[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 Enfield v GCL & Anor [2013] EWCC B16 (Fam) (17 December 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2013/B16.html Cite as: [2013] EWCC B16 (Fam), [2013] EW Misc 33 (CC)

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

IN THE BARNET COUNTY COURT

		St. Mary's Court Regent's Park Road Finchley Central N3 1BQ
		17th December 2013

1. I am today concerned with applications made by the London Borough Enfield for care orders and placement orders in respect of three children: ME born on 25^th June 2009, so she is now four and a half; ML, who was born on 28^th April 2011, so soon to be three; and MCL born on 29^th October 2012, so a little over a year old.
2. ME's father is a Nigerian gentleman named K. He has not been further identified and he has played no part in these proceedings. Mr. L is the father of ML and MCL but I will refer to him throughout as "father" as that is the role he has adopted for all three of the children.
3. The local authority's application for care orders with a plan of adoption for all three children is supported by their Guardian, Faith Weeks, and opposed by mother and father, who seek the children's return to their joint care. They look to the paternal grandmother, Mrs. RL (who is now 73) to support them together with her friend, JD.
4. The proceedings began in January of this year. The children were removed after a contested interim care application on 1^st February of this year. ME and ML are placed together and MCL is placed separately. The parents currently have contact supervised three times each week. This is the second set of care proceedings, the first commenced in May of 2011 and concluded with the making of an agreed supervision order in September of 2012. The children were returned home within those earlier proceedings in January 2012 by agreement of all parties.
5. The threshold in these proceedings is agreed. The threshold document at page A73 of the bundle identifies the issues in the case as: (1) domestic violence; (2) alcohol misuse; (3) mother's mental health; and (4) lack of engagement with the Child Protection Services. This document echoes the agreed threshold in the earlier proceedings, which is also within my bundle, contained at pages A74 to 76.
6. This hearing has continued over five days. I have been greatly assisted, if I might say so, by the very sensitive and careful way all advocates have sought to present their respective cases. I would further like to pay tribute to the calm, polite and respectful manner in which both mother and father have conducted themselves. I know that there have been one or two occasions where they have found what they have heard very difficult but, none-the-less, they have behaved calmly and respectfully throughout and I am very grateful to them both for that.
7. I have read the three core bundles, including the old papers from the earlier proceedings. I have heard evidence from the father, Mr L from the mother, Mrs C L from Mrs. RL, Paulette Grant, the family assessor, the family finder, Kirsty Thorner, Mr. Crofts, the social worker and Ms. Deering, the contact supervisor, and of course I have heard from Ms. Weekes, the Guardian.

The history

8. Mrs. CL comes from Malawi. She suffered terrible abuse at the hands of both her mother and her father in Malawi. There is a limited history of mental illness within the maternal family and reference is made in the papers to Mrs CL's paternal aunt and a paternal uncle having some mental health problems (K226).
9. The mother has two older children, both of whom remain in Malawi, in the care of the extended family. In 2004 Mrs. CL came to the United Kingdom. She had no money, no access to benefits and no support. For a limited period she was forced to prostitute herself to survive. In 2006 she was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. She is HIV Positive. She has positive symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia in the form of auditory hallucinations and persecutory delusions. She has also experienced periods of depression. The historic medical records suggest that Mrs. CL's condition has been managed within the community. Dr. Mooney, the treating psychiatrist, reporting in June 2011 was of the view that Mrs. CL had a good diagnosis in that her condition had responded well to treatment, she had a good understanding of her medication and there was no evidence of poor compliance with medication at the time. In addition, the lack of negative symptoms was considered a good prognostic factor (K225).
10. Enfield Social Services first became involved with Mrs. CL in or about 2009 after they received a referral from Redbridge. At the time her immigration status was unclear. She was about to have her first child. She was HIV Positive and thought to be depressed. I have to say that is a dreadful combination of factors for anybody to have to contend with.
11. In or about 2010 she met Mr. L. He has four older children from a marriage to VC. The children range from 17 to 21 and all are still in education. I understand that the oldest two are either at university or about to attend. There was only limited contact between Social Services and Mr. L's former family, which contact took place after the couples daughter P was thrown out by Ms. C. Mr. L, as I understand it, continues to have contact with his older children although relations are strained as his relationship with Mrs. CL seems to have begun as an affair during his first marriage.
12. In July 2010 whilst still in the early stages of their relationship Mr. L and Mrs. CL travelled to see the paternal grandmother in York. Mrs. CL had a psychotic episode whilst there and the police were called. The police running record from pages K368 to K376 reveals the scene where Mrs CL has become unwell. She is described as drunk. She pulled out a knife drawer, knives are thrown about. There is reference to Mrs CL threatening to kill Mr. L and cutting Mrs. RL. This scene follows an earlier disagreement between Mr. L and Mrs CL in Parliament Square. The allegation made to the police that Mrs CL threatened to kill or cut Mrs. L was subsequently retracted. Mrs. RL in her oral evidence to this court is clear that she was neither physically hurt nor threatened. ME was just one year old at the time of this incident and it is clear that the police were concerned at least for a limited period of time as to the impact of this episode on such a young baby.
13. It is accepted that Mrs CL had a psychotic episode and that the psychotic episode was triggered by her use of alcohol, the earlier disagreement with Mr. L and the fact that she had stopped taking her medication a short time before the trip. She told Dr. Ratnam in October of 2011 (K218) that she had stopped taking her medication because she was afraid Mr. L would leave her if he knew she was paranoid schizophrenic and HIV Positive and these were very difficult things for her to share with her new partner.
14. Over subsequent months there were a series of referrals to Enfield Social Services, including two from the mental health team because there was concern that Mrs. CL was unwell and because of concern as to her use of alcohol. On 25^th February 2011 ME and her then unborn baby were made the subject of a child protection plan under the category of emotional abuse due to the pattern of domestic abuse, alcohol misuse and concern that mother's mental health may relapse post birth.
15. On 12^th May 2011 the home treatment team visited and the couple were noted to be arguing. Mrs. CL appeared agitated. The father reported that mother was paranoid and not taking her medication. ME was later taken into police protection. The mother was arrested and charged with being drunk in charge of a minor. ML was with his father at the time. The Local Authority thereafter issued its first application for a care order and ME and ML were removed to foster care.
16. In a subsequent medical interview Mrs. CL accepted that she had stopped taking Stelazine (that is the antipsychotic drug) in early May 2011 as it was making her tired. She accepted that she was hearing some voices and it was they who had led her to make false allegations about Mr. L's inappropriate conduct towards ME. It is important for me to record at this stage in my judgment that those allegations have never been substantiated and the professionals have accepted that they have no basis in fact.
17. Within that first set of proceedings a number of assessments were conducted of mother and father. The psychiatric assessment of Mrs. CL was conducted by Dr. Ratnam, whose conclusions in October 2011were as follows:

