[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> A Local Authority v H & W [2016] EWFC B56 (11 August 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B56.html Cite as: [2016] EWFC B56

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT


IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002

		5 8 9 10 & 11 August 2016

HHJ CLEARY

1. This judgement concludes an application by A Local Authority for care and placement orders in respect of 3 children, C W, her sister CW and MW, aged respectively 5, 4 and 2. Their mother is CH, and their father, to whom mother is not married, is PW. All 3 children continue to live with their mother. Their father lives separately, with his own mother, in a house which he shares with his disabled sister and his brother.
   
2. Proceedings commenced on 10 August 2015 - that is exactly one year and one day ago. The delay in bringing the case to the court and in the subsequent court proceedings is, in my view, wholly unacceptable given that which will become apparent in this judgement. First, however, as to the background of the case:
   
3. The concerns of the local authority are traced to 2013 when a child protection plan was put in place which identified domestic abuse in the presence of the children, dirty and hazardous home conditions, lack of supervision which had resulted in the children being injured, inappropriate diets for the children resulting in the 2 elder children being significantly overweight, despite professional support, and the baby losing a concerning amount of weight as a newborn child, the children being inappropriately dressed for weather conditions, failure to seek or administer prompt medical treatment, lack of stimulation of the children, who were presenting with physical and developmental delay, including delay in speech and self-care skills, emotional harm, mother entering risky relationships and in particular a relationship with a risky adult of 47 years of age, and the rapid introduction of that man to the children and finally a lack of honesty and engagement with professionals.
   
4. For 2 years, the local authority asserts that it endeavoured to provide sufficient resources to enable the children to remain with their mother. The final statement of the current caseworker, dated 15th March of this year identifies 7 avenues of what is described as intensive support (at page C269), which, unhappily, has not succeeded in helping the parents make or maintain sufficient change in order to be able to provide a safe and secure home environment in which the needs of the children are met on a consistent basis and in which they can thrive.
   
5. Ultimately and, as I said, a year ago, the local authority concluded that Proceeding should commence. The social work chronology reveals that in some crucial areas, even basic guidance had simply not been followed. We see that unannounced visits resulted in repeated advice to clean the toilet; that there was a strong smell of urine (so marked, in fact, that on the 22nd September, nearly 2 months after care proceedings had been instituted, the smell of urine was overwhelming in the living room, where it was noted that there were food remnants on the floor amongst other clutter, while the kitchen required a thorough clean; work surfaces in the kitchen were in need of cleaning while the floor was sticky with dirt; again, both toilets in the house had dried faeces around the bowls and the bath required cleaning.)
   
6. It appears from the chronology that matters did not improve at any great pace. (For example, on 8 December, the fourth month of what should have been a 6 month timetable), we read this entry : "unannounced home visit found the upstairs toilet to be extremely dirty with faeces on and around the toilet bowl and an overwhelming smell of urine throughout the house").
   
7. I should say at the outset that these are not parents who intentionally neglected their children . It is quite clear from their evidence to which we shall come shortly, and that of the assessors, that both parents love the children dearly. However, each of them have their own difficulties. The children's father can neither read nor write. He was statemented for his educational needs, and despite a remarkable aptitude for maths (he achieved an A grade at GCSE) he very clearly has very significant difficulties with life skills and educational attainments in virtually every other theatre. His overwhelming difficulty is that he suffers with a very significant speech impediment, and stammers to such an extent that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to carry out a conversation with him. He has been afflicted in this way from boyhood, and is quite clearly very if not entirely dependent upon his own mother for the provision of his basic day-to-day needs.
   
8. I have already indicated that he lives with his mother as does his younger brother of 25, and a sister who herself is disabled. His mother undertakes all his washing and ironing tasks and prepares his meals. She also pays whatever bills have to be discharged on his behalf, while his brother deals with his banking. A psychological assessment has identified limitations to his intellectual functioning and he is described as having a learning disability. Nonetheless, he does have capacity.
   
9. The children's mother has her own difficulties. Her own mother is in residential accommodation as a result of her poor health, while CH has learning difficulties, especially with comprehension. Her ability to read and spell is very limited , and she has never been in employment. A psychological assessment found that she struggles with processing and retaining information. Like the father, however, she also has capacity.
   
10. Unsurprisingly, the local authority has undertaken an assessment of both parents in accordance with the PAMS guidance and what has been described as an interim assessment was completed by direction of the Court on the 30 November 2015. Already, it will be seen that by then, the case was approaching its 5th month.
    
11. What was not clear to me until the last day of the hearing was that this so-called interim assessment was in fact a second assessment of both parents. In the second of the 2 lever arch files presented on the first day of the case appears an assessment of the mother carried out in August 2013 and an assessment of the father carried out in February the following year. Both assessments were undertaken using the Pam's technique and both identified significant gaps in the abilities of either parent to provide the necessary care and stimulation for the children.
    
12. The case summary, which despite the longevity of the case is notable for its brevity, affords the reader no list of essential reading, and given that no reading time was set aside for the case, I endeavoured to navigation through the two rather lengthier reports of the Child(ren)'s Guardian and the written evidence of the early witnesses, to whom I shall come shortly. I was therefore as surprised as, in due course, the Guardian expressed herself to be in her evidence, to find that mother and father had both been assessed on 3 separate occasions. Indeed the Guardian made it plain that she did not regard the 2^nd assessment as an interim assessment at all, but for reasons which I certainly, and she possibly, do not understand, that late interim assessment was followed in due course by the 3^rd assessment which was completed, in each case, in February this year.
    
