IN THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT	No. ZC15C00623

First Avenue House
42-49 High Holborn, WC1
Friday, 22nd July 2016

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE HARRIS
(In Private)

B E T W E E N :

		LONDON BOROUGH OF X	Applicant

- and -

		(1) KD
		(2) MP
		(3) WP
(4) LP
(by her Guardian)
 			Respondents

_________

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.
(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL
Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737
info@beverleynunnery.com

_________

MR. W. METAXA (instructed by Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

THE FIRST RESPONDENT was not represented and did not attend.

THE SECOND RESPONDENT was not represented and did not attend.

MS. P. WARNER (instructed by Bindmans Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Third Respondent.

MS. J. RAYSON (instructed by Fisher Meredith) appeared on behalf of the Guardian.

_________

J U D G M E N T
JUDGE HARRIS: 

1	I am giving judgment today in an application for both a care order, dated 21st October 2015, and a placement order, dated 15th July 2016, brought by the London Borough of X in relation to a little baby girl, L, who was born on 13th September 2015 and is therefore ten months of age.  

2	L’s mother is KD who was born on 16th January 1989 and is therefore aged twenty-seven.  L’s father is MP who was born on 23rd October 1985 and is aged thirty.  

3	L has two other full siblings: R, born on 23rd April 2012 and therefore aged four years and three months; and D, born on 28th April 2013, aged three years and two months.  

4	The paternal grandmother of all three girls is WP who was born on 7th January 1964 and is therefore aged fifty-two.  The paternal grandfather is MP2 who was born on 14th October 1957 and is therefore aged fifty-eight.  

5	It is sad for me to relate that neither of L’s parents have played any part in these care proceedings. I am, however, satisfied that the Local Authority has made strenuous efforts to contact them and to seek their engagement in the proceedings.  

6	The parties before the court today are: Firstly, the London Borough of X represented by Mr. Metaxa of Counsel; secondly, the paternal grandmother, WP, represented by Ms. Warner of Counsel; and, thirdly, L, by her Guardian, Elaine Keane, both of whom are represented by Ms. Rayson of Counsel.  I am very grateful to the London Borough of X for underwriting the fees for WP.  There were difficulties in her obtaining legal aid and I took the view that it was essential and probably not otherwise Art.6 compliant for her to have legal representation.  

7	I heard this case over the following days the 18th, 19th and 20th July 2016.  I received written submissions yesterday, 21st July 2016, from all Counsel for which I am extremely grateful and I am giving judgment today on 22nd July 2016.  

8	This is a very sad case.  The parents have both misused unlawful drugs.  The mother has a chronic history of drug abuse including crack-cocaine and heroin.  L came into the world in the most distressing circumstances.  She was born in what the police described as “a known crack den” and had been delivered by her father by the time the ambulance arrived. She was showing signs of serious respiratory distress.  The mother had been seen to be smoking crack-cocaine and heroin the night before giving birth.  She had received no antenatal care.  

9	Unsurprisingly, L’s toxicology results tested strongly positive for cocaine and opioids.  She was suffering from drug withdrawal.  She showed typical signs of this disorder namely a high pitched cry, was hypertonic, irritable, was sneezing and displayed wakefulness.  The extent of her drug withdrawal treatment meant that she remained in hospital until 26th October 2015 when she was six weeks of age.  Her mother ceased visiting her on 17th September 2015 and her father on 29th September 2015.  Her current foster carer, RH, started visiting her in hospital and spending long periods with her to enable the baby to have a single person to respond to her needs and this proved to be very beneficial.  The consequences of this abandonment by her parents was that L had no primary caregiver during those early, approximately five, weeks when she was detoxifying from drugs.  

10	The threshold criteria in this case are amply made out.  They relate to the parents’ unfortunate history and to some of their actions in the lead up to L’s birth.  The facts relied upon are set out fully in the threshold document at section A of the bundle and I do not need to repeat them here.  

11	The stark choice before the court in this case is between a Special Guardianship order in favour of the grandmother or adoption via a placement order where the adoption would be by L’s current foster carers who are Coram foster carers.  

12	This case had previously been case managed by Her Honour Judge Cox and first came before me for the final hearing initially listed on 21st April 2016.  At that stage the Local Authority was  seeking a Special Guardianship order in favour of the grandmother coupled with a supervision order.  The Guardian, with some reservation, supported the making of those orders.  

13	On that occasion, I expressed my concern as to the lack of professional evidence about the impact on this particularly vulnerable child of a move from foster carers who would be prospective adopters and the impact on her of a placement in a wholly different environment, namely in Poland, with relatives who were not well known to her.  Further, I had before me a letter from L’s GP (F19).  That letter made reference to L’s extremely difficult beginnings in life to which I have referred.  It also referred to her meeting her developmental milestones on time.  It went on as follows:

“However, it also concerns me that she exhibits stress responses when she is separated from her current foster carer.  
In my clinical experience I see this attachment as specific to the carer.  Understandably, she perceives the carer as her mother.  
I believe that if she suffers no further traumas she has a good chance of developing normally.  

However separation from a carer to whom a child has formed a specific attachment is extremely traumatic and akin to bereavement.  

After overcoming abandonment and mental and physical traumas of withdrawing from Class A drugs, I believe this may be a trauma too far.  
No one can predict exactly what may occur but exposure to huge stress in an infant’s first year is known to permanently impact on their emotional and physical wellbeing.  
Some of the worst effects do not materialise until adulthood.  
Given that L is a child of two addicted parents, I think it may be an unsafe gamble. 
I wish L the best opportunity in life.”

The letter is signed by the GP.  

14	I felt considerable concern on reading the contents of that letter together with my concern about the lack of professional evidence as to the impact on L.  I therefore took the step of adjourning the final hearing and directed that there be a psychological assessment undertaken to address these issues.  The originally appointed psychologist could not carry out the report and, in the event, the assessment was prepared by Dr. Emma Peart.  

15	Largely, although not exclusively, as a result of that assessment, both the Local Authority and the Guardian have now wholly changed their position and invite the court to make a placement order.  This case has aptly been described by the Guardian as a roller coaster for all those involved.  

16	I have read a substantial lever arch bundle and heard oral evidence from the following witnesses:  Dr. Emma Peart, Chartered Clinical Psychologist, who gave evidence by video link; Karolina Snopek, author of the Special Guardianship report on the grandmother; Nabil Fattal, Acting Team Manager for the allocated social worker; the grandmother through a Polish interpreter; and, finally, the Guardian.  

17	The two principal concerns which have been raised about the grandmother are: firstly, whether she is able to meet the needs of L for what has been described as highly sensitive, responsive and attuned care.  This need has arisen from the circumstances of L’s early weeks when she was withdrawing from drugs and without a primary caregiver.  Secondly, whether the grandmother can be trusted to protect L from the parents and, in particular, her own son, given her track record.  To consider the second concern it is necessary for me to review in some detail the history of this matter.  