1. Mrs. CL experienced a period of postnatal depression with ME and there have been subsequent periods of low mood.

2. She does not fulfil the criteria for personality disorder.

3. As at October 2011 her mental state was stable with no evidence of psychotic or affective symptoms.

4. Mother's presentation was linked to her mental health and use of alcohol.

5. She does not fulfil the criteria alcohol dependence but rather as a maladaptive coping strategy (K229). Further, that it is likely alcohol is used as a way of coping with her symptoms when she is non-compliant.

6. Her mental health will impact on her day to day functioning when she experiences a relapse as:

(a) at times when she is experiencing psychotic thoughts, her ability to meet the needs of her children would be impacted due to preoccupation with her symptoms;

(b) if depressed she would be remote;

(c) if intoxicated the children could be exposed to explosive situations;

(d) she needs to remain compliant with her medication for the foreseeable future.

18. Dr. Ratnam, (K238), felt that Mrs CL understood her diagnosis and was able to identify symptoms. She recorded that Mrs. CL had a history of non-compliance but that this was linked to her mental health. She recorded that as at that time Mrs. CL was less insightful about the impact of alcohol on the children. Dr. Ratnam recommended the mother do work with a therapeutic service to help her address her misuse of alcohol over three to six months.
19. As far as Mr. L was concerned, Dr. Ratnam did not consider Mr. L to fulfil the criteria for mental illness, or personality disorder. She felt the couple would benefit from couple counselling and Mr. L would benefit from access to information around mother's mental health.
20. A psychological assessment of father was undertaken by Mr. John Dowsett (K243). During the assessment, father reported an incident of sexual abuse by his maternal uncle that significantly affected him and which Father felt may, in part, have led to his offending behaviour and lack of engagement with agencies. The report records a poor and ambivalent relationship towards his own mother, Mrs. RL: a relationship which Mr L now describes as close but which he says was historically undermined by his mother's decision to report him to the authorities after he ran away from prison as a young man. This event, that is the reporting to the authorities, is not an event shared with the psychologist, so it is not possible to understand what significance such an event might have had nor to sensibly anticipate why this information was not shared.
21. Mr. Dowsett notes Mr. L's keenness to understand his wife's condition and to seek psycho-educational help but says Mr. L was minimising of his own history of having consumed alcohol and how this played in escalating domestic tensions, and further was neglectful of the local authority concerns around his alcohol misuse and the pattern of conflict with his wife. Mr. L acknowledged one episode of physical abuse on mother but otherwise described how he would withdraw in response to a domestic situation, which behaviours Mr. Dowsett says can be challenging and provocative to others.
22. In view of the parents progress the children were returned to their care in January 2012.
23. In late February 2012 the family moved. The police disclosure reveals an incident which occurred at approximately 1 o'clock in the morning when mother and the children were found out in the street. The parents explained that they had gone out to eat after completing their move. They had a few drinks, they could not find the keys to the flat. It is not accepted by the parents that mother was drunk but the police record reveals she was clearly distressed, out late at night with two very small children. At the time no action was taken by the agencies although the incident was noted.
24. In July 2012 the couple self reported problems around financial arrangements. Mr. L reported mother had stopped taking her medication and that he was finding mother's behaviour difficult. He referred to frequent arguments which had resulted in him leaving the house for brief periods. On 20^th July 2012 he reported taking the children out - still in their pyjamas -because mother had started an argument with him. Subsequently there were allegations and counter allegations of verbal abuse and of Mrs. CL drinking. These episodes prompted the referral to Mr. Palamountain or certainly the expedition of that referral.
25. Over subsequent months the children continued to be monitored in placement. The children were considered to be happy and settled. The parents continued with their couple therapy. The couple had 12 sessions. Mr. Palamountain observed a disagreement which started off with nothing but which descended into an exchange of name calling and increasing verbal aggression. It was not triggered by an event of significance. Mr. Palamountain gave advice which he felt the couple found instructive. Mr. Palamountain recorded the couple were very stressed by the situation, Mrs CL was pregnant, Mr L had a serious heart condition emanating from a virus in 2000 and was awaiting a heart operation. Mrs CL was concerned Mr L was not prepared to change his behaviour to save the relationship. It is noteworthy the additional stress was making them argue more than usual and yet such domestic strife is not noted by professional observers to manifest itself in any demonstrable harm to the children. However Mr. Duncan, senior therapist who worked with the family, reported to a professionals meeting on 15^th October 2012 that he was concerned that father was manipulative and controlling. The issue that he has observed and which caused him concern was around the financial arrangements within the family. This is a matter alluded to by other professionals who observed the couple.
