England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

MISS RECORDER HENLEY

 

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

 

		Before:   MISS RECORDER HENLEY

 

IN THE FAMILY COURT                                                  Case No. NE18C00114

SITTING AT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE

In the matter of the Children Act 1989

 

In the matter of

 

T (born September 2017)

 

BETWEEN:

LA

Applicant

-and-

 

(1)    M

(2)    F

(3)    T

(A Minor, acting through his Children’s Guardian, Jacqui Knott)

__________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

__________________________________________________________

 

Representation

Applicant – Miss Woolrich (Counsel)

Respondent Mother – Mr Banks (Solicitor)

Respondent Father – Miss Choudhury (Counsel)

Respondent Child – Miss Gibson (Counsel)

Another LA – Mr Allerton (Counsel)

 

Introduction

 

1. This is an application for Care and Placement Orders brought by LA.

 

2. The Court is concerned with T (born September 2017) now aged 20 months old.  T resides in local authority foster care on a voluntary basis pursuant to s.20 Children Act 1989.

 

3. The Mother is M, (born July 1980) aged 38 years old.  The Mother originates from the West Yorkshire area and is of mixed heritage.  Her Mother was White British and her Father Iranian.

 

4. The Father is F (born June 1983) aged 35 years old.  Paternity was confirmed by DNA testing on 1 ^st May 2018.  The Father is a Pakistani National who lives in West Yorkshire.  He has been residing in the UK for the last 10 years on a work visa, which is due to expire in May 2019. 

 

5. The child is represented by his Children’s Guardian, Jacqui Knott.  Ms Knott is T’s second Guardian in these proceedings, his original Guardian was Rebecca McIntyre.

 

6. These proceedings were issued on 15 ^th February 2018, the 26 week timetable for this case expired on 15 ^th August 2018.  The proceedings have been delayed at least in part as a consequence of the local authority’s non-compliance with Court directions and poor care planning procedures.  They have also been delayed as a consequence of the Mother’s dishonesty in respect of her drug use.

 

7. This matter first came before me on 2 ^nd April 2019 on the Mother’s application for repeat hair strand testing by a second laboratory and to instruct Dr Rushton (a Trichologist) pursuant to Rule 25 Family Procedure Rules 2010.  Having listened to submissions, I granted permission for repeat hair strand testing to be carried out in respect of the Mother by Alphabiolabs on the basis that she disputed the results of the hair strand testing that had been carried out by Lextox and that a second hair strand test in August 2018 had been negative for methadone notwithstanding the Mother putting forward a case that she is on a methadone programme and that she takes a supervised prescription of methadone on a regular basis.  Such apparent anomalies in the tests persuaded me that it was necessary for those tests to be repeated by a different laboratory given that the central issue was the Mother’s drug use and that the care plan was one of adoption.  I did not permit expert evidence to be adduced from Dr Rushton in light of the observations about his evidence by the then Mr Justice Peter Jackson in the matter of Re H (A Child - Hair Strand Testing) [2017] EWFC 64 which supported my concerns about the evidence that he may be able to give having considered his CV.  I was not satisfied that his evidence was required for me to make a decision in this matter and I gave a full ruling dismissing the application on the basis that I was satisfied that in order to determine the disputed facts relating to alleged drug use I would need to balance all of the evidence in the case, drawing from ‘the broad canvass’ of available evidence which would include hair strand tests carried out by two laboratories, professional observation of the Mother over the relevant time period, the lay evidence of the parents, the urine testing of the Mother and a video of the Mother that she placed on social media which the local authority invites me to accept demonstrates that the Mother was under the influence of an illicit substance at the time it was made.  I made clear that it was open to the Mother to challenge the hair strand test results by cross-examining the toxicologists from the laboratories who undertook the testing.

 

9. On 26 ^th April 2019 I heard an IRH in this matter.  The repeat hair strand tests arrived during the course of the hearing and I stood the matter down to allow the parties to be informed of the outcome of the tests.  The parties had paid an additional fee to expedite the results because the Mother had not submitted a hair sample on the day that she had originally been scheduled to which had held up the production of the report.  In light of the delayed test results, the Guardian requested further time to file her report, which I granted.

 

10. Following receipt of the repeated hair strand tests the Father indicated on 26 ^th April 2019 that he had separated from the Mother and now advanced a case to care for T as a primary carer.