The Background
18	The mother is of Afro-Caribbean origin.  She comes from a very deprived background.  She is one of eight children who were all removed from the care of her mother.  She was in the care of the London Borough of Y from the age of three.  The mother has a history of chronic poly-drug use including heroin and crack-cocaine as well as abusing alcohol.  She has also worked for some considerable time as a prostitute.  She has an extensive criminal record including for offences of violence.  Sadly, she has also suffered from mental health difficulties - hardly surprisingly - which have resulted in her self-harming in the past.  

19	The father, although not to the same extent as the mother, has also abused Class A drugs and in particular cocaine.  The parental relationship has been marked by bouts of domestic violence.  The father is, of course, of Polish origin.

20	In her first report in these proceedings, the Guardian referred to the mother’s own past as having been “a catalogue of maternal drug use, neglect, chaotic lifestyle and extremely poor parenting”.  

21	The parents had their first child, R, on 23rd April 2012.  She was born suffering from drug withdrawal with both cocaine and opioids in her system.  Care proceedings were initiated by this Authority and the case proceeded in the 
FDAC Court.  Fortunately, the same Guardian, Mrs. Keane, was appointed in those proceedings.  

22	The mother was placed for a short time in a mother and baby foster placement, but was unable to keep away from drugs and left the placement leaving R behind.  The grandmother was assessed as a carer for R.  I am told by the Guardian that the grandmother attended some of the hearings and, in particular, the final hearing in November 2012.  

23	Although the father was subject to a positive drug test in those proceedings, I am told that the grandmother accepted the father’s account that the drug test was not reliable and hence accurate.  It has been a consistent theme in this case that the grandmother has found it extremely difficult to accept that her son has a drug abuse problem.  

24	The court made a residence order in favour of the grandmother. Further, a prohibited steps order was made preventing the parents from removing R from the care of the grandparents.  On 17th December 2012 the grandmother returned to Poland with R.  

25	The Local Authority became aware that the mother was sixteen weeks pregnant very shortly after the conclusion of the care proceedings.  The unborn baby was made the subject of a child protection plan under the category of neglect with a plan to issue care proceedings once the baby was born.  The grandmother says that she attempted to register the residence order in Poland.  Despite having the annex 2 attached to it, she was unsuccessful in registering it.  I have seen different explanations for this in the papers, but, in the event, the grandmother did not pursue it further.  

26	On 25th March 2013 the parents travelled to Poland to attend R’s Christening.  The father subsequently returned to England and advised the grandmother that the mother had been unable to return to England because of her advanced state of pregnancy.  The mother had subsequently been admitted to hospital suffering from withdrawal symptoms.  The grandmother now doubts the father’s story believing that the intention was at all times for the mother to remain in Poland to avoid the impending court proceedings.  In the event, the case was referred to Polish Social Services. D was thus born in Poland on 28th April 2013.  

27	It is reported that the grandmother was initially uncooperative in refusing to tell the authorities in which hospital the baby was born, but she did subsequently disclose this information.  The grandmother has reported to professionals that D was born free of any drugs.  In fact, the medical records, which were subsequently obtained, do show a trace of drugs.  It may be, however, that the grandmother was never advised of that fact due to medical confidentiality.  

28	After being discharged from hospital the mother resided in a property in the grandmother’s village.  The mother then began to reside with the grandparents together with baby D and R according to the account given by the grandmother to Karolina Snopek, the Special Guardian reporter.  This arrangement continued for six months.  The mother was the main carer of D with the grandparents continuing to care for R.  The grandmother worryingly describes the mother as avoiding R in the initial months, but this changed over time as the girls started to interact more.  The mother was then described as treating both girls equally.  

29	The grandmother described to Ms. Snopek the remarkable change undergone by the mother while she lived in Poland. She was able to give D a good quality of care.  She was drug-free, no doubt related to the fact that she would have been unable to obtain access to drugs in the village; and she appeared to live a regular life, for example, working in the bar at a luxury restaurant over the weekend. She began to get assimilated into the life of the community and was learning to speak Polish.  The grandmother describes how she was closely monitored while she was living in the village.  

30	After six months the mother moved into the house opposite the grandparent’s home with D.  This property belonged to the grandmother’s sister who works in Italy.  R remained with her grandparents.  The grandparents would visit the mother’s home several times a day and would accompany her if she went out, as she did not drive and there was no public transport.  This account given by the grandmother was corroborated by the Polish Social Services, Ms. Brdej, who was visiting regularly for the first six months, although these visits dropped off after that.  The account was further corroborated by others in the village.

31	After about a year the grandmother reports that she was sufficiently reassured by what she saw to begin to allow the mother to have unsupervised time with R.  This gradually developed to overnight stays as R was keen to spend time with her mother and sister.  The father would also visit periodically from England and the girls would spend time with both parents.  The parents in fact married in Poland in October 2014.  When the father arrived to spend Christmas with the family in 2014, the grandmother allowed R to stay with the family over the festivities.  During the course of 2013 the mother had in fact travelled to London with D to visit the father and returned to Poland as was planned.  

32	After the father left after Christmas the grandmother allowed R to remain living with her mother and D.  She reported that she allowed this because R was extremely anxious to join her mother and sister and she and her husband were satisfied with the standard of care the mother was providing.  This was obviously in breach of the prohibited steps order.  However, the grandparents continued to see the family on a daily basis and therefore remained significant figures in the children’s lives.  

33	In late April or May 2015, the grandmother agreed to the mother visiting London with the girls ostensibly for a holiday to see the father.  By this time the mother was pregnant with L and had, according to the grandmother, received some antenatal care in Poland.  It was anticipated by the grandmother that the mother would give birth to her expected child in Poland.  In her written evidence and in what she told Ms. Snopek, the grandmother did not state that she had any concerns about the holiday.  She had also consulted the local Social Services who were content for the trip to take place as they, too, had no concerns about the mother’s care of the two girls.  

34	In her oral evidence the grandmother gave a different account.  She said that she could not agree to the trip because it was against the prohibited steps order.  Further, she said that she was worried about the children’s safety because she feared that if the mother returned to her previous surroundings there was a risk she would fall back into her old ways.  The grandmother said that her son forced her.  Whilst she was already aware of the plan for the trip, she told me that the father and mother turned up with the girls outside her home with a taxi outside and said that they were going to leave and had come over to say goodbye.  This was wholly unexpected.  She said she discussed her concerns with the local Social Services and, as she put it, they cheered her up and gave her confidence saying everything would be okay; the mother had been away before and she had come back.  

35	I should interpolate here to say that I do not agree with Mr. Metaxa’s interpretation of the grandmother’s evidence in his closing submissions.  From what she told me she did not first become aware of the trip only when the family turned up with a taxi outside. Therefore, his submission that she must only have told Social Services after they went is not borne out.  I will need to consider, however, which of these two conflicting accounts is the more accurate and why the grandmother has changed her account.   

36	Within a short time of the family’s arrival in London difficulties were being reported.  They were staying with MP and IP, the father’s brother and sister-in- law.  MP told his mother that the mother was not managing the care of the girls well.  She was sleeping late and was not getting on with IP.  IP had just had a new baby and her own mother was staying in the flat, which was overcrowded.  The grandmother tended to regard these complaints as exaggerated because she knew that the mother did not get on with IP and because of the situation of overcrowding in the flat.  She was talking to her son and the mother every other day and urging the mother to come home reminding her that she had a gynaecological appointment.  She was advised that the mother did not want to come home.  