26. Notwithstanding the observations of the professionals during the late summer of 2012 the professionals were content to seek an agreed 12 month supervision order subject to an effective support package. The responsibility for managing the supervision of the family was passed to a new team and Mr. David Purpura was allocated on 13^th November. The work with Mr. Palamountain seems to have come to an end in or about November in circumstances which remain in dispute. It is unclear to me how a private psychotherapist was funded unless it was resourced by the local authority. I see nothing in the documentation to suggest that the sessions might be restarted either on the request of the parents or on the instigation of the local authority. The local authority and the Guardian suggest that the sessions faltered because the parents did not seek them The parents say they came to an end because there was a problem with funding...It is a shame that so much time was lost between January (when these proceedings were issued) and now before such a gap in the work was actively noted.
27. Under the supervision order the outreach work was done by Mr. Desmond Clarke. The local authority say that the parents' engagement with him was superficial and there was no real attempt to discuss fundamental issues within the relationship. The health visitor records suggest the home environment was in some disarray on 21^st November (C91). The father was noted to be in bed on both 15^th November 2012 and 21^st November, reportedly unwell. Mother was thus coping with the practical care of the children on her own. There was no access on 28^th November and attempts to make telephone contact with the parents through the health visiting service on 9^th January 2013 and 23^rd January 2013 were unsuccessful. Mr. Purpura made only one visit and that was with Francis Akira on 29^th November. It was the statutory six-weekly visit. It was suggested in the papers that the parents were initially reluctant to allow Mr. Purpura to enter but were eventually persuaded to do so. The parents allege that Mr. Purpura had abused them but did not define how. There was a complaint that the local authority had refused respite care so that Mrs. CL could accompany Mr. L to hospital for his angiogram. The notes suggest the children's practical care was good enough. The local authority were concerned that the parents had not referred ME to the GP for speech and language assessment and there was delay noted by the nursery and the foster carers that had not been picked up and investigated through the care of the parents.
28. Efforts to arrange a six-weekly visit in December were unsuccessful. Mr L. and Mrs. CL had hoped to go to Yorkshire with the children but in the event this was deferred as Mrs. CL's mother turned up unannounced expecting to be accommodated. The parents did not seek to reorganise the December meeting with social services.
29. It was in January, the 25^th/26^th, that the precipitating event occurred. The parents' account of that date is that the family travelled to see Mrs CL's immigration solicitor on the morning of the 25^th. Her immigration status was still uncertain at that time. I understand she now has indefinite leave to remain linked in part to her marriage to Mr. L. Mrs. CL says she was stressed by this visit and this coupled with the residual anxiety and distress consequent on the abusive and confrontational visit of her mother over the Christmas period underpinned a day of low level domestic disagreements which resulted in a row in the greengrocers in mid-afternoon and thereafter led to Mrs CL drinking a quarter bottle of brandy which the couple had in the house. Mrs. CL has no recollection of events that evening and it is accepted that her lack of recall would suggest a psychotic episode triggered by alcohol. The father's account is contained in his written evidence, which is at C31 of my bundle, and in that, at paragraphs 6 and 7, he says this,

"On 25^th January all three children were in bed. Very unusually for her, G drank some brandy which I had had in the house since Christmas. I realise now that it was inappropriate to keep alcohol in the house knowing that G reacts badly to it. Having drunk some of the brandy, G became abusive and started accusing me of having an affairs with the Sure Start worker. She then lacerated the sides of my face with her nails. I went outside in order to diffuse the situation. Whilst outside I spoke to a passerby who turned out to be an off duty policeman. He advised me to go to the hospital but I pointed out that I could not leave the children alone with their mother. After a while I went back indoors. However, G was still angry and with a plastic spoon injured my eye. At that point I pushed her out of the back door. I was concerned about her state and the fact that she was not dressed to be outside. When our downstairs neighbours returned home I asked her to look after the children while I went to find G. When I could not find her I went to the police station to report her as missing. It became apparent she was there. I gave a statement and was advised to go home. I was told the police would come round later to photograph my injuries, and they did so at 5.00 am".