 

11. On 1 ^st May 2019, the Mother changed solicitors.  Although her legal aid certificate was transferred to allow her new solicitors to act for her, this was only achieved three working days before the final hearing was due to commence but no work could be undertaken due to a difficulty with the costs limit on the certificate.  I was informed of this situation that evening and informed that consequentially an Advocates Meeting had not taken place, the Mother had not confirmed her position or witness requirements and had not filed final evidence.  I contacted the Legal Aid Agency myself two working days before the final hearing was due to commence and am enormously grateful to the Senior Case Worker that I dealt with who was able to resolve the difficulty that day.  I am also enormously grateful to Mr Banks who met with the Mother over the weekend to take instructions from her.  It is testament to his hard work, out of hours, that this hearing has been able to proceed.

 

12. In the circumstances, the matter came before me on Monday 13 ^th May 2019 for an adjourned IRH.  The Guardian’s report is dated 10 ^th May 2019.  Within that report she indicated her opposition to the local authority’s care plan on the basis that the child should be placed with the Father.  The local authority’s position in light of the Guardian’s recommendation was not known and the local authority indicated that it would need to consider whether it maintained its care plan for T.  I was informed that the Mother supported a placement with the Father but continued to dispute both sets of hair strand tests (Lextox and Alphabiolabs), and continued to advance herself as a carer if I was not persuaded to place the child in the Father’s care.  Prior to coming into the Court the parties had accepted Mr Banks’ suggestion that the expert Toxicologists from the two laboratories that had carried out hair strand testing were not required to give evidence and those witnesses had been cancelled.  I determined that I would need to hear evidence from those witnesses because the local authority invites the Court to make findings about the Mother’s drug use and dishonesty about the same, which she disputes.  I directed that the full case papers should be disclosed to another LA and that a legal representative and social worker be directed to attend Court on the afternoon on Wednesday 15 ^th May 2019 so that I could, if necessary, hear evidence about the support that may be available to the Father in that area and to enable me to consider whether another LA should be joined as a party and be permitted to make representations about whether I could or should make public law orders in its favour, if I were persuaded that the child should be placed with the Father.  I directed that the local authority needed to hold a series of care planning meetings on Tuesday 14 ^th May 2019 whilst the matter proceeded with expert evidence being taken in respect of the Mother’s alleged drug use and directed that a manager from the local authority attend Court on Wednesday 15 ^th May 2019 to inform the Court of the outcome of those meetings.  I made clear my expectation that the Agency Decision Maker would need to be consulted, together with the Independent Reviewing Officer.

 

13. On the morning of Tuesday 14 ^th May 2019, with expert Toxicologists from both laboratories waiting to give evidence about the Mother’s hair strand tests, the Mother changed her instructions and admitted through her solicitor that she had in fact used cocaine on a fortnightly basis since around August 2018 on a recreational basis at a low level.  I determined that this changed position would need to be put to the experts for them to comment upon whether these admissions were consistent with the hair strand test results and that the Mother would need to reduce her admissions to writing in the form of a signed narrative statement.  I was also informed that the local authority was inviting the Court to determine the case and did not agree to the child being placed with the Father.  I was informed that the IRO and ADM had been informed of developments and I directed that they each file a brief statement by noon on Wednesday to confirm their positions in respect of the child’s care plan.

 

14. On Wednesday 15 ^th May I heard from Ms Martin who had assessed the parents as a couple and Mr Smith, T’s allocated social worker and author of the assessment of the Father as a sole carer.  Mr Smith conceded during the course of his evidence that he could no longer advance adoption as the only realistic option for the child and that with support, educative work and measures in place to manage risk, T could potentially be cared for by the Father.  He suggested that a further five-week assessment could take place, either written by himself, or a social worker from another LA or both, to address outstanding issues.  At midday statements were received from the IRO and ADM who each indicated that they could no longer support an adoption plan for T and therefore the local authority indicated that it was no longer pursuing Care and Placement Orders during this hearing and that it conceded that further assessment work of the Father was required, in collaboration with another LA.  Having heard submissions from the parties and on behalf of another LA, I joined another LA as a party to enable it to have direct input into future case management decisions, assessments and the outcome of the case.  I was informed by the Mother’s solicitor that the Mother accepted that she was not in a position to care for T, that she would not be able to have anything other than supervised contact with him and that she fully supported the Father caring for him.  I directed that she file a further statement to confirm her position in writing before I would hear oral evidence from her.

