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: BS15C01714
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BRISTOL

Bristol Civil and Family Justice Centre
2nd October 2016
Before:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILDBLOOD QC

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
	
Between:		
			
	Gloucestershire County Council	Applicant	
	-and-		
	M	First Respondent 	
	-and-		
	F	Second Respondent	
	-and-		
	G (a child) by her guardian 	Third Respondent	

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

Louise Price for the Local Authority.
Zahra Manji for the mother. 
Judi Evans for the father
Henrietta MacMillan Scott for the child, G
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT
HHJ Wildblood QC:
1.	Introduction - I will use letters of the alphabet to represent the individual family members in this case not because I wish to be impersonal or impolite but because I wish this judgement to be anonymized.
2.	Fourteen months ago a little girl (‘G’), who was then aged two but is now aged three, left the care of her mother and came to live with a lady who has looked after her ever since. That lady (‘FC’) is a foster carer in her late 40s who lives in the south west of England. Prior to that G had been living with her mother but, very sadly, her mother was unable to continue to look after her being caught up in a life that involved drink, drugs, violent relationships and instability. At the time that G came to live with FC the mother was single, suffering from mental ill-health and had made an attempt on her own life.
3.	I wish to explain straightaway that there are now only two possibilities that are being put forward for where G might live. Should she live with FC under what in law is called a special guardianship order or should she live with her paternal aunt (‘PA’) and uncle (‘U’, the aunt’s long-standing partner) under that same type of legal order?
4.	Until G was 19 months old, she had been living with her mother (‘the mother’, as I call her, who is in her 20’s) and her half-brother (‘B’) in a town in the north-west of England. Also living there was G’s father (‘the father’, who is in his 30’s) but the relationship between the mother and father was unstable and volatile. The father accepts that, whilst they were together, he was violent to the mother as a result of which the mother obtained a non-molestation injunction against him and, in December 2014, the father was sentenced to six months imprisonment for the violent breach of that injunction. 
5.	It was following the father’s imprisonment that the mother came to this area in the south-west of England with the two children in an unsuccessful attempt to make a fresh start here. In the spring of 2015, B went to live with his father and stepmother at a time that the mother was involved in another violent relationship and was not coping with life; B remains living there. It was only a few months later that G came to live with FC in the circumstances that I have described. G’s legal status was that she was accommodated under section 20 of The Children  Act 1989 until these proceedings got underway and is now subject to an interim care order to Gloucestershire County Council (i.e. the ‘local authority’ who placed G with FC).
6.	Circumstances when the Local Authority first stepped in - Later in this judgment I will explain that I am being asked to make a supervision order by which the Local Authority would be required by law to advise, assist and befriend G and consequently, to do the same for those who care for her and visit her. Before I can make a supervision order the law requires that I should be satisfied, amongst other things, that the so-called ‘threshold criteria’ in section 31 of the Children Act 1989 were fulfilled at the time that the Local Authority stepped in with protective measures in relation G. In the context of this case the Local Authority fulfils those criteria because, at that the time that she moved to live with FC, it was obvious that G was likely to suffer significant harm which was attributable to the unsatisfactory care that her mother was able to give her. If she had remained in her mother’s care she would undoubtedly have suffered significant harm because her mother could not look after her and, at the time, could not look after herself properly either. G’s father was also not in a position to look after her having recently come out of prison and having been unable to stabilise his life.
7.	Both parents recognised at the time that G had to be looked after by others and, to their very real credit, both parents still accept that they are not in a position to offer G a home. 
8.	The mother, who remains living in the south-west of England, attended the first day of this hearing but was unwell and plainly overwhelmed by the emotion of coming to court in relation to her daughter; therefore, although she remained represented before me, she did not continue to attend the hearing. The mother accepts that her life has still not stabilised sufficiently for her to be able to care for G, whom she loves deeply. She has participated in positive contact with G twice a week, gets on well with FC who used to be G’s childminder before G came to FC as a fostered child and has taken a realistic and child focused attitude to the arrangements that should now be put in place for G.
9.	The father, who remains living in the north-west of England, has been represented by very experienced and skilful counsel, Ms Judi Evans. He remained present throughout the hearing and, although I am a newcomer to this case, I have to say that I have developed a very deep respect for him. He behaved with great dignity at this hearing and has been very attentive. He is also a perceptive man who knows the score. 
10.	From his very limited budget the father has paid for therapy with a Mr Davies of Tower Counselling and has taken obvious steps to sort his life out. However, he accepts that he has not yet done so. He told me in evidence that he is living with a friend in a flat which would not provide adequate accommodation for G but, more importantly, he accepted that the pressure of events has so affected him that his own mental health has now suffered to the point where he is now taking medication for depression. Despite the very obvious and genuine distress that it caused him to say it, he told me that it would not be fair for G to be expected to live with him at present. 
11.	There can be no doubt whatsoever that this father, like the mother, loves their little daughter deeply and genuinely. I am quite sure that a significant part of his motivation in trying to sort out his life is to be found in his desire to show G that he can be a good father to her. The best example of that which I can give is that the father has travelled down to the south-west for two hours of contact each fortnight with G. He has not missed any contact sessions despite the demands of a very long train journey with four changes and a thirty minute walk to the contact venue. When he gets there he engages in positive contact with her and gets on well with the contact supervisors. He speaks with respect and gratitude for the contribution that FC has made in caring for G – he did not speak a word against her at this hearing but just said ‘she’s not family’.
12.	Regrettably, there has only been very limited dialogue between the Local Authority and this father despite the duration of these proceedings. Further, as I will explain later, there were mistakes made in the Local Authority’s assessment of the father’s family. The social worker accepts that those mistakes were made and, I suspect, are a reflection of the intense demands on her time and of her heavy workload. The gaps in the Local Authority’s knowledge and assessment did cause deep and understandable distress to each of the members of the paternal family that I heard. They felt that they had been overlooked.
