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 family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: BS15C00671
IN THE BRISTOL FAMILY COURT

Bristol Civil and Family Justice Centre

Before:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILDBLOOD QC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
Gloucestershire County Council
Applicant
-and-

M
First Respondent
-and-

F
Second Respondent
-and-

A
(by her guardian, Alison Clutterbuck)
Third Respondent
-and-

MGA
Intervener 

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

Ben Jenkins for the Local Authority 
Mark Cooper for the mother.
Charlotte Pitts for the father.
Rebecca Scammell for the child.
Henrietta MacMillan-Scott for the maternal great aunt.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
HHJ Wildblood QC:
1.	Introduction - This is the final hearing of applications under The Children Act 1989 relating to a six month old girl to whom I shall refer as A. These proceedings follow lengthy public law litigation concerning A’s elder brother to whom I shall refer as B. B, who is now two years old, will shortly be adopted, the parents’ application for permission to appeal my refusal to give them leave to oppose the making of an adoption order having been rejected by McFarlane LJ on 14th October 2015. On 16th May 2014 I had made care and placement orders in relation to B and gave a full judgment to explain why; I also gave a full written judgment on 8th July 2015 to explain why I refused the parents’ application under section 47 of The Adoption and Children Act 2002. 
2.	I will repeat some of the summary that I gave in my judgment of 8th July 2015 so that this judgment can stand alone. However, I stress at the outset that this case concerns A, not B, and I have to judge this case on the facts and evidence that I receive at this hearing. Thus the outcome of B’s proceedings does not determine those relating to A. There have been parenting assessments within these proceedings and those assessments are very different to the assessments that were conducted in B’s proceedings.
3.	In these public law proceedings Gloucestershire County Council supports the making of a special guardianship order in favour of A’s maternal great aunt (to whom I refer as ‘the aunt’), who is in her early 50’s and with whom A has lived since July. That outcome is supported by the guardian, Ms Alison Clutterbuck, who has filed her final report to that effect on 28th October 2015. The mother and the father (as I shall call them in this judgment) remain united and seek the return of A to their care; if A cannot live with them they would wish for her to live with the aunt. It has been necessary for there to be a very careful assessment of the position of the aunt because, in the proceedings relating to B, she twice withdrew from proposals that she had made to care for him saying that she ‘knew’ that she ‘could not keep B safe’ and that she would ‘never be free’ of the father.
4.	The father continues to be vocal in his rejection of any orders that do not place A in the care of himself and the mother. The case began by me being told that if A does live with the aunt and the father has less than three sessions of contact each week he will not comply with the order and will not comply with any injunctions that he should keep way from the home of the aunt either; by the time that he gave evidence he suggested that his view had softened on this issue although the reasoning that he gave for that change of mind was not convincing (I set it out later). He has also continued to say that he will post personal details on the internet about those involved (see the statement of Mr Andrew Harding at C247). The mother remains unable to exercise control over his behaviour.
5.	A happy feature of this case is that the two primary options that present themselves (return to the parents or a special guardianship order to the aunt) mean that A will experience an upbringing within her natural family. A particularly frustrating feature of this case is that, despite the enormous expenditure that has been absorbed by this contested litigation, the depth of the investigations within them and the copious knowledge of the difficulties that the parents both have, the therapy that both parents are said to need has not been found for them. I will say more about that at the end of the judgment. However, I wish to record now that as a result of my lengthy involvement with this family and despite some of the things that he has said at times (sometimes relating to me as well), I hold a very deep respect for this father who is an intelligent man who wants to care for his children; it is not his fault that he suffers from the disabling condition of autistic spectrum disorder. If the father suffered from a physical disability that had a commensurate impact on his parenting abilities, I have no doubt at all that he would attract rightful and considerable support and sympathy; he deserves nothing less even though his disability may be less visible than a physical disability. He and the mother have also been able to maintain their marriage through the very profound strain of the two sets of proceedings that they have faced and their own difficulties (which have included homelessness and constant assessment); that, too, is something for which they deserve strong recognition. 
6.	Since there are a number of ancillary applications before me I set out the position of the parties in the following table:
	Local authority	Mother	Father	Aunt	Guardian 	
Adjourn for Resolutions type assessment	No	Yes - primary position with a view to A living with the parents.	Yes, secondary position.	No.	No.	
Return A to parents	No.	Yes, preferably after above assessment.	Yes, primary position.	No.	No.	
Special guardianship order to aunt	Yes	Secondary position	Tertiary position	Yes	Yes	
Contact frequency if A with aunt	Every six weeks, supervised by L.A. Review after 11 months.	As at present (3 x p.w.). Accepts some reduction may be necessary but not to 1 x 6 weeks.	As at present (3 x p.w.)	As Local Authority.	As Local Authority. Or 6 x p.a. but: is an order necessary? 	
Supervision order for 12 months?	Would accept such an order but questions whether necessary.	Accepts order should be made irrespective of outcome.	As mother.	Would welcome supervision order.	Recommends order should be made.	
S91(14) order	Yes. Relating to contact only and for 12 months (both parents).	No.	No.	Yes.	Yes (had recommended to age 16 – A31)	
S 42 Family Law Act injunction if with aunt?	Yes. ‘Stay away’ order for both parents either in aunt’s village or zonal area in immediate vicinity of aunt’s home.	Yes, would accept this up to 200 meters around the aunt’s property. 	No	Yes – zonal area only.	Yes – as Local Authority.	

7.	As will be seen from the above table, part of the parents’ case is to propose that they should undergo an assessment in accordance with the ‘Resolutions’ model. That model is well known to family practitioners and judges in Bristol; the work of John Gumbleton and the late Colin Luger has been pioneering. It involves a full assessment of risk and also of the extent to which any identified risk can be mitigated by a safe network of support within the community for the parents. The application for that assessment was first made on 26th October 2015 (B130). Because that application was made at that late stage, Resolutions have not seen papers from these proceedings. The response from Mr John Gumbleton to the proposal that he should become involved on behalf of ‘Resolutions’ can be seen at B139: ‘In principle I could undertake an assessment in this matter but I’m not sure that I’m the best qualified to do as father’s diagnosis of adult ASD is outside my expertise’. The proposal for such an assessment is not supported by the Local Authority, the guardian or the psychologist, Mr Hutchinson. For that proposal to be viable it would be necessary for the parents to engage in critical thinking when working with the professionals involved in the scheme and to be able to put together a network of supportive family members or friends; that is all most unlikely to occur. Further, Mr Gumbleton’s lack of expertise with autistic spectrum disorder would be a significant limiting factor even if specific help were to be drafted in (as Mr Cooper suggested in closing speeches).