13. It is pertinent to read this extract from the recommendations of the interim (that is, the 2^nd assessment):
    

"P and C need immediate and intensive teaching and support from social care family support and the local children centre on a daily basis with regular home visits to address identified areas of parenting."


14. This is an unhappy reprise of the findings of the first assessments. We read at paragraph 10 of the mother's assessment in August 2013, under the heading 'recommendations':
    

'… Social care would need to consider if C is able to meet the all-round needs of her children, as well as the ability to keep them safe. We have grave concerns that C does not have the ability to do this and this is evident throughout the contents of this report.


C would need a program that is customised to her needs and this would involve intensive support on a regular basis. This support would need to be available to her throughout her children's childhood as she does not in our opinion have the understanding, capacity or knowledge to meet the children's needs.'


And in the case of the father, 6 months later, the assessor found:


'Despite completing the Pam's assessment well, I feel that P will continue to face growing difficulties as the children get older and will require a higher level of support'.


15. By then, the children were the subject of child protection plans, but proceedings were not issued until August 2015. Quite what triggered the application escapes me although it is perfectly plain from the chronology and the evidence given by the caseworker that discussions took place with the Independent Reviewing Officer and one has to take it that it was decided that enough was enough.
    
16. As I have said, the second assessment (the first within the care proceedings) was completed in November 2015. On the 21 December 2015, Emma Beckett, social worker, set out a proposed plan of work to be completed with the mother and the father. That plan can be found, stretching over 6 pages, at C179. At C368 we see that Emma Beckett and Angela Huntley composed and completed what I might call the delivery programme on a timetabled basis from the 6 January to 10 February 2016.
    
17. That program, which has been loosely referred to within this hearing as teaching, having been completed, a further assessment (the third) took place, with one devoted to each parent, the reports being produced on 29 February in each case . By this time, 7 months had passed . The assessments were negative . Meanwhile, it is unclear to me what became of the close management that this case and these children required. Within the 2 lever arch files, I would expect to find some explanation for the already intolerable delay. There is none that I have been able to identify. Nor, to my disappointment, has the Guardian been able to provide an explanation. However, to move on:
    
18. The parents cooperated with the local authority and responded positively to the need for appointments with the assessors. Improvements in a number of areas were noted. The children's clothing was found to be more appropriate for the seasons, they attended school regularly, and the conditions in the home were said to have improved. Concerns about domestic abuse lessened. Although the children's mother had sought and indeed had obtained a domestic violence injunction against father, their relationship had improved to the extent that with the approval of the local authority and the cooperation of the mother, father would visit the family home, ultimately, no less than 5 days each week, having contact with and purporting to provide support to C.
    
19. Both parents accepted that the threshold under section 31 Children Act 1989 was passed. However, the attention of their lawyers seems to have been diverted by a threshold document which was far more specific and extensive than necessary and to my further disappointment, as late as the first day of this hearing, that is, in week 52, no, or inadequate attention had been paid to directions of the court which had endeavoured to provide a composite threshold to enable the judge, the parties and the Guardian to concentrate on the welfare outcome rather than last-minute argument over the niceties of remaining outstanding allegations.
    
20. There is, now, a composite threshold which should be appended to the care plans which arise out of the application. Within that threshold are 4 particular areas to which I shall come shortly and which require determination. They, and the balance of the threshold document's allegations extend to eight headings and some 18 allegations. While I acknowledge necessity for and the importance of the threshold document in establishing the gateway into the care proceedings it is quite plain that the overwhelming issues in the case now centre upon the increasingly urgent needs of the children and the ability of these parents to attend to those needs.
    
21. I speak of the widening gap between the development and attainment of these children and that of their peers. It seems to me that as every day passes, that gap gets wider and longer and more difficult to bridge. One only has to look at the school reports of the 2 elder children.
    
22. I turn first to that of the elder child, CW, from which I extract these highlights. In her report of 11 April 2016, Helen Hughes, after discussion with CW's class teacher reports:
    

I am concerned about C's well-being because she appears not to be able to understand many instructions or information or learning given to her . She can be hard to understand and has not got a huge vocabulary which hinders her communication with others . This leads to her being frustrated . C seems unaware of how to behave socially with others, she often hits and hurts other children and she often puts her face very close to the other children's faces and then sometimes shouts in their ears . Sometimes C makes random noises on the carpet and screams throughout the day for no apparent reason. She has been unable to make any friendships at school ...


and


... She is significantly below the national average in all areas of learning.


She often has headlice. Her class teacher and teaching assistant has informed both mum and dad about this problem several times but she often comes in with headlice even if it is the day after that they have told the mum or dad about this problem.


23. Then, in a report of the same date in respect of CW, a year younger than her elder sister, but already 4 years old, by her class teacher, these comments emerge:
    

'C's well-being appears to vary hugely. On occasion, C will be confident and settle quickly into nursery routines, she will be happy and relaxed and engage with others. On other occasions C will be upset, resistant to coming into nursery and 'stroppy' with mum at the door. Mum says C refuses to walk and so often used to arrive in the pushchair, now she walks or stands on the back of her brother's pushchair since a visit to the doctor when mum was told C is showing behaviour rather than a physical problem with walking.


