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 and members of 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 would be a contempt of court.

Case No: MA14C00546 &
MA15Z00324

IN THE FAMILY COURT at Manchester 
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 
AND THE ADOPTION & CHILDREN ACT 2002

Manchester Civil Justice Centre
1 Bridge Street West, Manchester. WC2A 2LL

Date: 20th August 2015

Before :

HIS HONOUR IAIN HAMILTON CBE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL  	
Applicant	
	- and -		
	 
DK	
1st Respondent	
	-and-		
	
JY	
2ndRespondent	
	-and- 		
	
BK & FK
(children by  their children's guardian, Deborah Metcalfe)	

3rdRespondent	

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

Mrs Diana Lessing (Counsel) for the local authority
Ms Kate Bramhall  (Counsel instructed by Zacharia Solicitors) for the mother
Ms Sandra Pope (Counsel instructed by Cuttles Solicitors ) for the father
Ms Rachael Heppenstall (Counsel instructed by Stephensons Solicitors) for the children
IG and FH (maternal grandparents) as Intervenors in person 

Hearing dates: 3rd to the 11th & 20th August 2015

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Introduction

1.	I am concerned with the interests of two children to whom I will refer as BK and FK for purposes of anonymity. BK is a boy who was born on the 23rd May 2013 and is now 2 years and 2 months old. FK is his younger sister who was born on the 3rd September 2014 and who is therefore just 11 months old. I will refer to the parents and other family members by their initials. The mother of the children is DK. FK’s father is JY. BK’s father is said to be a MI who the mother says lives in Belgium but for whom no current address is known. He has played no part in the proceedings. He does not have parental responsibility for BK.  I will refer to DK and JY for convenience where appropriate as the ‘mother’ and the ‘father’ without intending any disrespect to either. The mother and father are married although until the start of this hearing contended that they had been separated since March 2015. The father has parental responsibility for FK. At the commencement of the hearing I was informed that the parents were now reconciled and living together and wished to be considered as joint carers for the children.

Applications

2.	The applications before the court made by the applicant local authority, Manchester City Council, are for care orders pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act 1989 in an application issued on the 23rd October 2014 and for placement orders pursuant to section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 which applications were issued on the 14th May 2015. 

Circumstances leading to the proceedings

3.	The family have moved between Bradford, Sheffield, Rotherham and Manchester during the last 18 months. The family were known to Children’s Services whilst living in each authority due to concerns of neglect and the mother’s failure to meet the children’s health needs.

4.	On 28th August 2014 an Initial Child Protection Conference was held by Manchester Children’s Services and BK and FK (then unborn) were placed on Child Protection Plans under the category of neglect.

5.	On 22nd September 2014 Manchester Children’s Services completed a Child and Family Assessment which concluded that there are considerable concerns about parenting and the children’s exposure to further neglect.

6.	The mother and the children went from Manchester to Rotherham without informing Children’s Services or Health Services, and did not inform Social Workers about the move during a visit on the 19th September 2014. Similar patterns of transiency had been noted by both Bradford and Sheffield Children’s Services.

7.	Referrals were made to Rotherham health visitors, Children’s Services and the Police; however, health visitors had difficulty accessing the property. On 30th September 2014, Emma Morris, a Rotherham health visitor gained access to the property and was concerned by a bruise underneath BK’s eye and marks on BK’s back. The mother said her sister in law, EZ, had witnessed BK fall on the corner of a coffee table and that this had caused the mark under the eye. She suggested that the marks on his back were caused by his 1 year old cousin scratching. The health visitor apparently felt this explanation possibly could be consistent with the marks seen and did not contact the police but asked that the Key Social Worker, Ms Ali, observe the marks.

8.	On 1st October 2014 the Social Worker, Ms Ali, visited the family in Rotherham and observed considerably more bruising on one side of BK’s face than had been described the day before, and established that medical attention had not been sought. The children were taken to Rotherham General Hospital where child protection medicals were carried out.

9.	The child protection medical concluded that the marks on BK’s back were consistent with being non-accidental injuries and that there were also non-accidental injuries on his left lower arm. The facial injuries were inconclusive; Dr Flemons expressed concerns around the plausibility of the suggested mechanism of injury to the eye and mouth, whilst Dr El-Refi felt that the explanation was consistent with the injury.

10.	Officers from Rotherham PPU attended the hospital and the mother provided inconsistent accounts of how BK sustained the injuries to his back and wrist. The mother was arrested on suspicion of child neglect and released on police bail until 27th November 2014.

11.	The children were made subject to Police Protection Powers on 1st October 2014. The mother signed section 20 agreements for the children to remain accommodated in foster care on the 2nd October 2014. Both children remain in local authority care together. 

Progress of proceedings

12.	The proceedings have been case managed throughout by Her Honour Judge Penna.  A case management hearing took place on 10th November 2014. At this hearing the children were made the subject of interim care orders. Permission was given for the children's solicitor to instruct Dr Kate Ward, Consultant Paediatrician, to undertake an assessment of BK to address the injuries and provide a paediatric overview of his health needs. Her report was to be filed and served by the 5th January 2015. Screening assessments of the maternal grandmother and her partner, IG and FH, and the maternal uncle RK, and his partner, EZ, were to be undertaken by the local authority by the 17th November 2014. If the screening assessments were positive then any full assessment was to be completed and filed by the local authority by the 9th February 2015. The local authority was directed to file and serve medical and health records from Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and Rotherham as well as assessments completed by Bradford and Sheffield Children's Services. A further case management hearing was listed for hearing on the 17th December 2014.

13.	The hearing on the 17th December 2014 was vacated with the agreement of all parties and relisted for 10th February 2015, as it was felt more progress could be made in respect of timetabling the proceedings, following sight of the report of Dr Ward. The hearing on the 10th February was adjourned by agreement to the 12th February 2015 to accommodate the late filing of Dr Ward’s report because of delays experienced by her in receiving some of the medical records. An extension of time for the filing of the assessment of the maternal grandmother and her partner was given to the 13th February 2015. The outcome of the assessment was recorded as being negative. Confirmation was given that the maternal uncle and his partner had left the jurisdiction and returned to Slovakia and no screening assessment of them was done.A screening assessment of the paternal family in Pakistan had been completed and filed which was negative. In addition the Centre for International Legal Protection of Children and Youth in Slovakia which had traced the maternal great grandmother in Slovakia and had documents from the proceedings disclosed to them following an order made on the 15th December 2014 had filed an assessment which did not recommend placement of the children with her. Dr Ward had concluded that BK had suffered non accidental injuries. She also recommended that a radiologist should be instructed to consider some unusual appearances on X-rays. The parties wished time to properly consider Dr Ward's  report and to ask further questions. Other case management directions were given and the proceedings adjourned for a review hearing on the 16th March 2015. 

14.	On the 5th March 2015 a consent order was made giving the children's solicitor permission to instruct Dr Karl Johnson, Consultant Radiologist, to review the X-rays and report by the 22nd April 2015. 

15.	A review hearing took place on 16th March 2015 at which the mother confirmed that she and the father had separated and she was staying with a friend in Manchester. She was seeking the return of the children to her sole care. The court approved additional questions to be put to Dr Ward and directed any response to be filed and served by the 30th March 2015. A representative from the Consular Section of the Embassy of the Slovak Republic attended the hearing and raised no issues in relation to the proceedings or the question of jurisdiction. Directions for the timetabling of evidence were given including directions to apply in the event of a placement application being filed by the local authority. The proceedings were listed for an issues resolution hearing on 27th May 2015. Invitations were to be sent to the family members who were considered to be potential perpetrators for them to attend the hearing. 

16.	At the issues resolution hearing on the 27th May the mother confirmed her continuing separation from the father  and that, in respect of her pregnancy, she had undergone a termination procedure which she would get confirmed by her GP. The father sought  a further assessment of him as a sole carer for the children by an Independent Social Worker. Following representations made by his counsel, it is recorded that the court agreed that there were deficiencies in the local authority’s assessment and invited the local authority to address these in further sessions to be undertaken with the father. The local authority agreed to undertake that work alongside parenting work which was to be completed. The father expressed concerns that the social worker had already made up her mind and would not complete a fair and open assessment. The local authority confirmed that it would approach the further work in a constructive manner. The maternal grandmother and her partner attended the hearing. It is recorded that they did not accept the outcome of the assessment of them and did not feel it was carried out fairly. They were required to prepare a statement setting out their position. The parties confirmed that the medical evidence is agreed and did not require the attendance of any of the medical experts at the final hearing. The matter was listed for final hearing to commence on the 21st July 2015 before Her Honour Judge Penna with an estimate of 7 days. 

17.	For reasons which it is unnecessary to recite Judge Penna was unable to deal with that hearing and had to relinquish it on the third day without having started to hear any evidence. She did deal with some issues such as joining the maternal grandparents  as intervenors and disclosing to them copies of relevant documents. I was sitting as a deputy Circuit Judge that week and on the 23rd July agreed to take over the conduct of the proceedings. I was able to offer to list the matter for hearing during the week of the 3rd August 2015. It was anticipated that would enable the maternal grandmother and her partner, IG and FH, who Judge Penna had joined as intervenors, to have the opportunity of being able to see and read relevant documents translated into Slovak so that they could, as litigants in person, play an informed part in the hearing. The mother and the father remained separated. The mother had confirmed that she is in fact pregnant and that the father is JY.  The maternal grandparents lodged a statement setting out their position in relation to their wish to care for the children but did not address issues in respect of BK’s injuries. Arrangements were made for copies of the relevant documents to be translated and available for the maternal grandparents by the 29th July 2015. The final hearing was then listed for hearing before me on the 3rd August 2015 with an estimate of 5 days,

The parties’ positions

18.	The local authority position is that it seeks care orders for BK and FK based on its care plans which are predicated on the basis that they should be placed for adoption. If the court approves the local authority plans and makes the care orders, the local authority invites it to proceed to deal with the placement order applications, to dispense with the parents’ agreement to adoption and make the placement orders. It is proposed that the parents’ contact with BK and FK should be indirect contact on a yearly basis through the “letterbox” system with the same arrangement for the maternal grandmother. If the placement orders are granted, the local authority proposes to implement a contact reduction plan and to identify a final contact. The children's guardian supports the local authority’s plan for the children and the orders which are sought. 

19.	At the commencement of the hearing, the court was informed that the mother and the father had renewed their relationship and were now living together. The mother confirmed that she is now 38 weeks pregnant. The mother accepts that the injuries to BK were non-accidental but denies any involvement or knowledge in their causation. The father concedes the evidence of Dr Ward in respect of BK's injuries. He denies any responsibility for causing any of the injuries and suggests that they must have occurred whilst BK was living in Rotherham. The parents are opposed to the local authority plans for the children. They both wish the children to be placed in  their joint care. Each of the parents has the benefit of an interpreter. The mother is a Roma Slovakian. The father is an Urdu speaking Pakistani. They do not appear to share a common language. 
 
20.	The maternal grandmother, IG, and her partner, FH, who are present as intervenors are unrepresented litigants in person. They both deny any knowledge of or responsibility for causing any injuries to BK. They wish to care for both children should the court decide that the parents cannot do so. They seek to challenge the local authority assessment of them as potential carers for the children. They are Roma Slovakians who have been given assistance by the court appointed interpeters although that has not been without difficulty.
 
21.	The conduct of the hearing has not been without difficulty because of the language difficulties as on the first day the maternal grandparents  asked for a change of interpreter as the appointed interpreter did not speak the right dialect of Slovakian and they were having difficulty with her. In the event, I took the decision to go on with the hearing since it was evident that the interpreter was able to communicate with them at a reasonable level. A request was though made for a Roma Slovakian interpreter to be available for the remainder of the hearing. Capita which is the company which provides HMCTS with interpreters was unable to identify a Roma Slovakian interpreter but it was understood that a Slovak/Czech speaking interpreter would be available on the second day. As events transpired no court appointed interpreter at all was available on the second day. This resulted in changing arrangements for Dr Ward to attend to give evidence and the second day of the hearing being wholly abortive. In the event arrangements were made to extend the hearing by a further two days to accommodate the slow pace of the proceedings due to having to have  everything translated by the interpreters for both the parents and the maternal grandparents  as well as allowing late starts because of the difficulties experienced by the maternal grandparents  in having to travel by public transport from Rotherham each day.