8.	The child ‘A’– A was discharged from hospital when she was three days old and placed with foster carers under an arrangement made under section 20 of The Children Act 1989. Prior to a meeting with the Local Authority on 2nd April 2015 the parents had sought to conceal the fact that the mother was pregnant; given their experiences with the proceedings relating to B it is perhaps not surprising that the parents did not volunteer to the Local Authority the fact of the mother’s pregnancy. In any event, following that meeting the parents are recorded as working collaboratively with the Local Authority for the most part and sticking to agreements that were made – B9; in his statement at B9 the social worker says that ‘this change of heart has been marked and radical’. On 10th July 2015 an interim care order was made and has remained in place since. On 13th July 2015 A was placed with the aunt and, therefore, has now been with her for about four months. Supervised contact has taken place three times a week between A and both parents and is of good quality.
9.	Notwithstanding the developments that have occurred since the proceedings concerning B were concluded and the positive aspects of the parenting assessments that have been carried out, the professional witnesses are united in suggesting that it remains emotionally and physically unsafe for A to live with the parents. It is said that if A returned to the parents she would experience exactly the same difficulties that arose for B when he was in the parents’ care. The father continues to manifest the same behaviour when challenged or under strain, the mother has still not given a satisfactory account of the bruising injury that happened to B, the dynamics of the parents’ relationship remain as before, neither parent is able to mitigate the risk that the other would pose to the child or control the other’s behaviour and the chances of any professional involvement being able to mitigate the difficulties if a child were living with the parents is minimal. Although the parents did co-operate with the parenting assessment and with the social workers involved in it, it is strongly anticipated that that co-operation would break down if A were to be living at home and there were to be any challenge to the parents’ care of her.
10.	The Local Authority care plan, as amended during the hearing is for A to live with the aunt under a special guardianship order. As the case developed there was fine tuning of the proposals for contact and ultimately the Local Authority position was that it could see sense in contact being arranged once every six weeks (i.e. about 8 ½ times a year) if A lives with the maternal aunt. It would suggest that there should be a child in need plan in place but would not object to the making of a supervision order if that was thought necessary. It would support the making of an order under section 91(14) restricting the parents’ ability to apply for variation of the contact arrangement for a year and also for there to be a short term injunction preventing the parents from coming to the aunt’s house.
11.	I would like to pay a particular tribute to the social worker, Mr Townsend, for the way that he has worked in this case; there were some deficiencies in the first parenting report [see para 10 at A27 although the extent of the deficiencies has been overstated] but I consider that he deserves clear recognition and applause for the manner in which he has looked afresh at the abilities of these parents and worked with them with such clarity. He gave evidence with maturity, perception, professionalism and balance. The current social worker, Mr Harding, gave evidence for the first time in a family case at this hearing; he obviously found it a difficult process (and who would not?) but I was impressed with the openness with which he dealt with matters. This was high class social work in my opinion. The atmosphere between the parents and these social workers was very different to the atmosphere that everyone could sense in the proceedings relating to B.
12.	The guardian supports the care plan but suggests that there should be a supervision order in place for 12 months. In relation to the proposal for a Resolutions type assessment she said this: ‘I have considered this very carefully. I have some experience, although not recent, of working with the professionals who developed this approach of exploring whether and how children at risk of abuse from their parents/ carers can be safely looked after by those parents/carers, even where there is a level of denial of the nature/extent of the abuse. It is my understanding that the Resolutions approach requires a number of safe and protective adults within the family in order to form a protective network for the child. It is my understanding that the only adult in the family who may fit this description is the maternal great aunt. Because of the father’s history of difficulty in working with professionals with whom he does not agree, I am not at all confident that he could work with family members who might have to take action or require him to consider information or views that make him uncomfortable. The mother’s lack of honesty and openness that was particularly apparent in the proceedings concerning B, would be another barrier to this work being successful in protecting A’.
13.	In her evidence the guardian made some proposals about contact with which I did not agree and which I will set out later when recording what she said – in particular I did not agree with her suggestion that there should be no order for contact at all. She has been the prime mover in relation to the suggestion that there should be orders under s 91(14), which she thought should be in place until A is 16 [A31], which is plainly too long. She has also been the prime mover in relation to there being an injunction under s42 of The Family Law Act 1996 to keep the parents away from the aunt’s home.
14.	What were the key circumstances upon which the care and placement orders were based? In the judgment in the s47 proceedings I said that the key circumstances revealed in the care and placement judgment that I given on 16th May 2014 were as follows (I give paragraph numbers by reference to the 2014 judgment):
i)	Within six days of the parents living together with B (and only four days after a risk assessment by a Mr Lowe) B was in hospital having suffered bruising caused to his face by the mother [5].
ii)	The mother gave repeated and false accounts of how that bruising occurred [6-10].
iii)	Not only did I find the mother to be a profoundly untruthful witness (e.g. about the bruising but also the way in which she deceived people about the relationship with the father when at a residential centre and, further, blamed him for the injuries which she knows that she caused) but also I found her to be woman who followed a course of expediency and was lacking in fortitude [48 -50]. In other words, she did not have the emotional strength a) to protect B from the manifestations of the father’s behaviour, b) to provide B with stable parenting, c) to tell the truth on important matters relating to B’s welfare (e.g. the bruising and her relationship with the father, such as at the residential centre) and d) to make responsible plans for B’s future.
iv)	The father has very strong and chronic manifestations of autistic spectrum disorder such that the psychologist, Mr Hutchinson, advised very strongly that B should not be in his care [59, 68-71]. I accepted Mr Hutchinson’s evidence on this. Mr Hutchinson said that he ‘was unequivocal that the father is not an appropriate carer for B’ [70]. All other assessments of the father resulted in strong recommendations that the father could not parent B safely (i.e. the Local Authority assessments and the guardian).
v)	Mr Hutchinson said that ‘if there was any evidence that the mother was not doing everything that she could to distance herself from the father that would place B at risk’ [207]. I disagreed with Mr Hutchinson’s evidence on only one point [208], which I expressed at para 198 (‘although he said that the mother would be no less able to protect B in the community than anyone else when faced with the father’s more extreme behaviour, I do not agree with him and this is the one point upon which my opinion departs from his’). I gave four reasons for departing from his opinion on this issue but expressly accepted the balance of his evidence. As matters now stand, it is plain that the mother has not distanced herself from the father.
vi)	Even without Mr Hutchinson’s evidence, there could be no question of B being placed in the father’s care for the reasons that I set out in para 32 (‘his lack of understanding of the emotional demands of parenting, his very limited ability to care for B physically, his lack of engagement with professionals and profound personal, emotional and behavioural limitations make it unthinkable that this child could possibly be left in his sole care with or without his sisters’ help. The evidence demonstrates very clearly indeed that no amount of services, support or therapy would enable him to adapt his functioning to a level that left him able to care for B in the foreseeable future. In his care, B’s emotional and physical care would be neglected and he would be constantly exposed to the manifestations of his father’s disorderly behaviour’).
vii)	The relationship between these parents was shown very clearly and on a number of factual bases to be:
a)	Volatile [15, 24, 37]. At para 16 I recorded the evidence of the mother that ‘there is a real risk that the father will use any opportunity that he can to harass her’ if they remain apart and I substituted the words ‘very strong probability’ for ‘real risk’ in my own assessment in that paragraph. At para 37, I said: ‘it is beyond doubt that the father has harassed her repeatedly and profoundly despite discouragement, agreements, rules and injunctions’.