37	The situation further deteriorated when the mother and father effectively abandoned the children with MP and IP.  It was at this stage that the grandparents finally acted and the grandfather went to England, according to the grandmother, within a few days to collect the children and return them home to Poland.  When the children returned, they were found to be borderline anaemic.  The grandmother maintained and has maintained that MP and IP never suggested that there were any concerns about the mother or indeed the father misusing drugs during their stay.  

38	The grandmother reports that she advised Social Services in Poland that the mother had not returned to Poland.  This is confirmed by the local social worker.  The grandmother did not say that she advised that the mother was pregnant.  It is not clear to me whether the local Social Services were aware of that fact in the light of the fact that the mother had attended gynaecological appointments in Poland.  

39	The grandmother was asked why she did not notify the English Social Services that the mother was pregnant given all that had happened when the family were together in London.  She said that she continued to be reassured by her son that the mother was not misusing drugs and was receiving antenatal care.  Neither of these, of course, were true, save that the mother appears to have attended one appointment at B General Hospital in April 2015.  

40	The grandmother said in oral evidence that she wanted local Social Services to make the decision and that this was a very difficult time for her as she was undergoing a hip replacement operation.  The grandmother told me that she continued to believe that the mother would return at some point and have the baby in Poland.  Her son was telling her that the mother was remaining in England because she wanted to be with him.  Events thereafter unfolded in the disastrous way I have already described with L being born in the most appalling circumstances and her health and development being potentially compromised.  

41	The second set of concerns relate to the grandmother’s ability to meet L’s particular needs.  This aspect of the case has evolved following the report of Dr. Peart.  It did not feature in any significant way as a concern prior to her report and it is necessary for me to examine with great care the evidence upon which Dr. Peart formulates her conclusions and indeed the evidence of the other professionals who comment upon the grandmother’s caring abilities.  

Dr. Peart
42	Dr. Peart is a clinical chartered psychologist.  When she spoke to the foster carer, the foster carer described L as meeting her normal milestones.  Her main concern was L’s heightened response to stress.  In particular, L could exhibit an extreme stress reaction when her foster carer was absent.  This could occur even when the child was in the presence of a known adult such as a babysitter or in the presence of the foster carer’s young son.  The reaction was intense scratching to the extent that the child could cause bleeding and this description is of course confirmed by L’s GP.  L could also tend to scratch herself if, for example, she was being told off or in reaction to her mild eczema.  However, the foster carer described this scratching as qualitatively different from the more intense scratching.  

43	Dr. Peart considered it quite possible that L’s early life experiences of exposure to drugs in utero together with the absence of a primary caregiver in her early weeks had resulted in her having a heightened response to stress, particularly separations.  She considered that changing placements would be likely to have a traumatic effect upon L.  However, L had received an excellent level of care and had begun to form a secure attachment to her foster carer.  This would mean that she would be better able to cope with a transition and would be able to transfer her attachment to a new caregiver.  However, Dr. Peart warned that her ability to do so would depend significantly on the sensitivity and responsiveness of the new caregiver.  

44	In discussions with the grandmother, Dr. Peart considered that she lacked an in-depth understanding of how her son had become addicted to drugs.  She also stated that she hoped that her son and the mother would make contact with the children, although any contact would have to be under the supervision of the local Social Services.  Dr. Peart spoke in her report of the grandmother’s hope that the family would reunite.  This last remark caused great consternation in both the Social Services and the Guardian.  However, when she was questioned about this in oral evidence it became clear that what Dr. Peart meant by reference to “reuniting” was the grandmother’s hope that the parents would seek contact with the children and not that the family would reunite.

45	Dr. Peart observed a contact session on 28th May 2016 for a period of two hours.  She was very critical of the grandmother’s interaction with L.  The grandmother was described as behaving in an intrusive way; failing to respect L’s boundaries, for example, by taking off her tights as soon as she (the grandmother) entered the room.  She said that the grandmother was over-stimulating L by rapidly switching from one activity to another and failed to respond to L’s cues.  She reported that the grandmother continued to play aeroplanes with L by holding her up and swooping her around the room, even when L had vomited on a number of occasions.  She described L’s reactions as being “false positives” in that, rather than showing signs of distress such as crying, L would omit a high pitched laugh.  The baby’s body at times was observed to be very stiff and she was holding her arms out in front of her as if to keep her grandmother at a distance.  She was also seen to engage in the intense scratching.  The false positives might be the sort of behaviour seen in a child with a disorganised or insecure attachment.  

46	In her oral evidence, Dr. Peart was even more critical of the grandmother’s interactions.  She said that the contact did not improve as the grandmother settled in rather it got worse over time.  She described the failure to pick up on L’s cues as being quite extreme.  She said that she found the session quite distressing to the extent that she had to intervene at the end.  Thus she concluded that she had concerns about the grandmother’s ability to provide the sensitive and attuned parenting that L required.  

47	However, it is of significance that she did not make any firm recommendation as to placement, given that her assessment involved no assessment of the needs of the two older girls or indeed of the parenting role of the grandfather and his capacities.  

48	This description of contact is wholly at odds with all the available evidence as to contact.  The grandmother has had fifteen contacts in all starting last November.  These took place in blocks of time coinciding, obviously, with the grandmother’s visits to England.  Nine of the contacts took place in the presence of the foster carer, so no detailed notes are available.  However, the foster carer, RH, has described the grandmother as being “brilliant” with the baby.  Further, the contact notes from the supervised contacts are uniformly positive describing the grandmother, for example, as “dealing with L in a calm and practical way”, “communicates in warm animated tones and promotes face to face contact”, “dealt with L in a warm and relaxed manner”.  

49	When Dr. Peart was asked about these contrasts, she made the point that the contact supervisors did not have her specialised training. This is the point which is usually made in response to such a question and, of course, I accept that she did have specialist training in, for example, attachment theory and would be looking for interactions which might not be evident to a contact supervisor.  However, the foster carer is very attuned to L and she was also positive about the grandmother’s interactions.  

50	In cross examination by Ms. Warner, Dr. Peart gave little quarter to the points put to her.  When it was suggested to her that the grandmother removed the tights because the room was very warm, she (Dr. Peart) said that she felt cold.  She later accepted that the foster carer had observed that the room was warm when she delivered L.  She initially denied that the grandmother had made any reference to feeling unwell. However, she later conceded that the grandmother had referred to feeling under the weather.  Dr. Peart described the grandmother as manipulating L’s hands to hide the scratching when the baby was scratching her head.  The grandmother said that she was simply removing L’s hands to stop her from scratching.  

The other evidence concerning the grandmother’s parenting capacities and ability to meet L’s needs
Mr. Nabil Fattal
51	He has been the acting team manager from the outset, but until recently had little direct contact with the case.  Recently he has been directly involved because the previously allocated social worker’s case load has been reduced following difficult personal circumstances.  

