IMPORTANT NOTICE
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 child[ren] and members of their [or his/her] 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.

Case No : FX14C00004

IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 
Date: 21.05.2014

Before :

MR RECORDER HOWE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	CALDERDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
	Applicant	
	- and -		
	    
RB (1)

SB (2)

IB (3)
(Through her Children’s Guardian)

Respondents	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms Fricker for the Applicant
 Mr Kershaw the 1st Respondent
Ms McCurdy for the 2nd Respondent
Ms Marshall for the Child

Hearing dates: 19th and 21st April 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT
This judgment is anonymised in accordance with the President’s Guidance on Transparency dated 3rd February 2014

The Application

1.	On 13th January 2014, the Applicant, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [hereinafter referred to as CMBC] issued an application for a care order concerning IB, who was born on a date in December 2013 and is now 4 months old. 

The Parties
2.	IB’s mother is RB. She has been represented at this hearing by Mr Kershaw. IB’s father is SB. He has been represented at this hearing by Ms McCurdy. The Children’s Guardian appointed in these proceedings is Mr Smith and IB has been represented at this hearing by Ms Marshall.

The Background
3.	IB has 6 older siblings. GW who is aged 13, OW who is aged 11, LaB who is aged 6, LuB who is aged 5 and LiB who is aged 3. On 24th May 2013, I made care orders to CMBC concerning these 5 children. On 1st October 2013, I made placement orders concerning the 3 younger siblings authorizing CMBC to place them separately for adoption, the assessments that I accepted demonstrating that their needs could not be adequately met by them being placed for adoption together. The care plans approved for GW and OW were for them to be placed in long-term foster care. IB’s oldest sibling, H, was not subject to the previous proceedings as she was then 20 years old. The children’s maternal grandfather, TW, was also a party to those proceedings as a residence order concerning H, GW and OW had been made in his favour in 2004, although the family all lived together in the same property.
4.	Prior to making the care orders on 24th May 2013, I found the threshold criteria pursuant to section 31(2) Children Act 1989 to be satisfied on the basis of the concessions made by the parents that were as follows:
“RB, SB and TW have neglected the children. They have –
•	Not made the family home clean, tidy and safe for the children.
•	Dressed the children in clothes that were at times inappropriate, dirty and smelly.
•	Not made sure that the children are clean and healthy.
•	Not supervised the children properly.
•	Not always taken the children to the doctor or the hospital when needed.
•	Not stimulated the children consistently enough to enable them to reach their full potential.
•	Not always listened to the advice of social workers, health visitors and others about how to make things better and how to sustain improvements” [paragraph 31 of the judgment].
5.	When considering the welfare decision and the proportionate order to make in those proceedings, I made the following findings:
(a)	“the parents have failed completely to take on board the advice that they have been given time and time again by numerous professionals as to what their children need. It [the evidence] also demonstrates to me that these adults remain unable to put themselves in the position of the children and understand what they must feel like when going out into the world dirty and unkempt, knowing that they will be bullied and teased when they get to school” [paragraph 91].
(b)	“What was absolutely clear to me was that RB does not recognize personal hygiene issues” [paragraph 94].
(c)	“I do not accept RB’s evidence that the children are bathed or showered everyday and I do not believe that the adults ensure that they wear clean and odour-free school uniform” [paragraph 95].
(d)	“The conclusion that I have drawn is that personal and household cleanliness is something that is not important to these adults. They do not keep themselves or the home environment clean and they treat the children the same way. They understand what they need to do when they are told and they have the physical ability to make improvements but they do not take action as they really do not see these most basic of matters as important. It is my finding that RB simply does not notice the poor condition of the family home and of the children because she is so used to it” [paragraph 96]. 
(e)	“the emotional development of all these children has been harmed” [paragraph 97].
(f)	“None of the adults have, in my judgment, made any notable changes in their attitudes to parenting between the date upon which I have found threshold to be satisfied and the date of this hearing. It will be change for all five children to be removed from the care of these adults, as it is all they have ever known. There is likely to be some distress but, in my judgment, that short-term distress will be vastly outweighed by the benefit to them of receiving the reliable and consistent care that they so desperately need” [paragraph 100].
(g)	“the key characteristic of all of these children is the depth of the physical and emotional neglect is that they have suffered” [paragraph 101].
(h)	“I have considered the capability of all three adults to meet the needs of all the children individually and separately but in my judgment the evidence is overwhelming. I do not accept that the offers to leave the home, that were made yesterday by the Father and the Grandfather, can be relied upon or that there is evidence that the mother could manage the care of the children on her own [paragraph 102].
(i)	“The chronology to this case makes very sad reading. Sad because these children have suffered neglect of so many of their needs over such a lengthy period but also sad because there were many opportunities given to these adults to make the changes required to enable all of the children to remain within the family. Those changes have never been made and, in my judgment, will not be made in any reasonable timeframe, if at all” [paragraph 103].
(j)	“were they [the children] to remain in the home they would be likely to continue to suffer significant physical and emotional harm [paragraph 105].