b)	Destructive (e.g. the undermining of the Crown House assessment and the foster placement – paras 12 and 14).
c)	The subject of untruthful evidence from the parents [e.g. 12 and 15].
d)	Chronically unstable [36-45].
e)	Mutually accusatory [e.g. 11 – the mother blamed the father for the injuries knowing that she caused them, the father filmed the bedroom in the house, etc].
f)	Complex (this is apparent from the totality of the judgment but I refer in particular to para 37 where I state that the mother contributed to the ‘negative dynamics’ of the relationship and I explained this more in paras 38 and 39). For instance, by knowingly and falsely accusing the father of causing the bruising at a time when there was still a concealed relationship between the parents she knew that this would exacerbate the manifestations of the father’s disorder.
g)	One in which a repeated theme was that the father had an obsessive attachment to the mother and she had changed her views about him repeatedly over a number of years [39, 45, etc]. At para 45 I said: ‘I accept that the father has made some very extreme remarks at times to the mother about what would happen if she separated from him (e.g. B would be adopted and he would kill some of her family’s horses)’.
h)	Such that no family member felt able to offer them sustained support [18 and 51-55]. In para 55, I found that the father had made ‘extreme threats against the horses, cats and members of the mother’s family’ (and I set out those threats – and see paras 168 - 172).
viii)	The evidential window for the mother, despite her causing the bruising, was expressed in para 21 – a) she needed to avoid the more extreme and foreseeable behaviour of the father and b) she needed to accept support in the parenting of B. Neither of those possibilities was taken up by her.
ix)	It was considered by me, the guardian, the Local Authority and by Crown House that the parents would not separate [22] and this has been shown to be the case.
x)	There were no supportive or therapeutic measures that were available that would mitigate the above factors sufficiently to allow B to be cared for by either or both of the parents [22].
xi)	The process of assessment and litigation had been very unsettling for B. He had undergone a number of moves – six moves are referred to in para 23. Therefore B’s welfare demanded that there should be a resolution to the proceedings.
15.	Core reasoning expressed in care / placement judgment – My core reasoning was expressed in this way at para 216:
i)	The mother caused non accidental bruising to B’s head on 11th November 2013. She has given many different explanations and suggestions about how the injuries might have been caused. None of those explanations and suggestions have been true. She caused the bruising by the application of excessive force to the area that was bruised. B would have been distressed when he suffered the injuries and the mother would have known that she had hurt him as a result of her actions. The precise mechanism of injury cannot be stated but the suggestion that she exerted accidental finger tip pressure to his head whilst turning it firmly is untrue. There are therefore two distinct features of this finding: i) she caused the injury and ii) she has persisted in giving false accounts in relation to its causation. I am confident in those findings and thus I record them on the basis that the Local Authority has proved its case on these issues well beyond the balance of probabilities;
ii)	There is no doubt at all that the father cannot meet the emotional and physical needs of B. In his care B would suffer profound emotional and physical neglect which would be highly damaging to his welfare. Nothing realistic or effective could be done, by way of therapeutic or other services, to mitigate or avoid that damage
iii)	If B lives with the mother:
a)	There is no prospect at all of the father accepting or complying with any restrictions on his contact with B. Extreme and punitive enforcement measures would not cause him to stop attempting to contact B in any way that was available. Mr Farquharson’s submission that enforcement of injunctions by repeated committal would not be a sensible or effective solution was supported by rock solid reasoning which I have set out and adopt.
b)	The father is highly likely to seek to restore his relationship with the mother.
c)	It is possible that the mother may stick to her resolve to separate from the father. It is equally possible that she will not. It is not possible to be predictive on this issue given the past. 
d)	If the relationship is restored an environment will be created which is entirely alien to the welfare of B. On the last occasion that all three lived together it took less than a week for the father to be filming the house to see if the mother was having an affair and for B to be non accidentally injured. The dynamics of their relationship (and, in particular, the father’s disordered behaviour) make it obvious that B would be seriously neglected and unsafe in their combined care;
e)	If the relationship is not restored, I consider it to be highly improbable that the mother will have the fortitude, long term motivation or ability to regulate the father’s behaviour towards her or B. It would take a woman of exceptional strength to withstand the sort of bombardment from the father that would inevitably arise and the mother is, I am afraid, on the opposite end of the spectrum of fortitude.
f)	At every major juncture of these proceedings the mother has been very seriously untruthful. She told a succession of lies about the bruising. She perpetrated a complex deception when at Crown House. She encouraged the father in the belief that their relationship would continue until she announced on 25th March that she was apparently ending it. By doing so she has seriously undermined any working relationship with the Local Authority social workers and she did the same at Crown House. It is highly improbable that she would develop any form of working, reliable or long term relationship with any officer (e.g. social worker) of the Local Authority. I recognise that she developed a working relationship with Mr Lowe (although there are deficiencies in his analysis and reports) but in matters of her own conduct, relationship with the father and response to supervision she has been profoundly untruthful. I cannot see any realistic prospect of any working relationship developing under which there could be any effective supervision of her care of B. Given her behaviour it would be a very long time indeed before any social worker would ever trust her again and that would be for very good reason;
g)	The help on offer from the maternal great aunt and other members of the mother’s family is very well meaning. But I have no doubt at all that there is nothing within that support that could mitigate the consequences of the findings that I have made above. The maternal great aunt has withdrawn her own wish to care for B twice because she knows that she ‘could not keep B safe’ and that she would ‘never be free’ of the father. That still remains the position. To that must be added the inability of the family to dissuade the mother from continuing the relationship with the father in 2011 and when she was at Crown House. So, too, must the difficulties that the mother’s untruthfulness would represent for the family as well. I am afraid that the maternal great aunt’s suggestion that these proceedings have been brought because of the father’s behaviour alone is obviously wrong.
16.	Core reasoning in the judgment relating to B under section 47 of the 2002 Act – In that judgment, which I gave only four months ago, I said the following as to whether there had been a change in circumstances since the making of the placement order relating to B:
i)	I still do not have a truthful account of how the bruising occurred. I have found that the mother has continued not to speak the truth. I do not know the dynamics of the household that existed that led to this injury occurring.
ii)	There are the same difficulties about the mother’s lack of fortitude and her submission to expediency. Why can’t she tell the truth? Why did she return to a relationship with the father within a month of the placement order when she had spoken of him in the way that she did at that hearing?
iii)	The father’s disorder remains the same as it was before. That is an immense sadness for a man of such intelligence and, although he may not recognise it, I do extend my profound sympathy to him for it. But nothing has happened to diminish its impact. 
iv)	The mother has not distanced herself from the father and their ultimate hope to oppose adoption to secure the return of B is one that would place B back into exactly the same position of risk. It took only six days of these parents living together in November 2013 for B to be injured.