52	He observed a more recent contact together with Karolina Snopek on 13th July 2016.  On this occasion the baby showed no signs of stress, but the grandmother was criticised for failing to set boundaries during the contact.  Two examples were given of the grandmother failing to move the baby’s hands when L was trying to pull her blouse thus exposing the grandmother’s chest.  The second example related to L playing with the buckle on Ms. Snopek’s shoe.  I must say that I do not consider that either example represents any real failure to set boundaries.  In any event, one does not really set boundaries to any great extent with a child of ten months other than ensuring that they are safe.  

53	Mr. Fattal makes the point that the grandmother was going to the other extreme during this contact in failing to direct the contact at all.  When it was put to him that the grandmother was understandably anxious to avoid the mistakes that she had made during the contact observed by Dr. Peart, he said: 

“The grandmother is an experienced mother who has raised four children and has two little children in her care at the moment.  I would expect a degree of knowledge about what is right and how to manage the situation.  The situation in contact was not complex.  A small diversion she should have been able to manage.”

54	In his statement, he expressed great concern about the grandmother’s alleged wish for the family to reunite.  However, as I have said, when Dr. Peart was cross examined about this statement, the grandmother had said no more than she hoped that the parents would make contact in the future.  This was coupled with a statement that the grandmother would seek the involvement of Social Services if there was to be contact with the parents.  In many ways I find that to be an understandable remark for the grandmother to make as the parents’ continued abandonment of the children was likely to cause them to feel rejected.   

55	Mr. Fattal also attached great weight to the grandmother’s reaction when R asked her on her birthday why her mother had not phoned her.  The grandmother said on the spur of the moment that the mother probably did not have any credit for her phone.  Mr. Fattal saw this as unhelpful to the children as not giving them a true narrative and keeping alive hopes which could result in them developing fantasies about their parents.  The grandmother says that she was caught on the hop and had to make an immediate response to R’s comment.  

56	Mr. Fattal further expressed concern that R was described as being distressed and bedwetting while her grandmother was away in England.  I do not see this as necessarily reflecting adversely on the grandmother’s parenting.  Given R’s life experiences to date, it would not be surprising that she would suffer from separation anxiety and perhaps still have some elements of an insecure attachment to her grandmother.  

57	Mr. Fattal’s overall view was that the grandmother’s parenting style was too basic and simple and that L required a more sophisticated type of parenting to enable her to achieve an understanding of the narrative of her life.  Overall, Mr. Fattal based his objection to placement with the grandmother principally on the grounds that she would not be able to provide the sensitive attuned care which Dr. Peart said was essential to enable her to reach her developmental potential.  However his statement contained no B-S compliant analysis of the pros and cons of the different options, which, in my view, represented a fundamental flaw.  There was no mention, for example, of the benefits of the siblings growing up together.  

Karolina Snopek
58	Ms. Snopek is Polish and is a social worker in the Family Plus Team.  She is thus familiar with conducting assessments of this sort.  She undertook the initial viability assessment of the grandparents which was positive and went to Poland to undertake the full Connected Person Assessment Report.  For this purpose, she spent five days in Poland and met with the grandparents on a daily basis.  Obviously, she communicated with them in Polish.  She also prepared an addendum report answering a number of questions put forward on behalf of the Guardian.  Her report was described by the Guardian in her analysis dated 18th April 2016 as being “a full and robust parenting assessment”.  I agree with that description.  Ms. Snopek went to great lengths to seek corroborative evidence to support the grandparents’ account and was not prepared to accept all that they said at face value.  It is also the case that Ms. Snopek has had more dealings with the grandparents than any other professional in the case.  

59	Following on the receipt of Dr. Peart’s report, Ms. Snopek provided a short further addendum.  It is worth quoting extensively from that addendum.  Ms. Snopek said this:

“Dr. Peart’s reports highlight serious concerns about WP being able to provide emotionally attuned care to L.  In my view the interactions observed are not wholly representative of WP’s parenting capacity.  Certainly my assessment of MP2 and WP’s interaction with R and D, feedback from their nursery and the professionals involved with the family in Poland is that MP2 and WP are able to provide emotionally attuned care to them.  The girls are regarded to be doing very well, have been able to develop what is described as a secure attachment and MP2 and WP have raised four sons, three of which appear to have good outcomes.  In addition, in the contact that I observed with WP with L, I did not find WP to be over-stimulating or intrusive.  Instead WP was able to be guided by L in activities/play.  

Having spoken to WP, I am of the view that the interactions observed by Dr. Peart were adversely affected by WP’s anxiety about being observed and the fact that she felt unwell.  Further to this, I am of the view that WP and MP2 would require (like any new carer to a particular child) some time to be able to get to know L and be fully attuned to her communications.  WP has made it clear that she is fully prepared to make use of the support available to her in Poland to be able to fine tune her parenting to L.  

Nonetheless, unfortunately WP did struggle to read L’s cues consistently.”  

60	Ms. Snopek went on to say that she accepted Dr. Peart’s opinion that L would require highly attuned and therapeutic care immediately.  She expressed her concern that, unlike when the initial transition plan was prepared, the two older girls would not be at nursery because they are on summer holidays.  This would affect WP’s ability to focus on L.  She also said that it was difficult to predict how the older girls would respond to L moving to their home.  She said that, while she believed that WP was able to manage all three girls long term, she would expect a period of adjustment which was likely to cause some difficulty for the older girls.  She believed this in turn would impact upon WP’s ability to focus on L at a time most critical to her.  She concluded: 

“I reluctantly accept that the timing and impact of L’s move to her family in Poland is now not in her best interest.  As such, I no longer recommend MP and WP as Special Guardianship carers for L.”

Ms. Snopek confirmed to me during her evidence that she had not been put under pressure following the departmental change of view and was free to express her own opinions.  

61	So far as the reasons that she gave for changing her view are concerned, the grandmother addressed the point about the older girls being present by advising me that it would be possible for the older girls to attend nursery during the summer holidays and indeed for her to gain support from the extended family support network.  

62	Ms. Snopek’s change of view seemed to me to be focused almost entirely on short term considerations.  It seemed to me also to contain a contradiction because most of the addendum report was referring to how different her experience of the grandmother was from that of Dr. Peart.  She confirmed this position in her oral evidence telling me that Dr. Peart’s observations were not representative of the grandmother’s parenting capacity.  There was good evidence to show good parenting capacity.  The feedback from the professional network, including the nursery where the children were seen every day, was that they were doing well in their grandmother’s care.  

63	In relation to the contact she observed, she said she had no concerns about the relationship between L and her grandmother outside of the lack of boundaries.  She did not believe that this was representative of the grandmother’s parenting.  She considered that the grandmother offered boundary setting, emotional warmth and affection to the two older girls.  

64	Whilst I am satisfied that Ms. Snopek was not under any pressure to change her recommendation, I considered that there was a degree of reluctance and ambivalence in expressing it.  It seemed to me, too, as I have said, that her conclusion was at odds with the body of her report which maintained her views about the grandmother’s care but did raise some short term concerns: Firstly, about the ability of the grandmother to focus on L with the other two girls there which I consider WP has addressed; and also about the difficulty in knowing how the older girls would find the adjustment, which, in turn, would distract the grandmother from L.  