6.	In reaching my conclusions for the children in the previous proceedings, I accepted the unchallenged paediactric evidence of Dr Kate Ward that all of the children had suffered physical and emotional neglect and developmental delay that had a significant environmental element to its causation. I also accepted the assessments undertaken by the local authority, independent social worker and guardian that concluded that the parents had failed to provide a safe and secure physical environment for the children, had a poor support network, failed to meet the children’s developmental needs, were poor role models for the children, failed to impose adequate boundaries and routines within the home and were unable to make or sustain the changes necessary to provide good enough care for the children.
7.	The judgment I gave on 24th May 2014 was prior to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re BS [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, a judgment handed down on 17th September 2013 and before the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965, a decision handed down on 30th July 2013. My judgment in May 2013 was detailed. I reminded myself, at paragraph 103, that children should be brought up within their birth family if that is at all possible. I clearly set out the harm that had been suffered by the older children and my findings as to the parenting capacity of RB, SB and TW.
8.	I then gave an extemporary judgment on the local authority’s applications for placement orders for LaB, LuB and LiB on 1st October 2013. That judgment was delivered following the Court of Appeal decisions in the cases referred to above. My conclusions were that adoption was necessary, as nothing else would do. I made placement orders, having compared the placement options available and concluding that adoption was the proportionate response to meet the needs of the children. That judgment has not, thus far, been transcribed but Ms Fricker has very helpfully provided her note of the judgment that I gave.
9.	IB was born on a date in December 2013. RB would, therefore, have been pregnant with IB at the time of the hearing in May 2013 and the hearing on 1st October 2013. In her written and oral evidence RB stated that she did not realize that she was pregnant with another child. It had been suggested that RB had deliberately concealed her pregnancy from the local authority but that allegation has not be actively pursued at this hearing. I accept RB’s evidence that she had not realized that she was pregnant and had not realized that she was pregnant until late in her pregnancy with some of the other children.
10.	When IB was born, she was discharged from hospital to a foster placement, the parents having signed a section 20 agreement with the local authority. CMBC issued care proceedings on 13th January 2014 and an interim care order was made on 29th January 2014. CMBC pleaded that the threshold criteria for the making of a care order was satisfied on the basis of the findings and conclusions that I had reached in the proceedings on 2013 and that there had been no change in the parenting capacity of the parents.

The Threshold Criteria
11.	The threshold findings sought in these proceedings appear in a document dated 6th May 2014 that is found at page A61 of the court bundle. These findings are not challenged by the parents. The findings sought are as follows: 
“At the time of the protective intervention (following IB’s birth) of the local authority, IB was likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care likely to be given to her by her parents, that care not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give for the following reasons:
(a)	Recorder Howe in his judgment of 24th May 2013 determined that IB’s siblings suffered significant harm and that the assessments in the care proceedings “demonstrated that RB and SB and TW were not able to provide good enough care for GW, OW, LaB, LuB and LiB for the rest of their minorities”. Recorder Howe accepted that ‘the emotional and developmental needs of the children had not been met and that they would continue to suffer if they remained in the same environment’.
(b)	The parents struggle to understand the reasons surrounding the Local Authority’s previous and current involvement. The parents lack insight into why the children have been removed from their care and are unable to reflect on how their own behavior contributed to their removal. The parents further do not understand the concerns raised by TW in the previous proceedings.
(c)	The parents have failed to make significant changes to their home conditions. The home remains cluttered and dirty. Both parents do not demonstrate that they have made any significant changes in their understanding of emotional development, safe care or supervision. The parents fail to understand the importance of attending medical appointments”.
12.	I accept the concessions made by the parents and I find the threshold criteria satisfied in those terms.