30. In his account to the Guardian and in his oral evidence to this court he provided further information. He explained that when he first found G to be drinking brandy he pulled the bottle out of her hand and some of it spilled on the floor. He covered it with flour. He then returned to watch the football that he had been watching. It was later then that G became more agitated and the situation flared up. Mr. L's account was given to Nial Daley in the hours that followed the episode on 25^th January. It is contained at page C26 of my bundle where he says

"I contacted Mr. L on the phone. He was very clear with me that he thought he and the children were not safe when the children's mother was released from custody. I asked him the reasons. He thought that she will be released from custody and he explained that he did not want criminal charges to be brought against her and had informed the police of this. Mr. L made it clear at the time of the phone call that he had been attacked by his wife, cut and stabbed and been injured in the eye. He was fearful about his safety and that of the children and requested assistance with travel arrangements to take him and the children to stay with his mother in Yorkshire. We discussed the logistics of this arrangement and concluded it would not be practicable in the circumstances. I agreed to re-contact Mr. L"

31. At paragraph 14 he goes on,

"I telephoned Mr. L again. He informed me that the children's mother had been released from custody and was at home with him. He also said that they had been talking and wished to reconcile and thought that the two older children should return home".

He went on,

"In my view it is commendable that Mr. L sought assistance with his situation. However, there was no evidence that the very worrying and dangerous situation of the previous night had abated and will not be repeated. I was very clear with Mr. L that he had informed me of his fears for his safety and the fact that he wished to reconcile in itself was not a reason to conclude that matters were safe. When Mr. L originally reported his fears and concerns about his and the children's safety I did not get the sense of any hyperbole on his part, rather than he was worried, concerned and upset".

32. On Sunday, 27^th January Judy C, the foster carer reported ME as saying (C44), "Daddy's not well. Mummy cut his face here with a knife and hurt his eye". When the social worker Francis Akira saw ME on the 28^th, she said that Mum hit Dad and that Dad had cut his face and that Dad had a cut on the face and ear. She is not recorded as referring to a knife. On the same day ME said 'Mummy hits Daddy a lot'.
33. ME was only three and a half at the time of the episode. Both parents say that the children were in bed asleep- at the time of the principal event.

The parents suggest that ME may have heard her father reporting events at the police station. Mr. L is clear that he did not report the use of a knife. Whilst ME was only very young at this point, and the records are hearsay and untested, they demonstrate the child's perception of a significant level of conflict between the parents which is consistent with the parents' acknowledgement of mother's use of violence on Mr. L.

34. Since the children have been in care Mr. Land Mrs. CL have attended contact regularly with no unauthorised absences. Contact was initially at the level of five times a week but reduced by agreement to three times a week. Contact has taken place in a relatively small space at the contact centre but it is designed to meet the needs of the family. The children arrive at different times because ME's arrival and that of MCL is affected by ME's school hours. The contact is largely good in that the children seem to enjoy the time with their parents. Mr. L and Mrs. CL prepare for the contact. They bring food, they try to use the time as constructively as they can. There are many, many contact notes. I think the hours, I was last advised, contact had taken place over was some 273. There has been an updating statement and evidence from Mrs Margaret Derring. She observed that contact can be chaotic, noisy and challenging, but the contacts have been largely managed without incident.
35. Mr. L has historically been described as occasionally angry and threatening during contact and confrontational with the original foster carer at the beginning and end of contact. More recently reference is made to Mr L being aggressive and challenging during contact on 4th November. But, none-the-less, it seems to be accepted by all the professionals that the overall tenor of the contact is positive.
36. Mr. Matthew Crofts, the current social worker has observed contact, including contact in the community, and his observations were of positive interactions which were warm and appropriately protective. Ms. Weeks, the Guardian, was unable to observe contact in these proceedings because of her own ill-health over the summer ... but it is clear that in her view the quality of contact was not of itself a sufficient concern to warrant the children remaining in care. She did not feel that it was necessary or essential for her to observe contact to reach that conclusion. She, the Guardian, has read a significant number of the contact notes and seen the children with the parents historically. This is not a case where the practical care of itself causes concern. For the local authority and for the Guardian the issue is that of the parents' insight into concerns about the parental relationship, mental health and in particular Mr. L's ability to act protectively and prioritise the children's needs over those of his wife.
37. Within these proceedings the parents have been assessed by the Moorfields Family Centre. Paulette Grant is the author of the report. She noted that in the earlier Moorfields assessment the parents were observed to be cooperative and compliant. Mrs. Grant, however, felt that their engagement was superficial and where their understanding of events or the functioning of their relationship was challenged she felt them to be resentful of the process. She expressed concern that Mr. L had made complaints against professionals he felt were not supportive. He had accused Mr. Purpura of taunting him with the words, "I'm having your children taken away", that he had accused the former foster carer, Pat Mills, of taking money for extra contact, alleging that she had misrepresented what he had said about Mrs. CL attacking him with a knife. These complaints, when investigated, were unsubstantiated. Ms. Grant also posited that Mr. L's complaints against ... Desmond Clarke as incompetent and untrustworthy were a deliberate strategy to deflect attention.
38. In response to the assessment question, "Please assess Mrs. CL and Mr. L's insight and understanding of the local authority's concerns" she says this, at page E85,