 

15. As a consequence of the developments during the hearing I am satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to adjourn the welfare determination in this matter pending further assessment of the Father as a sole carer.  I am however satisfied that it is necessary for me to make factual determinations in respect of the Mother’s drug use and dishonesty at this stage as these issues are relevant risks that will need to be managed if T is to be safely cared for by the Father.  I therefore produce this written judgment so that it can be immediately available to social workers in West Yorkshire and in Sunderland to enable them to use my factual determinations for the purposes of assessments and care planning. 

 

16. I am satisfied that some further delay is required in this case to give the Father the best prospect of being able to care for T and for the Court to have all of the available evidence to make a long term decision with input from another LA.  However, given the length of time that these proceedings have already taken I am satisfied that it is essential that I determine as many issues as I can, using the available Court time that I have at this stage in order to narrow the issues and reduce the amount of Court time that will be required when the case resumes.

 

Background

 

18. There has been longstanding local authority involvement with another LA in respect of the Mother’s older four children.  This involvement commenced when the Mother was pregnant with her first child, Z in 2004.  Both the Mother and Z’s Father were drug users and his father was in prison during the pregnancy.  Z was born with signs of withdrawal from heroin addiction as a consequence of exposure in utero.  He was discharged from hospital into the care of the Mother and the local authority closed its case as the risks posed to him by the parents were assessed to be low.

 

19. [redacted]

 

20. [redacted]

 

21. [redacted]

 

22. In July 2010 Z returned to the care of the Mother.  By December 2010 he was made the subject of a Child Protection Plan as a consequence of his father assaulting the Mother.  This assault led to the Mother being hospitalised and his father receiving a custodial sentence.  In February 2012 Z was removed from the care of the Mother and placed in foster care under the auspices of an Interim Care Order.  He then moved to the care of his paternal uncle and has had several subsequent changes of placement.  At the present time he lives with his maternal uncle, R in the West Yorkshire area.  He has regular unsupervised contact with the Mother.

 

23. On 13 ^th May 2015 the Mother was discovered to have in her possession a quantity of Class A drugs whilst visiting Z’s father in prison.  She was convicted of offences related to this incident on the basis that she had taken them into the prison with the intention of supplying them to Z’s father.  She was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment in November 2015.

 

24. On 19 ^th January 2017 the Mother informed her substance misuse key worker that she was pregnant with T and that he was F’s child.  She had been released from prison in July 2016 and was on a methadone programme but reported daily use of heroin, crack cocaine and diazepam.

 

25. The parents presented as a couple and worked well with Another LA, health services, substance misuse services and Probation.  The Father completed a six-week parenting course with positive feedback.  The Father was considered to be a protective factor.  Another LA concluded its pre birth assessment work with recommendations that the parents could co parent together, residing in the same property.  T was made the subject of a Child Protection Plan by Another LA as an unborn child on 28 ^th August 2017 under the category of Neglect.

 

26. On 6 ^th September 2017 T was born at St James’s Hospital, West Yorkshire and discharged from hospital into the care of the parents.  In October 2017 the Mother was hospitalised as a result of a groin infection.  It was suspected that this had been caused by intravenous drug use.  The Father cared for T at MGM’s home in Sunderland for one week.  Another LA supported the parents to obtain a tenancy in Sunderland for the Mother to live in with T.  It was agreed that the Father would visit from West Yorkshire several times per week and reside there at weekends.  The Mother was submitting clean urine samples and was on the methadone programme.

 

27. On 13 ^th December 2017 T’s Child Protection Plan was transferred to LA on the basis that the Mother was residing with T at her Mother’s home (MGM) in Sunderland. 

 

28. On 20 ^th December 2017 the Mother produced an irregular sample, which tested positive for cocaine and heroin.  It was reported that this sample had been “spiked” with methadone.  A safety plan was implemented whereby M and T would reside at the home of MGM and her partner who would supervise M’s care of T and ensure that she was not using illicit substances.

 

29. On 9 ^th January 2018 the Mother presented T to the GP with a subconjunctival haemorrhage.  Further medical investigations revealed a suspected skull fracture.  Following a strategy meeting held on 11 ^th January 2018 T was accommodated in LA foster care on a voluntary basis where he remains to date.

 

30. These proceedings were issued on 15 ^th February 2018.

 

31. On 12 ^th March 2018 the Mother admitted that she had used heroin twice and cocaine once following T’s removal from her care.