C will go through phases of toileting confidently with no support whatsoever and then will suddenly begin to have as many as 3 or 4 toilet accidents (wetting and soiling) during one three-hour session, every day, over a period of about a week. This has been explored with mum who is not aware of any links to an explanation or changes at home. However, on the 1^st occasion this happened it was noted by her class teacher that it was during the same period that contact with dad changed significantly and on the 2^nd occasion it was noted that C had been spending much more time with dad than previously the week before the accidents started. [However] mum said dad had not been around as much during the week she was having a heightened number of accidents.


And most worryingly


C is well below in all areas of learning


[She] consistently has headlice that can be seen without close inspection. We have shared this with mum and dad on several occasions. C has to wear glasses and these have been an issue as mum says C refuses to wear them at home. Her response to the glasses within school is positive and we have no issue with her taking them off at all. Often C will arrive at nursery without her glasses and mum says C has lost them. On the 1^st occasion her class teacher highlighted the importance of C wearing her glasses, and suggested mum have a look and bring them to nursery if she found them during the morning, since then, mum has said on each day that C does not have her glasses but she will look for them and bring them in later, which she or dad always do. It has been suggested many times to keep them in a safe place overnight and that C should be wearing them at all other times. This happens on average twice per week'.


24. As I have said, these reports are 4 months old. 5 weeks later, on 17 May 2016, pre-adoption medical checks were carried out in respect of all 3 children. In each case, background family history is given. For the first time (in the context of the presentation of the case to me), I note that it is reported that not only have mother and father the burden of learning difficulties, but the maternal grandmother is herself reported to have learning difficulties.
    
25. Turning first to C, at 5 years of age the eldest, significant anxieties are raised in respect of her developmental history. Again, by way of extract, we find these concerns:
    

C was walking from the age of 16 months, and running since 21 months but was falling frequently and her mother kept her in her pushchair a lot. She was reported to be crawling up the stairs and sliding down on her bottom at 2 years of age.


26. Then we see this on internal page 3:
    

"Her speech was very limited to about 3 words and will [sic] only use [these] in response to her mother and maternal grandmother. She would follow single commands and did not talk at all at nursery. On balance it was felt that she was making normal but slow developmental progress with significant speech delay.'


27. In October 2013 it had been noted that there were no concerns with her receptive language (that is, her understanding) but there was significant concern about her expressive language. Therapy sessions were offered, resulting, according to this report, in significant progress, resulting in the child being able to speak in simple sentences and words. Her mother is reported in this pre-adoption medical to say that C is doing really well, which is an unhappy contrast to the detail which appears to accompany the school report to which I have referred. Thus, in communication and language, she is assessed by her school as having the ability of a child between the age of 16 and 36 months, and is therefore some 2 years behind. That level of attainment appears to be mirrored across all areas of her educational achievements. The court is left with the unavoidable conclusion that the child is slipping backwards
    
28. C's pre-adoption medical appears to be even gloomier than her school report. At the recorded age of 3 years and 9 months, she is reported to be making some progress at a slow rate but still has no spoken language. A verbal update from the school revealed to the paediatrician author that like her elder sister, her development is delayed in all areas and she has no speech and very little understanding. She struggles to focus on any activity for more than a couple of minutes and can be quite attention seeking. She does not know colours and appears to undertake sign language of a sort at school and copies words but is unable to say any clear words, making noises that sound like words. Thus she is significantly delayed in speech and language development although as the report asserts, her understanding is better than her expressive language.
    
29. It is troubling to see from her medical history that in February 2015, she sustained a significant fracture of her left elbow, requiring an operation, and 8 months later, in October, a fracture to her right elbow, requiring a cast.
    
30. Finally, there is a report on MW, now 2 ½. While he is developing normally, the report observes that he is 'slightly behind for his speech and language development' while in other areas he is developing age appropriately. His mother describes him as doing really well at nursery but the report describes his language is being limited to making 'some animal noise' speaking odd words (for example 'Dad') but generally pointing for his needs.
    
31. On examination, the paediatrician finds that like his sisters, he appears to have a number of some accidental and some unexplained bruises or injuries - thus, in his case, he had two bruises on his right arm where it appears his mother is said to have 'grabbed' him and in addition to an accumulation of bruises on his legs (which were likely to be accidental) he had 4 bruises on his back with a scab formation which were unexplained and for which his mother was unable to give a good explanation.
    
32. I mention these latter findings because they appear, in my view, to go to the root of a particularly troubling area of the threshold, that being of neglect, where the mother acknowledges 4 particular examples of an inability to supervise the children and keep them safe. Thus, as we see in the composite threshold document, C was able to unlock the front door on the 23^rd February 2013, the girl fell from the top of the stairs on 8 May 2014 while her mother's back was turned, in December that year MW was reported to have fallen out of bed and on 10 March 2015, M suffered a bump to his head from an impact with a stationary car when one of his sisters was pushing his pushchair. Individually, each momentary difficulty would not justify local authority intervention. But there is an unhappy accumulation of incidents, and it goes without saying that these earlier four examples of lack of supervision predate the observations in the adoption medicals.
    
