entire context, and she said that would be traumatic for him. Her recommendation, thus, was for long-term fostering in the UK. She said it would allow for the same education system, though there was an unknown of course as to where the children would move. But N would have the benefit of ongoing contact with his parents. She said that N will struggle at times, and so he needs carers who can manage his behaviour. They need to be experienced parents who have worked with children with difficulties. He has a lot of symptoms and they will need to contain him and not feel personally attacked. She thought that contact should be reduced once he is in placement to six times a year for each parent, and that that should take place during the holidays. She was firmly against adoption, as N, she says, has a sense of his family and his identity within his family, and that the children should be together. Therefore she supported long-term fostering.

Dr. Butler was concerned that N was largely unknown to an African country, or an African country to him, and that he had only been there once on holiday, and that the quality of his relationship with his maternal grandmother was untested. She said that the family have survived trauma due to the war, and if you add to that a traumatised child, that could lead to increased difficulties. She said that N will be angry and he can be aggressive, and that would be challenging for any carer. She accepted that the children will have to move anyway because they cannot stay with their current carers and will have to move, on her recommendation, but she would hope that, with careful matching and a good care package and support, that could be done. Her concern with an African country was that N did not know the language and there will be many changes for him in terms of environment and education, and so his behaviour could escalate. The court should attach weight to his wishes not to go.

For M, she conceded that there would be advantages to her to being placed with her family. She has some mild attachment difficulties but she responds well and the risk factors are less for her. There would be equal risk - was Dr. Butler's view - in her case in terms of her ability to attach, whether it be to foster carers or to her maternal grandmother. So it follows that if it were M alone and if the maternal grandmother could provide appropriate care, then in the long run it would be better for M to be placed with her family and with her maternal grandmother in an African country. But she needs to be with N, and the doctor was not confident that his needs could be met in an African country. That was untested. So she said that the maternal grandmother would, thus, need to come to the UK for assessment if it were to be tested. She said that if that happened and the maternal grandmother came to the UK, then N would guess what it was about and he would need to be told. He would need to be given pictorial information about an African country, about schools there, and bedrooms, and the home, so that he could, in the doctor's view, start to build a picture in his mind. This so far had not happened. She also thought that it was possible that the paternal aunts and the foster carer could assist him with this and that it would be useful in those circumstances if the maternal aunt were to come to the UK as well.

She said in answer to cross-examination by Ms. Nicholls on behalf of the father, that she was not against the maternal grandmother, as it were, per se, it was just that in her view the maternal grandmother was untested. However, her overall evidence was that she supported long-term foster placement in this country.

THE OTHER ASSESSMENTS AND THE ORAL EVIDENCE

There were further assessments of course conducted by the social worker, Ms. Onya, who knows the children very well indeed, and the very experienced children's Guardian, Ms. Reed. In addition to that, the independent social worker, Ms. Coker, assessed the maternal grandmother. I also heard from the family finder, Ms. Hall, and from both the parents.

Unfortunately, I found both the father and the mother to be unsatisfactory witnesses. They have both admitted to a greater or lesser extent that they have deceived and been dishonest to professionals working with them from Social Services and from the police. However, even now, it is impossible to be clear what was the level of the parents' contact and relationship post May 2012. However, I have found that it is likely that there was very much more of an ongoing relationship until the end of 2012, as stated by the father, but still denied by the mother. Having said that, I found the evidence of both the mother and the father to be unconvincing. The father showed little empathy for the children and for the mother, and little remorse for his role in the domestic violence. He showed little empathy or remorse over his lateness on occasions for contact, which caused N to be distressed and worried whether or not his father would attend. He tried to minimise his role in the deception saying that he did not know post May 2012 about the involvement of Social Services with the mother, and had had no discussions with her about it. I find that to be incredible. It would be highly unlikely that he would not know that social workers were involved, and I find that he did know and thus he played an active part in that deception.