22.	I heard evidence from the key social worker, Ms Ali: a student social worker, Ms Strong; Dr Ward, Consultant Paediatrician; Mr Adams, a social worker who undertook the assessment of the maternal grandparents; the mother; the father; the two maternal grandparents  and the children's guardian during the seven days of the hearing. The mother, father and maternal grandparents  were assisted  throughout by interpreters and each gave their evidence with the assistance of interpreters. As there was no time for submissions since there was no further court time available, I indicated to the parties that I would reserve the judgment to a hearing listed at 11.00am on the 20th August 2015 and directed the advocates to file and serve their written submissions by 4.00pm on the 13th August 2015. This is the judgment.

Legal Framework

23.	A care order or supervision order may only be made on the application of a local authority if the Court is satisfied that the “threshold criteria” under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are established. Section 31(2) provides that:

“A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied – (a) that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm; and (b) that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him; ……..”

24.	Section 31(9) defines “harm” as meaning ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development and “development” as meaning physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development and “health” includes both physical and mental health.

25.	The local authority brings the proceedings and asserts that the 'threshold criteria' is met and accordingly the burden of proof lies on the local authority in respect of the allegations it makes. Where there is an issue as to whether or not a child has suffered non accidental injury and, if so, who the perpetrator of the injury is and whether or not any carer has failed to protect the child are matters which have to be established, on the evidence, applying a simple balance of probabilities test as propounded in the judgment of the House of Lords in Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 2 FLR 141 at paragraph 70.This approach was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported as Re S-B Children [2009] UKSC 17 

26.	If the court cannot identify a perpetrator, it should identify the pool of perpetrators.  A person can be excluded from the pool of possible perpetrators if there is no real possibility that they have caused the injury (Lancashire County Council v B [2000] 2 AC 147; Re S-B). It should be remembered that uncertainty about a perpetrator’s identity does not prevent the threshold in section 31 of the 1989 Act being satisfied. 
 
27.	I also remind myself that a factual decision must be based on all the available material. I make it clear for the avoidance of doubt that where I have not felt it necessary to make a specific finding on an issue identified by the parties that is because either the evidence is simply not cogent enough to permit that finding or I decline, having regard to the overall context of the evidence before me, to draw the inference asked. I have also reminded myself of the guidance in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 as to directions given in jury trials where issues arise as to the reasons a defendant might have for telling lies which may or may not have an innocent explanation. There are many reasons why people lie and the fact that a person has lied about one point does not mean he or she is lying about another.

28.	If the threshold is established, the court then has to pass on to the ‘welfare’ stage with a view to considering what, if any, order is to be made. Consideration of this requires me to have regard to section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and to treat the child’s welfare as paramount and to apply the ‘welfare checklist’ or relevant parts of it in arriving at my decision. 

29.	The “welfare checklist” is set out in section 1(3) of the Act and requires the court to particular regard to:
(a)	the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);
(b)	his physical, emotional and educational needs;
(c)	the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;
(d)	his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;
(e)	any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
(f)	how capable are each of his parents, and any other person or relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;
(g)	the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.”

30.	An order should only be made if I consider that making an order is better for the child than making no order at all. If the court considers that an order is necessary it should go on to consider the range of options available to it, which include where appropriate private law orders under section 8, Special Guardianship Orders under section 14A as well as supervision or care orders under section 31. Before making a care order the court has to consider the local authority’s proposals for contact with the child and has to have considered the local authority’s care plan for the child. Since the care plan is one of adoption and the local authority is seeking a placement order in the event of a care order being granted on that premise, I am bound to have regard to the welfare checklist as set out in section 1 (4) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 (see paragraph 33 below) at this stage.
 
31.	The court should only make such order as the facts require, and only then in compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality set out in Article 8 (2) of The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. 

32.	If, however, I approve the local authority plans and conclude that a care order should be granted in accordance with the local authority application, I then have to go on to consider the application for a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 .

33.	By virtue of section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the child’s welfare throughout his life is the court’s paramount consideration. The court also has to have regard to the ‘welfare checklist’ set out in section 1 (4) of the Act. The matters to be considered are:-
(a)	the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings;
(b)	the child’s particular needs;
(c)	the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of his original family:
(d)	the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which are relevant;
(e)	any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
(f)	the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the relationship is relevant, including –
(xcviii)	the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of it doing so;
(xcix)	the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise meet his needs;
(c)	the wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives or of any such person regarding the child.

34.	Section 21 Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides that a placement order shall not be made unless the child is subject to a care order or the court is satisfied that the conditions for making a care order are met and only then if either the parents have consented to the making of such an order or, in the event that no such consent has been given, if the parents consent should be dispensed with. 

35.	Section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002  provides that the court may only dispense with parental consent either if the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or the welfare of the child requires consent to be dispensed with.

36.	I have reminded myself of the guidance from the Supreme Court in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and the Court of Appeal in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 to be applied in cases involving care applications for children in respect of whom the plan is for placement for adoption. These authorities, in line with the many other recent Court of Appeal cases dealing with care proceedings, revisit and restate the key principles which underpin public law proceedings and provide a reminder that adoption for any child who has had to be removed from its parents care by state intervention must be seen as being the last resort. 

37.	In Re B-S we are reminded that there must be evidence from the local authority and the children's guardian to address all options which are realistically possible and should include an analysis of the arguments for and against each option. There must also be an adequately reasoned judgment which should demonstrate that the court has undertaken a global, holistic evaluation of the options for the child’s welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each option.

The Evidence

Threshold Criteria 

38.	The threshold is accepted by the parties as having been established.  The threshold document which is headed Revised Schedule of Findings Sought is dated the 22nd July 2015 is to be found at pages A15-19 of the bundle. The mother takes issue with paragraph 21 based on her assertion that she did not know that she was pregnant with BK when she entered the UK and accordingly did not seek any ante-natal care and only learnt that she was infected with syphilis  when she gave birth to BK some 4 days later. No real issue is taken with this by any of the parties and it does not impact upon the threshold being established on other relevant facts. The mother also seeks to take issue with paragraph 25 regarding her failure to meet her own health needs including failing to access treatment for sexually transmitted disease which placed FK at risk of contracting congenital syphilis in utero. That is an issue with which I will deal later in the judgment since the mother's contention is not accepted by the local authority or the children's guardian. 

39.	The father does not dispute the threshold save for any reference to him perpetrating the injuries to BK, failing to protect or failing to seek medical attention for the injuries.
 
40.	Although the threshold is accepted since BK suffered injuries which are alleged to be non-accidental and it is not known when or by whom those are alleged to have been caused this hearing had been largely taken up with determining what factual findings the court can make in respect of the injuries. It is in connection with resolving these issues that the maternal grandparents  were joined as intervenors.

41.	 On the basis of all the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the threshold is crossed but will deal with the basis for that later in the judgment.

Local authority evidence 

Zianab Ali, social worker 
42.	The first witness I heard was Ms Zainab Ali, the key social worker, who has been employed by the local authority since March 2009. She has been the allocated key social worker responsible for the family since July 2014 following referral to Manchester Children's services. She has prepared and filed four statements in the proceedings which are to be found at [C1-15 dated 17th October 2014], [C181-185 dated 28th February 2015], [C195-214 dated the 29th April 2015] and [C263-268 dated the 20th July 2015]. She undertook and wrote up the Child and Family Assessment dated the 2nd March 2015 at [C165-180] and the Parenting Social Worker Assessment of the father dated the 20th July 2015 at [C239-249] . She was also responsible for the final care plans which are at [D20-29] for BK and [D30-40] for FK and are dated the 29th April 2015. She was also the author of the Child Permanence Report which is at PO68-103 but is undated.

43.	Ms Ali confirmed that in respect of the assessments of the parents as a couple and the father as a sole carer which had been done those were undertaken by her co-working with a student social worker, Katrina Strong. She confirmed that she had read all the contact notes and had discussions with the contact supervisor. Although the case had been actively co-worked throughout she said that as the allocated social worker she was responsible for making the decisions and that all the conclusions and recommendations made were hers.

44.	She had been allocated the case following a referral made by Sheffield Children's Services when the family moved to Manchester. Sheffield had significant concerns because the parents had not been accessing health services despite the mother's medical condition. BK had been born suffering from congenital syphilis and it was important that the mother should access treatment for this. Ms Ali considered that the parents did not seem to understand the importance of medical treatment both for BK and the then unborn FK.

45.	Although she was working with the family Ms Ali said she was never told by them that they were going to move to the Rotherham area. She was given that information by a community midwife and understood that it was intended to be a permanent move.

46.	In November 2014 the mother told Ms Ali that she might be pregnant. However the mother told the social worker on the 27th May 2015 that she had had a termination. That had since been ascertained not to be true. Ms Ali was concerned about the parents’ dishonesty in their dealings with her and the state of their relationship. The father reported that the mother had left him in March 2015 but Ms Ali was never clear where the mother was living. She recited details of visits made and sightings made in April and July. Her concern was that there was a lack of consistency and openness in what she was being told by the parents.

47.	So far as the injuries to BK were concerned she said there was no clear picture as to who had caused the injuries to BK. She confirmed that she had seen BK with significant facial injuries and injuries to his arm on the 1st October 2015. On the 29th September the Health Visitor had seen and described bruising under BK's eye. When Ms Ali made an unannounced visit on the 1st October she said that BK's face was extremely bruised on one side. The mother was unable to tell her why she had not taken BK for medical treatment. The scratches were seen during the medical and the mother could not give an explanation for them and was very unclear about what might have happened.

48.	Although the mother had made a better attempt to engage with both children her main focus in contact was with FK and she still struggled with BK. She considered that if the parents were not honest with her and other professionals it was difficult to see how Children's Services could work with them to protect the children. She had seen the maternal grandparents at contact but was concerned that she would not be able to work with them.

49.	In response to cross-examination by Ms Bramhall, Ms Ali said she did not know why the mother had a problem engaging fully with services. The mother said she had problems with interpreters. Although the mother had issues around syphilis explained to her in detail she was resistant to taking the advice she was given about the need to stay on the ward for 10 days with FK. She accepted that the mother was clearly anxious and worried about BK who it was clear was happy to see her. There was no suggestion of any ill-treatment of BK outside of the identified injuries.

50.	She confirmed that neither the community mid-wife not the Health Visitor had noted any cut to BK's lip. The Health Visitor had observed BK being clumsy and falling but said that the mother had been attentive to his needs. She had not been able to have any conversation with the mother's sister-in-law and brother about what happened to BK since they had left the country.

51.	The mother co-operated with the medical on BK and there was no concern about how the mother behaved towards him. Although the mother's accounts about the left lower arm injuries were changeable and inconsistent at no time did she suggest that she had seen a child causing the scratches.

52.	So far as the assessment of the mother's parenting was concerned Ms Ali considered that had been done. She suggested that there had been a significant number of home visits at which she had provided help and advice. Despite that she still considered that the parents had not met the children's health needs and the importance of that had not embedded with the mother. In mother's contact,  Ms Ali considered that she struggled to cope with BK and had difficulty in implementing consistent boundaries. The father did okay in dealing with the two children and was able to divide his time well. There were some issues about BK separating from his mother at the end of contact. 

53.	On questioning by Ms Pope for the father, Ms Ali acknowledged that the father had been on a Parenting Course and thought he had done well. He was able to manage BK's behaviour including a tantrum which he had when the maternal grandparents had turned up early for their contact. She agreed that the father  had acknowledged the children's health needs and accepted his past failings which was positive. 

54.	She was aware that the father now had his own property at Durley Avenue and agreed that the home conditions were okay for the children. She had not visited the property until after she had completed the Parenting Assessment. She was unable to identify dates of the Parenting Assessment but conceded that she had been present for about 40% of the assessment. She agreed that she wrote the assessment up but had not tried to mislead anyone about the role she played. She said the assessment was co-worked with the student social worker. She was aware of Practice Guidance on Assessments. She thought clear positives had been outlined and recorded. She said there were three different interpreters used during the assessment sessions. She asserted that the father had never raised any issue about the wrong language being used by one of the interpreters. 

55.	She was then challenged about the flaws in the previous assessment. She conceded that no parenting work had been done with the father as part of this assessment. She disputed what the father said about there having been four interpreters used and confirmed her earlier answer that it was three.