33. I return to the application, which is for care and placement orders and, by definition, to remove the children from the care of the mother. She opposes the application, seeking to care for the children herself. The children's father opposes the application but also opposes the suggestion that they be cared for by their mother, since he proposes himself as their primary carer. Listed over 5 days, I have been presented with evidence and argument by the local authority, the parents, with separate representation, and the Guardian. Given the difficulties with which the parents struggle, they have been accompanied by their respective independent advocates who have sat with them in court and at the witness stand.
    
34. As I have indicated, I have a wealth of written material, some of which has received only the briefest scrutiny. No application appears to have been made at any stage during the proceedings to exceed 350 pages, which reveals yet another disappointing aspect of the management of this case.
    
35. Oral evidence has been given by Wendy Evans, the current caseworker; by Donna Bailey, one of the parenting assessors; by Jenny Skelding, her co-assessor; and by Angela Huntley, a family support worker. Ms Becket is on maternity leave and could not attend. Both mother and father gave oral evidence in support of their respective statements, and the Guardian presented her initial assessment dated 2 September 2015, and her final analysis, dated 2^nd June of this year.
    
36. I found both the current caseworker and Donna Bailey to be witnesses upon whom I could rely. Both their written evidence and their responses to cross-examination were well informed and properly sustained. They spoke without hesitation and without contradiction. It was clear that Wendy Evans shares my disappointment at the remarkable delay in the case but it appears that she has not been the caseworker throughout the existence of the application. Having been allocated in August 2013, she appears to have left the department in June 2014 before returning once more in November. She was then reallocated to the case 6 months later, in May 2015, by which time it should have been concluded many months before. In all, no less than 4 social workers appear to have been allocated to the case, which is hardly satisfactory.
    
37. Nor is it satisfactory that the 2^nd or interim parenting assessment did not take place until well after the case had been commenced. As I have attempted to make plain, the family was on the local authority radar before August 2013, when child protection plans were initiated. I am puzzled why, in the months leading up to the presentation of the local authority case, this assessment was not undertaken. While it is clear that the local authority invested significant resources into the functioning of this family, when it became plain that proceedings were on the horizon, the pre-proceedings work should have included the parenting assessments. It did not. Instead, the case has lasted as I have said, for exactly a year. The Guardian shares my anxiety. Indeed not only did she consider that a 3^rd assessment was quite unnecessary but she revealed in her evidence before me that an application for an interim care order should have replaced the Child Protection Plans (which succeeded the Common Assessment Framework) under which the children remained with their mother in August 2013. The local authority should have shared parental responsibility with her. However, the first analysis of the Child(ren)'s Guardian, dated 2 September (not far short of a month after the initiation of proceedings) does not make any such suggestion. Instead, we read at para 42:

'I propose the making of Interim Supervision Order regarding C, C and M at an early stage of proceedings'


38. The chronology lodged by the caseworker in her statement dated 15 March 2016 would support the latter assertion of the Guardian (in her evidence before me). It also reveals diarised observations, on which I have touched which would, in the Summer of 2015 have supported an application to remove the children. These observations have not been challenged by the parents.
    
39. In addition to the chronology the social worker deposed as to the programme of work carried out following the last assessment. The social worker was challenged by counsel on behalf of the father, that he insisted that the work had either not been undertaken or had been undertaken at a rush and that he had been denied either the opportunity to re-cap or to share the work with his advocate.
    
40. That challenge was repeated to Jenny Skeldings and Angela Huntley. Curiously, it was not put to Donna Bailey. I therefore took the opportunity to ask Ms Bailey if she had read the father's statement and his repeated complaints as to the content and presentation of the assessment and the provision of the subsequent teaching. I found her response to be compelling. Yes, she had read his statement and no, she did not accept his criticisms. She said that she found them unfair and inaccurate. I found that delivery to be refreshing. She did not call the father dishonest, but expressed disappointment that he was quite clearly mistaken either because he chose to be or because he genuinely did not find it possible to take on board that which he was being taught. Neither did the other local authority witnesses suggest that father or indeed mother were dishonest. They were, however, unanimous in their understanding of the PAM's technique and of its delivery not once but 3 times in this case.
    
41. I challenged the caseworker. The detail of the program and its delivery to the parents, stretching as it does over 3 pages, is either genuine or artificial. It was either composed for the needs of these parents or it had been pasted into her written evidence from other, previous undertakings. She understood exactly what I was saying and her composure and her delivery of her response was utterly compelling. When she said that the document was most certainly not cut and pasted, but was composed specifically for this family, I believed her.
    
42. I have no hesitation in saying that where the evidence of these professional witnesses, which I accepted, conflicted with that of either the mother or the father, I preferred that of the local authority.
    
43. It is perhaps appropriate that I deal at this stage with the 4 outstanding issues on the threshold statement upon which the local authority invites me to make findings. I turn first to paragraph 4B: the allegation, as amended, reads that the mother: "did not ensure that the children were clean on 3 given dates (17^th February, 3^rd March and 9 April 2015)"
    
44. These dates appear in the first statement in support of the care application, dated 3 August , at C11, and in the chronology attached to that statement, found at C26. It also appears in the final social work statement to which I have referred, at C263, and at C264 (that statement of course postdates the threshold). No challenge has been made to those observations. They are factual and diarised, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. I find that they are made out.
    