The mother's evidence has been inconsistent between what she said to professionals on numerous topics and what she said in her written evidence, and again what she said to me in her oral evidence to this court. The mother too minimises the effect of the domestic violence on the children, and particularly on N, and shows a lack of empathy. She said to me that although he had witnessed some things, when he is asleep he would not wake up. I do not accept that. I do not accept that he would not have been very aware, as I find, of the ongoing domestic violence between the parents.

Thus, I find both of the parents to be unreliable witnesses, both on their own admissions as to dishonesty and for the reasons set out above. Where there is a difference between the evidence given by the parents and the professional witnesses, particularly the evidence of Dr. Butler and Ms. Onya, I prefer the evidence of the professionals. I do not accept that either of these two witnesses have actively lied to this court. They would have had nothing to gain by doing so. They have, in my view, acted entirely professionally. Further, I do not accept that Dr. Butler was inaccurate in her recording of what the mother told her. She was a careful witness and I find that she would have taken an accurate note of the conversations. Having said that, I do give the parents credit for taking the very difficult decision in accepting, each of them, that they cannot care for their children.

As to the evidence itself, I heard from Ms. Hall, the family finder. She gave evidence. Sadly, the information she had was less than satisfactory. Despite being allocated at the end of September 2013, as yet it would seem there has been no permanency planning meeting whatsoever. She thought it could take up to 10 months to find long-term foster care. She would hope to have found a placement by then. There were no long-term carers on the Wandsworth files and no one in-house or in the consortium. She would ideally want energetic carers with humour and a good support network. She had not known, before she was giving oral evidence, of N's severe behavioural difficulties or of his need for psychotherapy. She thought it would then be more difficult to find carers. She thought it might be more than six months to find long-term foster carers and to place. She said that would include three months to go to panel, to match and to introduce. She said that the only identified person thus far was a single 60-year-old Nigerian lady through the agency PACT. Thus, I find that evidence entirely unsatisfactory.

I heard from Ms. Onya. She is the social worker in the case and she gave evidence before me. Despite the many criticisms of the parents, I found her to be a warm and caring individual who was clearly very fond of these children, who she has come to know over a long period of time. She seeks on behalf of the Local Authority a care order on a plan to place the children for long-term fostering. She says very clearly that it has always been N's feelings he does not want to go to an African country. She said that he can remember his visit when he was four and his aunts and uncle, and he has a nice memory that his uncle H gave him a bracelet which he wore. She says she has used maps to discuss an African country, but he does not want to go. She said that the children were well settled with the aunts and then they had to move, and they are with their current carer who, although inexperienced, has done very well with them. The children can stay with her until they have to move again, and she will assist them, and that, in my view, will be very important. She is concerned about a placement with the maternal grandmother, who she considers lacks insight and minimises the domestic violence between the parents. She is worried that the maternal grandmother found L (this mother) challenging, and would find N challenging. She believes that there could be a risk of breakdown in an African country, and therefore she cannot recommend that move. She said that to move N to an African country would be moving him from his entire context and he needs therapy here. She accepted that in the case of M that would be different and she alone of course could move.

She is worried as well that if the parents went to an African country the maternal grandmother would not be able to protect against them. However, she very fairly made enquiries of Woking Close to see if they would be able to do an assessment of the maternal grandmother if she were to come to the UK and if the court so ordered. She told me that there would be space there, that there would be a european-speaking worker who would be part of the assessment team, and they could look at the maternal grandmother's insight and work alongside the foster carer. At the same time they could search for a long-term carer in parallel. As she has the most information about the children, she would want to be part of that work. She accepted that there was no evidence that the maternal grandmother could not manage the children who were currently living with her, and she further accepted that her own viability assessment of the maternal grandmother had been positive. I read from G80. There Ms. Onya had found in her viability assessment that the grandfather and the grandmother had shown understanding of the enmeshed, unhealthy relationship that there was between E and L, and had identified the need for them to be supported to sever that damaging relationship completely. She says that they both had shown an understanding of the impact of witnessing domestic violence and the harm caused to both N and M. They, the grandparents, were clear about the need to create a safe and secure and healthy living environment for the children to grow up in. So she said that, based on the information gathered from that assessment, she would recommend a fuller assessment of Mrs AN (the grandmother) for a special guardianship placement for N and M. Should the placement be successful, it would enable her to have parental responsibility exclusive of the other, and this will allow the making of important decisions for the children to enable their ongoing needs to be met. That is why there was then put into place a full assessment of the maternal grandmother. But, despite that, her recommendation to the court is that I should not take the course of having any further assessment of the maternal grandmother, but she recommends that the children be placed now with long-term foster carers, with three times a year contact in respect of N, and four times to M.