The Assessments and Written Evidence
13.	Given that the court considered the parenting capacity of RB and SB in 2013, CMBC did not in these proceedings intend to undertake any further parenting assessment of the parents. The parents stated that they had made changes and, in the case management order made by Her Honour Judge Hillier on 29th January 2014, the local authority was directed to update its parenting assessment of RB and SB. 
14.	The updated parenting assessment of RB and SB undertaken by the local authority appears at E134 and is dated 28th March 2014. The assessment involved the allocated social worker, Katherine Fletcher, having 5 joint sessions with the parents in their home and individual session with each parent in the community. In the assessment report, Ms Fletcher states that:
(a)	RB does not accept that she neglected the older children [paragraph 3.1].
(b)	That the home conditions remain very poor and the house is cluttered and unkempt [paragraph 3.1].
(c)	SB does not accept that the older children’s needs were neglected [paragraph 3.3].
(d)	The parents show little ability to reflect and believe it was the previous social worker’s fault that the children were removed from their care [paragraph 3.7].
(e)	In contact with IB, RB and SB are unable to follow advice given to them regarding meeting IB’s cares during contact [paragraph 3.7].
(f)	If IB were placed in the care of her parents, there would be a risk of her suffering neglect [paragraph 3.7].
(g)	RB struggles to meet her self-care needs and can present as unkempt with an unpleasant smell on some occasions [paragraph 6.3].
(h)	There was a considerable lack of commitment to ensure the previous children’s health needs were met and this would therefore impact on IB and the parents’ ability to meet her physical, intellectual, emotional and social needs [paragraph 6.5].
(i)	RB stated that she did not feel that the older children’s poor speech development was an issue as she was able to understand them. The parents’ inability to acknowledge the children’s need for good quality language skills exposes IB to a risk of significant harm [paragraph 6.6].
(j)	When asked how they would meet IB’s emotional needs, RB said she did not really know [paragraph 7.2].
(k)	Neither RB nor SB has a clear understanding of emotional development or how to prioritise IB’s needs over their own [paragraph 7.4].
(l)	RB and SB appear to lose interest and lack motivation towards the end of contact and need constant prompting to meet IB’s needs such as feeding, winding and soothing within the final hour of contact.
(m)	RB is not capable of learning new parenting techniques and implementing them in the home. This was evidenced in RB’s inability to make the desired changes to her behavior during CMBC’s involvement with the older children despite her attending a parenting course at this time and receiving intensive family intervention support [paragraph 8.5].
(n)	There is very little evidence that any significant changes have been made since the last proceedings [paragraph 12.1].
(o)	RB and SB could not demonstrate that they have made any significant changes in their understanding of emotional development, safe care or supervision and they lack the knowledge of how they would consistently meet IB’s basic care needs [paragraph 12.3].
(p)	Parental strengths include RB and SB’s willingness to work with me and be present for home visits and 1-1 sessions in the community, they do attend contact with IB on time and they have started to clear out the family home and redecorate. They have also shown a commitment to IB being with the paternal grandparents [PGPs] rather than in local authority care [paragraph 12.15].
(q)	The risk factors outweigh the strengths and it is deemed appropriate that IB should not return to her parents’ care [paragraph 12.16].