The Grandmother
65	The grandmother lives in a village called G in Southern Poland.  I am not going to in any way repeat all the evidence about her and her husband’s personal circumstances contained in Ms. Snopek’s report because there is no issue about the grandparents’ ability to provide for L’s basic physical needs well.  She and her husband own a six bedroomed house in the village, which they built themselves.  I am also not going to go over all the evidence which the grandmother gave in both her written evidence and her oral evidence other than to address salient points and to give my impressions of the grandmother.  

66	The grandmother presented as calm and composed for the majority of her evidence.  Whilst there have been contradictions in her account of events, in particular in relation to the trip to London in April 2015, I did not find her to be fundamentally an untruthful person.  

67	I do not accept Mr. Metaxa’s submission that her change of account undermines the conclusions of Ms. Snopek’s report where she said that the grandmother had been reassured and did not consider that the children would be at risk if they went to London.  It may be that in giving her later account of this episode she was seeking to paint herself in what she thought was a better light as being alive to the potential dangers of the children going to London with their parents. In my experience it is not unusual in care proceedings for a parent or other prospective carer to adjust their account to present the best picture of themselves; the stakes usually being extremely high.  

68	I am still of the view that the grandmother believed, albeit over-optimistically and naively, that the children would not come to harm in London.  I do not believe that the grandmother would have knowingly placed them in harm’s way.  I accept that, by the grandmother’s actions, she failed to protect the children adequately.  Further, in my judgment, she could and should have done more to alert the English authorities through the local Social Services about the risks to the unborn child rather than once again relying on her son’s reassurances that all was well.  

69	I accept that she has taken an inordinately long time for the scales to be lifted from her eyes concerning her son.  However, I consider that this has now finally happened.  The grandmother has been worrying naïve and credulous about her son and, to a lesser extent, the mother.  She has been slow to accept what could be said to be staring her in the face.  The Guardian’s view that the grandmother can be blinkered to reality is justified and she can also come across as somewhat stubborn at times, although this may well be simply defensive behaviour.  

70	However, as I have just said, I consider that she has finally seen the light.  I found her comment that her son is more guilty than the mother because he has had a decent upbringing to have been said genuinely and honestly.  Of course one cannot discount completely the risk that in future the grandmother might again be taken in by her son, but I have to balance this risk against the other factors which support a placement with the grandmother.  

71	I have to say also that I do not consider the grandmother to be a particularly sophisticated person.  This is perhaps hardly surprising, given that she has grown up in a small village and has led a relatively sheltered life.  I note, however, that she has worked abroad in the past.  It is also fair to say that the grandmother is something of a concrete thinker.  She has a tendency to place greater weight on occasions on the physical rather than the emotional, an example being her evidence about the state of the children when they returned from London in 2015.  When she was asked about how they were, she did not speak about the emotional effects rather than they were physically under the weather and suffering from partial anaemia.  She was also firm in ascribing the scratching seen in L to eczema, although in her recent witness statements she does now accept that this is at least in part related to stress.  

72	As against those negatives, I consider what has not been acknowledged sufficiently in these proceedings is the great commitment that the grandmother has shown to all three of her grandchildren.  She has been through the most intrusive assessments in these proceedings, has had to deal with what must have been very upsetting criticism of her caring abilities, and, has had to deal with the rollercoaster, as the Guardian correctly put it, of the change of care plan.  Throughout, in my view, she has never wavered in her objective of having her granddaughter placed within her family.  She has raised four sons, three of whom appear to have developed in to well-adjusted adults.  

73	She has a strong sense of family and a good support network in her village where four of her five siblings live as well as having other support.  She has taken on the care of her two grandchildren who have both suffered adverse life experiences.  These children are described by common consent as being well cared for and the professionals see them as having a secure attachment to their grandmother.  

74	I accept the point that the grandmother has not dealt particularly effectively with questions from the two older girls about their parents.  For example, she told the girls that their parents loved them in the past tense because otherwise how could she explain why they were not seeing them.  When I suggested to her that this could give the children a sense of rejection and not being worthy of their parents’ love, the grandmother said that she could see the point of what I was saying.  More importantly, she is now accessing help from a psychologist to deal with issues such as the children’s life experiences.  I do accept that the grandmother is open to taking professional advice, which was also the view of Ms. Snopek.  

75	I consider that the evidence of the grandmother’s proven track record with the two older girls as being more significant by some distance than the limited observations made by Dr. Peart of the grandmother.  I find that this grandmother is a person who is capable of providing attuned and responsive parenting.  The contact session, in my view, was atypical and, as Ms. Snopek said, not wholly representative of the grandmother’s parenting capacity.  I note also that the grandmother is now taking legal steps to be appointed as the girls’ foster mother, which will give her greater parental rights over the parents as well as a level of input and assistance from the local Social Services.  

The Guardian 
76	The Guardian is an experienced and conscientious Guardian.  She previously supported the placement with the grandmother, albeit with some reluctance.  She expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in the family dynamics, about the grandmother’s blinkered approach to the issue of L’s drug withdrawal which she found hard to accept even given the history of the mother’s drug use and her ability to stand up to her son should he seek to see L.  She also considered that L was likely to suffer from significant separation anxiety as a result of the move.   All these concerns are justified concerns.  Nonetheless, she considered the assessment of Ms. Snopek to be sufficiently robust and was reassured by the support plan and the continuing involvement of Social Services both from England and in Poland.  

77	The Guardian repeats these concerns in her most recent report.  The fresh concerns which the Guardian now highlights in her final report arise from the report of Dr. Peart.  At E165, para.24, she said this: 

“The paternal grandmother’s obtrusive and at times insensitive approach to L during that session appeared to cause L unnecessary stress and she demonstrated a range of behaviours including scratching her head, stiffening her body and other avoidant type strategies.  

Professionals, including myself, have fears that the paternal grandmother’s parenting approach may be simply too basic.  She appears to be unable to read L’s cues and more worryingly she appears to pooh-pooh the concerns of the psychologist, the GP and other professionals thus demonstrating a somewhat concrete and blinkered manner at times when discussing childcare.  Some of these attitudes have led to professional concern for L’s emotional wellbeing should she go to live in Poland with a primary carer who does not accept she has additional needs which will require above average parenting.  I remain concerned around the paternal grandmother’s ability to fully safeguard and protect L from harm for the rest of her minority.”  

78	At E171, paras.47 and 48, the Guardian expresses herself in strong terms.  At para.47, she says:

“To move L at this stage from an environment where she has begun to form the kind of attachment psychologists consider is a child’s main chance of overcoming a difficult start in life could be disastrous and not at all conducive to her current upward trajectory.  

L is at a stage where the prospect of being removed from her primary carer could have far reaching and critical consequences to her development.  This, compounded by the fact that she is still affected by the loss of her initial mother figure, leads me to have serious concerns at the prospect of being abandoned by a second maternal figure.  At the risk of sounding dramatic, I would say a sudden rupture and severance from the only home she has ever known with all the problems she has already overcome with an unknown future could be considered as brutal”.  