45. Then to paragraph 4 C: it is asserted that 'mother has not provided the children with stimulation by not engaging with them, speaking or attempting to play with them.' Examples are given once more in the first social work statement at C12 (on 18 April 2014 the social worker observed that C attempted to show mother a toy but mother did not engage), C 28 ("there are plenty of age-appropriate toys in the home that are accessible to C, however these toys are piled into a corner of the living room and their appearance does not offer entitlement or interest and are mostly dirty with dried-on food and rather than used in imaginative play, the toys are thrown around or just held while walking around.") C 29 (" C appears not to know how to play with toys" and "I have not observed M being played with or spoken to as one would expect given his age") C34 (" when at home the children are left to their own devices. C and C will wander aimlessly around, they do not play together but will snatch toys from each other. M is often left in his cot or in his pushchair in front of the television") C50 (" on several visits C has not shown any facial expressions, which may indicate a lack of stimulation from parents") and in the first assessment at F37 there are 4 lengthy examples of mother's failure to interact with either of her daughters leading the assessor to write "we were concerned with CH's interaction and communication with the children, as she appears unable to do this in a natural manner".
    
46. Again, there has been no challenge to any of these observations and I am unable to find fault with or criticise any of them. The allegation is made out.
    
47. At Paragraph 6 of the threshold it is alleged that mother has not been honest about her relationships: the narrative is found at C9 (not C8), paragraphs 20 through to 32, and again, no challenge was mounted in the hearing to suggest that the record of mother's responses to social care have been set out inaccurately.
    
48. Finally at paragraph 7, as amended by its closing submissions, the local authority assets that mother engaged in a relationship with a person named R H who has been accused of engaging in inappropriate conduct with a 6-year-old child. The local authority made it clear to mother that it had concerning information about RH and mother assured the local authority that she would not allow the children to be in contact with RH . She subsequently allowed this against professional advice and later confirmed that she was in a relationship with him and that she was pregnant, asserting that RH was the father. In evidence, mother indicated that she did indeed consider that she was pregnant with this gentleman's child and she also conceded that she was told not to associate with him. However, she asserted that she was not told why she should not. I prefer the evidence of the local authority on this issue over that of the mother.
    
49. As I have said, the balance of the lengthy threshold is made out and is conceded by both parents.
    
50. I turn back to the evidence of the local authority assessors. Each of them, as in the case of the Guardian, accepted both that the parents were cooperative and that they plainly love their children. It was also conceded that a number of improvements had been made. Those improvements did not, however, go to the heart of the matter, which I have already attempted, no doubt clumsily, to identify.
    
51. While the children's receptive language appears to be improving, their expressive language is not. It is, to be blunt, dreadfully behind. Even M, were he to be in line with his peers, would have a vocabulary and would be on the threshold of, if not of conversations, chatting. The middle child, at 4, does not speak, while the oldest has very few words indeed. Focusing once more on the school reports, makes depressing reading. The children are becoming isolated, because they simply cannot keep up with their peers. The infestations suffered by the 2 elder children are observable both in the form of the discomfort of the girls but also from simple observation of their hair and even eyebrows. The presentation of angry and antisocial behaviour at school and of sudden and sometimes persistent soiling could be a symptom of their isolation just as the shocking presentation of C (I use the words of the Guardian) in her overfamiliarity with adults generally and her sexually inappropriate familiarity with the Guardian in particular, speaks at the very least of a lack of attachment to her caregiver. I remind myself that the Guardian deposed that she has 15 years of experience both with children generally and in particular with those who suffer with speech impediments.
    
52. The evidence of Wendy Evans is that the children require better than good enough care. Whether that is a fair or accurate term of art, which is not unknown to this court has been the subject of discussion by the President. I will return to it shortly. She was not, however, challenged as to her use of the term. She described home conditions as chaotic. This is a social worker who has not simply confined herself to fleeting visits to the family home. In unchallenged evidence, she revealed that she has spent significant periods in the house observing the parents and their interaction with the children. The Guardian supported this observation. On the surface, Ms Leigh deposed, the home looks appropriate but she then gave examples of the chaos of which the social worker had spoken. In her observations, boundaries were not clear at all, and the naughty step was used quite inappropriately. Mother had been observed to clean up a spill with newly washed clothes, father told the children not to bring muddy bikes into the house, which they ignored in the presence of the Guardian, and C's bed fell apart upon being shown by the child to the Guardian, mother describing it as a frequent occurrence. C and her sister were very keen to interact with the Guardian, who was little more than a total stranger, and C persisted, with eye contact, in attempting to put her hand under the Guardian skirt, being over tactile and behaving very worryingly. There is a possibility that the child has been exposed to possible sexual harm but there is little doubt that each of the children has suffered significant harm through neglect of their needs (paragraph 68 at E 59)
    
53. The children's attachment to the mother is not, in the view of the Guardian, secure, although she conceded that the children would be distressed by being removed from their mothers care. But it is a removal which the Guardian asserts is unavoidable.
    
54. The responses of the parents and their evidence makes sad reading. In the case of the father, in my judgement, his protests about the teaching that he received are misconceived. He is either mistaken because of his poor retentive memory, or he is deliberately misleading the court. Whichever explanation is to be preferred, there is no doubt but that I accept the professional evidence against his.
    
55. There is also no doubt that over the years, certainly since the first assessment, he has been unable to achieve any form of independence. He relies utterly on the care of his mother, who washes and irons for him and, when he is in the home he shares with her, she cooks for him. His financial arrangements are seen to both by his mother and his brother, who undertakes whatever banking formalities are required on his behalf.
    