Ms. Coker, the independent social worker, gave evidence from Nigeria via videolink. She provided two reports for the court - the first in November 2013 before she was able to conduct any real work in assessing the maternal grandmother, as she had been instructed to do so. She had been unable to obtain a visa to go to an African country and to do any direct assessment of the maternal grandmother and the extended family. Thus, there was a further court hearing, after which she conducted an assessment by Skype and telephone, and prepared her second report dated 30^th December. She spent two whole Saturdays conducting Skype interviews with the maternal grandmother, and with A, the older daughter, as an interpreter, and she had several telephone conversations. Ms. Coker is also an enormously experienced social worker, with an impressive and lengthy CV. She recognised of course that an assessment conducted as she had via Skype and telephone had significant limitations. Nevertheless, she concluded that she had sufficient information to recommend a placement with the maternal grandmother. I read from G436. She said:

"The children were removed from a situation where their mother, probably due to her early trauma, had struggled to meet many of their needs. In addition, N in particular was exposed to domestic violence, and the effects of psycho social development is concerning. Both children have significant attachment disorders. Any alternative care will need to be of high quality. Research tells us that placement of children with their extended family or friendship networks are generally more successful than placements with strangers. The initial indicators for this placement [that is with the maternal grandmother] were not good. The maternal grandmother herself has suffered the trauma of being in an abusive marriage, and the older members of the family have lived through war and the associated trauma. N, the older child, has stated very clearly he does not want to live in an African country. It is still my view that he will need a high level of support to cope. However, I also think it is unlikely that the children would be found an adoptive placement together. The split from his sister is likely to be equally traumatic. The more likely outcome is long-term foster care. The children's mother, L, has suffered emotional abuse as a result of witnessing violence between her parents. She may have also been exposed to sexual abuse by her paternal uncles, who are now dead. The grandmother was not aware of L's sexual abuse, and claims she would have intervened if she had been aware. The grandmother has since divorced the perpetrator of the domestic violence [that is the grandfather] and is now in a new relationship which is not violent. The situation in an African country and the grandmother's personal circumstances have greatly changed since the time when she was raising L. The grandmother has been aware for some time that her daughter was not meeting the children's needs. She is also aware the children have a high level of need. The grandmother has the time and the insight to provide the type of restorative parenting the children, especially N, will need. Moreover, the children have a large supportive family network who can assist the grandmother to provide them with the high level of input they need. Consequently, I am recommending placement with the maternal grandmother."

She goes on to say that the grandmother would have to identify a qualified psychotherapist in an African country.

The full report of the independent social worker does give information that the maternal grandmother has good employment, that her other children all seem to be doing very well, that she has good accommodation, and could pay for the children to be privately educated, and for N to receive some therapeutic input. Clearly there is no (or no very great) infrastructure in an African country to provide social work support at the sort of level of monitoring there would be in the UK. However, there is international Social Services who could be informed about the children if they were placed there, and UNICEF are also working in the African country.

She was cross-examined at length. Her evidence was truncated due to the breakdowns in the link. It was hampered as the large screen and main camera in the Royal Courts of Justice were not working. That is in this country, I should add. Nevertheless, the sound was good and I could observe Ms. Coker on a small monitor, although she could not see either myself or any of the advocates. She was, however, it seemed to me, a forceful witness. She was clear that there were, in her view, no guarantees in long-term fostering for these children. She said in the care system children do get moved around and there are no guarantees. There are often moved in not always a planned way, and the court, in her view, should not go down that route if there was time and money that could be put into the maternal grandmother. She was in favour of the maternal grandmother coming to the UK, staying for a month and there being an intensive piece of work together with the skilled foster carer. She thought that if there was a good, strong transitional plan, then she did not think there would be a breakdown if the children were placed in an African country. Thus, she maintained her recommendations.