v)	The father still has the same lack of understanding of the emotional demands of parenting, the same limitations in his inability to care for B on his own and retains an opinion that professionals ‘stole’ B from him and the mother. This makes a working relationship between him and the Local Authority in relation to the care of B impossible.
vi)	Although the parents have lived together for about a year now I would not trust either of them to give a true account of their relationship (not least due to the number of different and often untruthful accounts that were given during the care and placement proceedings). I congratulate them on undergoing couples therapy but that does not mean that, together, they would be able to provide adequate parenting for B. The list of difficulties that existed is far too long for that.
vii)	There are still no therapeutic or supportive measures that could be put in place that would allow them to provide for B given the circumstances in which B now finds himself (and they are, of course, very different to A’s circumstances).
viii)	I accept that there is evidence that the father has learnt to control himself better. This is qualified by a number of things. First, he remains of the expressed opinion that B has been stolen from him and the mother. Second, he continues to place material on the internet when he knows that to do so is in breach of the injunction imposed by the President. Third, the extent of his acquired ability to control himself is dependent on the truthfulness of the evidence of the parents. Fourth, this has occurred at a time when B was not with them. I think that it is highly unlikely that the father would be able to respond in a stable way if faced with the demands of parenting B with outside support (and outside support and monitoring would be essential). I do not think that the father’s co-operation with A’s social worker impacts on this analysis nor do I think that the quality of the contact that has taken place with A does either.
17.	Evidence – The main sources of evidence in these proceedings are as follows:
i)	The evidence of the parents. The mother has filed three statements [C26, C42 and C207] and gave oral evidence. The father filed one statement [C231] and gave oral evidence also.
ii)	The evidence of the previous social worker, Timothy Townsend. He was allocated to this family on 27th March 2015 and has carried out much of the work on behalf of the Local Authority that is relevant to this hearing. I also heard from the current social worker, Andrew Harding; he has been the social worker for the family since 14th September 2015 having ‘co-worked’ the case with Mr Townsend since about mid June and also wrote the special guardianship report at C175. 
iii)	The evidence of Mr Hutchinson, the psychologist. His various reports are to be found between E24 and E107.
iv)	The evidence of the aunt. She did not file a statement.
v)	The evidence of the guardian, Ms Clutterbuck. She has filed two reports. One dated 7th July 2015 and the other dated 23rd October 2015.
18.	The key documentary evidence of the Local Authority – At C60 there is the original parenting assessment that was carried out by Mr Townsend. It is not dated but must have been completed in about August 2015. It concluded that ‘in isolation this parenting assessment would predict that the parents may be able to offer a good enough level of care to A. However, this parenting assessment cannot be viewed in isolation and has to be viewed with all the other known facts regarding the parents’ ability to maintain the safety of any child in their care…The sustained changes the parents would have to demonstrate to Children’s Services for them to be confident that any child would be safe in their care are still outstanding. These changes would not be able to be made within A’s timescales’.
19.	On 7th September Mr Townsend filed a further statement [C92] in which he said that the parents had ‘continued to make themselves available to Children’s Services and started to work more collaboratively after they had disclosed the mother was pregnant’. At C105 he wrote: ‘It is felt that the parents need to evidence more ability to parent effectively. Whilst I do not think that it is impossible, it is very definitely outside of the realms of what is in A’s best interests as the delay to proceedings needed to achieve this would be considerable. There are also on-going concerns about the ability of the mother to be honest, the father to work in a co-operative way on a continual basis and the knock on effect this would have on A’s welfare’.
20.	On 13th October 2015 Mr Townsend and his social work colleague Elizabeth Harris wrote a more detailed parenting report which is at C154. The conclusions are as follows [C174]:
‘Although this was a positive parenting assessment for the parents the outstanding risks to A have not been mitigated by this assessment [reference is then made to other matters and the report continues]…it is also the belief of the local authority that the mother still poses a real risk of physical harm to A if she were placed in her care for extended periods of time. The mitigating factors offered by the parents for their diminished risk to A, that they have completed some therapies and they will complete outstanding therapies, does not mean that A would not be at risk when in their care. It would need extensive and protracted amounts of time and resources to ensure that A would remain safe if placed with the parents. The Local Authority does recognise that any subsequent children that the parents have need to remain with them as parents if at all possible, it will not be possible for A to be placed in their care as outstanding unquantifiable risks remain from both parents. Once the outstanding works have been completed by both parents it might be feasible for them to parent any other child they may have but this is dependent on whether they have completed the required therapies and it is assessed that risk at the time is low. The mother is currently considered too much of a risk to A for her to be placed in her care. The father…still has the problems posed by his ASD behaviours and it is again a risk that A may be exposed to these behaviours if not controlled. In short, the amount of support the Local Authority would need to have in place would be too great to be practical and not an option’.
21.	In her closing speech Ms Pitts reminded me of the specific passages within the parenting assessment that deal with the interaction between the father and A. I have re-read them whilst writing this judgment and note in particular the contents of C163 where the father is described as having good interaction with A during the sessions that are referred to there. Again, I think that this does show that the father has made some progress since the proceedings relating to B.
22.	On 10th October 2015 Mr Townsend filed a further statement in the knowledge of the outcome of the further parenting assessment, which is at C149. In it he says this:
•	Although positive, the parenting assessment threw up a number of concerns for the Local Authority that have been covered in the updating parenting assessment itself. Ostensibly these were the issues of reliability and truthfulness of the mother’s account to the court regarding the injuries to B and the risk posed to A as a result of this….Whilst the risk to A is deemed as high by the Local Authority it may be that the mother has finally acknowledged what she did to cause those injuries. If this is the case it increases the likelihood that any outstanding therapy will be beneficial and lead to a reduction in perceived risk that she poses to any child in her care.
•	It is also a concern that the father still does not have good enough control of his impulsive behaviours related to his ASD…’
•	On 29th September 2015 myself and Andrew Harding had cause to visit the home of the parents…the flat was very unclean and messy…there was an overwhelming smell of cat urine…the smell of cat urine was over powering and would not be conducive to a good environment for any child, let alone a baby so small’.
23.	Mr Harding made a further statement which is at C244. He includes in it some of the emails that have been sent by the father. Mr Harding said that the mother had told him on 30th October 2015 that she had tried to dissuade the father from sending the emails but she had not been able to do so.
24.	Mr Harding’s special guardianship report is at C175. It concludes that the aunt is able to offer A good care and that she would be able to protect A from any disruptive influence of the parents.
25.	The written evidence of Mr Hutchinson – In his report concerning the mother he said at E32: ‘The mother has not demonstrated that she has put the need to provide safe, secure and good enough parenting for a child in her care above her own need to maintain a relationship with her husband. This has resulted in both her and her husband posing a risk to a child in their care. The mother has not yet undertaken interventions that will enable her to put the needs of A before her own needs, or those of her husband, should the relationship with her husband again become vulnerable or volatile’.