56.	She accepted that when she saw BK on the 19th September she noted no injuries. She was unclear when the mother  and the children moved to Rotherham and said she had no evidence as to where the father was. She was not able to concede that the father was the least likely of all the family members to have caused the injuries. She based her suggestion of failure to protect against the father based on the fact that he had seen the injury to BK in a Skype conversation on the 27th September. Ms Ali conceded that BK had been seen by a professional on the same day who had not considered that the injury required BK to be taken to be seen by a doctor or for treatment. In describing her other concerns under the issue of failing to protect it became clear that what she was referring to were the wider neglect issues.

57.	She had not understood why the father had failed to engage with the local authority for some 5 weeks or so after the injuries led to the children being accommodated. She had concerns that the father had not been honest with the local authority. While being able to acknowledge the positives so far as the father was concerned she remained concerned about the wider family’s failure to protect. 

58.	She considered that if the children could not return to the parents then they were too young to remain in foster care with the benefit of ongoing contact with the parents. She considered that the children needed permanence which foster care would not provide.

59.	In response to Ms Heppenstall for the children, the social worker confirmed that the mother and the father only started to engage with the local authority in February and there had been a lack of engagement in December and January despite the proceedings being ongoing. In respect of issues around neglect there has been a repeating pattern of engagement and non-engagement. Bradford had concerns around unmet health needs. When in Sheffield there was initial engagement then that declined. They were going to do an assessment of the family centring around neglect and unmet health needs. There had been complaint by the mid-wife [C99] for repeated non-engagement as they were unable to fully assess health needs etc. There was and had been a continuing cycle of unmet health needs and neglect. Those concerns continue. The mother has had no ante-natal care except for one appointment. A Senior Specialist Nurse reported significant concerns that BK was not having his health needs met in August and September 2014  and which subsequently included BK suffering from extensive headlice together with FK who had quite a severe nappy rash.

60.	The parents lack of honesty is a source of concern to the local authority. Examples relate to the mother lying about having had a termination of pregnancy as recorded on the face of the court order at [B65c] and issues around the relationship between the mother and the father who claimed to be separated although there were occasions in April and July when the mother was found at the father's address. The failure of the father to give details of his whereabouts in the early stages of the investigation of the injuries was also  a concern. Ms Ali said that the local authority concerns around the parents' dishonesty and lack of engagement were significant.

Katrina Strong, Student Social Worker
61.	Ms Strong was a student social worker who had been involved with the family from September 2014 until July 2015. She was no longer with the social work team and did not intend to pursue a career in social work. She was familiar with all the documents and had been actively involved at all stages of the proceedings.

62.	In respect of the second assessment of the father she had conducted sessions 2 and 3 on her own and session 4 with the key social worker present. Her recollection was that three interpreters had been used during the 4 assessment sessions. 

63.	In response to Ms Pope for the father, Ms Strong confirmed that the course she was on was the University of Bedfordshire one year fast track course for post graduate students. There had been an initial 5 weeks intensive teaching with other learning taking place by observation in placement with experienced social workers. She said she had done 3 assessments on her own with other families in her placement. Another student observed to take notes in the sessions but played no active part. She said she had planned an outline of what the sessions would cover and she had told the father at the beginning of each session. She did not accept the criticisms made by the father that she came across as unprepared and nervous. She accepted that she had not observed contact as part of this assessment as it had not occurred to her to do so. She was sure that the key social worker was present throughout most of the session 4. 

64.	During her involvement with the family she had telephoned the mother and the father to make appointments and arrangements. Her recollection was that the father had been using the same phone number for the past 4 months rather than the 6 suggested by Ms Pope. She did, however, confirm that the parents had been difficult to contact throughout the proceedings. 

David Adams, social worker 
65.	Mr  Adams undertook an assessment of the maternal grandparents. His assessment report is at C149-164. This shows that he spent some 13 hours and 15minutes with the maternal grandparents  with all but the last session of 1 hour 30 minutes being undertaken in their home in Rotherham. The report speaks for itself and his recommendation is that the maternal grandparents  should not be considered as long term carers for the children, BK and FK. The reasons for the conclusion are set out at C161-163. Briefly these are (1) the maternal grandparents  remain within the pool of possible perpetrators of the injuries to BK; (2) he has concerns about their ability to safeguard the children because they fail to acknowledge the potential risk which the mother poses to the children and regard the local authority actions as a conspiracy to  remove the mother's children from her care and, in addition, no medical treatment was sought for BK's injuries; (3) they are unlikely to be able to offer stability to the children based on the history to date; (4) the maternal grandparents  have been  "misleading, difficult, untruthful and not forthright with information"; (5) he has concerns about their relationship with the father who the maternal grandmother blames for everything since he took the mother and BK away from her. 

66.	In his oral evidence he confirmed that he was helped by two interpreters but the same interpreter had been used for all but the first session. There had been no difficulties with the interpreters although it appears that when the maternal grandparents  spoke to each other in Roma Slovak the interpreter did not understand them. 

67.	He described  what information the maternal grandmother gave about her relationship with FH and MC which provided a very confusing picture of their relationship. He said she kept changing the information but really provided very limited information about the relationship.

68.	During a discussion about the medical appointments at which the maternal grandmother was supposed to support the mother there was no acknowledgement of the importance of these but rather assertions that the local authority was part of a conspiracy to remove the mother's children and that blood test results had been falsified. FH in particular had no trust in the local authority, NHS or any services and was convinced that if tests had been done in Belgium they would have come back negative in respect of syphilis. 

69.	The maternal grandparents  suggested to Mr Adams that he had made a threat to them about adoption for the children before the proceedings had commenced. Mr Adams in reply said he had only met the maternal grandparents  for the first time in January but in discussion with them would have mentioned adoption as potentially one outcome which might have to be considered. In response to another question he denied asking then about their sexual relationship but confirmed that he had asked about sleeping arrangements since this was a pertinent issue if consideration was to be given to the children living with them.
 
70.	In response to Ms Heppenstall for the children, Mr Adams said he had no confidence that the maternal grandparents  would keep the parents away from the children if they were to be placed with them. He also confirmed that he did not believe that the maternal grandparents  could work with the local authority or other relevant services to safeguard the children because of their belief in the conspiracy theory.

Sue Pilkington, Senior Specialist Nurse 
71.	The unchallenged statement of Sue Pilkington, Senior Specialist Nurse which is dated 24th November 2014 at C51 records that in period between 28th August 2014 and 25th September 2014 according to health visitor records an assessment of health needs of the family was not achieved despite numerous attempts made by the service.

Emma Louise Morris, Health Visitor, Rotherham NHS
72.	Emma Morris, a health visitor from Rotherham provided statements dated 5th December at C56-82 in respect of both BK and FK which are unchallenged and describe seeing them both on a visit to maternal grandmother's home on 29th September 2014. BK had a bruise evident on left eye and to have approximately 3 scratches on his upper back area which were all scabbed over and reported to have been sustained by her brother's children and bruise to eye caused by falling and hitting it on a coffee table. BK was seen and weighed without clothing and had no other injuries apparent. The mother was described as attentive to BK's needs. When maternal grandmother came home a lot of spontaneous warmth observed between her and BK.

73.	FK was weighed and measured. The mother was given advice about the importance of registering with a GP in the Rotherham area. The Health Visitor discussed importance of keeping health appointments. The mother was seen to handle FK appropriately and supervised BK around her properly.

Amanda Lewis, Specialist Midwife Safeguarding
74.	Amanda Lewis, Specialist Midwife Safeguarding provided a statement which is undated  at C83 taken from hospital records and which recounts the chronology from booking appointment to transfer care to Manchester from Sheffield on the 24th July 2014. This statement is unchallenged. A chronological summary of the engagement with health services is provided which includes issues observed during hospital stay after FK's birth. Outline of concerns included mother being reluctant to stay in hospital for prolonged stay for antibiotics to be administered to FK; frequently leaving the ward and leaving FK unattended; the father not visiting FK on the ward and mother frequently leaving ward to see the father; and leaving Manchester without informing midwives which meant that baby FK not receive follow up in the community to assess wellbeing. 

Elaine Skelton, Community Midwife, Sheffield NHS
75.	Elaine Skelton, Community Midwife, Sheffield provided an unchallenged statement dated 26th November 2014 at C99-103 which catalogues the chronology of involvement midwifery care in Sheffield from 7th January 2014 when mother presented for antenatal booking clinic until the 4th July 2014. This chronology includes a recital of failed appointments, failed contacts by telephone and failed home visits., The statement in summary asserts that there was "repeated non-engagement with antenatal care, health visiting and family support". The midwife was "unable to fully assess either her health needs or her parenting capacity as a result of this non-engagement, however her non-compliance with essential treatment which could potentially impact upon her own health and that of her unborn child and immediate family suggests that she was not prioritising her children's needs" [C103].

Medical evidence

Dr Kathryn Ward, Consultant Paediatrician
76.	Dr Kathryn Ward, Consultant Paediatrician, was instructed as an expert to provide a paediatric overview for the child, BK, and to review the medical evidence to provide her opinion about the nature and causes of the injuries which were observed on BK at the time of his child protection medical on the 1st October 2014. Her report which is dated the 10th February 2015 is found at E12-65 with an Addendum Report by way of a letter dated the 14th April at E66-68. Although neither of the parents nor the local authority sought to take any issue with Dr Ward's report she was asked to attend to give evidence because of issues which the maternal grandparents  raised after they had had the "Discussion" section disclosed to them at the hearing before Judge Penna in July. 

77.	Her report is typically detailed and thorough comprising a detailed chronological review of the background information  derived from her consideration of all the documents in the case. The Background Information covers 9 pages stretching from the time of BK's birth  to early October 2014 when the children were placed in foster care.  The second part of her report comprises a medical chronology in respect of BK taken from the hospital and GP records for BK and the other medical reports before the court. This medical chronology extends over 24 pages from birth through to November 2014. Within this chronology are very many references to failed appointments with the hospital specialists, GPs and others along with a number of observations about changes of address and failure to communicate these to health professionals. There are also a significant number of entries where it is clear that the health workers have explained to the mother and the father, after he became involved with the mother and the family, about the importance of the mother attending appointments, clinics etc. 

78.	Following her recital and consideration of what both the mother and the father had said in interview and statements at the time of her instruction, Dr Ward embarks on a Discussion in which she discusses at some length issues in relation to Congenital Syphilis before going on to discuss the injuries. In her discussion of the injuries she takes these in turn at E62-64 

	"1. A green/brown bruise with purple areas in it around the left eye. Maximum length 	9cm, maximum diameter 5 cm.

	Three photographs [C137] demonstrate extensive bruising which falls on different 	planes 	of the face. There is a large diffuse greyish-brown bruise on the left 	temporo-frontal area. This lies over a bony surface and, considered alone 	could be compatible with the history of falling on to a coffee table. However 	there are other areas which are not continuous or on the same plane as this frontal 	bruise and it is difficult to attribute them all to a simple low level fall. There is faint 	bruising over 	the upper left eyelid and more extensive brownish grey bruising 	under the eye 	extending from the inner canthus of the eye to the cheek bone and 	around the lateral aspect of the eye. There is a separate brownish oval extension 	on to the soft 	tissue of the cheek, to the left of the nose. A large bruise to the 	frontal area may sometimes be associated with tracking of blood into the loose 	tissues around the eye. However the large bruise over the frontal area is 	positioned 	laterally and I would not expect it to track into the inner canthus of the eye and 	onto the cheek. This bruising will have been associated with considerable force and 	will have caused discomfort and distress immediately after the incident; BK will 	have 	demonstrated distress by crying and screaming and this will have been 	apparent to 	anyone who was in the vicinity, Swelling and bruising will have 	evolved over a period of days and will have been apparent to anyone who was in the 	house as it was in an exposed position. Whilst I cannot exclude 	the possibility that 	this bruising was the result of a fall or falls, I am concerned at the extent and 	distribution on the face of this bruise. Facial bruising has been demonstrated to 	have a close association with non accidental injury; and in my opinion this 	bruising is suspicious of an injury caused by a direct blow to the face such as a 	punch. In my 	opinion this more likely non 	accidental than accidental.
	On reviewing the photographs there appears to be a small circular bruise on the 	right anterior jawline. This was not mentioned by Dr Flemons; if confirmed as a 	bruise this would be significant as it is a site often associated with gripping or 	grasping injury.