"In summary, Mrs. CL and Mr. L had shown little insight or understanding of the local authority's concerns. This is because they do not appear to accept that the concerns are genuine and believe them to be exaggerated or entirely fabricated. At the admission meeting on 15^th April 2013, and in subsequent interviews, Mrs. CL and Mr. L acknowledged that an incident took place on 26^th January leading to Mrs. CL's arrest. However, they have both consistently been dismissive of the suggestion that their children were at risk of harm on this or any other occasion. Instead, Mr. L has expressed the strongly held view that his children have been taken under false pretences and that evidence has been deliberately exaggerated and fabricated against them, for example, regarding his wife assaulting him with a plastic spoon rather than a knife. Mr. L has also refuted the claim that his stepdaughter ME could have said something like, 'Mummy hurt Daddy's eye. Mummy hits Daddy lots', that the incidents between the couple have been so infrequent and she would not use this language. Mrs. CL has also minimised the concerns, claiming that all couples argue".

39. She goes on,

"Throughout this assessment both parents have appeared to struggle to understand why my questions are focused on issues such as the instability in the couple relationship, the history of episodic alcohol misuse or their apparent rejection of support from helping agencies. For example, Mrs. CL questioned why her alcohol use was viewed negatively, insisting that she had taken a decision to stop drinking in January 2013 and was confident that she could continue her abstinence into the future".

At paragraphs 33 and 34 Miss Grant goes on to speak of the difficulty both parents have in understanding how it must have felt for the children to experience ... domestic arguments, particularly where alcohol has been used, or to demonstrate any understanding of how the children must feel about their removal into care.

40. Mrs. Grant acknowledged in evidence that the parents are in fact at different stages. Mrs. CL demonstrates a greater insight and understanding of the impact of the parental conflict on the children. I was impressed by Mrs CL in the witness box. She was quiet, thoughtful and considered in her evidence. She has a very quiet and contained presentation. She listened very carefully to the questions that were put to her. She said that she does listen to advice but also will select that which she applies. She accepted that the children had been exposed to conflict. She stressed that she has now decided to remain permanently abstinent from alcohol and recognises that the use of alcohol is directly linked to spikes in the relationship. She has been seeing someone from the Dual Diagnosis Team from 22^nd February 2013. No doubt this is the same service she referred to in her meeting with Dr. Ratnam in April 2013. On mother's account, she has thus been abstinent for 10 months. Test results are clear. No professional in any of the meetings or contact sessions has noted anything that would suggest a relapse.
41. Dr. Ratnam recommended work for mother's alcohol misuse over three to six months. It would appear that she has done that work and remained abstinent. Mrs. CL has also worked closely with her mental health social worker and with her counsellor. It would have been helpful if either the assessment team from Moorfields or the Guardian had had chance to speak to them since she had clearly been engaged in that work since February. I make no criticism of why that inquiry was not undertaken but Mrs. CL's level of understanding as to how she uses alcohol and the solidity of her commitment to abstinence is an important issue. Her presentation in the witness box would suggest that her insight into the impact of her conduct and the parental relationship on the children has moved on, although the progress from the relatively superficial insight as to the impact of alcohol observed by Dr. Ratnam in April 2013 is unclear.
42. These proceedings have been delayed by the fact of the poor psychiatric health of Mrs. CL and the essential heart surgery undertaken by Mr. L. The process has also been delayed by the parents' late invitation to consider a rehabilitation plan supported by Mrs. RL. Looking at the chronology at page A85 it seems that there was a lack of information about potential family supporters /carers over a significant period. The parents now seek to be permitted to move to Redcar with the children. Initially it was suggested Mrs. RL could give general/unspecified support, then it was suggested she would move in with the family for three days a week. More recently in the witness box Mrs R L said she would be prepared to move in with the family for two years, returning to her bungalow for the balance of her retirement.
43. After the final hearing was adjourned with the agreement of all parties in September 2013, the local authority social worker Mr. Crofts went to Yorkshire to assess Mrs.R L. There is no doubt that the social workers were impressed by her. They describe Mrs RL in a joint social work statement as a wonderful woman keen to do whatever she can to support her son. She has worked throughout her life - more recently in a caring capacity. She is organised, kind, thoughtful and hardworking and has historically shown an extraordinary moral courage by having her son sent back to prison when he ran away. What became evident during the assessment however was that Mr. L had not told his mother what had been going on with G and the children.
44. When questioned Mr. L explained that shame and embarrassment led to his reluctance to share the news that the children were in care. Whilst on one level that may be understandable, the consequence of not sharing information raises questions as to: (1) how close the relationship is between Mrs. RL and Mr. L; (2) the basis of Mrs. RL's agreement to support; (3) how protective her involvement could be.
45. Mrs. R L says she has only recently learned of much of father's history, including the alleged abuse of him by a maternal uncle.
46. It is also clear that Mrs. L senior did not feel able to mention her knowledge of events of July 2010 in her discussions with Mr. Crofts. Whilst Mr. Crofts has huge respect for Mrs. RL there is concern about transparency and how safe systems of reporting could be established if Mrs. RL was to be involved as part of the care package.
47. Mr. Land Mrs. CL's plan to move to Redcar was first mooted, back in June, as revealed in the chronology. The parents have contacted Fresh Start to see how they could achieve an exchange of property but have not taken matters further forward.
48. At the time the final hearing was adjourned in September the Guardian was concerned that if the family were to move to Redcar, the local authority should approach the agencies there to ensure the family could be properly supported.
49. This was, I recognise, in the days before the case of Re B-S (children)[2013]EWCA Civ 1146. The court gave directions; one of which was to require the LA to pursue those enquiries of the Redcar authorities if they supported the return of the children to their parents. As the judge dealing with the hearing on 9^th September it was clear to me at that time that efforts should be made to ensure that arrangements for the children should not be undermined by a tactical disagreement between the current local authority and Yorkshire as a potential designated authority. In the light of Re BS and Re W [2013] Civ 1227 this direction has the unfortunate appearance of denying the court all the relevant information with regard to placement options.
50. Mr. L has made four statements in these proceedings. He was polite and courteous at all times even when he did not always agree with what was being said. He is a man who does not appear to enjoy good health. He is only just 48, if my arithmetic is correct, but has endured problems with his heart since 2000. He appeared breathless when giving evidence and his current state of health, it seems to me, is unclear. Like his wife, it is clear that he loves his children very much. He is very keen to see them come home. He recognises that G has a lifelong mental health condition. He recognises that alcohol has had a significant impact on her mental health. He accepts that there is a history of low level domestic disputes which have erupted from time to time into physical assault, principally by G on him. He has been attending sessions with Gs mental health worker to gain a better understanding of G's illness. He said he got a lot from the sessions with Mr. Palamoutain in couple counselling, but