Those comments, albeit no doubt influenced by the report of Dr. Peart, must be seen in the context of the Guardian’s previous support (albeit reluctant support) for a placement with the paternal grandmother.  

79	In oral evidence the Guardian told me that the main reasons for her opposing the placement are the risk of L not receiving the specialised care she needs and the fact that the grandmother has in her household one other child who was born in similar circumstances and may have her own emotional difficulties, if not now, in the future.  The second child may also experience emotional difficulties given her life experiences.  She did not consider that this had really been digested by the grandmother.  She also laid stress on the grandmother’s inability to take on board the risks, for example, of her son’s drug misuse.  However, all this information was known at the time when she supported the placement with the grandmother.  She told me that she supported it because she felt she had no alternative.  Like Ms. Warner, I found this a slightly surprising answer given that after all she is present to represent the child’s interests and welfare.  

80	She clearly did not find the grandmother to be a wholly satisfactory witness.  She referred to the change of account concerning the trip to London and the contrast between what the grandmother had told the Guardian about maintaining contact with the foster carer compared with her oral evidence.  The grandmother had told the Guardian that, if the foster carer was ever in Poland, “she would be welcome in our home”.  Until the grandmother’s oral evidence, she had never heard the grandmother say that she would invite the foster carer to stay and indeed that she could occupy her sister’s vacant home.  

81	The Guardian, as I have said, did on occasion express herself in fairly dramatic terms and I have already referred to the passages which illustrate this.  When she was questioned by Ms. Warner about her use of language, she acknowledged that she was quite dramatic and that that was her style.  She said that this was not always helpful and she tried to temper it, but she is very passionate about her work.  

82	I have already acknowledged the experience and very conscientious nature of this Guardian.  She has plainly agonised over this case over recent months.  I have to say that I consider that she may have become somewhat over-involved.  She was plainly hugely impressed by RH, the foster carer, almost to the extent that she appeared to be somewhat protective of her.  One example was when the provenance of the GP’s letter was being discussed and before anyone had said anything, she immediately said that the foster carer did not strike her as a conniving person.  I should say no one had suggested that the foster carer was behind the letter or had influenced its contents.  It may be a small point, but I noted the way that she referred to the foster carer by her forename throughout.  The grandmother was referred to at all times as “the grandmother” and never by her name, which, as I have said, is a small point but I did consider to be of some significance.  

83	I consider that the Guardian has attached too much weight to the evidence of Dr. Peart who herself acknowledged that she was not in a position to make a recommendation, but was rather sounding a note of caution based upon what she observed and her discussion with the grandmother.  Further, in the same way as applies to the social work evidence, I do not consider that the Guardian has carried out the analysis required by B-S and has not placed sufficiently in the balance the positives identified by Ms. Snopek in an assessment acknowledged as being robust nor the great advantage to L of being brought up with her two full siblings within a family placement.  The Guardian appeared to acknowledge the deficiency in relation to the sibling relationship and its significance in her oral evidence.  

My findings in relation to failure to protect
84	I have already covered this issue largely in my consideration of the evidence of the grandmother and my findings about her.  As I have said, it is wholly understandable why professionals should have concerns about the grandmother’s ability to protect given the unfortunate history I have related.  

85	Ms. Snopek considered this issue in detail in her Special Guardianship assessment.  She considered that there was sufficient evidence from Polish Social Services and others living in the community to support the grandmother’s view that the mother appeared to have undergone a fundamental change and was able to provide safe and adequate care for her children.  

86	Ms. Snopek was clear in her assessment that the grandparents would not, in her view, have put the children at risk if they had considered that the parents represented any risk to them.  Further the grandmother took the advice of local Social Services, for example in relation to the trip to England in the spring of 2015, and was reassured.  Ms. Snopek makes the point that the mother was in Poland for a total period of two years so that there was ample time for them to make the assessment that they did about her changed capacities.  As I have said, I do not accept Mr. Metaxa’s submissions that the grandmother’s changed account undermines Ms. Snopek’s conclusions on this issue.  She also considered the issue of the grandmother’s very belated recognition of her son’s involvement with drugs.  She came to the conclusion that the grandmother was now persuaded and alive to the fact that her son was indeed an abuser of drugs.  

87	The then allocated social worker, Ms. Khan, and her managers must by implication have accepted this analysis as Ms. Khan’s final statement of March 2016 is silent on this whole issue of failure to protect.  Whilst there is a detailed analysis of the parents’ capacity or otherwise to provide safe care, the statement is devoid of any analysis of the grandparents’ capacity to provide safe care and protect the children.  Similarly, with the recent statement of Mr. Fattal in support of the changed care plan, his statement focuses almost entirely upon his view that the grandmother is unable to provide the highly responsive and attuned care that L needs.  Further, this issue was not explored in any detail with the grandmother in cross examination on behalf of the Local Authority and in fact it was the Guardian’s Counsel, Ms. Rayson, who took the grandmother through the chronology of events.  

88	As I have said, I accept the opinion of Ms. Snopek that the grandparents would never have willingly placed the children at risk from their parents.  That, however, is not the end of the matter.  As I have already said, the grandmother was repeatedly lulled into a false sense of security by her son.  Despite the fact that it should have been obvious that his statements could not be trusted and that he was manipulating her, she went on trusting him again and again.  On a human level, it is wholly understandable that a loving mother would not want to see the worst in her son.  The grandmother has, however, been both naïve and gullible when it comes to her son’s credibility.  As I have said, the crucial question is whether she is now able to withstand any assurances he may give if he presented himself to her in Poland apparently drug free and wishing to resume a relationship with his children.  

89	The grandmother, in my view, as I have said, has shown herself to be wholly committed to her grandchildren.  I consider that the cumulative experience of these proceedings together with the previous proceedings has finally struck home.  The grandmother has been on the cusp of losing her granddaughter permanently.  I have already referred to the grandmother’s statements in evidence, which I found to be genuine and from the heart.  I consider that, albeit belatedly, the grandmother has finally come to the realisation that the children must at all times be prioritised and that she cannot rely upon the word of her son.  

My findings in relation to the grandmother’s ability to meet L’s special needs
90	Again, I have already covered much of my findings in my review of the evidence.  I make it clear that I accept Dr. Peart’s opinions as to the likely impact on L of her compromised start to life.  I also accept that this was a poor contact session that she observed, as the grandmother concedes.  

91	However, I have to say that I found her to be somewhat over-emphatic and on occasions unyielding in the points that she made about the contact.  She presented to me as unwilling to make any concessions when properly cross- examined.  I consider that she has overstated the negatives, for example, when the grandmother took L’s tights off when the room was hot or was described as moving L’s hands to hide the fact that L was scratching rather than simply moving her hands to prevent her from scratching, as the grandmother described.  