The maternal grandmother gave evidence via Skype and a videolink from an African country. This evidence I find was very difficult to evaluate. There were many practical disadvantages. The link or bridge broke down and so the evidence was truncated. There was a disconnect between the maternal grandmother speaking and the sound. The large screen and the main camera in the Royal Courts of Justice were not working, so the maternal grandmother was unable to see the person who was asking the question, be it the judge or the advocate. She could only be seen on a small monitor. The translator had difficulties with the translation, due to the difficulties in hearing the witness and at times the interpreter became confused. She, the interpreter, apologised at the end that her interpretation had not been satisfactory. The parents were clearly critical of some of the interpretation, and I am not at all sure that I always received an accurate word-for-word account. Although the children's Guardian was concerned that the maternal grandmother seemed to lack empathy for the mother, and she seemed to smile at times inappropriately, she was, as I could see, and I think the Guardian could not, at times responding to the interpreter who was the only person that the grandmother could see and who was in turn smiling at her. With so many disadvantages - added to which the grandmother had not seen or had only seen very few of the papers beforehand; she had been sent a very long and complicated psychiatric report and the foster notes the weekend before she gave evidence, and these could only be interpreted by her daughter A, who could not understand all of the English - it seems to me that it would be intrinsically unfair to come to any conclusion as to her credibility as a witness. I further add to that that although the Guardian was concerned about a lack of empathy between her and the mother, I had witnessed a voluntary engagement between the mother and the grandmother when the video Skype link was first set up. I do not know what to make of that either, but it is part of the mix. So, in those circumstances, taking all of that together, I do not form any conclusion about the credibility of the maternal grandmother as a witness.

She is, however, clearly committed. She clearly leads an ordered life. From the information, she is managing her other children who are still at home, and the other adult children also lead ordered lives. There are many question marks: why was L sent to the UK when she was a young adolescent? What is the reality of the grandmother's own experience of domestic violence? Does she have any real insight into the domestic violence between the parents in their relationship and the effect on these children? And does she have sufficient insight into N's special needs? Could she manage the parents if they came to the African country? Is she minimising the difficulties when she says in her evidence that her love and the love of the family would conquer N's problems? Those are all, at this moment, unanswered questions.

The parents too gave evidence before me. I have already set out my concerns and findings in relation to their evidence. The mother says that she wants the children to live with the maternal grandmother. She says she will not go back, at least for some time, to an African country, as she needs to be in the UK for medical attention, and she wants to go to college to do a cabin crew course with an aim to being an air stewardess. She knows her contact to the children would be limited. I find that she has minimised the effect of domestic violence on N and the effect of the anxiety about her health on him. She accepted he knew she had to go to hospital but I do accept the teacher's evidence, at G35 of the bundle, that the mother spoke in front of N about being in hospital and said: "Yes, I thought I was going to die". The mother, like the father, has been late for contact and has missed some contacts, and particularly one which was arranged with N before Christmas. She seemed to be reluctant in her evidence to accept the distress this would have caused the children. They would have been sad and upset and confused. She did agree that N has a lot of nightmares and screams and sleep walks. She now denies the evidence that she gave to Dr. Butler as to her childhood and her allegation that her father beat her, but I have to accept, as I have already, that she did say these things to Dr. Butler, and I accept Dr. Butler's evidence on that.

The father on the first day of this hearing also accepted that he could not care for the children. He supports the application by the maternal grandmother. He too wants to return to college and then get work. He is currently of no fixed abode. He stays with different friends. He lives off money that is sent to him by his father. He needs to get a more ordered life, in my view. If the children go to an African country, he says he will accept supervision of any contact with them. He believes, he says, that N at seven could adapt to life in An African country.