 

32. On 1 ^st May 2018 Lextox reported the results of the Mother’s first set of hair strand tests.

 

33. On 23 ^rd July 2018 the case was re-timetabled as the LA had reached a decision to place T for adoption without having served parenting assessments or other evidence on which a decision could be based. The court granted an extension of seven weeks to enable the LA to instruct Ms. Vicki Martin, a social worker not otherwise associated with this case, to carry out a parenting assessment.  The LA acknowledged that its failure to provide a parenting assessment and other evidence in advance of a decision making meeting on 3 ^rd July 2018 would inevitably lead to a loss of confidence in the fairness of its procedures.  The adoption plan had been ratified by T’s IRO.

 

34. On 14 ^th August 2018 the second set of Lextox hair strand tests were received in respect of the Mother.

 

35. Repeat CT scans failed to confirm the presence of a skull fracture.  The Mother put forward an accidental explanation for T’s subconjunctival haemorrhage, which could not be excluded by Mr Newman, Consultant Paediatric Ophthalmologist, who was instructed as a single joint expert.  On the basis of his opinion the LA confirmed on 31 ^st August 2018 that it was not pursuing findings of non-accidental injury against either of the parents in connection with this injury.

 

36. The LA’s case proceeded on the basis of the Mother’s drug use and the risks associated with it.

 

37. On 17 ^th January 2019 the third Lextox report was received, it confirmed the presence of cocaine in all five samples, methadone in all five samples, heroin in two samples from the period end of September 2018 to end of November 2018 together with cannabis in two samples from end of July 2018 to end the end of September 2018 although use of cannabis could be confirmed – it could be due to exposure to an environment in which cannabis was being used.

 

38. In answer to questions posed on behalf of the Mother, on 22 ^nd January 2019 Lextox confirmed that mascara would not account for the finding of dye in hair in the samples given by the Mother on 26 ^th April 2018

 

39. On 2 ^nd April 2019 I permitted the Mother’s application for repeat hair strand tests to be carried out by Alphabiolabs.

 

40. On 26 ^th April 2019 the results of those hair strand tests were received – they were positive for cocaine in all but one of the samples over a nine-month period.  The Father indicated on the day that these results were received that he no longer wished to be in a relationship with the Mother and that he sought to parent T alone.

 

Threshold Criteria

 

41.   Both parents accept that the threshold criteria for the making of public law orders pursuant to s.31 Children Act 1989 are crossed by virtue of the following concessions:

1) In 2007 M had 4 children removed from her care as a result of:

(a) Drug/alcohol misuse

(b) Failure to prioritise the children’s needs above her own.

(c) Her use of drugs and or alcohol

(d) Association with inappropriate adults including drug dealers.

2) In 2010 M misused drugs and alcohol whilst Z was in her care.

3) M used heroin and cocaine whilst pregnant with T. Her case is that on realising she was pregnant, she reduced her heroin use, notified authorities and began a methadone programme.

4) 20.12.2017 M tested positive for heroin and cocaine whilst T was in her care placing him at risk of harm.

 

42. On the basis of these admissions I am satisfied that the threshold criteria for the making of final public law orders pursuant to s.31 Children Act 1989 is crossed on the basis that T is at risk of suffering significant harm in the form of neglect, physical harm and emotional harm as a consequence of the Mother’s significant history of cocaine and opiate dependency.

 

Welfare Findings Sought

 

44. The local authority indicated at the outset of this hearing that it sought the following welfare findings against the Father:

 

(1)    That the Father does not understand and accept the risks that the Mother poses to T.

(2)    That there is a risk that the parents will reconcile.

(3)    That the Father will be unable and or unwilling to protect T from the risks posed by the Mother.

 

I am satisfied that these findings are issues that need to be the subject of further assessment work and that the Father should be given educative work to assist him to understand the risks that the Mother poses to T both from a suitable drug agency and support group for partners or family members of those who are drug dependent.

 

The Law in respect of Factual Determinations

45.   The law to be applied when considering the issues before the court is well settled.  When considering the findings sought by the local authority the court applies the following well established principles:

46.   The burden of proving the facts pleaded rests with the local authority.

 

47.   The standard to which the local authority must satisfy the court is the simple balance of probabilities.  The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred: Re B [2008] UKHL 35 at [15] .   Within this context, there is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened.  The court may decide that it did or that it did not: Re B [2008] UKHL 35 at [2] . 