92	I also consider that other professionals have attached undue weight to this single observation period.  I accept that the grandmother was understandably extremely anxious to perform well, given how much was riding on this observation.  It is worthy of note that Dr. Peart observed that the foster carer’s “arousal was a little high and appeared to be mismatched to L who appeared calm and comfortable in her care.  This indicated that [RH] was experiencing some anxiety about the interview/assessment”.  Further, I accept that, while she was plainly not seriously ill, the grandmother did feel unwell and therefore underperformed and that this had been a long and arduous day.  It is also worth noting that the contact notes of the previous day refer to L appearing to be teething and getting a little unsettled at times.  

93	I should have mentioned that when the Guardian recently observed contact L was asleep for all but the last twenty minutes of the session, but during that brief time she observed the grandmother’s interactions to be warm and appropriate.  

94	The foster carer has described that L would show signs of distress after the contact and this, too, has been relied upon by the professionals as suggesting that the contact was in some way detrimental to L.  After Dr. Peart’s observed contact, L fell asleep at a time when she would not normally sleep.  After the contact observed by Mr. Fattal, L was said to have fallen asleep in her buggy and then woke up in Sainsbury’s and emitted a very high pitch scream which attracted the attention of other shoppers.  In my view, it would be speculative to link these behaviours with the grandmother’s interactions.  It is just as possible, in my view, that the baby was reacting to changes in her routine or was picking up on the foster carer’s understandable anxieties around the outcome of the proceedings.  Indeed, the Guardian saw this latter point as a possibility and I refer to C171, para.49.  

95	Overall, I prefer the evidence of Karolina Snopek who, in my judgment, had greater exposure to the grandmother than any other professional in this case.  I consider that there has been a tendency throughout the evidence of all the professionals, with the exception of Ms. Snopek, to give undue significance to relatively minor pieces of evidence to support their case.  Because I have disagreed with the Guardian and indeed the other professionals, it was necessary for me to spell out my reasons in some considerable detail and I hope that I have done so.  

The Legal Principles
96	This is an application concerning adoption and therefore, under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the paramount consideration is the welfare of L throughout her life.  As the President said in  B-S “potentially that a period extending over the next ninety years”.  

97	I must carry out my welfare evaluation of the two realistic options in this case applying the checklists in s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and s.1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.  I must ensure that my decision meets the requirement of proportionality and fully respects the right to family life of L, but also her siblings and grandparents.  

98	On the issue of proportionality, I, of course, apply the principles set out in the Supreme Court decision in Re B [2013] UKSC 33.  At para.198 of the judgment of Lady Hale, she says words which have become extremely well known and familiar to all practitioners in this field.  It is nevertheless worth repeating them:  

“Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do.”

99	In the subsequent case of M-H [2014] EWCA Civ. 1396, the Court of Appeal expressed its views and precisely what was meant by the phrase “nothing else will do”.  At para.8 of the judgment, it says that the words used by the Supreme Court qualify the literal interpretation of “nothing else will do”.  That is, the orders are to be made “only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by the overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s best interests”.  

100	The case of B-S [2013] EWCA Civ. 1146 provides guidance, which, again, has become well known to those practising in this field.  In particular, at paras.43 and 44, the approach of the court in cases involving adoption was set out by the President.  The court gave its approval to the previous decision of McFarlane LJ in the case of Re G and in quoting from that case stated this: 

“In most child care cases a choice will fall to be made between two or more options.  The judicial exercise should not be a linear process whereby each option, other than the most draconian, is looked at in isolation and then rejected because of internal deficits that may be identified, with the result that, at the end of the line, the only option left standing is the most draconian and that is therefore chosen without any particular consideration of whether there are internal deficits within that option.

The linear approach…is not apt where the judicial task is to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child's future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child's welfare.”

Picking up later in the judgment of Re G at para.44, the court cited this paragraph:

“What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.”

101	I must also in my judgment guard against the risk of social engineering.  In the recent case of Re A [2016] 1 FLR 1, the President made clear that the court must be astute to avoid a process of social engineering.  That decision, of course, was approved in the subsequent Court of Appeal decision of Re J [2015] EWCA Civ. 222.  

102	I turn now to consider what, in my view, are the salient factors in the welfare checklist.  

The child’s particular needs

103	I accept the proposition that L needs highly attuned and responsive care during this crucial stage of her development and during this crucial period while she is forming attachments.  Other than that particular need which is derived from her particular and appalling circumstances at the beginning of her life her needs as a young baby are the needs of any young baby for love, stability, consistency, routine, boundaries, stimulation and the like.  

The likely effect on the child throughout her life of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person

104	In considering this particular factor which is of considerable importance in this case, I also have regard to the guidance of the President in the case of Re N [2015] EWCA Civ. 1112.  Although that was a case where adoption of a foreign national was being considered, I consider that an analogy can be drawn with a case where a child has a Polish heritage on one side and the court must pay particular attention to the child’s heritage and cultural background.  At para.105 the President stated this:

“It cannot be emphasised too much that the court in such a case [as I have indicated this was a case of a child who was a foreign national] must give the most careful consideration, as must the children's guardian and all the other professional witnesses, in particular to those parts of the checklist which focus attention, explicitly or implicitly, on the child's national, cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious background.  Moreover, it must always be remembered that, in the context of such factors, the checklist demands consideration of the likely effect on the child throughout her life of having ceased to be a member of her original family.”

105	Plainly, L has not been a member of her natural family and this is a longer term consideration.  As I have said, it is a consideration of the first magnitude.  If L is placed permanently with adopters outside her family, albeit with an open adoption, she is going to lose the incalculable benefit of growing up within her paternal family with all that means in terms of identity, commitment and enhancement of self-esteem.  She will lose the opportunity of forging a significant lifelong relationship with two full siblings who are similar in age.  I consider that, despite the most careful explanations, it is likely that, once she reaches in particular adolescence, she will find it hard to comprehend why she was placed away from her sisters and grandparents.  Further, she is on one side a child of Polish heritage.  She will lose the opportunity of growing up within that particular culture, that language, that religion and all that goes with a child’s cultural heritage.  I accept, of course, on the other side, the child’s heritage is Afro-Caribbean and I will go on to consider that issue later in this judgment.  

The child’s particular characteristics
106	In my view, I have already dealt with this particular factor under the heading of her particular needs.  

Any harm L has suffered or is at risk of suffering
107	The past harm suffered by L speaks for itself.  In terms of future risk of harm, if L is placed with her grandparents there is plainly a risk of harm if she is exposed to either of her parents in an unsupervised way where they are still abusing drugs.  There is also a risk of harm from supervised contact if the parents do not show commitment to the children and disappear from their lives again.  I believe that this risk has been ameliorated, but it would be foolhardy to say that it no longer exists at all.  

108	There is the risk that the professionals have painted that the grandmother will find the care of two or potentially three emotionally vulnerable children too difficult.  I consider that that risk can be met. I have formed the view that the grandmother is a strong woman with a high level of commitment and has an extensive support network.  There is, of course, a risk that L will find the move traumatic given all her circumstances and I accept that that risk is well founded.  What I have rejected is the evidence that the grandmother will not be able to provide the attuned care to allow her to adjust from that trauma and move on.  I consider that too much focus has been placed upon the short term as against the other considerations which are lifelong.  