26.	In relation to the father he said at E50 that ‘until such time as the father completes the therapy and education recommended in my initial psychological report, he continues to present a risk to any child in his care as a consequence of potential abuse, behaviours that will alienate those providing him with parenting advice resulting in potential child neglect and a continuing potential for harassment that may lead to further prosecution’.
27.	Concerning the relationship between the parents he said at E52: ‘The parents are psychologically and emotionally dependent upon each other. The father is unlikely to reflect critically upon his relationship with his wife in a way that will allow him to objectively and critically assess or manage any risk, or potential risk, that his wife to oppose to a child in their care’.
28.	In relation to the aunt Mr Hutchinson said at E80: ‘The aunt’s parenting history and evidence from this assessment suggests that the aunt will be able to provide consistent and good enough parenting to A, should the court place A in the aunt’s care. With ongoing advice from the Local Authority, the aunt has the ability to manage any risk that may be posed to A by her natural parents’.
29.	Mr Hutchinson’s oral evidence – He said that there had been some slight reduction in the level of concerns about the mother but not such as to change the level of risk significantly. The courses that she has attended do not address the underlying issues, in particular the physical abuse that she perpetrated against B. He considers that the original concerns relating to both parents that he expressed in relation to B are still present.
30.	The father does not recognise the risks that the mother poses and therefore would not be able to act protectively in relation to that risk and there have been no material inroads into the manifestations of his ASD. The mother has done no work on the risks that she represents to a child.
31.	He said that his opinion has not changed since he gave evidence in July during the proceedings under section 47 of the 2002 Act. Unusually, that hearing took place on full oral evidence. My record of Mr Hutchinson’s evidence is at B88 and reads as follows:
•	He said that the mother appears now to have focussed on her relationship with the father rather than the difficulties that were identified in the previous judgment. She has not made any significant changes in the risks that were identified at the time of the care and placement hearing. She has not undertaken any work to address the specific difficulties that were identified then, although her participation in couple’s counselling was laudable it did not meet the findings that had been made about her untruthfulness, her commitment to the relationship with the father or that harm that she had caused to B.
•	In relation to the father, Mr Hutchinson said that he repeated one of the psychological assessments and that revealed continuing narcissistic and histrionic traits which were raised in comparison with the 2014 assessment. Tests also revealed that the father’s pathological anxiety traits were lower now than they were in 2014. He said that the father continues to present with over control of anger in such a way that it causes him to have an outburst when he can no longer control it; this is the same as before. The other thing that has changed is that the risk of violence (which Mr Hutchinson says that he reassessed in 2015) showed some moderation in the father’s responses to stress. As to relationship instability, he said that there was some reduction in this since 2014 following the ‘couples therapy’ and it appears that the father is more considerate of his wife’s views and feelings. However, all the other factors were the same; I do not find that remotely surprising given that the underlying difficulty for the father is the ASD from which he suffers; it would very surprising indeed if any effective inroads had been made into that disorder on the strength of what has occurred since the placement order was made.
•	At the present time, Mr Hutchinson said, he remains of the same unequivocal opinion that it would not be safe for B to be in the care of the father. In his report he said: ‘Until such time as the father completes the therapy and education recommended in an initial psychological report, he continues to present a risk to any child in his care as a consequence of potential domestic abuse, behaviours that will alienate those providing him with parenting advice resulting in potential child neglect, and a continuing potential for harassment that may lead to further prosecution. The father poses a low sexual risk to any female child in his care.  This is the same risk as those of his peers whom have not been convicted or sanctioned as a result of a sexual offence against a child’.
•	In oral evidence he said that the same difficulty remains as to the father’s understanding of the need to provide empathy for the child and, although the father would understand the practical demands of caring for a child, he does not have the emotional ability to provide emotional parenting. Since the order in 2014, the mother is now identified as the person who caused injury to B and the father would have an additional responsibility to understand the risk that she presents and how he would manage it; the father does not demonstrate that understanding and so that is an additional limiting factor since the 2014 order.
•	In his report in relation to the mother he said (paras 2.1 to 2.4): ‘As a consequence of therapy and counselling that she has undertaken, the mother is less likely to experience circumstances that mirror those that contributed to her maltreatment of B…When/should these circumstances arise in the future the mother has not yet undertaken an intervention that will reduce the risk of her maltreating a child in her care...The mother has an increased ability to protect any child in her care from any potential risk of sexual harm that may be posed by her husband to children or young people.  When the mother has completed a ‘Parent Protects’ programme, she will be more able than her peers to provide this protection…the parents have a mutually dependent relationship that at the present time has a raised potential for mutual intimate partner abuse when compared to their peers.  Should the father consider that his relationship with his wife is vulnerable, this potential for abuse will increase significantly.
•	At the present time, Mr Hutchinson said, the mother understands the circumstances in which the father can become very frustrated and would be more aware of behaviours that might lead to conflict within their relationship. However, she has yet to demonstrate an ability to cope with his behaviour. Whilst the relationship is stable she would be able to cope but, should it become unstable, she has yet to demonstrate that she could manage his behaviour given how extreme and chronic that behaviour has been. On what he had read and heard he doubted the ability of the parents to accept support in their care of a child.
•	In combination, he said, the two parents together present the same risks for B as existed at the time of the care and placement orders. The degree and duration of the difficulties that there have been in the past are such that nothing that the parents have done since the orders were made has diminished their impact. Work has been done by both parents individually but there has not been work done that would mitigate the risks of harm that the relationship created for B’.
32.	He said that he had considered the suggestion of the parents that they should undergo a Resolution type assessment. Crucial to any such assessment is parental co operation with the process and an acceptance by the parents of the need for help and training. The professionals would need to understand the parents’ underlying beliefs and values so that there could be a clear identification and common understanding of what has to be done and the parents would need to engage in critical thinking. He did not think that, therefore, the underlying requirements are present for a Resolutions based assessment since he could not foresee that those requirements would be fulfilled as he regarded any form of cooperative relationship to be unlikely in this case; the history suggests that, although there are periods of cooperation it is not maintained consistently. Therefore, he considered that a Resolutions plan is not viable.
33.	He said that he regarded it as very important for the aunt to be supported in developing a strategy to assert her authority against the parents if A is in her care and he has recommended that she should have therapy to achieve the necessary level of protection. He thought that the father would be unable to contain his frustrations if the case does not go in the way that he wishes and so the aunt will require the support of the Local Authority to manage contact and the behaviour of the parents. He thought that any contact would have to be supervised by someone other than the aunt.
34.	Mr Harding’s oral evidence – He said that he did not think that he could say whether a Resolution type assessment was appropriate since he did not know enough about it. Asked why the care plan could not include more contact he said that if everyone agreed then it could be increased but he thought that it was necessary for A to settle and too much contact would hinder that; however, he agreed that contact should be kept under review. He said that the parents had been polite to him and had worked with him, although in his statement, he said that in the weeks leading up to the hearing ‘the parents have been noticeably less co-operative’ [C247];  he said that it had been more difficult for him, Mr Townsend and the aunt to get in contact with the parents.