15.	The PGPs, JH and AH, put themselves forward as potential carers for IB early in these proceedings and the local authority completed a viability assessment of them that was positive and recommended that a full assessment be undertaken. That full assessment was completed and was also positive. IB was placed with the PGPs under an interim care order on 7th April 2014. RB and SB agreed to this move and submitted to a reduction in their contact with IB during the transition period when she was moved from foster care to the PGPs.
16.	The final evidence of the local authority appears at page C13 of the bundle. In her statement, the social worker, Katherine Fletcher, repeats her conclusions that IB should not be placed in the care of her parents. At C17 paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11, Ms Fletcher records that there were a number of concerns that were raised in the special guardianship assessment of the PGPs. These concerns related to JH’s experience of domestic abuse in her relationship with SB’s father and her apparent difficulty in recognizing the impact that this would have had on her children. A further concern raised was that the PGPs did not intervene to protect the older children from the significant harm they suffered when in the care of the parents. It is also recorded as a concern that the PGPs do not currently have the confidence to supervised contact between IB and her parents.
17.	The special guardianship assessment appears at E72 of the bundle. At E100, the assessment states “the placement is yet untested and given the complexities of birth father, SB’s, relationship with the couple, this could create significant issues in relation to SB attending the [PGP’s] home for unplanned contact. The local authority would need to monitor this situation for a period of time and put in place clear plans in relation to contact to reduce the risk of unplanned contact and SB attending the family home uninvited and unplanned and to support the applicant’s in their care in the interim period”.
18.	The special guardianship assessment recommends, at page E132, that IB is placed with PGPs as foster carers initially and that they then seek a special guardianship order when the “placement is settled and demonstrated to be working well”.
19.	As I have said, IB was placed with the PGPs on 7th April 2014. It is CMBC’s recommendation that a special guardianship order is made in favour of the PGPs. The proposals for contact are set out at paragraph 2.14 of the final statement of the social worker. It is proposed that IB would have direct contact with her parents 4 times per year and indirect contact once per year around the time of IB’s birthday. It is also proposed that IB has contact with GW and OW 3 times per year but that there is no direct contact with LaB, LuB or LiB, as they have now all been placed for adoption and indirect contact once per year is proposed between these children.
20.	At the IRH on 6th May 2014, the children’s guardian having filed his final analysis, there were discussions as to a modification to the special guardianship support plan so as to provide a greater degree of advice and practical assistance to the PGPs regarding contact arrangements. A revised support plan was filed that appears at E181. CMBC has also revised its position concerning seeking a public law order and now invites me to make a supervision order for a period of 1 year to provide a further framework for its support of the placement. 
21.	The final statement of the mother appears at C29 to C34. Her case is that she has made improvements within the home and that IB should be placed in her care. She does not accept that contact is of poor quality or that she is unable to meet IB’s needs. If the court determines that IB cannot be placed with her, she supports IB being placed with the PGPs but she does not agree the arrangements for contact between herself and IB or between IB and her siblings.
22.	SB’s final statement appears at C42 to C45. It is his position that he would like IB to return to his care with RB but at paragraph 2 of his statement his states that he accepts this is unlikely to happen and does not oppose IB’s placement with the PGPs. He opposes the local authority’s contact proposals.
23.	The children’s guardian’s report appears at E208. His report was filed prior to the IRH. He now supports the making of a special guardianship order and a supervision order. At E216, the guardian states:
 “The risks to IB should she be returned to RB and SB’s care is that she could be exposed to neglect, emotional and physical harm. This exposure to neglect and abuse would have a detrimental effect on her physical and emotional well-being and development. IB’s siblings have all been exposed to significant harm by their parents which resulted in them being placed in the care of the local authority. 
It is likely that IB will feel some level of upset in the knowledge that she was removed from her parent’s care. Nevertheless, if this information is provided in an age appropriate and sensitive manner and IB is able to understand that SB and RB did try but were ultimately not able to make the necessary changes to her care, then it would be possible for IB to enjoy the nurturing of the permanent family without resentment”.
24.	The guardian recommends that IB is not returned to the care of her parents and remains in the long-term care of the PGPs. Following the local reviewing the support plan after the IRH and deciding to seek a supervision order, the guardian is now fully supportive of the plans for IB.
25.	I have read all the documents in bundle 1 of the court papers and those parts of bundle 2 to which I have been referred. 