	2. 2x1mm superficial scratches on the outside of his left nostril and just under left 	nostril

	Minor scratch marks seen on and adjacent to left nostril. These could be self 	inflicted or accidentally inflicted by another individual, he would not necessarily 	display distress at the time of injury

	3. mild swelling of his upper lip with a healed cut on the left side of his upper lip 
	BK’s mother reported these injuries were caused by him falling on a coffee table.

	Difficult to see the swelling on the photographs. However swelling over another 	plane of the face makes it more difficult to attribute this to a low level fall on to a 	coffee table and increases the likelihood of non accidental injury. The healed cut 	looks trivial and could have been related to this or a previous injury

	4. A yellow crusted scab measuring 1.5x3cm on his right upper back

	5. A yellow/pink crusted scab measuring 2x0.5cm on his right upper back just below 	injury 4

	6 A healed pink crusted scab measuring 0.7 x 0.3cm in the middle of his right back 	close to his armpit

	7 A linear crusted red scratch measuring 1.2 x0.1cm on his left upper back

	8.A red crusted scratch measuring 0.5 x 0.1 cm on his right upper back just under 	injury 7 

	Lesions 4,5,6,7  and 8 are all on the upper back and are visible on two photographs 	[C136] of the upper  back . Injuries 4 and 5 are paired and parallel. I think there 	may be a typographical error in Dr Flemon’s report; injuries 7 and 8 are also 	paired and 	parallel and therefore 8 should read …… on his left upper back just 	under 	injury 7. These were attributed to playing with a 17 month old, though not 	actually witnessed. In her statement the mother actually states that she does not 	know how these injuries occurred. It would be very unusual for toddler 	play to 	cause extensive lacerations/ abrasions leading to these crusted injuries 	and the 	site of injury would 	be unusual in a clothed child. BK will have protested at the 	time of injury by crying and it is likely that the lesions will have exhibited 	bleeding. A carer who was 	responsible for changing or bathing should have seen 	these injuries. These injuries could have been inflicted by long adult finger 	nails. Possibly by forcibly gripping or grasping the child around the shoulders. In 	my opinion this is more likely non 	accidental than accidental

	9 A cluster of 4 triangular shaped marks on the underside of his left lower arm, the 	largest of these measured 0.3 x 0.3 cm 

	A cluster of 4 crusted lesions visible proximal to the left wrist [C139]. The lesions 	are described as triangular but in fact have a semicircular configuration and are 	consistent with lacerations caused by fingernails. The distribution and site of the 	marks is consistent with BK being gripped firmly around the wrist by a person 	with long fingernails. I do not consider it likely that a 17 month old would inflict 	injury in this manner, nor is it likely that the flexible nails of a toddler would cause 	such lesions. Again BK would protest at the time of injury and I would expect a 	supervising adult to be aware of the injury and to observe the injuries during 	dressing or bathing. In my opinion this is more likely non accidental that 	accidental. 

	10. A c shaped crusted mark on the inner aspect of his right upper arm measuring 	0.3x0.1 cm

	This is a small semicircular laceration, likely caused by a fingernail [C138]. Seen 	on its 	own it could have been inflicted by a child. Therefore I cannot state for 	certain whether this solitary lesion was inflicted during play with another 	toddler, whether it was self inflicted or whether it was inflicted by an adult

	Photographs also show a small scratchmark in the left anterior axilla and two pink 	healed marks in the left axilla lateral to the nipple [C140]. These are minor lesions 	which 	could have been self inflicted or inflicted by another person

	The skin lesions are traumatic and do not have the appearance of skin lesions 	associated with congenital syphilis.
	In my opinion, lesions 1, 3 4, 5,6,7,8,9 were more likely than not inflicted or non 	accidental

79.	The conclusion of Dr Ward's report reads
"BK presented with unusual injuries on a backdrop of concern in terms of failure tom meet his medical needs for follow up after neonatal treatment of congenital syphilis and concerns regarding consistency of care and frequent moves. BK has extensive bruising to the face and multiple abrasions to his trunk and left arm. No underlying medical condition was identified to account for the injuries and the explanation offered for the injuries did not explain the severity of injury. In my opinion it is more likely than not that BK was the subject of non accidental injury".[E65]

80.	In her oral evidence Dr Ward confirmed that she had not met BK but had been asked to provide an overview report from her consideration of BK's medical records and reports, photographs and the court documents. Her instruction had been authorised by the court. She described the eye injury as a compound injury. If the bruise had simply been apparent on BK's forehead then that would have been consistent with the history of the fall on the coffee table. However the injury to the cheek seen on the photograph would not have been caused by the fall and would have been caused by a direct blow to the cheek and possibly by punching.  The bruise observed on BK's jawline would not be explained by a fall on a coffee table and she considered it to be associated with gripping. The upper lip swelling identified at 3 above was not explained by the history. 

81.	She confirmed that she was unable to help with the timing of when the bruises were inflicted. They would not have extended beyond 10 to 14 days before the photographs were taken. She considered it unlikely that the bruise under BK's eye seen on the 27th September by the midwife could have evolved to what was seen on the photographs on the 1st October. The injuries were not resolving and she thought it likely that they were sustained very much less than the 10 to 14 day window.
 
82.	In respect of the lesions numbered 4 to 8 inclusive seen on the photograph at C136 she did not consider that these were caused by BK himself and were not on a site where another child might have been expected to cause them although she considered the marks to have been too big to have been caused by a child. So far as the fingernail marks at number 9 at the photograph C139 she said the cluster suggested that the child had been forcibly gripped by the arm and considered them unlikely to have been caused by a child of 17 months. The injury seen at 10 on the photograph at C138 she conceded could have been accidental.
 
83.	She also expressed concern in commenting on the neglect of BK's health needs given the degree of congenital syphilis from which he had suffered that, despite explanations for missed appointments which had been given, the mother and family had failed to take BK to appointments. Dr Ward also confirmed that it was a matter of concern that the mother had not engaged with ante-natal care for FK until late on in her pregnancy which was repeated with her current pregnancy. 

84.	In response to Ms Pope for the father Dr Ward confirmed that injuries to BK's back and arm involved quite a bit of skin loss and would have been visible at the time they were inflicted. It was likely therefore that the injuries on the left arm were caused after the 29th September when BK had been seen and examined in an undressed state by the health visitor. In response to the maternal grandparents  Dr Ward confirmed that the injuries to BK's back were not the sort of injuries which would be inflicted by a child nor did she consider that a child could have caused the bruising to the eye and face.

Evidence of the parents and intervenors

DK (Mother)
85.	The mother has filed three statements in the proceedings. In her first statement dated the 15th December 2014 at C114-120 she said she had arrived  in England on the 20th May 2013 to live with her mother and her late partner, MC. She did not realise that she was pregnant but BK was born in Bradford on the 23rd May 2013. BK's father was MI who she said lives in Belgium and has never seen BK. Her second child, FK was born on the 3rd September 2014 and her father is JY, the second respondent. BK had a complicated birth and remained in hospital for about two months. She visited him daily. BK was born suffering from congenital syphilis and liver problems and she used to take him to hospital for regular blood tests. She accepts that on occasions she did not attend health appointments. She says she only missed appointments when she did not receive appointment letters. She acknowledged criticisms of her parenting that in July 2013 she was putting sugar in BK's milk and not feeding him water. 

86.	Her mother's partner, MC, passed away on the 9th August 2013. She was living with her mother and BK in Rotherham for 4 or 5 months. She met her husband, JY, in November 2013 in Sheffield and they entered into an Islamic marriage in December 2013. She and her husband together with BK then lived for about two weeks at an address in Sheffield. She fell ill and they moved in to live with her mother who was living at a property on the same road but who had by this time returned from Belgium with her step-father, FH. Her brother, RK and his partner, EZ, and their two children were also living at the property. She acknowledges missing medical appointments during this period saying she probably did not get appointment letters because of changing address.

87.	She and the father moved to live in Manchester with BK on the 18th July 2014. FK was born on the 3rd September 2014 and remained in hospital for approximately 10 days. During that time JY was caring for BK. The mother acknowledged that there were times when she left FK unattended on the ward during this time saying she was stressed and went for cigarettes, had to go and buy milk and went to meet the father and have something to eat because she did not like the hospital food. After FK was discharged she went back to live with JY for three nights but then went to live with her mother and rest of the family in Rotherham. This, she said, was because the flat was infested with mice. JY stayed living in Manchester to look for alternative accommodation for them. She came back to Manchester with FK to register her birth on the 25th September 2015 but only stayed one night. 

88.	In respect of the injuries to BK she said he fell on the corner of a coffee table on the 27th September 2014 which caused bruising underneath his left eye. She did not see the incident because she was speaking to an engineer who had come to the property. Her brother's partner was present and saw the incident. She said BK had blood running from his mouth. She washed his mouth and calmed him down. She fed him and he fell asleep. She thought he was fine and did not take him to hospital. BK was not registered with a GP in Rotherham. With regard to the scratches on his back she said she had not seen them before and did not know how those had happened but assumed that her brother's children may have caused the injuries. She was unable to comment on other injuries referred to in the medical report of Dr Flemons. In response to the threshold at that time she did not accept that BK's injuries were non-accidental but accepted she did not seek medical treatment as she did not believe the injuries were serious. She accepted home conditions had been poor because of the state of the properties they lived in and acknowledged moving between four different local authorities. She accepted missing her own health appointments but asserted that she was unaware of appointments for the children which were missed because letters may have gone to wrong addresses. 

89.	In her second statement dated the 11th March 2015 at C186-190, she commented on Dr Ward's report which had been received in February. Although she comments in detail on each of the injuries as identified by Dr Ward and continued to assert that she believed the injury to BK's left eye and the swelling to his upper lip was caused by falling on the corner of a coffee table, she did accept that the injuries had been inflicted as suggested by Dr Ward and that "somebody must have hit or dug nails into BK (on) at least more than one occasion" [C188]. 

90.	She also asserted that when she was changing BK's nappy at hospital when he was brought to visit her on the 12th September 2014 that she "saw two scratch marks caused by two finger nails measuring about 5cm" and "saw bruise to BK's thigh" [C189]. This followed on from her being told by her mother, IG, on the telephone the previous evening that she had noticed scratch marks on the right side of BK's belly.

91.	She and the two children went to Rotherham on either the 18th or 19th September to live with her mother and step-father where her brother, RK, and his wife and two children were also living. She says that she was washing or bathing the children at least every two days but did not see any injuries to either of her children. Although she travelled to Manchester with FK and stayed overnight on the 24th September leaving BK in her mother's care she saw no injuries to BK on her return. On the 28th September she said she "saw bruising/scratching to BK's back and arms" [C190] which were the injuries described by Dr Ward. She said she assumed they were caused by BK's cousins.

92.	In her third statement dated the 3rd July 2015 at C250-253, the mother confirmed that she had lied when she informed her legal representatives at the hearing on the 27th May 2015 that she had terminated her pregnancy on the 21st April 2015. No explanation was given for lying. She  said she was now approximately 5 months pregnant and that the father of the unborn baby was her husband, JY. 

93.	She also asserted that she and the father had separated in March 2015 following the court hearing. She accepted that she was sleeping in JY's bed when the social worker visited on the 25th April 2015. She said she had been waiting for JY to return but he did not turn up so she slept in his bed. She said they were not living together nor had they recommenced their relationship.

94.	In response the local authority's Revised Schedule of Findings Sought dated the 30th April 2015 at [A10-14] the mother accepted all bar paragraph 20 to which she replied that she "did not know she was pregnant at that time and that I contracted syphilis after BK was born" and paragraph 24 to which she replied that she had "attended the sexual clinic and I have received injection in relation to syphilis. I do not believe I have placed FK at risk" [C252].

95.	In her oral evidence the mother  confirmed that she only found out she was pregnant with BK on her arrival here in the UK only some 7 or 8 days before BK was born. She had not been aware that she was infected with syphilis until BK was born. She was told how serious it was and that it could kill a child. She understood it was important to keep medical appointments and said that she kept all appointments. If she missed one she made another appointment. 

96.	She acknowledged that when she was in hospital following FK's birth there were times when she had left FK unattended on the ward for long periods of time as suggested by the hospital staff when she went to see the father and BK. This was because she was stressed and went out for a cigarette as she was not used to being in hospital.