35.	Mr Townsend’s oral evidence – He said that, if a supervision order is considered to be necessary the Local Authority would accept it but it had intended that there would be a child in need plan in place for 12 months anyway and he thought that there would no difference in the services that would be provided under a child in need plan as compared to that which would be provided under a supervision order. For himself, he thought that there should be a child in need plan in place for at least 18 months. He thinks that the aunt’s resilience has been strengthened and that she is very well supported by the Local Authority.
36.	He said that he had found the issue of contact very difficult but had concluded that seven times a year, or thereabouts was the correct level in the best interests of A; as the case developed the Local Authority position became that there should be contact once every six weeks (8 ½ times a year) because it would provide a regular pattern. He said that A had been unsettled after contact but that was at a time when the parenting assessment was underway and he accepted that the parenting assessment could be unsettling for her. He also accepted that the quality of contact was good. However, A needs routine, consistency and stability, and maintaining contact at the current level of three times a week would not allow this. The pressure that the aunt felt from the father and which resulted in her withdrawing from caring for B has to be borne in mind when considering both the frequency and supervision of contact and so the main point would be to maintain and protect the placement of A with the aunt.
37.	He said that he had met with the mother on Friday 29th October and tried to persuade her that the emails that the father was sending were not helping the parents’ case. The mother told him that she had tried to encourage the father to stop sending them but had not been able to do so.
38.	He said that the parents are able to provide basic care for A. He accepted that the mother had made progress and that there has been improvement in the parents working collaboratively with the Local Authority. When he was involved as the social worker in the case he did not have concerns about their co-operation with him but he knew that the father had had difficulties with numerous other professionals, although the mother did not. He recognised the progress that the father had made in interacting with A. He said that, when the father has an end goal which is shared with professionals, he will work with them but once he feels under pressure his compulsive behaviours come into play and then co-operation breaks down. He described the father as ‘going into the default mode of his ASD drivers’, becoming angry and resorting to being a ‘key-board’ warrior when that occurs.
39.	As to the injury to B he said, as stated at C152, that the mother told him: ‘I lost my rag, got a baby grow and hit him square in the face pure and simple’. Despite that acceptance by her of having caused the injury, it would still be pointless to put in place the Resolutions programme of assessment, he thought, since: i) the father would be unlikely to work with it, ii) the proposed assessor has no experience of working with ASD and iii) there is no identified safe network that the father would be able to tolerate in the event of any sustained challenge.
40.	He said that he had no doubt at all that the parents would make repeated applications for contact; he had not given thought to the making of an order under section 91(14) of The Children Act 1989 when he gave evidence but expressed his support for such an order through the submissions of counsel.
41.	I asked Mr Townsend to give me a picture of what he was saying would occur if A were to be placed with the parents. He said that placing A with them would place great stress on them and their relationship would be become fractured. The mother would again feel unsupported. The father would struggle with his ASD as to his emotional capacity to care for a child and neither parent would recognise the risk that the other poses. The father’s impulsivity is a particular feature of his functioning, Mr Townsend said and he remains concerned about the level of sexual risk that the father poses, albeit that it is a low risk.  Setting aside the concern expressed about sexual risk (as a result of the evidence of Mr Hutchinson), I note that each of those predictions mirror precisely what occurred when B was placed in the care of the parents.
42.	Mr Townsend said that the impact of putting a baby into the parents’ care in the current circumstances would be ‘catastrophic’. The father’s impulsivity and ability to behave inappropriately would drive a wedge between the parents, as it did before, and this would leave A at risk and would lead again to a disintegration of their relationship. This is, he said, exactly what occurred with B. If he is right, of course, it would place A in a position of profound emotional harm and risk of physical harm.
43.	The mother – She said that she had done a ninety minute ‘Parents protect’ programme in addition to the other electronic programmes, including the ‘Freedom Project’ that are referred to in her statement at C207. She is also studying for a diploma in children studies [C217].
44.	She said that, when the social workers came to the flat at the end of September, she and the father had been up late the night before and she felt that the social workers were unfair in their criticisms.
45.	She said that both she and the father have supportive families who could provide a safe network for the purposes of the Resolution programme. I do not accept that evidence which did not stand up to scrutiny.
46.	The mother was cross examined about whether she could control the father’s behaviour. She said that the father was ‘an idiot’ for writing the emails that he did and, if he did it again, she would take his phone away from him. However, she said, the father’s behaviour had improved greatly and, for the past year, there had been no problems. She did not think that caring for A would increase their stress levels at all because she thought that A would be a delight to care for. If tensions did build up it would not fracture the relationship between them as they face problems together and, she said, the father listens to her and values her opinion; what then followed in evidence demonstrated very clearly that the father does anything but listen to the mother. It also served as a very strong reminder to me about why I described the mother as lacking in fortitude when giving the care/ placement judgment in relation to B.
47.	It was inevitable that the mother would be cross examined about the emails that the father had sent threatening to reveal details of professionals’ addresses. She said that she tried to stop him sending these emails but she could not control what he was doing. She had not taken his phone away from him in the past because she did not think that she should have to do so. She was asked about what the father had said through his counsel about his decision not to comply with injunctions or restrictions on contact; she said that she first heard of this on Monday and that, since Monday, the father had realised that that type of behaviour was not helpful and that he would try to comply with orders. She had tried to persuade the father not to write in the terms that he did about the social worker’s statement [C249 e.g. ‘you have till the end of the week to remove the part of the statement…’] but he did not accept what she said. She said that she could understand the father’s reasons for not wanting to work with the guardian and not meet her even though the mother, herself, had met the guardian and worked with her. The mother said that she had challenged the father about his decision not to meet the guardian and he said that he thought that meeting her could make things even worse because of what he might say.
48.	She suggested that, if A came home, she would ensure that the father would work with the professionals involved; I do not accept that she would be able to do so. She was asked about whether the father’s rejection of her advice led to tensions within their marriage – did she not challenge him, saying that his behaviour was jeopardising their chances of having A back in their care? She said that, when he ignored her recently, she felt exasperated but, she said, she just thought ‘well, OK’ and did not push the issues further because she felt that she did not stand a chance of keeping A anyway, as the Local Authority had said from the start that that was so. She said that, if A did come home and the father started being resistant to professional assistance it would not put a strain on their relationship even if it did threaten A’s placement with them. If that did happen she would have coping strategies with which to deal with that, if it occurred. I am afraid that I found her evidence totally unrealistic.
49.	The father – he said that he now thinks about what he is doing before he does it and feels more emotionally connected to A than he did to B. He said that he and the mother had spoken this morning about his previous decision not to comply with injunctions and reductions in contact and realised that if he maintained that stance it would be ‘to play straight into the hands of the Local Authority’. He said that the Local Authority chose to state that contact should be seven times a year because they wanted to antagonise and provoke him rather than because they thought that it was the best level of contact for A. He said that the Local Authority wanted to provoke him in that way so that it could achieve an adoption order for A. 
50.	If contact were to be ordered as recommended by the Local Authority and guardian he would go to court as soon as possible to get it changed, he said. The mother had tried to get him to stop sending emails because, she told him, it would damage their case but, even so, he still sent them. 