The Oral Evidence
26.	I heard oral evidence from the social worker, Katherine Fletcher. In her oral evidence she said she was allocated to the case when IB was born. She accepted that RB was surprised to discover that she had been pregnant and Ms Fletcher agreed that it was a brave and difficult decision for RB and SB to agree to IB being accommodated.
27.	Ms Fletcher told me that GW and OW have had 2 contacts with IB since she was born. This was arranged as their anxiety levels were high and it was thought helpful for them to meet their sister. Ms Fletcher also informed me that GW and OW are currently refusing to have any contact with the parents.
28.	It was agreed by Ms Fletcher that RB has attended contact on time and has been prepared for contact. There has been some concern expressed in the paperwork that RB was prioritizing contact over her own health. RB had been suffering physical problems following IB’s birth and it took some 2 weeks for RB to obtain medical treatment despite encouragement from the local authority. It is commendable that RB would get herself to contact despite being unwell and I understand the local authority’s concern but I do not see it as an issue that in any way impacts on my decision at this hearing.
29.	In her oral evidence, Ms Fletcher maintained her opinion that the parents failed to accept responsibility for the neglect suffered by the older children and she was very clear that both parents continue to blame the previous social worker for the children being removed. Ms Fletcher, very fairly in my judgment, accepted that the parents have reason to blame Mr Hornsby as it was him that was responsible for bringing the previous proceedings. It may be that they have understandable bad feeling towards Mr Hornsby but I found in my judgment on 24th May 2013 that Mr Hornsby had acted entirely appropriately and was diligent in focusing on the needs of the children despite considerable hostility from the family. I understand why the parents feel hostility towards Mr Hornsby but by continuing to seek to blame him, they have failed to take responsibility for their poor parenting of the older children.
30.	Ms Fletcher said in her evidence that it was very difficult to ascertain whether TW was living at the property. She said that she asked RB for contact information for TW and RB told her that she did not have it but would get it. Ms Fletcher said that RB did not provide it to her in the 3 visits. Ms Fletcher said that it was later in March that RB informed her that TW had returned to the home. Prior to that his belongings were there and a bed made up so it is not clear to Ms Fletcher if TW had moved out. When M gave her evidence, she was very quick to say, in answering question from Mr Kershaw, that TW had gone to live with his brother in Halifax. It is therefore surprising, in my judgment, that M would tell Ms Fletcher that she did not have contact details for TW. Whatever is the truth of the matter, and it is not necessary for me to make findings about this, TW is now back and living in the home with RB and SB.
31.	Ms Fletcher was asked questions about the parents making improvements to the condition of the home. She told me that when IB was born they had made a very slow start at clearing some rubbish. They asked for financial assistance to have skips to clear the rubbish. The local authority did not provide financial assistance for this as there were no children living in the home and it is the responsibility of the adults in the home to keep it clean and clear it of rubbish. Ms Fletcher said that the parents had removed some rubbish and unwanted items at the time of her assessment visits in February 2014 but many of the rooms remained unusable. Ms Fletcher said that extensive works are required to the home and, in her view, this would take a significant amount of time. She said that the Kitchen has been decorated and a new floor has been laid but home conditions are still a serious concern.
32.	It was suggested to Ms Fletcher that it was a positive feature that RB and  SB accepted that home conditions were unsatisfactory. Ms Fletcher’s response was that, in the previous proceedings, they said they would clear up and things soon were back to what they were. Ms Fletcher’s view is that this current clear-out will not be sustained in the long term. Ms Fletcher said that RB struggles to see why the children were removed. She said that RB thinks she did as much as she could for the older children. Ms Fletcher believes that RB loves her children very much but is of the opinion that she lacks understanding around all areas of child development.
33.	Mr Kershaw pressed Ms Fletcher about RB’s commitment to the children and her attendance, since the children were removed in May 2013, at parenting course. Ms Fletcher told me that M had attended parenting course and had been given intensive support in the past but she could not apply her learning to the children’s lives at home. Ms Fletcher was of the view that RB demonstrated approval-seeking behavior to the local authority and will attempt to make changes but she will not be able to sustain those changes. She said that SB and TW can be volatile and this undermines the parents’ ability to effect any positive changes. I remind myself that the opinion of the psychologist in the previous proceedings was that RB had the greatest capacity to make changes but would not be able to sustain any changes she might make if she remained living with TW and SB given their resistance to change and their inability to work cooperatively with professionals.