97.	In respect of BK's injuries she said she had seen the injuries to BK's back first. She recalled seeing two or three scratches which were healing although she could not say when. She saw no other injuries at the time. She had talked to her mother about these when she had returned from work after she had seen the injuries when BK had his T-shirt off. So far as the injury to his face was concerned, she said this happened when she was speaking to an electrician. She was told by her sister-in-law that BK fell on a small table. She took him to the kitchen and cleaned his mouth with water. She said her sister-in-law took BK up to bed when there was a little bit of a bruise under his eye. She said she wanted to take BK to the doctor but the mid-wife said it was fine. As a result she thought no medical help was needed. She said that when her mother came home from work and saw the bruising she told her to go to a doctor with BK. However, she did not know where to go to see a doctor. She said she did not ask anybody and accepted that she should have taken him.  She had discussed the bruise with the health visitor on the 29th September at which time she said it was a "little bit under the eye" and "a little bit swollen". When BK was taken to hospital on the 1st October she said the bruise did not look like it did on the photographs. She could not recall seeing the bruise on the cheek. She had not done anything to cause any of the injuries to BK. She had not seen anyone inflicting any injury on him. She knew nothing more about the injuries. She was unable to say when or why her brother and his partner had left the UK and did know about the length of their fingernails.

98.	When asked about her relationship with the father she said they had been back together since Saturday but then said they had been back together for a long time and had been back together since March. In asserting her wish to be able to be allowed to care for the children jointly with the father she said she would go to the doctors as she should and do all she should for the children. In saying this she acknowledged that she should have done more to protect BK and that moving from place to place had not been good for the children. She finally confirmed that what she had said to a contact worker about noticing that BK had marks on his back a couple of days after BK had been cared for by her mother, IG,  and brother, RK, was true. She had wanted to take BK to hospital but told the contact worker that her father, FH , had told her to wait until her mother returned home before seeking medical attention. She said she told her mother but nobody helped her.
 
99.	Under cross-examination by Mrs Lessing for the local authority, the mother acknowledged that the records showed that she had missed numerous medical and health appointments She accepted that they did not tell people when they moved to Manchester in July 2014. They had problems with appointments. She said her first appointment in respect of her current pregnancy was last week.  She had not gone for earlier medical treatment in respect of this pregnancy because she was worried the children would be taken away. 
 
100.	She said the father knew she was pregnant with the current baby after the first month or two. When she told the court in May 2015 that she had had a termination the father knew it was not true but she said it was her idea to tell the court. She accepted that both she and the father had misled the court and all the professionals and that it would be difficult for anyone to trust them now.
 
101.	In respect of her relationship with the father she confirmed the separation in March 2015 and how that had come about but said they had been back together after two months separation. What she had said in her statement on page C251 was not true. She said they had been together until now. She did not know why they were telling people they had separated. She said she did not know what was going on in his head. She did not like going to separate contacts or that the father had a separate assessment as a sole carer but said that the father had said they should do it. She recalled the visits by the police and the children's guardian in July. She told the father it was silly and everybody knew they were together but he still carried on the pretence and lying about the relationship.  She was not prepared to lie under oath and said they had been back together for a long time. 

102.	The mother confirmed that she had told the father about the scratches and bruise to BK seen when he was caring for BK while she was in hospital with FK but had not mentioned those to anyone else. She had not worried about the father's ability to care for BK and, while she had told the police he had shaken BK on one occasion she said that was not true. She agreed she had given different explanations to the police in respect of the injuries when she had been questioned. She had been present in hospital with the social worker when the photographs of BK's injuries were taken and confirmed they were correct. So far as her mother's relationship with FH was concerned she said her mother had come to the UK without FH. Her mother had lived together with MC for some time until he died in August 2013 and it was after that that FH came to the UK. She said FH had always treated her as a father. 

103.	In reply to Ms Pope for the father, she agreed that she had  a very close relationship with her mother and her step-father, FH. She did not know if her mother did not get on with the father but said that she thought her mother blamed him for taking her from Sheffield. With regard to their relationship, she said that the father was not there when she was at his property in April. She refuted the suggestion made that the father had changed the locks after he asked her to leave. She said that after the hearing in May they were back in contact but that she had not gone back to live at the property with the father until a few weeks ago. 

The father, JY
104.	The father has filed five statements in the proceedings. In his first statement at C106-112 he says he came to this country from Pakistan in December 2011 on a student visa to study in Birmingham. His parents and younger three siblings still live in Pakistan. The college he was at closed down in 2012. He stayed in Birmingham until May 2012 but then came to Manchester where he stayed with an uncle until May 2013 when he moved to Sheffield. He applied for an extension to his student visa on the basis of studying at a college in Manchester but moved to Sheffield instead.

105.	He met the mother in November 2013 and in December 2013 they married Islamically. He asserts that although the marriage was very quick it was not a sham marriage. He loves the mother very much. They went through an English marriage ceremony on the 27th February 2014.  He is currently trying to get help from an Immigration solicitor about his immigration status.

106.	He only found out about the mother having syphilis after the mother had become pregnant with FK. He has been tested  and has not got it. When FK was born the father looked after BK while the mother remained in hospital. Although he got help from the mother's brother and his wife in caring for BK for about three days as well as the maternal grandmother, he says he rarely left BK in their care apart from brief spells but says that there were no incidents and says he did not see any marks on BK at this time.

107.	The mother took BK and FK to Rotherham a week or so before the 25th September during which time he did not see BK. He saw BK after the 25th on a Skype call and saw that BK had a bruise under his left eye. He did not see other scratches or marks. He was told that BK had fallen on to a coffee table. He was only told about the scratches later and that they had been caused by BK's cousins. He denied any responsibility for any of the injuries to BK and refuted the suggestion made by the maternal grandmother to blame him.
 
108.	His second statement at C191-194 which was by way of update on the 11th March 2015 at a time when yet further medical information was awaited from, Dr Ward and a radiologist, Dr Johnston. He had nothing to add in respect of the injuries but said that his immigration solicitor has now made an application for a Family Member Residence Card since is married to the mother. He addressed issues relating to the local authority's negative assessment of his family in Pakistan. He reasserted his wish to be considered as a carer  for the children as a joint carer with the mother and said he could work with the local authority. 

109.	In his third statement at C216-222 made on the 20th May 2015 the father confirms his previously stated position in respect of the injuries to BK but concurs with the views expressed by Dr Ward. He asserts that the injuries must have occurred while BK was in Rotherham and could have been caused by extended family members. He considered it concerning that the mother's brother, RK, and his partner, EZ, had left the home and the UK since the proceedings had started. He raised an issue about the maternal grandmother making up the suggestion that BK had arrived in Rotherham with some injuries and drew attention to what the mother herself had said to the contact worker on the 12th March about injuries to BK.
 
110.	He refuted any responsibility for concerns raised about the mother's neglect of BK's needs before he met her but also acknowledged that it was a mistake for him to let her assume most of the caring for BK after they commenced their relationship. He was opposed to any plan for adoption. He had been trying to improve himself and had been to English speaking classes and had also found a separated parents course which had attended as well as completing steps to get himself registered with a GP. 

111.	The father addressed the Revised Schedule of Findings Sought in some detail. He accepted all of what was said in relation to BK's injuries but denied any responsibility for causing any of them. He had provided explanations as to why some health appointments had been missed due to miscommunication. He denied that the current home conditions were poor or unhygienic and acknowledged the impact of the house moves which the family had made on the children. 

112.	In respect of the incident when the mother was at his property on the 27th April, he said that came as a shock to him. She asked him to reconcile but he did not want to. He asked her to leave and himself left the property. He did not go back to the property until she had been evicted by his landlord who had changed the locks. 

113.	In his fourth statement dated the 4th June at C229-232 the father confirmed that he and the mother were separated and that this reduces the risk factors in returning the children. He had taken the initiative to make arrangements to attend a short parenting course comprising 6 sessions through www.careforthefamily.org.uk   as well as having attended upon a Separated Parents Information Programme. He said the children's guardian had recently come to visit his property and could confirm that it is clean and tidy and that there are toys and things for the children. He also raised issues about the adoption procedures and processes. 

114.	In his fifth and final statement dated the 16th July at C254-260, he took issue in some detail with the way in which the further assessment of him had been conducted by the local authority. This was to set out the basis on which he intended to made an application for a further assessment to be undertaken by an Independent Social Worker.  

115.	In his oral evidence the father  confirmed that he and the mother were now back in a relationship.  This was from the day he took her to an appointment as she was suffering pain. They had separated in March before the court hearing. He said that happened because he kept telling her to go outside to smoke and kept on asking her about what had happened to BK and, as a result, she left. He said he made a mistake in not taking her keys off her. He said his friends kept telling him to take her back and it was in his mind that they should live together again. It was a matter on which he wanted to take advice from his solicitor. 

116.	In respect of her current pregnancy he said he had only learnt of that at the court hearing on the 27th May when the court and the parties were told about the termination. When she had come to his house in July while he was attending a parenting course, he said he did not want to talk to her and told her to go away. 

117.	He had only learnt that mother had syphilis when he went to a doctor's appointment with the mother in relation to   her pregnancy with FK. He acknowledged that there were missed medical appointments before FK was born but said he had  tried his best. He said appointments had not been deliberately missed and sometimes they had not known where to go.   He suggested that the mother was confused and did not know what she was saying when she referred to telling him about two scratches and the bruise to BK's thigh when he was caring for BK while the mother was in hospital. He had not seen any scratches.

118.	He had not seen any injuries to BK before he went to Rotherham to live with the mother and FK. He had seen a bruise on BK under the eye during a Skype session on either the 26th or 27th September. He advised the mother to take BK to hospital   and to tell her mum but she said that no one was helping her. When asked about his delay in engaging with the social workers early on in the proceedings he said he did not have money to pay a solicitor but then learnt from his immigration solicitor that he was entitled to free legal representation.

119.	He asserted that in all meetings he had attended all he had heard was talk about adoption. He addressed the issues in relation to the recent social work assessment and repeated the criticisms made in his statement. He did not accept what either the social worker or the student social worker had said about the number of interpreters or how much time the key social worker had spent in the last session with him. He did not feel he had been fairly assessed.

120.	Under questioning by Mrs Lessing he said he was not fully responsible for getting the mother to medical appointments The social worker was coming to the house to make arrangements and sometimes he was there and sometimes he spoke to the midwife and the health visitor. He accepted that there had been missed appointments. They had moved to Manchester because he was not comfortable in the maternal grandmother house with its smoky atmosphere. He accepted that they did not tell the social worker that they moved and he said it was his mistake.

121.	He conceded that he had not wanted to care for BK when the mother was in hospital with FK because he was not experienced and not confident. He refuted what the mother said about the scratch and the bruise on BK's thigh and said there was no reality in what she was saying. 

122.	In respect of their relationship and the sightings of the mother at his house and that the mother had told the social worker that they were a couple, he said that when asked by the social worker he had said no. When he saw the children's guardian with an interpreter that afternoon and she asked about what the social worker had told her about them sleeping together and her clothes being in his wardrobe, he said he told the guardian he and was very confused and could not decide if he wanted to reconcile. He denied telling the social worker they were getting back together again but again said they were thinking of reconciling on the 14th July. He did say they had made the decision to reconcile before the last hearing before the court on the 21st July but went on to say that they resumed the relationship several weeks ago. 

IG, Maternal grandmother 
123.	IG and her partner FH have prepared 4 documents which have been before the court which are – (1) at C269-272 which is in the main a response to the local authority assessment of them (the original Slovak version is at C274-277); (2) at C278 which is dated the 23rd July and is a short paragraph in response to the medical report which had been disclosed to them; (3) at C279-279a an abbreviated composite  response to two of the mother's  statements translated and dictated to the court clerk; and (4) at C281-298 the whole of the composite response documents which includes sections cut and pasted from the mother's statements and their comment/response to those although pages C290-297 are duplicates of C281-289 (the original Slovak version of this document is at C299-C308).

124.	In the first document they acknowledge that their lifestyle had been transient but say they are now in a permanent residence which will make a good family home for the children. They are financially stable as they have their own business which they have had for 6 months. Issue is taken with what the social worker said in his assessment about their relationship. They say they had separated for 6 months and that IG had a relationship with another man for a total of 4 months asserting that previous reports of IG with this man were in relation to her visiting hospital at a time when she was on holiday which did not make them a couple. They assert that IG did not have a relationship with MC in 2011 but that he was ill and IG was looking after him and his children as a friend.