Finally I heard the evidence of the very experienced children's Guardian, Ms. Reed. She has prepared two reports for the court. She has seen the children and she has spoken to N. She is clear that he is a curious and intelligent boy. He does not want to go to an African country. He does not like the heat, she told me. She spoke to him about Africa. She herself had lived in Africa. She said he was clear to her that he did not want to live there. He drew a picture of what he wanted. It was a picture of himself and M and a person looking after them in the middle. She supports the making of a care order and long-term fostering. She would have preferred adoption of the two children, but accepts the evidence of Dr. Butler who is against adoption, and the family finder's evidence that the chances of finding a placement were remote. She says that long-term foster carers will be carefully sought and carefully matched, and therefore that has the best chance of working in the children's best interests. She believes that there is evidence of a high risk of breakdown if the children were to be placed with the maternal grandmother. She said that if they were placed there, they could not be monitored or supported. She does not think that the maternal grandmother's expectations of N are realistic. She does not believe the parents, or at least she says she cannot believe the parents or their plans. They may not do as the maternal grandmother says. The mother and the maternal grandmother have a difficult relationship at times. The parents could be angry and there could be flash points. The maternal grandmother has struggled with L in the past and there has been real concern that she could not meet her needs, and so the Guardian has real concerns that she would not be able to meet the special needs of N. She felt that the maternal grandmother was quite superficial in her evidence. She felt that the grandmother did not have a level of insight, and that that could not be gained. She says that loving the child, as the grandmother says, is not enough. She felt that the maternal grandmother's evidence did not fit with what the independent social worker was saying in her report. She was very concerned if N were placed in an African country it would be outside his context. Nor does she support any further assessment. She said that if there was a further assessment of the grandmother in this country, then that would be very distressing for N, and that his wishes should be given very serious consideration. In other words, she says that there is sufficient evidence before the court that there would be such a high risk of breakdown with the maternal grandmother on sufficient information now before the court, that the court should not delay taking a decision but should make a care order with a care plan to place for long-term fostering.

MY CONCLUSIONS

Thus, there are, after eight days of hearing, only two options for the court: a care order on a plan to place the children for long-term fostering, or, as it has now transpired, an adjournment of the final order under the auspices of interim care orders to allow an assessment of the maternal grandmother, she coming to the UK for such assessment, on a tight timetable and looking for long-term foster parents in parallel.

I have to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Insofar as long-term fostering is concerned, the advantages are: (1) that it is supported and recommended by a formidable team of professionals - the social worker, Dr. Butler and the children's Guardian; (2) that the children would remain together in the UK; (3) that there would be, I am sure, careful matching of carers and there would be support in place; (4) there would be psychotherapy for N; (5) the children would be in a context which is familiar to them, that is the UK, and particularly for N it is the language he speaks and the education system he knows; (6) the children would be able to have contact with their parents, as is recommended now by the social worker and Dr. Butler and the children's Guardian; (7) there would be continuing reviews of that placement and monitoring of it, and there would be an independent reviewing officer to oversee the placement.

The disadvantages, as I find, are: (1) that the children would remain in care and are thus different from other children, and that might become more important as they grow into adolescence; (2) there are no guarantees of stability and there are real risks of breakdown, and possibly unplanned moves, and I base that on the research; (3) it might be difficult to find a cultural and ethnic match, although I accept that that would be ameliorated by ongoing contact with the parents, although it would be an infrequent amount; (4) N might become separated from M when he turned 18 and went on to independent living; (5) leaving care can be a difficult time for many young people, and often, the research shows us, they return to their birth families, and that in this case would be their parents, despite the known risks; (6) there could be a risk of disruption because of the parents in contact, although I accept that that would be ameliorated if it were well managed by the Local Authority.