(1) he does not accept that he has limited insight into the way in which the adult relationship functions;

(2) he does not accept that he failed to act protectively taking the whole of the transaction over the 25^th and 26^th January;

(3) he does not accept that he uses complaint as a defence mechanism;

(4) he does not accept that he failed to prioritise the children's needs over his wife;

(5) he does not accept that he lacks the capacity to change in order to protect.

51. The Guardian gave very thoughtful and considered evidence. She is clearly very experienced. She was the Guardian in the earlier set of proceedings but she was not involved in the early stages of this process, which began with an emergency application. She has only been able to meet the parents twice in these proceedings, once, I think, in March or April and once in October, largely because of the parents' ill-health and more recently because of her own. She too considers that Mrs. CL has some developing insight but is concerned as to what she does with it. She observes Mother is starting to challenge Mr. L's perception of events and how the couple should work with Social Services but considers Mrs CL has been unable to bring Mr. L around to see how they might work more protectively together. As she said in evidence 'I am not getting from her… we need to do this….'
52. Ms. Weekes' assessment is that the risks come from within their relationship because they have not learned to manage conflict- that when conflict erupts it is magnified by alcohol- that Mr. L's conduct to-date shows that his initial protective responses for the children are compromised by his protective actions towards his wife and that as a consequence it is Mr. L who is unable to protect ultimately because he lacks the insight. Ms Weekes does not feel a support plan in Redcar will work because it is simply not safe to return the children. Nonetheless she accepted under cross-examination that the court cannot consider all the placement options without a summary of the resources.
53. The local authority's plan for the children is adoption. The local authority family finder says that the last time they placed three siblings together was in 2005. The local authority currently have, as I understand it, seven children awaiting placement. It is acknowledged that the children's ethnicity, the mother's mental health and the delay noted in ME will have an impact on family finding. The very young social worker, who gave family finding evidence, did not have a great deal of experience. Understandably, she therefore lacked a depth of understanding of the systems of family finding or what was currently available and whilst she was optimistic about placement, she, in my view, lacked a solidity of understanding about placement arrangements.
54. Mr. Crofts gave evidence, and I would like to say how refreshing it was to hear from a social worker who was so articulate and clear, but was also very fair. He made it very clear where he disagreed with the family and he made it very clear when he agreed. It is a real pleasure to hear a social worker who can give such balanced evidence and it may be that that is, in part, the reason why he has continued to have a good working relationship with both Mrs. CL and with Mr. L. So it is, in my view, to his credit that although he is not supporting the children's return to their parents, he has maintained a good working relationship with them.
55. He was candid in his evidence as to the analysis of the placement options contained in his last statement. It is a new format devised rather like, I think, the new CAFCASS system, to present the competing placement options. Regrettably, the local authority have not completed an attachment assessment of the children, looked at the biological and personality features of the children in placement settings, nor have they, in my view, completed a close case specific analysis of long term fostering for the children to be weighed against the other options. Thus at the moment the only placement option available for all three children together is with the birth family, and there is a tacit recognition in the local authority's plan that the children, if they are adopted, will be placed separately.
56. The Guardian's original written final analysis, filed at the opening of this hearing, was in fact written for the care application only. The Guardian prepared a supplemental report to address the placement application overnight on Wednesday, which looks more closely at the lifetime welfare of the children in placement. The Guardian accepts that the medical assessment of ME and the attachment assessment is outstanding.
57. Looking then to discussion and findings, I have to say that I regard this as a very sad case where the societal, medical and emotional pressures on these parents have been enormous. Mrs. CL and Mr. L love their children very much. There is nothing within the papers or from the evidence I have heard that suggests the children were placed at risk of direct physical harm from either parent. The quality of the parents' practical care for the children has been good enough, but the practical care is not the issue. Mrs. CL has an enduring mental health condition in the form of paranoid schizophrenia. The original prognosis of October 2011 from Dr. Ratnam was good in light of the absence of negative symptoms and her compliance with her medication. There is no evidence before this court to suggest that she is not currently compliant. Indeed, it seems the parents have found a mechanism for monitoring the other's medication by each administering the others medication daily, Mrs. CL giving Mr. L his medication and Mr. L giving Mrs. CL hers.