125.	They never left the mother in Belgium and she was visiting family before she came to the UK to join them. They only know what the mother has told them about the incident with BK as IG was not present at the time. They assert a willingness to work with the authorities but consider that no account has been taken of the discrimination and abuse people from their culture receive in their home country and that somehow as a result they are being discriminated against by the local authority. They assert that in the assessment the translator did not translate back to the social worker correctly and say the translators were not very good and never phrased anything clearly.  

126.	At C278 they assert that they "suspect that the medical report (Dr Ward's is the only report they have seen) was falsified as well as FK's birth certificate. We ask you for a new medical report because the medical report should contain diagnosis of the patient and not copied out of an instruction book. The boy did not have bruises on the whole of his body as the medical  report says." 

127.	At C282 IG asserts that she was never MC's partner and only looked after him because he was very ill. They take issue about the mother's language ability asserting that she needed a Roma speaker from Kosice. At C284 IG asserts that she never heard about BK having congenital syphilis. They assert that no blood test from the mother's umbilical was done a BK's birth and there is "no evidence showing positive result to syphilis…if (the mother) had syphilis when giving birth the BK the doctors would immediately isolate her in the infection unit. Therefore we have suspicion that this information is incorrect."

128.	In respect of the injuries to BK they take issue with Dr Ward's assertion that the bruise to the left eye was caused by a direct blow to the face because "if he was hit directly to his face by an adult then surely his cheekbone and jaw would be broken ." [C286] They assert there was never any healed cut on the left side of his upper lip but that "it is a pressure mark from BK's dummy". In respect of the scabs and marks to BK's back they denied the existence of some, could not comment on others because of limited information but said in response to injury number 7 identified by Dr Ward that "we have a suspicion that (this) was already there when she came to Rotherham from Manchester". At C288 they assert that their family is "not a tyrant family as Dr Ward describes. We never hurt and maltreat children". They say they have shown the court photographs of BK where he does not have any scratches as described by Dr Ward and suggest that "it is an adult's made up version in order to deliberately hurt". They suspect that the medical report was falsified. In respect of the scratches to BK's arms they say "Dr Ward must be mistaken. The scratches could have been caused by BK himself." [C289]                                                                                                                                                                          

129.	In her oral evidence she confirmed that her son, RK, and his partner, EZ and their children had left the UK on the 2nd December 2014 and had no plans to return to live with them. In response to the cross-examination of Mrs Lessing she said she was not aware that BK had been born with syphilis or that the mother had syphilis. If she had known she would have gone to appointments with the mother. She said she first heard mention of syphilis here in court and reasserted that she had not been told by any of the doctors that BK had it. She said that the social worker, David Adam, had never mentioned it in the assessment and only became aware that the mother had syphilis when the key social worker asked questions. She did not believe it but said she did now. Despite saying she believed it now she said she wanted to see it in black and white.

130.	When asked about seeing marks and scratches on BK when the mother was in hospital following FK’s birth she said she had  seen a red mark on his thigh but no scratches. She first saw scratch marks on BK's back on the Tuesday or Wednesday after the mother came to Rotherham with BK and FK on the Sunday. She only saw scratch marks on the left shoulder but said she told the mother to take BK to the hospital straight away. She did not agree that the scratches could not have been caused by a child and said she thought that BK could have caused them to himself. She asserted that the doctor had made up the story about the scratches being caused by an adult.

131.	In respect of the bruises, IG said that she told the mother to take BK to hospital but the mother said she could not go to Manchester to take BK because the father had taken the flat.

132.	In respect of the time she spent living with MC in Bradford which she said was 6 months and not the two years shown on the social work files, she said it was not a relationship but that she was looking after him since he was very ill in the second stage of cancer. She said she had split from FH in 2012 because he wanted another baby which she did not. They separated for 8 or 9 months.. She agreed it was confusing when her own statement referred to her relationship with MC being for a total of 4 months. 

133.	She said she did not trust the local authority and did not believe the doctor about the injuries to BK. She believed that BK had done the scratches to himself and she did not accept they were  caused by adults.

134.	In response to Ms Bramhall for the mother, IG said that RK and his partner had not been living with them. She did not remember describing scratches and a bruise on BK to the mother when she was in hospital with FK. She did recall however that when she saw the scratches on BK's back she was present with the mother and her brother's partner who said that was why the mother never let her bath BK. When it was put to her that she had told the children's guardian when they met on the 14th July that they "moved a lot to avoid social services", she replied by saying that they did move but the reason was because the accommodation was not suitable for a new born baby.

FH, maternal step-grandfather
135.	FH said he had never seen any medical report about the mother suffering from syphilis and would not accept the diagnosis unless he saw it in black and white. He had not seen the scratches on BK because he had been working and was told about them by IG. He had seen the bruise on BK's  face one evening on the 24th, 25th or the 26th September 2014. He and IG had told the mother to take BK to the doctor's in Manchester since he was not registered in Rotherham.

136.	When questioned by Ms Pope on behalf of the father, FH suggested that Dr Ward had changed her mind when giving evidence because they had proven the medical evidence was wrong and the bruises happened when BK hit the coffee table. . He suggested that since BK was not walking this had caused them to question how the bruises had been caused. He claimed his fist would have covered almost the whole of BK's face since it covered ¾ of an adult's face. He also asserted that adult fingernails did not correspond to the scratches seen on BK since the scratches would have been longer.  While he said he was surprised that the mother had lied to the court about having had an abortion neither he nor the grandmother has asked the mother about this. Despite that he did not accept that it would be difficult for the court or the local authority to trust her.

137.	When being asked about his relationship with IG based on what was said in their statement at C270 he said that neither he nor IG had written the Slovak version of their statement which had been translated into English. His evidence was unclear and uncertain but the interpreter informed the court that the Slovak sentences did not make sense and appeared to have been translated by a computer.  Despite this he continued to assert that the doctors were making things up in respect of the injuries to BK and the syphilis issue. Although he was reminded by Ms Bramhall that the mother accepted the diagnosis of syphilis, FH did not accept that BK had been born suffering from congenital syphilis. In respect of RK and his partner, he said that they had their own flat in Sheffield. He agreed that they had left the UK because they were worried about social services looking at their own children. 

Evidence of the children's guardian 

Deborah Metcalfe, children's guardian 
138.	Deborah Metcalfe, the children's guardian, has prepared three reports which are before the court These are her initial Revised PLO Case Analysis dated the 7th November 2014 at E1-11; her final Revised PLO Case Analysis dated the 19th May 2015 at E77-91; and her Placement Order Application Report dated the 15th July 2015 at E92-113.

139.	In addition to dealing with the injuries to BK and the issue of failing to protect at E81-82, in her Analysis of Parenting Capacity the guardian says at E80-81

"This is not a single issue case and the concerns around (the mother's) parenting are numerous which is one reason why a separate fact 	finding hearing has not been required within the course of the proceedings. (She) has moved around 4 different authorities since BK was born and numerous concerns have been raised over time by health professionals about the lack of engagement with support and medical care/ appointments. Social Work Assessments have been about to start when the family have moved again and concerns referred on. All of this has presented a worrying picture of neglect that has become more heightened as (the mother) has continued to miss her own and the children’s health appointments. 

(She) has not met BK’s health needs and he contracted congenital Syphilis from 	her in utero. This is a particularly serious allegation against her as the result of this could have been life threatening and indeed led to a lengthy period for him in hospital after birth with him 	suffering an enlarged liver and Spleen.

	Significantly (the mother) only attended midwifery services for her daughter at 33 weeks 	gestation despite the issues and given she has sexually transmitted diseases and Syphilis, and had seen the impact of congenital Syphilis upon BK at birth, it is a significant concern that she did not access treatment/ and ante natal care  sooner when pregnant with FK though she did  later undergo  a course of treatment, but I believe never had  a blood test subsequently to confirm she is free of Syphillis. It is concerning she is now currently some four or five months pregnant again and up to very recently did not appear to have accessed ante natal care.

	There were  also significant issues of neglect of the children’s physical needs  when in the care of (the mother) and JY, with poor home conditions, a lack of stability, neglect of FK’s needs at the hospital after her birth and a lack of equipment  at home for her,(though the situation did improve after her discharge from hospital). (She) did not accept any problems with her care of the children in interview with me on 11.5.15. Nor did she accept any real responsibility for missed health appointments for BK."
  
140.	In her discussion of the father's position (the report being written at a time when the parents professed to be living separate and apart) the guardian notes that in relation to the mother being found at the father's home on the 29th April that the property was one which the father  and the mother had not lived in together and that therefore the mother should not have had keys to the property [E82]. In addition she cites as another difficulty with the father's position the fact that he deflects all the blame on others and does not accept any involvement in the neglect of the children's needs historically [E83].

141.	Following on from her Child Impact Analysis and Early Permanence Analysis in which she considers  the possible placement options for the children, the guardian concludes by recommending the making of care and placement orders to facilitate placement for adoption for both children.
 
142.	In her Placement report the guardian says of the maternal grandparents  who she had visited to discuss matters with that 

"They have attempted to seek legal advice but have not been able to afford it and therefore told me they had written to the court in Slovak and English to tell the judge they are unhappy about the assessment of them but that they want to care for the children .They felt the assessment was too intrusive of their personal lives and felt that the assessor was critical of FH’s work commitments. Unfortunately I remain concerned that they do not fully understand the Local Authority’s concerns. They cannot accept that the injuries were essentially non- accidental. I was  also somewhat concerned when we discussed a concern of Mr Adams that the family as a whole lacked stability  which would not be appropriate for young children, at the admission from IG that  she had moved a lot  to avoid the Social Services Department taking BK" [E99].

143.	In respect of her analysis of the parents' positions she adds in respect of the mother  that 
"it appears that the mother is still not booked in anywhere for antenatal care. It is understood that she has seen a gynaecologist on an emergency basis recently but refused to undergo a scan and left the hospital.

Given this, and despite the fact she appears to be in the latter stages of pregnancy and despite the previous issues has refused a scan and lied to the court and parties about having a termination, I am extremely concerned. Her behaviour does not bode well for meaningful engagement with professionals in future were she to have the children rehabilitated back to her care.  She maintains that she has an appointment with the midwife on 27th July, but even so I remain concerned that things have got so far in the pregnancy before she has properly accessed health care for her and her unborn child. It seems she may well be neglecting her unborn child’s needs in a way which is reminiscent of before." [E102]

144.	Although the guardian acknowledges that the father has made some progress in his learning around child development and routines/care of children she asserts that there are concerns about his response to risk and whether he could manage both children at home. However, she goes on to say that his honesty remains a concern given the issues around the relationship between him and the mother [E104].

145.	Having then considered the welfare checklist issues, she concludes by recommending that adoption is in the best interests of both children with twice yearly indirect letterbox contact for the parents and the maternal grandmother.

146.	In her oral evidence the guardian confirmed that nothing she had heard of the evidence given during the hearing had caused her to change her recommendations to the court from those set out in her reports. She considered that there was no clarity around the circumstances of the family and was not confident that the maternal grandparents  could safeguard the children against risk as they had no understanding of what was required. She considered that the dishonesty of the parents in their evidence was striking. The lies the mother told about her termination of her pregnancy did not bode well for the local authority working with the mother. The guardian had concerns about the mother failing to share information as well as having no understanding of her own or her children's health needs. 

147.	Although the guardian acknowledged that the mother had had some periods of engagement with health and social services these had never been sustained and her own pattern of behaviour was of worrying concern. When asked by Ms Bramhall about practical support and whether modelling had been tried with the mother to improve her parenting, the guardian acknowledged that modelling had not been tried but that there were issues around honesty in respect of risk management which would mean that the local authority could not manage the risk. She did not consider that the mother had demonstrated that she had learnt about health issues and risks and took issue with the suggestion that there had been a "gradually improving picture" in terms of how the mother dealt with the children in contact.
 
148.	In response to Ms Pope for the father the guardian somewhat reluctantly conceded that it was not acceptable that the local authority had not done the parenting sessions with the  father that they had told the father and the court would be done. Despite that she asserted that she had no problem with the way in which the assessment had been done and considered that it was a fair assessment. While she acknowledged that there were some positives so far as the father was concerned and said that deficits in his parenting was not the issue, she remained concerned about his dishonesty and whether he would be determined not to be in the pool of perpetrators. She acknowledged his love for the children and the attachment which they had to him and the potential benefits to the children of continuing contact with the wider family even if they could not return to the care of the parents.