34.	Mr Kershaw quite righty put to Ms Fletcher that caring for 1 child would be very different to caring for 5 children and that RB would be more likely to manage just one child. Ms Fletcher did not accept that the parents could meet the needs of one child rather than 5.
35.	Ms Fletcher then gave evidence concerning arrangements for contact should I conclude that IB’s needs can only be met by permanent removal from RB and SB.
36.	I have had the benefit of hearing evidence from RB. She gave evidence in the last set of proceedings and showed similar courage at this hearing and was able to explain to me in her own words why she felt IB should be returned to her care.
37.	RB told me that she agreed the contents of the local authority’s threshold document but she says that she has now made changes. She told me that when the social worker came to look around the house, that there was stuff cluttered in rooms. She said they have done what they could and since the social worker finished her assessment in February, the house is finished. She told me that she has filled 5 skips with rubbish from the home and she has today produced a receipt to demonstrate this to be true. 
38.	She told me that she did not know she was pregnant. She said she did not know she was pregnant with LiB. She said with H she didn’t find out until late in the pregnancy. She said she was not deliberately hiding the pregnancy. She reminded me that she was seen by the doctor as late as November and he did not know that she was pregnant. There is reference to this is the parenting assessment.
39.	Concerning TW, RB told me that he went to live with his brother in Halifax. She said that TW has now come home as he suffered a mild heart attack and he is on prescription drugs. She said she asked him to come back home so she could keep a close eye on him. RB said that, if it came to it, TW would move out or they would get our own place.
40.	RB said that she would like a chance to bond with IB. She said it had been hard. She had offered to go to mother and baby unit but that hadn’t happened. She said she would like to have the chance to prove that she can provide care. RB accepted that, in contact, it does take her time to properly look at and engage with IB. 
41.	When cross-examined by Ms Fricker, RB said that at the time of the parenting assessment in February, she was feeling upset and hurt. She accepted that she had said that did not accept that the older children had been neglected and that she had blamed Mr Hornsby. She said that she now hold her hands up and accepts that there was neglect in the past. She said that she admit that the kids were neglected to a certain extent but she did not accept all of it, just some of it.  All that was accepted by RB was that the children did have dirty clothes some times but not to go to school in. It was clear from her oral evidence that RB has some way to go in accepting the reality of the care that she and SB provided to the older children and some way to go in understanding the impact that such profound neglect has on a child’s physical, intellectual and emotional development.
42.	RB told of her wish to have much more frequent contact with IB than the 4 times per year proposed by the local authority. I will return to that evidence, should I need to, later in this judgment.
43.	The Children’s Guardian gave his evidence clearly. His report appears at E208 and he maintained the views he expressed in his report. He told me that the conditions in the family home are not the primary concern. There are other areas of concern around the parents ability to understand the impact of their behaviour on the previous children and why they were removed. He said he had not seen that understanding in RB’s evidence or in his meeting with her last week. He said he was concerned about SB’s presentation and SB’s anger and the depression he is suffering. He said he was also concerned about presence of TW.
44.	I was told about an incident at court when SB became angry and threatening with the guardian when the guardian was trying to set up a meeting to speak to the parents about his recommendations. The Guardian’s report had by this time been filed and SB was threatening and abusive towards the guardian about his support of the local authority’s position. SB now says, through Ms McCurdy, that his anger was due to the guardian having filed a report and making a recommendation without having had recent contact with the parents. I remind myself that aggressive outbursts by SB were a frequent occurrence in the previous proceedings and although I understand why SB would have been upset, but that sort of behavior, especially at court, is never acceptable. It demonstrates that the difficulties that SB has with controlling his temper remain a risk issue, not just if he has a child in his care but also when any contact might occur. There is, in my judgment, a real risk that SB will have an emotional outburst, in the presence of a child, should he disagree with anything said or done to him by any other adult present.