The relationship which the child has with relatives

109	Currently the relationships are either limited in the case of the grandmother or non-existent in relation to the siblings, but I have already referred to the enormous benefits that I see arising for this little girl from having the lifelong relationship which a sibling relationship involves and of course the ongoing relationship with her paternal grandparents.  There is also, too, the prospect of a relationship in the future with L’s birth parents provided of course that the situation is assessed as safe enough for her to have some form of relationship with them.  I have already covered the likelihood of such relationship continuing and the value to L of its doing so, the ability and the willingness of the grandmother to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop and otherwise to meet the child’s need.  

110	The grandmother has always evinced a willingness to care for L.  In terms of her ability to provide the child with a secure environment and otherwise meet the child’s needs, I accept that the care that the foster carer may be able to provide would be likely to be more emotionally sophisticated (if I can use that terminology) than the grandmother.  But I stress that this is not about who can provide better care because that would fall into the trap of social engineering.  I consider that the track record of the care that the grandmother has provided to the older siblings is a good indication that the grandmother can meet L’s needs even if it may not be to the exceptionally high standard afforded by the foster carer.   

The wishes and feelings of the child’s relatives

111	All of the family, by which I mean the grandparents and the two girls, wish deeply for L to be placed within the family.  Of course, in relation to the older girls that desire must be viewed in accordance with their age and understanding.  The parents, too, support a placement of the girls within the home of the paternal grandparents, but I accept that that has its advantages and its disadvantages.  

112	I will now consider the pros and cons of a placement with the grandmother and in doing so put into context my findings in relation to the welfare checklist.  
The pros
(1)	This would be a family placement with all that means, as I have said, in terms of commitment, enhancing sense of identity and self-esteem and promoting the paternal side of L’s cultural heritage.  
(2)	Such a placement would enable L to grow up with her two full siblings who are near to her in age.  As I have already said, we are repeatedly and correctly told that a sibling relationship is potentially the most enduring relationship that most of us will ever experience.  In this case these three young sisters have suffered similar experiences of abandonment by their parents and I consider that their shared experience will enable these sisters to provide each other with support as they grow up.  
(3)	As L grows up, particularly when she reaches adolescence, I consider that it will be difficult for her to understand why she was treated differently from her two sisters however excellent the care that she receives from her adopters may be.  Indeed, there is a real risk that she will suffer a sense of rejection however sensitive the explanations provided to her may be.  
(4)	The grandparents have, in my view, demonstrated a high level of commitment to L.  I consider they can provide love, warmth, stability and consistency together with a strong sense of family.  
(5)	L will be able to grow up with knowledge of her extended paternal family who all live locally with the exception of one relative.  Of course there is also the prospect of contact with the parents, but this (as I have stressed) must be handled with the greatest caution and care.  
(6)	I consider that the grandmother has taken steps to attempt to promote the cultural heritage of the older girls on their Afro-Caribbean side and I am satisfied that she will attempt to do the same for L.  
(7)	I accept the evidence of Dr. Peart that L’s attachment can be transferred and I have not accepted the evidence that the grandmother is unable to provide the attuned care that L requires for this to be successfully achieved.  

113	The Cons 

(1)	The grandmother has in the past shown herself to be insufficiently protective and insufficiently alive to the risks presented by the parents. I have found that that risk has significantly reduced, but I cannot say that it no longer exists.  
(2)	L will be moving to an entirely new environment with new carers, a new language and new surroundings in the case of a child who has her particular vulnerabilities and her heightened response to stress. This will be a very testing time and I accept that it is likely to cause L emotional and developmental harm, at least in the short term.  
(3)	It will be a move from carers who have demonstrated that they can meet L’s needs to an exceptionally high standard.  
(4)	As Ms. Snopek acknowledged, it is not remotely culturally diverse where the grandmother lives; she knows no one of Afro-Caribbean origin.  The girls will obviously stand out in the village and there is a risk that they may face discrimination.  The grandmother has said, and this is confirmed by Ms. Snopek, that the girls are in fact well accepted and indeed seen as lovely young girls.  This contrasts of course with the opportunities for diversity which would be available for L in London and which are already being taken up by the foster carer, even at her very young age.  

114	The pros of adoption
(1)	The adopters in this case are known, unusually, and they have a proven track record of exemplary care.  
(2)	There would be continuity of care with no risk of trauma caused by an upheaval which could potentially impact on L’s development certainly in the short term.  
(3)	This is a crucial time for a move in terms of L’s developmental stage and developing attachments.  
(4)	The foster carers and prospective adopters have an ability, I am satisfied, to promote both sides of L’s cultural heritage.  RH, the foster carer, is learning Polish and has already exposed L, even at her young age, to elements of her Afro-Caribbean cultural heritage.  
(5)	I accept that the foster carers are likely to be more emotionally sophisticated in dealing with L and less concrete in their thinking and probably, at the end of the day, are able to meet her emotional needs to a higher standard.
(6)	They are willing to promote direct contact with the paternal family.  
(7)	I note the very positive relationship that L has already forged with RH’s young son.  

115	The Cons
(1)	The first and most important con, in my view, is the long term deprivation of the ability for L to forge a full sibling relationship with her older sisters and to live within her family of birth.
(2)	This placement is not a particularly good ethnic match.  I have seen L’s picture and she is a beautiful young girl who has an Afro-Caribbean appearance. Therefore, there will never be complete blending in this placement to the outside world.  
(3)	I have already referred to the potential sense of rejection and lack of understanding for L, particularly when she moves into adolescence, as why she had not been placed together with her siblings.  

116	I have already found that the grandmother is able to offer sensitive and responsive care, even if it may not be of the standard offered by the foster carers.  The Local Authority case for adoption, in my judgment, is based on insufficiently sound foundations.  I cannot find by some distance that nothing else will do in this case.  The factors of the greatest significance for me and which in my judgment mean that the balancing exercise comes down in favour of a placement with the paternal grandparents is the ability to live within the birth family and for the sisters to form a lifelong relationship.  

117	I consider that the risks that I have identified are sufficiently ameliorated.  I accept that this is a finely balanced case, but, in evaluating the pros and cons of the two individual options, I have come to the clear decision that the Local Authority has not crossed the threshold whereby it can be said that no other solution meets the overriding welfare needs of this little girl.  

118	In those circumstances, I propose to make a Special Guardianship order in favour of the grandmother together with a supervision order.  I am truly sorry for the delay caused to the resolution of L’s future and the undoubted anguish that this delay has caused both for the grandmother and, of course, for RH.  I consider however that, in the event, it was right that the evidence should be tested in the way it has.  

119	I say to the grandmother, and I am sure she accepts this, that she and her family owe a huge debt of gratitude to RH and her partner for the outstanding and exemplary care that she and her partner have provided to this vulnerable little girl.  I hope the grandmother will carry that with her throughout L’s life and that there will be real opportunities for these two families to interact and meet in the years to come.  

120	There now of course needs to be a further transition plan devised based upon the earlier transition plan.  I consider that a supervision order is both necessary and proportionate and I consider that the support plan provides real and meaningful support to this placement, both in terms of the involvement of the English social workers over the next year and in terms of the ongoing involvement of Polish Social Services 

______________