Discussion 

149.	I have been able to read and consider the written submissions which I have received from counsel for the represented parties. I did not require the maternal grandparents  to provide submissions since it was clear to me having watched and listened to them over the seven days of this hearing and dealt with numerous questions they asked that they had little understanding of the court process or the child protection procedures and responsibilities which the local authority and other professionals are bound by. I have deliberately recited the evidence in the detail set out above to ensure that the lay parties have as full a record of all the issues put before the court as is possible. I hope it might give them a better understanding at how the court has made its determinations and reached its conclusions.

BK's injuries
150.	The only dispute to the medical evidence given by Dr Ward comes from the maternal grandparents  who contend that the medical report was falsified and that Dr Ward was mistaken in the conclusions she reached. Their refusal to accept her evidence is based on their own beliefs without any medical base or foundation as to how injuries to a child would occur such as their suggestion that if BK had been hit directly in the face by an adult "then surely his cheekbone and jaw would be broken".  Neither believed Dr Ward's evidence about the injuries to BK. 

151.	I have no hesitation in dismissing the maternal grandparents  objections and rejecting their contentions regarding the evidence of Dr Ward. Dr Ward is a very experienced medical expert who was asked to undertake an independent review of the medical evidence and authorised by the court to do so. Her report is, as I observed above, typically detailed and thorough. Her oral evidence was balanced and thoughtful. I have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. I am fortified in that conclusion because of the position adopted by all the other parties. 

152.	I find that BK has sustained a series of inflicted injuries. Taking the injuries as numbered by Dr Ward in her report and set out above at paragraph  39 I find that the injuries to BK's left eye (1); the mild swelling of his upper lip (3); the lesions on his back (4,5,6,7 & 8); and the lesions to his lower left arm (9) are all injuries which have been inflicted by an adult or adults. The bruising to the eye and swelling to the cheek are likely to have been caused by a direct blow or punch to the face in circumstances where BK would have been distressed and crying. Any adult present would have been aware that he had been injured. The lesions to the back are likely to have been caused by forcible gripping or grasping of the child around the shoulders by a person (not a child or toddler) with long finger nails. At the time the lesions were inflicted the skin would have been broken and likely to have exhibited some bleeding. BK would have been distressed and crying when the injuries were inflicted and any adult present would have been aware that he had been injured. Any carer responsible for  changing or bathing him would have seen these injuries. The lower left arm lesions would also have been caused by being gripped firmly round the wrist by a person (not a child or toddler) with long finger nails. BK would have been distressed and crying when the injuries were inflicted and any adult present would have been aware that he had been injured. Any carer responsible for  changing or bathing him would have seen these injuries.

153.	Dr Ward was unable to help with the timing of when any of the injuries were inflicted but said it would not extend beyond 10 to 14 days from when the photographs were taken on the 1st October.  Although the outside window for when the injuries to the eye and face were sustained would be between the 17th and 21st September she thought they were likely to have been sustained very much less than that. The same applied to the lesions to the back and lower left arm. There is of course no reliable evidence from anyone as to how, when or by whom the injuries were inflicted. All four of the lay parties have proved to be wholly unreliable historians in my judgment and no reliance can be placed on their evidence in relation to when the injuries were first seen. The bruising was first noted by a professional on the 27th September and the lesions to the back on the 29th. The lesions to the left lower arm were not seen on the 29th September when BK was examined naked which leads me to conclude that these lesions were likely to have been inflicted later on 29th or the 30th September given that they were evident at the time of the medical examination on the 1st October. There is no evidence that the father was present in Rotherham at that time and this would exclude him from being considered as a perpetrator of these injuries. 

154.	Consideration of the all the evidence leads me to conclude that all the injuries sustained by BK were sustained when he was living in Rotherham with his mother after she returned to live there with both children on either the 18th or 19th September. That being so I find that there is no "real possibility" that the father inflicted any of the injuries and can accordingly be removed from the pool of perpetrators. 

155.	Given my finding that the injuries were sustained while BK was in Rotherham and that the father can be removed from the pool of perpetrators that leaves me to conclude that the pool of perpetrators comprises the mother, maternal grandmother, maternal grandfather, the mother's brother, RK, and his partner, EZ, on the basis of the evidence before the court. Ms Bramhall in her submissions accepts that the mother cannot dispute that she is properly identified as an individual to be placed in the pool of perpetrators. In the subsequent 23 paragraphs of her written submission Ms Bramhall seeks to argue that the mother is an unlikely perpetrator and should be  removed from the pool. I am not in any way persuaded by Ms Bramhall's submissions and am satisfied that there is a "real possibility" that she may have inflicted some or all of the injuries.

156.	So far as the issue of failure to protect and failure to seek medical attention as set out at paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Threshold document is concerned, I find that the father can be excluded from such consideration. The fact that the mid-wife saw a bruise on BK's eye on the same day or the day after the father saw it and heard about it during a Skype call with the mother and did not consider that medical attention was required must in my view mean that the father  cannot be criticised for not taking action. The mother concedes that she failed to protect BK as his primary carer at the time these injuries are most likely to have occurred as she was responsible for whom she allowed to care for him. I am also satisfied that if she was caring for him in terms of dressing and undressing him to bath and wash she would undoubtedly have been aware not only of the bruising to his eye and face but also the lesions on his back. Any responsible carer being aware of the injuries should have been prompted to seek some medical advice and attention. The fact that she was not registered with a GP in Rotherham is neither here nor there, in my judgement, given the availability of emergency and other health services for families and children. The evidence shows that both the maternal grandparents  were aware of the scratches and the bruising and must therefore fall to be implicated for failure to protect and failure to seek medical attention for BK. The same must apply to the maternal uncle, RK, and his partner, EZ, despite the maternal grandmother's attempt to say they were not living in the household which, on the evidence, I do not accept.

Other medical issues
157.	Dr Ward concluded that the injuries to BK were sustained against a backdrop of other concerns relating to failure to meet BK's medical needs and concerns regarding consistency of care and frequent moves [E65]. Within the medical chronology as observed at paragraph 77 above there are very many references to failed medical appointments and failure to communicate with health professionals. There are as well a significant number of entries where health workers have clearly explained to both the mother and the father after he became involved with her the importance of her attending appointments, clinics etc.  These issues form the basis of paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 25 of the Threshold document.  I dealt with paragraph 21 above when considering the Threshold Criteria. 

158.	While the mother asserted that she accepted missing appointments she said she only did so when she did not receive appointment letters. The father accepted missing some appointments but suggested that he was not fully responsible for getting the mother to appointments as sometimes the social worker came to make appointments although he did say that sometimes when he was there he spoke to the midwife and the health visitor. In her oral evidence, Dr Ward expressed concern in commenting on the neglect of BK's health needs given the degree of congenital syphilis which he had suffered – she said she was "shocked" to see it – and considered that the mother and the family had failed BK. She also said it was a concern that the mother had failed to engage in ante-natal care for FK until late on in her pregnancy and was being repeated with her current pregnancy. Despite what the mother seeks to contend in respect of paragraph 25 of the threshold in that she sought treatment, I prefer and accept the evidence of Dr Ward and find that paragraph to be established. The evidence of neglect of the children's basic health needs is supported by the unchallenged evidence above of the Senior Specialist Nurse, health visitor and midwives. I have no hesitation in finding that paragraphs 20 and 22 of the Threshold are clearly made out and involve both the mother and father in the failure of parenting. 

Other Threshold Issues
159.	Both parents have accepted that previous home conditions have on occasion been poor and unhygienic which when considered alongside some of the reports from health professionals and the maternal grandmother  makes out paragraph 23 of the threshold.

160.	The family has made multiple moves providing a lack of stability and structure for the children involving moves between four different local authority areas in less than a year.  The evidence shows that such moves were on occasion clearly intended to avoid involvement with social workers and medical support for the children and family and was encouraged by the maternal family [E99] and the father [F121]. The moves appear to have taken place without planning or notice to family members [F120] or health professionals or social worker [E21]. What is abundantly clear to me on consideration of all the evidence is that despite efforts made by the social worker and others to engage the parents and provide support that has not been accepted. Similarly, I am satisfied that the family have not been open and honest with regard to their addresses and the history of their property changes [C153]. This deals with paragraph 24 of the threshold document.

161.	In the light of the conclusions in respect of BK's injuries as set out above, it follows that to return BK and FK to the mother or any of the other maternal family members would create a  very significant risk of the children being exposed to future harm. This deals with paragraph 26  of the threshold document.

Honesty & Credibility Issues
162.	Before going to consider any specific welfare checklist issues it is important to give some consideration to issues of honesty and credibility in light of the evidence of the parents and the maternal grandparents. The mother blatantly lied to the court and all professionals when at the hearing on the 27th May 2015 she said she had terminated her pregnancy. That is set out at paragraph 92 above and her response under cross-examination is set out at paragraph 100. 

163.	The mother also admitted that she had lied in her statement at C251 about her separation from the father and that is set out at paragraph 101 above. In addition she added that she had lied to the police when she told them the father had shaken BK on an occasion which she said was not true. There were a number of other examples which show that the mother if not dishonest was a very poor historian as evidence by what she said about seeing scratches and a bruise on BK while the father was caring for him while she was in hospital with FK.

164.	The father's oral evidence that he did not know about the mother's current pregnancy until she told the court about the termination as set out at paragraph 116 above appears to be a lie which is simply not credible in the light of the mother's evidence. So too was his evidence about when he and the mother had resumed their relationship which he ultimately conceded had been (an unhelpfully unspecific) "several weeks ago". It now seems clear to me that both the mother and the father lied to the professionals on the occasions when the mother was seen at the father's property in April and July in an  effort to continue their deception about being separated. They both continued the dishonest deception when they were at court for the previous hearing on the 21st to the 23rd July. His explanation offered in his evidence as to why he had failed to engage with the social workers early on in the proceedings simply did not have the ring of truth given that he would have been given information about the availability of legal representation when he was served with the proceedings in October. There are many examples of his dishonesty which, in my judgement, have no rational  explanation save that they were intended to deceive the professionals into believing that he was doing something which he was not. It now seems likely that part or all of the assessment of him as a sole carer was undertaken by the local authority on a false premise.

165.	Ms Pope invites me to accept the evidence of the father in preference to that of the mother about his knowledge of the pregnancy and his evidence about when the relationship resumed. There is no basis on which I can properly do so since, sadly, both of them lack any credibility. I am asked to consider a 'Lucas Direction' on the premise that their dishonesty on these issues does not mean that they will be dishonest in the future. That is a difficult submission to accept given the number and the enormity of the issues which they have lied about.  I find that there quite simply is no basis on which any of the professionals involved can trust what the parents will say or do. Their dishonesty fundamentally undermines any scope for an open working relationship between the parents and the local authority to promote rehabilitation of the children to their care. In addition, I find that their dishonesty and the lack of trust which any of the local authority professionals have in them precludes any possibility of any further assessment for which both the mother and the father have argued in their submissions through counsel.

166.	The maternal grandparents and, in particular, the maternal grandmother, IG, have proved to be very unreliable historians. Mr Adam, the social worker who assessed them described them as being "misleading, difficult, untruthful and not forthright with information". That was the impression which I formed when listening to them giving their evidence. Her assertion that she had never heard the mention of the mother having syphilis or BK being born with syphilis until she came to court and heard the key social worker giving evidence was as disingenuous as it was dishonest, in my judgement. I say that because in the assessment with Mr Adam he records their contention suggesting that "the NHS had  falsified blood tests for (the mother)". 

167.	In addition, the maternal grandmother has given very unreliable and differing accounts of the relationship which she had with MC during the time that she and the maternal grandfather, FH, had been separated. She also gave conflicting evidence about who was living in the family home with them. 

168.	There were other aspects of their evidence which simply called into question their credibility such as their refusal to accept the medical evidence of Dr Ward and the maternal grandfather's belief that she had changed her mind when giving evidence because they had proven the medical evidence was wrong which was simply not true. Similarly his refusal to accept that BK had been born suffering from syphilis when he was told that the mother accepted her own diagnosis both showed his limitation of understanding and undermined his credibility.  