The Welfare Decision
45.	When considering all aspects of this application I treat IB’s welfare as my paramount consideration and I have regard to the principal that any delay in decision-making for IB is likely to be contrary to her best interests. Any order I make will be an interference with the right to private and family life of IB and one or other of her family members depending on the decision that I make. I should only interfere in the right to family life if that interference is prescribed in domestic law, pursues a legitimate aim, is necessary in a democratic society and is a proportionate step to take in the pursuit of that aim. I have also taken into account all of the factors set out in the welfare checklist at section 1(3) Children Act 1989.
46.	I take into account the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in Re BS and in Re G. In the case of Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, Lord Justice McFarlane, at paragraph 49 stated "in most childcare cases a choice will fall be made between two or more options. The judicial exercise should not be a linear process whereby each option, other than the most Draconian, is looked at in isolation and then rejected because of internal deficits that may be identified, with the result that, at the end of the line, the only option left standing is the most draconian and that is therefore chosen without any particular consideration of whether there are internal deficits within that option. The linear approach, in my view, is not apt where the judicial exercise is to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for child’s future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child's welfare”.
47.	There are clear advantages to IB in the plan proposed by the local authority. She would continue to be placed with carers, who are members of her family and with whom she is already making attachments. She would have direct contact with her parents and with H, OW and GW. All her needs, physical, emotional and intellectual, will be met. The disadvantage of the plan proposed by the local authority is that IB would be permanently removed from the care of her parents; parents who love her and desperately want to care for her. IB would have contact with her parents but would not grow up in their care and would not have the close relationship with them that she could have were she to be raised by them.
48.	The advantages of the plan proposed by the parents for IB are that it addresses the disadvantages of the local authorities plan. If IB is in their care she will grow up having that close relationship with her parents that children should have if at all possible. Looking at IB’s wishes and feelings, she is too young to express a wish but I am sure that she would want to live with her parents if that would be safe and secure for her. She has the needs of any young baby of her age and her needs and demands on her carers will change as she develops and meets all of her milestones. IB was placed in foster care as a young baby so she has not suffered any harm and it is the risk of harm to her in the future that I have to determine and the capability of her parents to meet her needs.
49.	The professional evidence in these proceedings is clear in its recommendations. The local authority’s assessment is that the conclusions that I reached concerning RB’s and SB’s parenting capacity in May 2013 and October 2013 remain reliable as neither RB or SB has demonstrated any acceptance of the past problems or any insight as to why the neglect arose at all. The children’s guardian makes the same observation. I listened very carefully to the evidence given by RB. She comes across as a kindly woman who loves her children very much. I agree with Ms Fletcher that RB is eager to please but that is not at all surprising given that she wants her baby back.
50.	I do not agree with the description given to RB that she demonstrates ‘disguised compliance’. I entirely accept that RB really means to make changes when she says that she will. She wants to be able to care for her daughter and she has the best of intentions when she says that she will ‘sort things out’. The difficulty is that RB’s intentions do not necessarily turn into actions. I accept that she has acted and made some improvements in the condition of the home. Some rooms are now in a much better state than they were before. However, I agree with the guardian and Ms Fletcher. The condition of the home was perhaps the most obvious issue in the previous proceedings but it was not the only issue. All areas of the children’s needs were neglected and RB and SB still fail to accept this. 
51.	I accept the parenting assessment of Ms Fletcher and the evidence of the guardian. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that were IB to be placed in the care of RB or SB, she would be likely to suffer significant harm by way of the neglect. On the evidence that I have read and heard, I find that RB and SB have not made any significant change in their parenting capacity since I made my findings in May last year. 
52.	Having reached that conclusion, and weighing it in the balance in my holistic evaluation of the placement options available for IB, I am satisfied that the proportionate step for the court to take to protect the welfare of IB is for her to be placed permanently in the care of the PGPs.