48.   Findings of fact must be based on evidence not on speculation.  The decision on whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all of the available evidence and should have regard to the wide context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors; A County Council v A Mother, A Father and X, Y and Z [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam) . 

49.   In determining whether the local authority has discharged the burden upon it the court looks at what has been described as ‘the broad canvass’ of the evidence before it.  The role of the court is to consider the evidence in its totality and to make findings on the balance of probabilities accordingly.  Within this context, the court must consider each piece of evidence in the context of all of the other evidence: Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 at [33] . 

50.   The evidence of the parents and carers is of utmost importance and it is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability.  The court is likely to place considerable reliability and weight on the evidence and impression it forms of them. 

51. I also however, must bear in mind the observations of Macur LJ in Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147 “It is obviously a counsel of perfection but seems to me advisable that any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so”.  I make clear that in this case I have not assessed the Mother solely upon the basis of her presentation in the witness box.

52.   The court must always bear in mind that a witnesses may tell lies in the course of an investigation and the hearing.  The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress.  The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything: R v Lucas [1982] QB 720 .  I make clear that in reaching my conclusions in these matters, I have given myself this direction in respect of the evidence of the Mother.

53.   It is also important when considering its decision as to the findings sought that the Court take into account of the presence or absence of any risk factors and any protective factors which are apparent on the evidence.  In Re BR [2015] EWFC 41 Peter Jackson J (as he then was) sets out a useful summary of those factors drawn from information from the NSPCC, the Common Assessment Framework and the Patient UK Guidance for Health Professionals.

 

54.   I have been assisted in this matter by the guidance given in respect of hair strand testing by Mr Justice Peter Jackson in the matter of Re H (A Child - Hair Strand Testing) [2017] EWFC 64 .

Evidence

 

 

The Mother

 

67. The Mother is an attractive and vulnerable woman who has presented many positives in these proceedings when compared with her past.  She has undoubtedly made significant progress in her recovery from drug addiction for which she is to be commended.  Her previous lifestyle was a chaotic one.  She now attends appointments with professionals, her commitment to contact is exceptionally good, the quality of her contact with T is excellent, she is well presented and she has sensibly moved away from the network of drug users and associates that she knows in West Yorkshire.  I give her credit for all of these matters.

 

68. In forming my assessment of the Mother’s credibility my starting point is the R v Lucas direction.  Clearly the Mother has lied and lied repeatedly during the course of these proceedings.  She now admits as much.  She has lied about her continuing cocaine use, not only to all of the professionals in this case, but also to the Court.  She accepts that the witness statements that she filed prior to this hearing are false.  However, her admissions are limited and come very late in the day.  She accepts using cocaine but only at a low level and only once every two weeks.  She denies that she lied about dying her hair.  She denies dying her hair just before the sample was taken – she states that she did so up to two months beforehand and that she told her solicitor as much.  She denies the hair strand test results for heroin use are correct.  She denies the hair strand test results for cannabis are correct.  She denies being under the influence of substances in a video that she posted to Facebook.

 

 

69. On her behalf, Mr Banks submits that she has no reason to lie about anything now.  She has accepted that she cannot care for T now or for the foreseeable future and has accepted that her contact with him must be supervised.  He argues that she has nothing to lose by telling the truth.  I disagree.  The Mother has told me that she hopes to maintain a friendship with the Father in future for the benefit of T, she also hope to have “as much contact as possible” with him.  I am satisfied that she is concerned that the more lies that are exposed the less likely it is that this will happen. 

 

70. The Mother has undoubtedly made significant progress with regards to her drug addiction and has been commended and supported in that progress by a range of loyal supporters.  One of whom was the Father; others are from the drug service, Wear Recovery.  Her admissions are consistent with the minimum findings of the Alphabiolab test results.  They only came after I insisted that live evidence from the Toxicologists would need to be called and I informed the parties that I was not prepared to allow the Mother to challenge the Toxicological evidence on the basis of submissions.  Moments before the Toxicologists were due to start their evidence she presented a change of instructions.  Crucially, the Mother still does not go so far as to admit that the Lextox results are accurate.  Those are the results that she had campaigned were false throughout the proceedings and had drawn the Father in to believing were false.  Together they staunchly argued that there were anomalies in those results and that the science was wrong.  Nor does she accept that she deliberately contaminated samples – urine or hair – to conceal her use.  