Welfare Checklist Issues

169.	The threshold having been established and the findings made in relation to the injuries and observations in relation to honesty and credibility now requires the court to consider whether orders should be made and, if so, what orders. That requires consideration of the realistic options and an analysis of the arguments for and against each relevant option. In carrying out the balancing exercise the court must treat the children's welfare as paramount and inform its decision by consideration of the welfare checklists in section 1 (3) of the Children Act 1989 and section 1 (4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 since the care plan for the children is one of adoption. 

Wishes & feelings and physical, emotional needs
170.	BK at age 2 years and 2 months and FK at just 11 months are young children who are  not capable of expressing their wishes and feelings. They have the needs of any young children for a safe, stable and settled family life and to be provided with appropriate physical care with love and affection and encouraged to develop to their full potential in a safe and secure environment. They are both healthy children who are developing well. They are both settled with their foster carers with whom they have been placed since last October and have formed strong bonds. 

Effect of any change of circumstances
171.	The change in their circumstances of making the orders sought by the local authority will mean that their contact with their parents and the maternal grandmother will be reduced in accordance with the local authority plan with a view to that ceasing when an adoptive placement for them is identified. While that will involve a loss it is not one which is likely to be meaningful for them at their tender young ages. They will remain in their current placement until an adoptive placement is found. If they were to be returned to the care of their parents then, in light of the findings made above, it is likely that they will be exposed to the significant risk of further instability, neglect of their needs and physical abuse. 

Background and cultural characteristics
172.	Both BK and FK are of mixed heritage being Roma Slovakian and Pakistani. Both have experience of being spoken to in English, Slovakian, Roma and Urdu. Both children are spoken to in English by their foster carers which is likely to become their first language. The mother is concerned that the children's Roma heritage should be emphasised for them and it appears the parents would wish the children to be brought up as Muslim. 

Harm suffered or at risk of suffering
173.	The physical harm which BK suffered is set out fully above in relation to the findings made in respect of his injuries. In addition his health needs which were significant at birth since he suffered from congenital syphilis have been neglected. Additionally, he has suffered from instability generated by the number of different moves of accommodation whilst in the care of the parents during the first part of his life. In view of her age and only being a month old when she was accommodated FK has not suffered in the same way. However, due to the mother neglecting her own health needs and failing to access effective ante-natal care at an early stage of her pregnancy with FK, FK's discharge from hospital was delayed as she required to receive treatment to counteract syphilis. She experienced some instability after discharge from hospital since she only lived with her father in Manchester for three days or so before moving to Rotherham with the mother. 

Capacity of parents or any other person of meeting their needs
174.	The local authority acknowledges that the father has reasonable basic parenting skills although he is not always good at identifying or anticipating risk within contact. It is to his credit that he sought out and attended parenting courses which have benefitted him and the children. The mother who shows love and affection to the children has struggled in meeting their basic needs. The maternal grandmother has good basic parenting skills. However, the fact that both the mother and the maternal grandmother have been found to remain within the pool of perpetrators poses a significant risk of harm to the children were they to be placed with either. Given that the mother and the father are now reconciled and committed to a long term relationship on a permanent basis, the mother's position precludes the possibility of a safe placement for the children.

175.	Consideration of the evidence leads me to conclude that both lack insight and understanding of the children's welfare and health needs. Both demonstrated an inability to prioritise the children's welfare needs by failing myriad medical and health appointments so far as BK was concerned. The mother failed to access ante-natal care for FK but more obviously after her birth left FK unattended on the ward to prioritise her own needs to smoke, eat and see the father and BK without them coming to the ward. So far as the father was concerned he failed to prioritise the children's needs when they were accommodated by failing to engage and participate in contact with them for reasons which are entirely unclear. 

176.	The dishonesty and deception of the parents wholly militates against any sort of support package being put in place by the local authority which would allow the children to be safely cared for in the family since they cannot be trusted to cooperate. The local authority considers that it cannot manage the risk of harm in view of the findings made and their dishonesty in their presentation to professionals and the court.
 
177.	In the light of the findings made in respect of BK's injuries and the other threshold issues, coupled with the level of the parents dishonesty and deception concerning their relationship, there is no basis for this court to consider that any further assessment of either or both of the parents would be justified. 

178.	In light of these observations, I come to the conclusion, in common with the local authority and the children's guardian that there is sadly no basis to consider a return of the children to the care of the parents.

179.	There is no scope for realistic consideration of placement of the children with the maternal grandparents  given their admitted lack of trust of the local authority and other relevant services for children. It is clear that the maternal grandparents  have limited insight into the concerns of the local authority and the health professionals for the children. In addition, it is a concern that the maternal grandparents  would not be able to safeguard the children against the risks posed by the parents since they do not accept the risks exist. These concerns are shared by the local authority and the children's guardian and, in my judgement, are well founded. The grandparents hostility to the local authority and their belief in it being part of a conspiracy to remove the children from the care of the mother was all too clear to see in their evidence.

Likely effect on childen throughout their lives of having ceased to a member of his  family and becoming an adopted person

180.	The likely effect on the children of having ceased to be a member of their original family and becoming an adopted person is, in my judgement, unlikely to be an issue of great significance for them at this stage in their lives given their ages. BK and FK are to be placed together and will therefore grow up together as siblings. The only significant family relationships which the children have is with their mother and father and their maternal grandmother. Those relationships will be lost  save for being maintained through indirect contact arrangements. BK will suffer the more significant loss in respect of the relationships which he has with his mother and the maternal grandmother than will FK because of her younger age and the fact that she has been in the care of foster carers since she was just a month old. 

181.	Although not acknowledged by either the local authority in its care plans or the children's guardian in her reports, it is in my judgement, extremely unlikely that the local authority will be able to find prospective adopters to meet the children's heritage and cultural background as mixed Roma Slovakian and Pakistani children. Realistically, it has to be acknowledged that maintaining the children's cultural heritage is likely to be nigh on impossible within the context of adoption. If the children were to be placed in foster care on a long term basis there might be some prospect of maintaining their cultural heritage through contact with their parents and maternal grandmother although it seems unlikely that they would develop the language skills to communicate in Roma Slovakian or Urdu.

182.	By becoming adopted persons the children will be provided with a permanent substitute family who will provide a family life for them and who will be legally responsible for them. The family chosen will have been through a rigorous and thorough assessment process to determine their ability to care for the children and make a lifelong commitment to them and will be matched to meet the children's identified needs as best that can be done. 

183.	There is less risk to the children of placement breakdown than there would be were they to be placed in long term foster care which  would inevitably have to extend for many years given their very young ages. Adoption would mean that the children would be free from any continuing monitoring or oversight by the local authority which would be inherent in the continuance of care orders with regular LAC reviews.  

The relationship which the childen have with any other person in relation to whom the court consider the question to be relevant
184.	 Although both the parents and the maternal grandparents  are willing and anxious to care for the children they do not, in my judgement, based on the findings I have made on a range of issues above have the capacity to do so and meet the children's needs. No other relatives have been identified as willing and able to care for the children.

The range of powers available to the court
185.	The court has available to it the full range of orders including public law supervision and care orders since the threshold is established. It is a case where on any view of all the evidence there is a need for an order or orders to be made. In light of the findings made in relation to the capacity of the parents and maternal grandparents  and the other issues which have been addressed only care orders will enable the children to be safeguarded by the local authority to ensure that their welfare needs are met. There is quite simply no prospect of these children being rehabilitated to the care of their parents or being placed with the maternal grandparents  based on my findings. 

186.	The local authority plans for the children are predicated on the children being placed for adoption in the event of care orders being made. The only other option available to the children in light of the findings made against the parents would be care orders with a view to the children being placed in long term foster care. Whilst that would have the advantage of the children being able to maintain relationships with their parents and maternal grandmother through contact and therefore sustain aspects of their cultural heritage, the reality is that given their ages permanence through adoption must be considered as the more preferable option to provide the children with stability and security throughout their childhood and beyond. Long term fostering carries risks of placement breakdown, moves and changes of placement and continuing oversight and involvement of the local authority which children as they get older find to be both intrusive and unwanted.

187.	Given the plan for adoption and the placement application which is before the court, consideration has to be given to the children's welfare throughout their lives as the paramount consideration as set out in section 1 (2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Consideration has also to be given to the relevant additional welfare checklist issues set out in Section 1 (4) of that Act. Those factors have been addressed above. In view of section 52 of the Act, a placement order can only be made without the parents' consent if that consent is dispensed with where the welfare of the children requires it to be dispensed with. 
Conclusion & Orders

188.	I have in consideration of this judgment and the conclusions reached taken into account all the relevant legal issues identified within the Framework set above at paragraphs 23 to 37 inclusive. When seeking to balance the pros and cons of the realistic options in this case based on the findings made on the evidence any consideration of the prospect of rehabilitation to the parents or placement with the maternal grandparents  is ruled out. They cannot meet the children's needs for a safe, stable and secure environment in which to be brought up and develop throughout their childhood. 

189.	That leaves the options of long term placement in foster care or placement with a view to adoption to be considered. I do not need to repeat the issues discussed at paragraph 186 since that sets outs the respective pros and cons and leads me to conclude that placement with a view to adoption is the only realistic option to promote and safeguard the welfare of these children throughout their lives. In the circumstances, I am satisfied  that I should  approve the local authority’s plans for them to achieve permanency through adoption. I have considered the local authority's proposals for contact which in the circumstances are entirely appropriate. Accordingly, I will grant the care orders to the local authority in respect of both BK and FK.  The making of the care order is, in my judgement, given the circumstances of the children as set out above necessary to protect and safeguard their interests and is a proportionate response to their circumstances. That then requires me to pass on to deal with the placement application.

Placement application

190.	I repeat that I have read and considered the relevant documents in respect of the applications for placement orders. The children's guardian supports the applications for placement orders. I have of course given specific consideration to the welfare checklist as it applies to the Children Act 1989 in approving the local authority’s care plans for adoption for the children. I have in addition, as is clear from what is said above, also already had regard to the checklist in respect of section 1 (4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the issues which are relevant. I do not intend to repeat myself. 

191.	I am satisfied that, on all the evidence before me, adoption is in best interests of both BK and FK. There is no other realistic available option and the reality is that nothing else will do so far as the children are concerned. Their mother and father understandably, in the circumstances, do not agree to them being placed for adoption. The father does not have parental responsibility for BK and I do not accordingly have to consider dispensing with his agreement to adoption for BK. He does have parental responsibility for FK and I must therefore consider whether his and the mother's agreement can be dispensed with on the basis that the children's welfare requires it. Having reached the conclusion that adoption is in their best interests then, in my judgement, it follows that I must dispense with the agreement of the mother and the father to adoption in accordance with section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 because the children's welfare requires it. I, accordingly, dispense with their agreement to adoption. I make the placement orders in respect of both BK and FK. 
Orders
Care Order

192.	The orders which I make in relation to the local authority application under section 31 in respect of both children are –   
(a)	A care order to the local authority, Manchester City Council.
(b)	The local authority may disclose copies of relevant documents in the   proceedings to any prospective adopters with whom it is proposed to match the children, BK and FK, for adoption.
(c)	The local authority solicitor shall provide a copy of this judgment to the Independent Reviewing Officer for the children.
(d)	The children's solicitor shall provide an electronic copy of this judgment to Dr K Ward.
(e)	There be no order for costs save for detailed assessment of the Public Funding Certificate costs of each of the assisted parties.

Placement order

193.	In respect of the placement applications, I make the following orders – 
(a)	I dispense with the consent of the mother and the father to adoption on the ground that BK and FK's welfare requires it.
(b)	The local authority may place the children, BK and FK, for adoption.
(c)	There be no order for costs save for detailed assessment of the Public Funding Certificate costs of each of the assisted parties.

194.	I should add that on the penultimate day of the hearing, 10th August 2015, in the early hours of the morning the mother gave birth to a healthy baby boy. The baby whose name I do not yet know has been required to remain in hospital for a period of 10 days for anti-biotic treatment against the risk of congenital syphilis. On the 11th August I made an interim care order in respect of the baby until after the conclusion of this judgment. As a retired judge I cannot deal with the required case management of the baby's case and have accordingly allocated it to His Honour Judge Harper at the request of the Designated Family Judge.  The proceedings are listed for a Case Management Hearing on the 26th August 2015 and Judge Harper will have the benefit of a copy of this judgment to assist him. 

195.	This concludes the judgment.