53.	I then have to consider the arrangements proposed for contact between IB and her parents and siblings with her living with the PGPs. The local authority proposes contact at 4 times per year. The parents want contact to be monthly or at least 6 times per year. 
54.	In her oral submissions on behalf of IB, Ms Marshall said “the Guardian encourages IB to explore her family relationships as she grows but she must have a stable and secure attachment at home from which to explore these relationships”. In his oral evidence, the Guardian said that IB was in the crucial first year of life where she must make attachments to her primary carers. There was some disagreement between Ms Fletcher and Mr Smith as to whether contact at a monthly frequency or 6 times per year would interfere with the forming of an attachment between a baby of 4 months old and carers that she lives with 24 hours per day. The social worker thought it would not. The Guardian thought that it would. I preferred the evidence of the social worker on this issue. She distinguished between disruption caused to the placement by contact that was too frequent, had little meaning to IB and interfered with the ability of the family to have a ‘normal’ family life and contact that would interfere with attachment building. Ms Fletcher’s concern was the former rather than the later.
55.	In his oral evidence, the guardian reminded us all that contact has to be in the interests of the child and should not be set at a higher frequency to meet the needs of the parents. I accept and agree with that observation. RB and SB want to see as much of IB as they can. That is completely understandable. What IB needs is different to what her parents need. Contact between IB and RB and SB is not to maintain a close parent/child relationship. IB needs to settle with her grandparents and look to them to have all her needs met. That process takes time but given that she is young and has suffered now harm thus far, there is no evidence before me that she will have any difficulty in settling.
56.	A further issue is that the PGPs need to undertake the training that is set out in the special guardianship support plan. They are not currently comfortable supervising contact between IB and her parents. A contact reduction plan has been proposed by the local authority that has the PGPs supervising contact in December 2014. That is only 6 months away. 
57.	I have heard detailed evidence as to why 4 times per year is in IB’s best interests and submissions from Mr Kershaw and Ms McCurdy that contact more frequently is to be preferred. I accept that this is a family placement and that, in such placements, contact is often set at a higher frequency. However, as I said during the course of the evidence, there are many family placements where contact is set at a similar or a lower level. I am looking at the facts of this case and the needs of this child.
58.	I agree with the guardian and the social worker that IB’s primary need at this time is to build her relationship with the PGPs. Whilst I have found that contact at a frequency of 6 times per year would not interfere with the ability to form attachments, I agree with the evidence of Ms Fletcher that I have to look at IB’s family life in the context of her new home and new carers. The purpose of contact, in my judgment, is not to maintain a close relationship with the parents. The parents need to accept that their relationship with IB will be less familiar and that contact has to be set up to reflect these new roles.
59.	In my view there is a difference between contact that they might have by seeing IB at family gatherings and contact that is set up specifically for them to have time on their own with IB. I do not accept that it is in IB’s interests for there to be artificial arrangements made whereby either RB and SB or IB herself would not attend family events if the other were to be there. In the immediate future and until the PGPs have commenced the supervision of contact, meetings at family functions should be avoided but once the PGPs are supervising the contact there is no reason why all family members should not attend family functions. All these decisions will fall to be made by the PGPs.
60.	Having considered all evidence in these proceedings and the submissions made ably by all advocates, I make a special guardianship order concerning IB in favour of the PGPs. I approve the sibling contact proposals in the care plan, as amended and I agree that contact 4 times per year is to be the starting point for the parents. No party has asked me to make a contact order and I am satisfied that an order is not necessary. The PGPs will keep contact arrangements under review and will make such changes to the frequency as they consider appropriate as IB settles with them and her needs change.
61.	I agree that IB would benefit from the support that the local authority would provide under the structure of a supervision order and I make a supervision order to CMBC for a period of 12 months. I also direct that there be detailed assessment of the publicly funded costs of the Respondents.

Recorder Howe
21st May 2014