58. Mrs. CL is actively engaged with the mental health services and Mr. L has worked to have a greater understanding of her mental health condition. Alcohol has been a feature of a significant number of the crises points in this family. In July 2010 Mrs. RL spoke of seeing a bottle of vodka in Mrs. CL's things. There followed the incident referred to. In October 2010 there was an episode on a train where mother was drinking. In May 2010 mother was arrested drunk in charge of a minor. In February of 2012, just a month after the children returned to the parents care, albeit under the auspices of interim orders, mother had been drinking when the children were with her out in a public place in the early hours of the morning. It is irrelevant why they were out, whether it was to celebrate or simply to eat after the move. The children at that time were just two and three quarters and six months old and should not have been out at all. Then there is the incident of January 2013, ME by then three and a half. It is improbable that this young child should make up something about the transaction between her parents which was so close to what Mr. Daley recorded from his conversation with Mr. L and from the notes of the police. Whether ME saw a knife or heard reference to a knife, I do not know, but it is clear she was aware that something very bad had happened between her parents and that an implement was used. Furthermore, I am clear that when she said that, "Daddy hits Mummy lots" that reflects her perception. Mrs. CL has herself experienced a terrible childhood at the hands of parents who abused her, but in a healthy functioning family relationship a child should never expect to see any physical violence used, either against themselves or by one parent against the other. I also accept the Guardian's assessment that it seems improbable that where there has been such chronic domestic conflict as admitted by both parents, the children would not have heard or seen what was going on for much of the time.
59. It is evident that the principal events which brought the family to the attention of the agencies have involved alcohol. Mrs. CL has been engaged with the Dual Diagnosis Team since February 2013 in an attempt to address her maladaptive use of alcohol. The letter from the service provided to the court in December 2013, which is dated, I think, the 25^th November, makes clear that she has engaged well with the service and has never missed an appointment. She self reports continuing abstinence since February of this year. In her many meetings with professionals throughout this second set of proceedings there are no reports of her appearing to be under the influence of alcohol. Her test results are clear and no recent tests have been considered necessary. I therefore accept that she has remained abstinent since February.
60. Mrs. CL made reference to the work she was undertaking with Dual Diagnosis Team in a meeting with Dr. Ratnam in April. Ms. Grant seemed rather surprised by the letter from the Dual Diagnosis Team. Her initial evidence suggested that there had been limited engagement with the service on mother's part. She subsequently came to accept that that was an ungenerous construction. Thus, on the evidence I accept that mother has not only been abstinent but has sought to enhance her understanding of her own use of alcohol by undertaking the work with the Dual Diagnosis Team in line with the recommendation of Dr. Ratnam.
61. The critical issue for the local authority and the Guardian has been mother and father's insight into their relationship functioning and the impact of that on the children. I accept the evidence of Mr. Crofts, Ms. Grant and the Guardian that Mrs. CL has a developing insight. I was very impressed by the way in which she gave her evidence. I say again, I found her thoughtful and considered and I believe that she has tried to help Mr. L understand the local authority's concern. She has been more assertive recently and has been observed to try and get him to understand what is being said in exchanges seen by the social worker and by the Guardian as recently as 16^th October, but he is much more resistant to anyone digging deep into the way in which the couple function and respond to conflict. The positive work with Mr. Palamountain was not translated into a willingness to listen and engage with Ms. Grant in the Moorfields assessment. Finances have been a source of conflict for the couple. It is an issue that challenges many couples but instead of trying to address it, Mr L said he would simply bring the session to an end. He did not seem to understand why such an issue might be significant and yet it is clear that only by understanding the underlying roots of potential conflict in a relationship that work can be done to manage the risk of conflict and the unpredictable stresses on mother's mental health coupled with the consequent impact on the children. Furthermore, Mr. L is clearly challenged by the competing needs of his wife, with the vulnerability arising from her mental ill-health and the children's inherent need for protection. I endorse wholeheartedly the comments of Mr. Daley as to Mr. L's initial actions around the events of the 25^th and 26^th January. His swift shift from declaring himself scared for the safety of himself and the children, to a denial that he ever reported his concerns in that way to Social Services and the police, raises real concern about his understanding of the nature of his role as the children's protector. He clearly loves his wife very much but where his wife is in crisis, his role must be as the children's protector first and foremost. It is reassuring that Mrs. CL's psychotic episodes appear short-lived and she presents as contrite after an explosive episode, but the change in his account pre and post an episode raises serious concerns about his reliability as a protector, as an honest reporter to the support agencies and his ability to work with agencies.
62. Mr. L has enjoyed a positive relationship with the current social worker, notwithstanding his professional position. That is to his credit as well as to Mr. Crofts. However on occasion it seems he has on occasions created walls between himself and professionals, making complaints about their conduct and I am thinking particularly here of Mr. Purpura –which serve to deflect attention from his own conduct.
63. Mr. L and Mrs. CL ask that the court direct an enquiry as to the resources deemed necessary to manage risk if the children are rehabilitated with them in Redcar on the basis that without it the court is not in a position to complete an holistic evaluation of the realistic placement options for the children.