56. His ability to communicate with others is severely hampered by the speech impediment with which she struggles and whereas I accept that giving evidence in court is an ordeal, it is plain that even at home, putting sentences together is still a significant struggle and, as the Guardian attested, conversation in the family home is as a result, severely limited. It is unsurprising the M points, and C grunts and C has very little expressive language.
    
57. What is surprising, however, is the level of contact which father exercises with the children. He is found at the family home for the majority of each of 5 days of the week, something which is becoming increasingly stressful to the mother who deposed that she does not care for his continued presence and certainly does not care for his curiosity as to just whom she is telephoning and what she is doing on Facebook, exercises which she appears to undertake for significant periods. The irritation of the mother as to the father's attendance and his attentions began to emerge during her evidence, just as the father maintained his dissatisfaction with her use of her mobile phone, which suggested that there may well be difficulties ahead with that relationship, a relationship which has already descended into allegations, by mother, of domestic abuse, and rejections by her of the father's contact with the children in the past.
    
58. Certainly, this is not a case where the parents present as joint carers, although, currently, that appears to be their habit, whether or not it is welcome to the mother. The father presents his case as the preferred carer, at his mother's house albeit that, as he asserted in his testimony 'we need a lot of help'. Given his speech impediment, it was quite impossible, and probably inappropriate to seek to establish why it is that the children, in his view, should be uprooted from the family home, and transplanted, as it were, to the restricted accommodation offered by his mother's home. It was thus impossible to establish what advantages he could offer the children over the care of their mother. However, what is plain is that he has never had the care of the children himself overnight, that he has never lived independently of his mother and that that lady has refused to engage with any assessment process and quite clearly considers that there is simply inadequate room at her house to accommodate her 2 sons, her disabled daughter, and her 3 grandchildren. In my judgement, she is absolutely right. The property has 3 bedrooms, and father uses the living room as his sleeping quarters. He assumes that his brother may be persuaded to move out, but were he not to, he, like the paternal grandmother, have never been assessed, and there has been no investigation, either, of the disabled maternal aunt who remains in the property.
    
59. It appears that the father may be on a housing list, and may have made application for accommodation. That is unlikely, however, to be anything more than a single person's accommodation, even if he were to manage to climb to the top of the housing list. Quite how he would cope with his own needs let alone the needs of his children is, if not beyond him, certainly beyond the imagination of this court. Even at his mother's home, his assertion that he and his mother would require help was undefined and prompted me, as we shall see, to seek to establish the definition of help that would be required by either parent.
    
60. Mother's case is that she will remain in the family home with her children. Currently, there are daily visits on all but 2 days of the week by the father. Things are getting no better. As the Guardian reports at paragraph 47 of her final analysis:

'Mother has had care of the children for the duration of their childhoods and there are serious concerns about the children's welfare and presentation which has developed in this time. Repeated parenting assessments completed within these proceedings have highlighted high levels of concerns in relation to the children's experiences and needs and CH's parenting capacity which is at a greater level than was apparent to the assessors and involved professionals [and show] that CH is not able to make changes within her children's timescales.'


61. What that paragraph does not develop but what was made clear by the Guardian in her final evidence, is that the children's needs and the demands are dynamic. They will change and indeed increase as they become older. They have already been the subject of child protection plans and the common assessment framework for more than half their lives (and indeed for the entirety of the youngest child's life), and we see from the observations of the Guardian (at para 22 of her final analysis) arising out of attendances upon the mother with the children in May and then twice in June of this year that mother continues to struggle even now with their current needs and applying the teaching that she has received.
    
62. The pre-adoption medical reports conclude with this observation: "there is a small possibility that these children may catch up and make progress if they are in a different nurturing environment but one cannot be absolutely sure". What we do know is that investigations have concluded that there is no apparent organic cause for the delay the children are exhibiting and as the Guardian deposes, their improvement trajectory is much higher when they are at school, whereas the development within the family environment is much slower, and worryingly so. She criticises the pre-adoption medicals as superficial and with that analysis I respectfully agree. As she points out, the observation to which I have referred, couples 'catch up' with 'make progress'. That is misleading. There is every likelihood, the Guardian deposes that the children will certainly make progress if they are moved into a nurturing family placement which can see to their needs. The likelihood of their catching up however, given the very extensive delay in their progress, is far less easy to judge.
    
63. Which leads me to the law which I must apply when considering the outcome of the application. It is found in both the opening section of the Children Act 1989 and that of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, requiring me to undertake a welfare analysis of the children's needs and presentation. Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (the right to a family life) ECHR are engaged and, what I consider to be a particularly important provision and which one does not see quoted frequently in these cases, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989

The child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.


64. Each of the children, and more particularly the two eldest, have suffered significant harm through neglect of their needs. They have been exposed to emotional harm and a lack of stimulation, exhibiting significant developmental delay which requires a range of multiagency support. The oldest child in particular shows no stranger awareness and exhibits behaviour which may be indicative of not only emotional harm but sexual harm. There is limited attachment between the children, and an insecure attachment, the Guardian reports, with CH.
    
65. There is an urgent need to provide the children with caregivers with whom they can form secure attachments and permanence. In my judgement, that is something which neither mother nor father can provide. But in response to the challenge, it is argued on their behalf that the help about which father generalises, and mother seeks, can maintain the family home and keep the children within their birth family. Unfortunately, however, neither father nor mother (through counsel) were able to form any proposal as to what additional resources, over and above that which had been provided to the family thus far could address the increasing needs of these children and reverse the widening gap between them and their peers.
    