When I consider the advantages and disadvantages of placement with the maternal grandmother, that could only happen if there were a further assessment of her in the UK and that was successful, but the advantages would be: (1) that the children would be within their natural family and this would include a wide extended family who are positive about the children and committed to them; (2) they would be with a grandmother who loves them and other family members who love them; (3) it would be overwhelmingly in M's best interests, as is said by Dr. Butler and Ms. Onya, if this matter were only about M and not about N too; (4) the parents' contact would in fact be less frequent than if the children were in foster care because it would only be about twice a year, and so it might be less disruptive and more manageable, although that would depend on the assessment of whether the maternal grandmother could contain it, but there could be ongoing more frequent contact by Skype; (5) the parents support that placement and usually it is thought that placements have more chance of working if they are supported by the parents so that the children could be told that this was a placement that all of the family wanted them to go to; (6) clearly it would meet their cultural and ethnic needs; (7) it is known that there are good practical matters in place - that is accommodation - and it would seem that the grandmother can meet the children's financial needs for schooling and day-to-day care; (8) there is evidence that she has managed, and continues to manage, her other young children.

The disadvantages are that it would be: (1) against N's expressed wishes and feelings; (2) that there are very many unknowns about the maternal grandmother and her evidence, and I have already set those out at length; (3) there would be a disruption in location to an unknown country and all that that would bring; (4) there would be a change therefore in the context particularly for N of his language and education system; (5) if there was a breakdown it is not clear what the back-up plan would be, although the independent social worker thought that there was such a large extended family they would be likely to step into the breach; (6) it could not be monitored or supported in any real sense by this Local Authority.

Thus, I have looked at the positives and negatives of the two options. I have come to a very clear conclusion. I do give weight to N's wishes and feelings but I do so in the light of his age and understanding. He is only seven and a half. I have considered long and hard the weight of professional opinion in support of making a care order now on the plan for long-term fostering, and the view that the court has sufficient information to conclude that the risks in a placement with the maternal grandmother are too high to take. However, I conclude that, given that there are two positive assessments - one being the viability assessment conducted by Ms. Onya and the other the assessment of the independent social worker - and given that the maternal grandmother has not had the advantage, as any grandparent would have had in the UK, of attendance at court, a proper and full assessment, including contact with the children and an evaluation of the relationship, and possibly independent legal advice, it would be quite wrong now to conclude that such a full assessment of her would be bound to fail, or that after a full assessment I would be bound to conclude that the risks in placement in an African country were too great to take. It may be that once the grandmother is fully assessed in the UK, face to face, that many of the unknowns as I have set them out to be are in fact adequately addressed, and that, once N re-meets his maternal grandmother and can make a picture of his life in an African country, that he will become reassured.

I simply do not know and, thus, applying the legal test, as I must, I conclude that I am bound to adjourn these proceedings under the auspices of interim care orders for there to be that full assessment of the maternal grandmother in the UK. I am reinforced in this view as there will be no delay for the children because long-term foster carers can be sought in parallel, and I am extremely grateful to the social worker, Ms. Onya, and to the Local Authority team, notwithstanding their recommendations to this court, in putting into place Woking Close as a place which could conduct such an assessment in a timely way with experienced workers, one of whom is European speaking. I am quite satisfied, having looked at the quality of their assessments of the parents, that they would conduct a full and considered assessment of the maternal grandmother and that that would be the fair way forward, and a chance for the children to be brought up in their natural family if it is at all possible. The grandmother of course will have to make her own arrangements for a visa. She will have to come to this country as soon as is possible. The assessment will have to be conducted within a good time frame with a view perhaps to it being concluded by mid-March. There would then be time for timetabling, and I would hear this case in about the second week of May.

I have neglected to mention contact in the interim, I think, at all, but I do accept that as the children are not to go home to either of the parents, it would be right and it would be consistent with that plan and that acceptance of the parents, that the contact should be reduced, and reduced immediately, and it seems to me that the recommendation for it to be reduced monthly in respect of N and fortnightly in respect of M would be the right reduction pending their long-term placement, and I suppose pending the adjourned hearing. In any event, given that I have now ordered that there should be an assessment of the maternal grandmother, when she comes to this country there is going to be a very intensive piece of work which is going to include contact with her. I have seen the Woking Close proposal, which is very intensive indeed, and during that time I think that it is likely that the contact with the parents would have to take second place anyway, and might well be reduced further than the monthly to N and fortnightly to M, to allow for the amount of contacts and work that would have to go into the assessment of grandmother.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2014/38.html