64. Mrs. RL is a fine woman and a loving mother. The Guardian very aptly identified that Mrs RL's principal connection and concern is with her son and that she is prepared do whatever Mr. L asks of her to enable him to recover care of his children. The family's plan has evolved even during this hearing. I am aware from the papers that the local authority did consider the possibility of Mrs. RL supporting Mrs. CL. That is not an option that has been defined or promoted within this hearing. How such a plan might work in practical terms if the parents remain in their relationship in circumstances where there are significant and enduring concerns about conflict resolution is unclear but where, as here, the local authority's proposal supported by the Guardian is founded on the tacit recognition that the children will be separated for the duration of their lives, the court must consider very carefully whether it has all the necessary information to enable it to complete an holistic evaluation of all realistic placement options for the children.
65. I am further concerned that in this case the local authority have not reduced to writing a clear analysis of the placement option for the children individually and together. They have not completed the attachment assessment which it seems to me is essential in the formation of a plan around the children's lifetime placement needs, neither have they critically examined the option of long term fostering. I know the local authority do not feel it is appropriate for children of this age to remain within the care system throughout their minority, and I may come to share that view, but the local authority need to advise the court of the availability of families in practical terms and to give critical analysis of the options for these children in this case so as to enable the court to consider the identifiable or foreseeable options that may meet the children's welfare needs.
66. I again say that I applaud the social worker for being so candid about the challenges of the new statement format but the real challenge is applying a clear critical focus to the needs of these children. If they are not to return to their birth family, they will not be easy to place by reason of their heritage, for ME her age, her genetic predisposition to mental illness. Thus, before the court can decide on the local authority's application for care orders and placement orders it must have the information to fill that gap.
67. At the outset of this week's proceedings I refused Mr. Ageros' application for an adjournment for the information from Redcar to be obtained. The application was renewed in closing with my agreement. The recent cases of Re G ( a child) [2013]EWCA Civ 965, BS and Re W have served to remind the court that in making orders that engage a parent and a child's Article 8 and Article 6 Convention rights the court must ensure that such orders are proportionate, that the welfare evaluation must be undertaken on an holistic basis and that in identifying the basis on which the state may intervene in family life the state must adopt the least interventionist approach necessary to meet the children's individual welfare needs, both in the context of the Children Act and in the context of the Adoption and Children Act.
68. I initially rejected the application of Mr. Ageros on behalf of mother to require the local authority to produce evidence of resources available to support a family placement. The application having been renewed, I find myself persuaded of the need to identify the resources on the basis that the role of Mrs. RL may -and I stress may- enable a strategy to be developed around her. This is not intended to give hope or to prejudge one way or the other on the outcome of the application, it is an information gathering exercise that remains to be done.
69. I am aware that Mrs. RL was and is seen as a very positive part of the family and I am aware that after 11 months, father has finally provided information about some of the family members who may be prepared to support the children. JD is an enthusiastic supporter of the paternal grandmother. However from the contents of her statement and her non attendance at court I can only conclude that she cannot be relied upon to provide more than distant support by telephone or perhaps the occasional visits.
70. What I think has not been conducted and what may well be of assistance to the court is a family group conference coordinated in Yorkshire. Those who attend, in my view, should have sight of this judgment, which I will order to be prepared on an expedited basis, so that if family members are to participate in such a conference, they understand the issues in the case and the basis on which they would be looking to provide support. Only then, it seems to me, could the court be clear that all relevant information has been provided.
71. It is a discrete piece of work, it is time limited. During the period of the adjournment the local authority and the Guardian must complete a critical analysis of the children's composite and individual placement needs which must include reference to the work in York, the structure, if there were to be a family placement, including placement under a care order, as well as the long term fostering option and the different permutations for adoption. Only once all of that information is available can the court really complete its evaluation.
72. I reject the submission made on mother's behalf that the court requires an updating psychiatric report from Dr. Ratnam. Mrs. CL has completed the work recommended by the doctor. I accept she is abstinent. I am prepared to accept the theoretical level of risk from maladaptive use of alcohol is low if not negligible. The issue remains the unpredictability of the stresses for Mrs. CL and how they and her responses can be managed, including those arising within the relationship.
73. Thus, I propose to adjourn, I would hope, to the middle or end of February. There shall be a direction for Mrs. CL and Mr. L, to provide the name and addresses of any family members to be invited to a family group conference within seven days of today. There will be no extension of that. If no names are produced there will be no family group conference.
74. The transcript will be expedited. I will ensure that it is available, so far as I am able, during the first full working week of January. It will be issued to those family members who attend a family group conference as well as those who conduct it. There will then be provision for the Guardian and the social worker to file their updating analyses of all of the options as I have already articulated and I will ask that the court finds not more than two days of court time. I would anticipate that that can be largely dealt with by way of submissions and if there is to be any evidence, it will be limited to that updating evidence which has been provided.