66. Counsel for CH suggested that 'a couple of visits a week' by a family support worker would be sufficient, a suggestion that the caseworker rejected out of hand. Counsel for PW made no suggestions at all. It was left to me to ask the Guardian what she considered would be necessary. Her opinion was plain and to the point. Daily visits would be required, for hours at a time, by local authority personnel. The situation would be similar, she deposed, to paid staff caring for the children, the difference being of course, that it would not be possible for just one 'employee' to take on the childcare duties required in this situation. There would have to be a rotating team of workers attending at the family home, becoming, in effect,(and to use my own inelegant analogy) surrogate parents. Whether that analogy is entirely accurate, the Guardian was firm: the children would be not only confused but would be unable to form attachments to any one of the various caregivers who would be required by the support package to attend at the family home. They have no attachment which can be described as secure in any event, and the detriment to their welfare, of being unable to form secure attachments to anybody does not have to be articulated in this judgement.
    
67. Thus, to the bewilderment and indeed distress of CH and, in turn, to Mr Wills, the recommendation of all the professionals in the case is that the children simply have to move from the care of their parents. Which leads me to turn to a recent decision of the President reported in the case of Re D, found at 2016 EWFC 1, in which we find very helpful discussion and guidance in a case with a similar outcome.
    
68. I say at once that the anxiety which the President articulates in that case is mirrored by my own feelings in this. Just as in Re D, the local authority has sought to maintain this family unit for a substantial period, during which these parents have shown cooperation and have endeavoured to improve their parenting skills. They have, unhappily, failed because their learning disabilities are insurmountable and at such a level that the most intensive support and training has proved to be inadequate. But to them, wrestling with their intellectual and emotional difficulties, having been entrusted, throughout this three-year period, with the care of the children, this final hearing, and everything which is said about them will be a profound shock and a wholly unforeseen calamity.
    
69. The extensive discussion undertaken by the President reveals both his humanity, if I may say so, and his understanding of the overriding needs of the child in that case just as I hope that I undertake a similar exercise in respect of the three children now before me. Just as the President identifies in that case, at paragraph 144, we have arrived at the central core of the case. Can these parents (or, rather, in their respective cases, either the mother or the father), with appropriate support, provide the 3 children with the necessary care not just today and tomorrow but throughout their childhoods?
    
70. It was neither the President's task, nor mine, to find a 'better' family for these children. If mother or father, with necessary support, can provide the children with good enough parenting, this court must avoid what has been described as social engineering.
    
71. I deal first with the issue which I briefly touched upon earlier, that of the caseworker's evidence that these children require better than good enough parenting. I should not, as the President observes, become mired in semantics, between 'good enough' or 'better than good enough' parenting. The reality, as he observes, is clear. These children have complex and special needs which are over and above those of other children of their ages. This leads to the need for additional support both throughout their childhood and as young adults. The need for better than good enough parenting is a conventional and indeed convenient way of expressing the position but as the President states at paragraph 143 of his judgement:
    

'What is required is parenting which is good enough not for some hypothetical average typical or normal child, whatever that means but for the particular child and having regard to that child's needs and requirements. Where the child has needs over and above those of other children of his age then what is good enough for him may well require a greater level of input… That is the point and that is what is relevant… The descriptive label is merely that, a convenient form of professional shorthand.'


72. Nonetheless, I have no difficulty with adopting that shorthand, given that, with the assistance of the President it is quite clear what it means. It results in my concluding that even with the support which I have no doubt clumsily described in summarising the views of the Guardian, with which I agree, the additional support, in its artificiality, which might be available if resourced by the local authority, would not be good enough for these children.
    
73. It will be of little comfort to the parents to hear me observe that I am more than alive to the admonitions of Mr Justice Gillen in the High Court of Northern Ireland in the case of Re G and A which is annexed to the judgement of the President to which I have been referring. It is pertinent to repeat paragraph 7 of those observations:
    

'Children of parents with learning difficulties often do not enter the child protection system as the result of abuse by their parents. More regularly the prevailing concerns centre on a perceived risk of neglect, both as the result of the parents intellectual impairments, and the impact of the social and economic deprivation commonly faced by adults with learning difficulties. It is in this context that a shift must be made from the old assumption that adults with learning difficulties could not parent, to a process of questioning why appropriate levels of support are not provided to them so that they can parent successfully and why their children should often be taken into care. At its simplest, this means a court carefully enquiring as to what support is needed to enable parents to show whether or not they can become good enough parents rather than automatically assuming that they are destined to fail.'


74. But to return to the comments of the President which are entirely in point in this unhappy case, and hearing that which I have from the Guardian, I find in parallel to that which the President concludes at paragraph 155 (iii) of his judgement: even if a sustainable package could be devised which was in one sense capable of bridging the gap, it would not in fact be promoting [the child's] best interests. His parenting would, in reality become parenting by his professional and other carers rather than by his parents, with all the adverse consequences for his emotional development and future welfare [identified by counsel and the Guardian].
    
75. I conclude, in this case, and with the greatest sympathy for mother and father, that it is beyond question that the children have to be removed and made the subject of care orders. Which brings me to the care plan, a plan of permanence by way of placement orders.
    