 

71. When I consider the findings sought in this case I must survey the totality of the evidence.  It is correct that the Mother has presented well during appointments and at meetings with professionals and in contact, and that these have led to her being seen by a range of professionals on a regular and frequent basis.  Her lifestyle is not a chaotic one.  She has attended Court appointments.  She is punctual and reliable in her attendance.  However, as a minimum she has done this whilst taking cocaine on a regular basis over the course of the last eight months.  She states that her cocaine use has been recreational, and limited to “a couple of lines” every other Saturday.  She used cocaine despite knowing that the stakes could not have been higher for her.  She was under the spotlight of these proceedings and the care plan for T was adoption.  She was subject to regular urine tests and hair strand tests in these proceedings during the period that she admits using cocaine. 

 

72. I consider it no coincidence that she submitted suspiciously dilute urine samples during this period and that her hair strand samples were found to contain dye.  I do not accept that she is unaware of how to contaminate drug test results.  She has used drugs for over 20 years.  I find it highly unlikely that in that period of time she would remain oblivious of the ways to cheat drug testing, particularly since she has been subjected to urine tests for years and there are reports of her “spiking” her samples with methadone throughout the papers.  The effect of hair dye on hair strand tests is widely known and easily accessible from the Internet.  She was warned not to dye her hair by the Court.  The Mother clearly uses the Internet as she has a social media presence.  She was also informed by her solicitor not to use hair dye before the sample was taken.  I accept the Toxicological evidence that the dye was found throughout all samples and from the root of the hair and that this means that the Mother dyed her hair shortly before the sample was given and after the Court and, on her account, her solicitor had warned her not to dye it.  I am satisfied that she dyed her hair deliberately to attempt to mask her drug use.  I am also satisfied that she deliberately diluted some of her urine samples to the same end (those three samples with creatanine levels below 0.5). 

 

73. The lengths that the Mother has gone to in order to conceal her use of hair dye is indicative of her dishonesty.  She repeatedly denied using hair dye, concocted a story about using mascara on her hair and had this put to the experts on her behalf on two occasions.  She failed to declare the use of hair dye when the sample was taken.  She must have recognised the significance of the question.  If she was unaware that hair dye reduced the levels of drugs that could be detected in hair strand testing then she would have simply admitted what she had done.  I am satisfied that her actions were calculated and designed to mislead.  This was a deliberate attempt to conceal her use of drugs.

 

74. I am satisfied that it is likely that the presence of hair dye has reduced the findings of illicit drug use in her hair strand test and that they are not a true reflection of the amount of drugs that she has taken.  I am satisfied that her actual use of illicit is likely to be higher than the tests reveal.  I accept the Lextox evidence, supported by Professor Gilvarry that the Mother has misused heroin.  I reject any suggestion that this has been accidental.  The Mother is well aware of the difference between cocaine and heroin and the effect that each drug has upon her.  The amount of heroin that she has taken is probably more than the results reveal due to the presence of hair dye.  The amount of heroin revealed by the test results indicates use on more than one occasion.  The amount taken would need to be more than a trace.  I accept the evidence that “quite a lot” of heroin is required to produce these results and therefore I consider it unlikely that her cocaine would be contaminated with enough heroin to create this result, at least without her realising it.  I am satisfied that the true explanation for the hair strand test results is that the Mother has misused heroin and that that use has been deliberate, rather than accidental.

 

75. The Mother could give me no explanation for the cannabis results from her hair strand testing.  I am satisfied that those results are also accurate and that the Mother has either used cannabis or been exposed to an environment that is laden with cannabis smoke. 

 

76. I am satisfied that the hair strand test results are valid and that the trace readings of methadone are as a result of the Mother’s low dose of methadone and the presence of hair dye which has reduced the amount detected in the hair.

 

77. I am satisfied that it is likely that the Mother has been associating with other drug users, firstly to acquire the drugs that she has taken and, if she has not deliberately taken cannabis, secondly to expose her to the use of cannabis.  I am satisfied that she is minimising her drug use.  I do not accept her account of drug use.    