51.	The maternal great aunt - She said that things are very different now with A than they were when she was considering looking after B. She has had ‘brilliant’ support from the social worker and, as a consequence, she has a much greater understanding of the parents, in particular the father. As to the correct level of contact she thought that she needed to be guided by the experts; at present A has a limited reaction to contact but foresaw that she would become increasingly aware of what was occurring. She thought that about seven times a year would be right at present but hoped that she would be able to work with the parents to increase the level of contact.
52.	She said that she considered that she would be able to handle any difficulties that the parents present and thought that the parents realised that, if the placement of A with her broke down, the likely result would be that the Local Authority would apply for care and placement orders. Further, they know that if she felt that the parents were undermining A’s placement with her she would intend to move area. She did not see a need for an injunction to be in place to prevent the father coming to her home because she thinks that he would not come to the house in any event, however she was not opposed to the idea.
53.	The guardian: In her report Ms Clutterbuck had said: ‘I am very impressed by the level of care the aunt provides for A and I support the making of a special guardianship order, although I strongly recommend that the local authority applies for a 12 month supervision order to assist her in reducing contact with the parents and as they adjust to the new arrangements. This is likely to be a very difficult time for the parents and, as a result, their behaviour may become very challenging. The aunt will also need a high level of support during that period. …35. I would recommend that, if possible, the court makes an order restricting the parents’ access to the village where the aunt lives, to allow A and the aunt’s family some freedom to be able to be in the village without risk of unplanned contact with the parents. This will become increasingly pertinent as A and the aunt’s younger son become more independent. Although the parents have not had unplanned contact during the proceedings, I anticipate that there will be a significant increase in tension leading to dysregulated behaviour if contact between the parents and A is further restricted’. 
54.	In oral evidence she said that she adhered to her recommendations that a special guardianship order should be made in favour of the aunt. She thought that a supervision order should be made. She said that the case is not finely balanced as to whether A should be placed with the parents but she felt it was finely balanced as to whether a special guardianship order to the aunt is the correct solution; that is not because of any inadequacies of the aunt but because of her concern about the possible invasive response of the parents. Therefore, she considered that an injunction should be in place restricting the mother from coming to the aunt’s house and the father from coming to village. The mother’s grandmother lives in the village but, the guardian understands, the mother only visits infrequently. Further the mother does go there to look after a horse. 
55.	She also thought that a section 91(14) order is essential so that the aunt is able to settle with A. When that was analysed it became evident that this suggestion related to the contact that the parents would have with A. The parents would need leave, in any event, before they could make an application for discharge of any special guardianship order (see section 14D of The Children Act 1989).
56.	She thought that the contact pattern should follow the school holidays to set a precedent for future years; I do not agree with that at all given A’s age. She recognised that contact once every six weeks would be a possible solution since it would provide for a regular pattern. She further suggested that it may be best for there to be no order at all for contact so as to achieve flexibility; I am afraid that I do not agree with that since it would expose the aunt to having to regulate that contact and to dealing with the parents’ demands without any court led direction.
57.	Options and principle– There are two possible outcomes in this case. Either A lives with the parents or she lives with the aunt under a special guardianship order. 
58.	I do not see any point in adjourning this hearing for an assessment to be carried out by Resolutions. First, because I already have an abundance of evidence upon which to make a decision. Second, because I do not consider that there is any likelihood of the parents being able to put together the sort of protective network that underlies the Resolutions (or ‘Signs of Safety’) approach. Third, this is a multi–issue case and is therefore not simply about physical safety. Fourth, the approach would not address the difficulties that arise by reason of the father’s ASD. Fifth, because I do not think that the parents would engage with the type of critical thinking that is necessary to make any such assessment worthwhile. Thus, in my opinion, the position falls well short of the provisions of S13 (7) of Children and Families Act 2014 that a further assessment is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings justly.
59.	I realise that in a straight dispute between parents and other parties in private law proceedings there is no presumption of law that a child is better placed with parents. However, as all of the advocates agreed, these are public law proceedings in which the placement with the aunt arises through state intervention. Thus Article 8 of the Convention is engaged and an order that A should live with the aunt must be: a) proportionate to the circumstances of the case, b) necessary to protect the welfare (i.e. ‘rights and freedoms’) of A and c) in accordance with the law. The ‘law’ in this case is that provided by the Children Act 1989 by which the welfare of A is the paramount consideration and the court must consider the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of The Children Act 1989.  In relation to the paramount welfare of A, I remind myself that the best place for this child to live is with her natural parents unless proven and proportionate necessity demands that she lives elsewhere. Those principles were agreed with counsel at the end of the evidence and I was told that no one invited me to set out the case law upon which they are based.
60.	In relation to the making of a supervision order, the threshold criteria must be fulfilled, and it is agreed that, as at the time of the initiation of these proceedings they are in this case in the terms set out at paragraphs a, c, e, f and g of the document at B9. The criteria being fulfilled it is then necessary for the court to determine whether a supervision order is necessary and proportionate when tested by the yardstick of the child’s paramount welfare. In this case, where the Local Authority is ambivalent about whether an order should be made rather than leaving matters to a child in need plan, I also have to consider section 1(5) of the Act (the court shall not make the order…unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all’).
61.	In relation to contact, in the event that A does live with the aunt, I remind myself that the amount of contact has again to be determined by placing A’s welfare as the paramount consideration whilst recollecting as I must, that contact between a child and her natural parents where there is a family solution is a matter of very real significance to the child as she grows up. It is not simply a matter of the child having an understanding of her identity through contact since that would be a far too simplistic analysis (and Mr Townsend and Mr Harding had certainly not approached the issue on that simple basis). It is the fundamental right of this child to have as full and enjoyable a relationship with her parents as can be arranged in a way that is consistent with her welfare; in this case that would mean that, if she does not live with the parents, she should have such contact with them as would be consistent with her maintaining a stable, happy and nurturing home with the aunt. Thus contact would have to be pitched at a level that would allow her to integrate properly within her primary home with the aunt. I also remind myself that issues such as the frequency of contact are hardly ever cemented in the arrangements that are made by the first substantive order. 
62.	As to the application for an injunction, that is an application for an order under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996 to provide protection for the aunt and for the child in the event that the child lives with the aunt. These are family proceedings and therefore the court has jurisdiction to consider the making of such an order by reason of section 42(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1996. The aunt and the child are both ‘associated’ with the parents under section 62 (3)(d) and (f) of the 1996 Act when read with s 62(5) and the definition of relative in section 63(1). Under section 42(5) in deciding whether to make an order I have to consider all the circumstances of the case including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the applicant (i.e. the aunt) and of any relevant child. A ‘stay away’ order may be made as part of the provisions of such an order (see the Red Book at p1015). Since any injunction involves an invasion of the right to respect to private life of the individual injuncted the order must be necessary, legal and proportionate (see also C v C [2001] EWCA Civ 1625). It is also necessary for the court to consider the duration of any order and here, if such an order is made, the obvious duration of any such order would be 12 months.