76. The proposal by the local authority is to search for an adoptive placement for all 3 children. It is recognised if I may use the term, I hope not too loosely, that the children at best have disorganised attachments and that it may be impossible to find an adoptive placement for all 3 together. Nonetheless, the search is to begin, and will be refined, over the months to come, to establish whether or not, if a placement cannot be found for all 3 together, when the children will be divided in the search, both individually and as to the girls remaining together as a couple.
    
77. I must ask myself whether the placement plan is appropriate, particularly given the ages of the 2 elder children. Adoption will change the status of the children for their lifetimes, severing all legal as well as emotional and physical links with their birth family. Understandably, both parents oppose the suggestion that the children should be adopted. Their Mother has been entrusted with the care of all 3 of them and notwithstanding the irredeemable shortfalls in their parenting capacity it is quite plain that both parents love the children dearly.
    
78. There is no other family member available to care for the children. If I am to support the mother's opposition to adoption I have therefore to contrast adoption with long-term fostering. I have already referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child declared on 20 November 1989. That resolution resonates clearly with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which reminds me to respect the children's rights to a family life, a right which is shared by their parents but who, as the mother and father of the children are not, if they will forgive me, my primary concern, since it is the children's welfare, throughout their lives which is my paramount consideration.
    
79. I am conscious of the reminder of the Court of Appeal which is set out clearly in the case of Re B-S handed down on 17 September 2013 that placement and adoption is at the extreme end of the range of orders available to the court when considering the outcome of care proceedings, which have themselves concluded that the parent(s) is or are unable to provide good enough parenting for the child. The Local Authority and the children's guardian are obliged to consider the alternatives and bring them into the balance and ultimately I must weigh that balance and decide whether the proposals are appropriate.
    
80. I am favoured with an appropriate balance sheet in the final statement of the caseworker, and an equivalent analysis in the concluding report of the Child(ren)'s Guardian. Long-term fostering is not the first choice of this authority. I share that view. It would not be the preferred long-term option for the following reasons: while it would maintain links with the parents, it does not confer on children a sense of belonging, of emotional investment on the part of their carer which would enable them in return to emotionally invest. Secondly, there is an inevitable lack of certainty about long-term fostering. The fostered child is the subject of looked after reviews and medicals and the perception of difference, which has a negative connotation and could lead to a negative perception of self. Long-term foster care rarely offers permanence and engenders a less-enduring psychosocial base in life. It can be unpredictable and lead to uncertainty and ambiguity of position within the household.
    
81. Thus, consideration has to be given to the option of adoption , this being recognised as the most enduring, but also the most draconian, in that as I have said it severs all ties with the birth family. I must be satisfied that there is no realistic alternative to the plan of the local authority, that, again to use what has become convenient shorthand, nothing else will do. Unhappily, I have to say that there is no realistic alternative to the care plan proposed by the local authority that of either (and in preference) adoption or (as fallback) long-term fostering. The parents cannot provide the necessary care for their children, and the only alternatives left to the court are those proposed by the local authority
    
82. I am satisfied that long-term fostering can only be a fall back solution to this case . It is clear that the children require permanency and the risk of disruption by a birth parent or by application to revoke the care order and/or the possible breakdown of the foster placement for a child should be avoided. The risks to young children of remaining in the looked after system are widely recognised in research, particularly the impact of multiple moves and disrupted attachments on their long-term psychological wellbeing. The longer-term outcomes in adoption, particularly for young children, are much more positive. In contrast, as adopted children they will benefit from the added advantages of permanence, unconditional acceptance, inclusion and identity that are conferred through adoption. Hopefully this will equip them to develop into emotionally stable and well-adjusted individuals who will be able to make and sustain meaningful relationships with other people as they grow.
    
83. Adoption must be the most appropriate way forward for the children given that permanent fostering would not afford or have the security of a forever family, when they would not feel adequately connected to and secure within a family of their own.
    Those caring for them in an adoptive placement will have parental responsibility for them with the emotional investment which that confers, a relationship protected by law. They will have parents as opposed to carers and will benefit from not being part of the care system.
    
84. Time is against the parents. If it was not clear in 2013 and 2014, in the conclusions of the first parenting assessment, it became starkly clear from the conclusions in the second and third: the ability of the parents to learn the children's current needs, let alone those which will develop throughout their young lives into adult hood, are far outside the timescales that these children's welfare demands. Delay is the enemy of the welfare of the children, both delay within these proceedings and delay to their development. In my judgement, we have waited long enough and cannot wait a moment longer.
    
85. The only alternative to the permanency plan is a care order with a robust support plan which can work, and in my judgement, and as the Guardian reports, there is no prospect of that being possible on the present evidence.
    
86. In short, I conclude that mother is unable to continue to attempt to care for her children and the alternative proposed by father is simply unworkable. I conclude that the children need permanent placements where they can feel secure and develop healthy attachments to her primary caregivers, and adoption seems to me to be the appropriate outcome to this case. That is the design of the care plan which has been formulated by the Local Authority in this case, a care plan which I approve, leading me, as I have said to make a care order.
    
87. I am unable to make a placement order unless the child's parents give their consent to that course of action, and given that I do not have their consent, and since in my view, the children's welfare throughout their lives demands that I make this order, I conclude that I am obliged to dispense with the consent of her mother and father , and accordingly I make a placement order in this case.