 

78. I am satisfied that the reason that she continues to lie is out of a sense of shame.  I also consider that she is hopeful that if the bare minimum is admitted she may be viewed more favourably by the Father, professionals and the Court for the purposes of securing more contact with T.  I found the Mother to be deliberately vague during her evidence in so far as her drug use was concerned.  There was very little free narrative and it took repeated questions and my intervention to clarify her account.  Her demeanour was markedly different when discussing other topics.  She began her account by seeking to rely on her handwritten confessional statement, which is minimalist in the extreme.  She struggled to give details about her use of cocaine and the circumstances of it.  I consider it likely that she had assumed that her admission of use would be viewed as simply recreational and that it was designed precisely to account for the test results.  I do not accept that she is telling the truth about the full circumstances and extent of her drug use or how she acquired drugs.

 

79. I am deeply troubled by the Mother’s isolation in the North East.  She told me that she spends much of her time alone.  She has recently lost her mother, who was a valuable source of support.  She has no social network in this area.  She has lied to her drug workers who remain unaware of her relapse.  There is a significant risk that she will relapse further and that she will seek to return to the West Yorkshire area as a consequence of her vulnerability.  She is desperately in need of help and I hope that she rapidly secures it.  There is a danger that she will attempt to turn to the Father for support.  He has plainly performed that role for many years.  Whether he can distance himself from the Mother, prioritise T and withstand the emotional pressure he may feel to help her needs to be tested.  The Father will be placed in a difficult position in the coming weeks and months given his background of resolute loyalty and feelings for the Mother.  He has been a devoted partner to her for many years and his commitment was such that they planned to marry this year.  He must demonstrate his ability, however difficult, to distance himself from her and focus on T.  The Mother must now find other sources of support.

 

80. I accept Professor Gilvarry’s opinion that the Mother needs to demonstrate that she is clean of illicit drugs for at least 12 months before the Court could have any confidence that her risk of relapse is reduced.  I am not satisfied that the process of abstinence has commenced.  I also consider that she is likely to seek to contaminate samples in future with the aim of improving her contact with T.  Very sadly her addiction drives her to behave in a dishonest and manipulative way.  

 

81. I make the following findings:

 

(1)    That the Mother has used cocaine during these proceedings and at a time when she was asserting to professionals that she was abstinent.

(2)    That the Mother has used heroin during these proceedings and at a time when she was asserting to professionals that she was abstinent.

(3)    That the Mother has either used cannabis or been exposed to protracted cannabis use by others during these proceedings and at a time when she was asserting to professionals that she was abstinent. 

(4)    That the Mother continues to be dependent on illicit substances.

(5)    That the Mother continues to associate with other drug users and those who supply drugs.

(6)    That T would be placed at risk of continued instability, emotional harm, physical harm and neglect should he reside with the Mother, as a consequence of her drug misuse and that those risks will be ever present until and unless she has demonstrated total abstinence from cocaine and opiates for at least 12 months from now.

(7)    That the Mother has been dishonest with professionals and with the Court about her drug misuse.

(8)    That the Mother used hair dye prior to the first hair strand tests being conducted on 26 ^th April 2018, despite agreeing that she would not do so and then maintained a lie that she had not done so for many months during these proceedings, asserting that she had used mascara to colour her hair.  Only after this explanation was rejected by experts did she accept that she had used hair dye.

(9)    That the Mother has submitted diluted urine samples to mask her drug use on at least three occasions.

(10)            That the Mother poses an on going risk of significant harm to T as a consequence of her continued drug misuse and associations with drug users and suppliers which requires her contact to be supervised for the foreseeable future.  Only if the Mother submits at least 12 months’ worth of unequivocal, uncontaminated clean hair strand tests should consideration be given to supervision of her contact being removed.

(11)            The Mother’s dishonesty has contributed towards the delay in these proceedings and has resulted in T being placed in short term foster care for an unacceptable length of time.  This delay has not been in his best interests.

 

82. During the course of this hearing, the Mother filed a statement confirming that she accepts that she is not in a position to care for T either now or for the foreseeable future.  I commend her for reaching this sensible and no doubt difficult decision.  I am satisfied that the minimum requirements that she would need to demonstrate to enable her to safely care for T are outwith his timescales and that he needs to have a determination about his care arrangements at the earliest possible opportunity.  This need is all the more acute; given the lamentable delays that have already plagued this case. 

 

83. The realistic care options that now need to be considered are a placement with the Father or adoption.  I make that clear at this stage so that the parents are aware that should a placement with the Father fail, then the only realistic care option for T will be adoption.  It is imperative that the Mother does nothing to undermine a placement with the Father and that she finds other sources of support.  It is equally imperative that the Father prioritises T above all others and that he manages to distance himself from the Mother.  I wish him well.