63.	In relation to orders under section 91(14) of The Children Act 1989 it is necessary to consider the guidance that was given in the case of Re P (section 91(14) Guidelines) (Residence and Religious Heritage) [1999] 2 FLR 573) that is set out at page 710 of the Red Book. The relevant parts of that guidance are:
i)	The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.
ii)	The power to make orders under the subsection is discretionary.
iii)	It is important to recollect that such an order would amount to a restriction of the parents’ right to be heard by a court in matters relating to their child.
iv)	The power should be used sparingly, as the exception and not the rule.
v)	An order may be made where there is no pattern of unreasonable applications, if the circumstances of the case so demand on clear evidence. The circumstances must go beyond the need of a child to settle in a situation where there is animosity between adults and there must also be a serious risk of unacceptable strain to the child or primary carer in the absence of an order.
vi)	The court must consider carefully the duration of any such order which should only last for as long as is demonstrated to be necessary on reasoning that is given by the court.
vii)	The degree of restriction must be proportionate to the harm that it is intended to avoid.
64.	Analysis and conclusions–In my opinion there is an overwhelming case for a special guardianship order to be made in favour of the maternal aunt. I accept that, despite the very real efforts that the parents have made, they could not provide for A and, save for the emphasis that he placed on sexual risk (as to which I accept the evidence of Mr Hutchinson) I accept the picture that Mr Townsend painted as to what would be likely to happen if an attempt were made for A to live with the parents and I also accept the analysis of risk by Mr Hutchinson. As Mr Townsend said, it would be catastrophic for A to be placed in the parents’ care since they cannot meet her needs and matters would very likely to degenerate quickly to the same level of difficulties that arose with B. The mother would not be able to control the father’s behaviour, there would be deep tensions between the parents and A would be exposed to significant emotional and physical danger. A change of circumstance whereby the aunt acquired primary parental responsibility for her is the only available option that is consistent with her welfare. Although they wish to care for A, the parents do not have the capability to do so and at her young age A cannot be exposed to the care that the parents would give her. The aunt can provide A with good care and can keep her within a family placement; if she is properly supported she is likely to be able to resist any demands that the parents place upon her although I accept that this is the key risk factor in relation to any placement with her.
65.	I agree with the guardian that it would be in A’s interests for there to be a supervision order. I respect Mr Townsend’s opinion that the Local Authority intends to treat A as a child in need but I think that there needs to be a clear, statutory requirement that the necessary supervision takes place and I do not think that that should be dependent on the views of those within the Local Authority team who are responsible for this case from time to time over the next twelve months. I accept the point made by the guardian that Local Authority personnel change repeatedly and that there needs to be certainty about the continuation of the necessary supervision. Therefore, I make a supervision order to Gloucestershire County Council for the period of one year.
66.	As to contact I think that this has to be approached in two stages. I think that, in the short term, there should be contact once every six weeks. I think that A needs to establish herself as a child who is being brought up in the primary care of the aunt and that contact at too high a frequency would prevent that occurring. I think that contact at a higher level would be very difficult for the aunt to regulate or tolerate once these proceedings have ended and I cannot envisage that there could be effective supervision indefinitely of contact at a level of three times a week. The reality would be that contact at that level would leave the parents regarding themselves as sharing the care of A with the aunt and that would leave the aunt with very real difficulties indeed in maintaining her role with her.
67.	However, I think that there should be a review of contact towards the end of the period of the supervision order (e.g. after about eleven months) because by then it may well be possible for contact to take place at a higher level if the parents and the aunt agree and have shown that they can work collaboratively. That review should involve the Local Authority, the parents and the aunt and there should be a minute kept of any meetings that are held. These parents will maintain an important part of A’s life and that will have to be reflected in the future contact arrangements.
68.	I am concerned about the father’s attitude to the above arrangement however and his ability to undermine the placement with the aunt. I am not yet convinced that he will avoid trying to undermine it and therefore I think that that there need to be further short-term protective measures in place. To that end I consider that it is necessary and proportionate to make an order under section 42 of the Act requiring both parents to keep away from the aunt’s home and a limited area around it. I do not think that an exclusion zone needs to extend to the whole village; if the father were to present himself within the village and cause difficulties there then the injunction could be extended however I do not foresee that he will do so. I think that the order should be in the same terms in relation to both parents and I see no reason to differentiate between them in circumstances where they remain united and have such obvious difficulty controlling each other’s behaviour. I will have to leave the parties themselves to devise the precise definition of the protected zone.
69.	Given what the father has said about his intentions to apply for more contact and the risk that he may act as he threatened to do on Monday morning, I think that it is necessary for there to be an order under section 91(14) that, for the next 12 months, neither parent can apply for a variation of the child arrangements order (i.e. the contact order) without the leave of the court. I do think that it would place an unacceptable strain on the aunt if, after all this litigation, she were to face further litigation in relation to contact during the next twelve months. I think that an order for longer than that would be disproportionate and unnecessary. Any future applications should be listed before me if possible.
70.	Therapy – It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to see the disappointment and sadness of these intelligent parents as they realised the way that this case was going and I regret that, once again, I am the author of further pain for them. I do hope that they will see that the outcome concerning A is different to that relating to B because A remains living within the family and they will continue to see her. Although they will see her less frequently than they wish for the next twelve months they will always be her parents and will have the opportunity to build on their relationship with her if they are able to work collaboratively with the aunt.
71.	These parents remain young and desperate to parent their children. Therefore, it has to be wholly foreseeable that they will consider having further children. Once again this case has seen combinations of professional people writing lengthy and expensive reports in which they recommend that therapy should be provided for parents. I have never heard a psychologist give evidence in a public law case without recommending that someone needs therapy and, almost invariably afterwards, there is the remark that the benefit of therapy is outwith the timescales of the child. How could it be said other than that a father with significant ASD needs therapy if he is to care for a child successfully in this type of setting? The parents would also be prime candidates for involvement in a scheme such as the ‘Pause Project’ that has been so successful in Hackney and elsewhere and which we are still trying to get introduced into this area.
72.	Following my intervention, and after the hearing ended, I am pleased to say that I was emailed by the Local Authority and told: ‘This e-mail is to confirm that Gloucestershire County Council will give a commitment to support both parents to undergo therapies as deemed appropriate by Mr Roger Hutchinson. The support from the Local Authority will include motivating parents to attend, a level of financial contribution and some work with the parents to enable them to also contribute financially’. I should also record that, during the hearing, the Local Authority made a commitment to the provision of therapy for the aunt.
73.	Before these parents do have another child I very much hope now that there will be a concerted effort to provide them with the help that they need and deserve. That help now appears to be on offer and I strongly suspect that that offer is once again due the efforts of the two social workers, Mr Townsend and Mr Harding. Not only will that help benefit the parents and any future children; it will also benefit A whose welfare is paramount.
HHJ Stephen Wildblood QC 
5th November 2015.