13.	In my opinion, the result of this regrettable course of events has been that the Local Authority’s current analysis of the father did not recognise sufficiently the steps that he has made towards sorting out his own life or the strength of his motivation to promote the welfare of G. I am concerned that its rather harsh opinion of him has been passed on to other people (including, I imagine, FC who has only met him informally) and for that reason and others I intend that this judgement should be shown to those who have been involved in G’s care.
14.	Options - The position, therefore, is that there are only two possibilities (or ‘options’ as lawyers tend to call it) for G’s future care. The local authority, Gloucestershire County Council, Guardian and the mother all contend that a special guardianship order should be made in favour of FC; thus, they contend, G should remain living with the foster carer who has looked after her so very well for the past 14 months. The father contends that G should move to live with his sister and her partner (PA and U) in the north-west of England.
15.	If G lives with FC it is agreed that the mother should have contact with her once a month for the next six months and that there should be a review at the end of that period. In relation to the father the local authority’s case has shifted repeatedly during the course of the hearing; initially it recommended that he should have contact four times a year only, it then recommended six times a year and finally recommended that contact should either be once every six weeks or once during each school holiday and half term save that there might be two visits during the summer holidays (i.e. 7 visits p.a.). The Guardian proposes that the father should have contact once a month under supervision and that there should be a review of his contact in six months’ time also.
16.	The two options: balancing factors - There are some very clear and key balancing features that lie behind those two options. In relation to FC (whom I did not see in evidence) there are these key factors:
i)	She looks after G impeccably and lovingly; 
ii)	Because G is a somewhat demanding and vulnerable child (unsurprisingly, given her background) FC is able to give G the degree of attention and care that she needs;
iii)	FC has now been looking after G for 14 months, slightly more than one third of her life. G is settled and happy with FC.
iv)	FC and G have developed a strong and obvious attachment to each other. G is now used to turning to FC for her emotional comfort and thinks of FC’s house as her home. For the past fourteen months her social connections have been made within the environment in which she now lives.
v)	A change in G’s circumstances now would have a great impact upon her emotional well-being.
vi)	FC, who is quite obviously a very intelligent and mature woman, is accepting of involvement in G’s life by her family. Thus FC knows the mother well and has a good working relationship with her. FC also accepts that the father and his family should have contact with G, if she remains in her care, and is open to the father having the high-level of contact proposed by the Guardian.
vii)	The local authority and the Guardian have both assessed FC’s ability to care for G as a special Guardian and have given very positive reports to the court about it. There is strong professional backing for FC.
viii)	By comparison with the care that could be offered by the paternal aunt and uncle, FC offers a more stable, certain and proven environment for the promotion of G’s welfare – that suggested comparative advantage is the only one of these factors that the father would seriously dispute.
17.	In relation to the paternal aunt and uncle, the key factors that are argued are:
i)	They are available members of G’s family and are committed to caring for her. They have been asking repeatedly for more contact with G since she moved to this area 21 months ago but have only been able to see her twice – something about which they complain with force, clarity and justification;
ii)	The paternal family are united and so, if G lives with them, she will have easy contact with her father, her grandparents, her cousins, etc. If G remains living in the south-west it will be much more difficult for the father to have contact with G (although he will do it) and the opportunities for the paternal family to see G will be much more limited. The suggestion that was made at one point that they should hire a mini-bus and travel down, and back, in one day with four children under five was hardly realistic – that would involve about twelve hours travel in one day if, uniquely, the roads happen to be clear.
iii)	They have four young children of their own and could provide G with a full and loving family life within her natural environment. Their children are all under six years of age and so there would be plenty of companionship for G. The mother, father, G and B lived with the aunt and uncle for eight months when G was a small baby and the paternal family love G. As they said: ‘she is family’. The father said: ‘when G is talking to her friends about what she will do after school she should be able to say that she will playing with her cousins, seeing her daddy and being looked after by her family’;
iv)	The paternal grandparents live within a stone’s throw of them (as the father put it) and the father lives in the same area (he described it as a 35 minute train journey away);
v)	When the local authority social worker carried out an assessment of them as potential special guardians of G the resultant report concluded at C 209: ‘I make a strong recommendation and support the paternal aunt and uncle in their application to obtain a special guardianship order for G. I feel G’s physical, social and emotional needs will be met in this environment’. Thus, at the time of that report (which appears to have been written on or about the 10 May 2016) the local authority was itself fully supportive of the aunt and uncle.
18.	The aunt and uncle - It is deeply regrettable that the special guardianship report prepared by the local authority in relation to the paternal aunt and uncle had not benefited from more thorough research by its author. A huge gap arose in the preparation of that report because the author had not discussed the circumstances of the paternal aunt and uncle with those who were professionally involved with them in the North West of England, especially the health visitors and the workers at the Children Centre attended by that family.
19.	Once the Guardian had seen the positive contents of the special guardianship report relating to the paternal aunt and uncle she carried out her own enquiries. Those enquiries led her to realise the huge gaps in the Local Authority’s investigations and to reach a very firm conclusion that G should not be placed with them. The Guardian’s report explains why at E60 to E65. There the Guardian reported that the paternal aunt and uncle have found it very difficult to cope with their own children, at times. The guardian explained that their eldest child is on the autistic spectrum and the next two younger children are also significantly delayed in their speech and language development to the extent that professionals advise that the two-year-old may also be on the autistic spectrum. Her research suggested that medical appointments had been missed and that the aunt and uncle were only just coping. 
20.	Of particular significance was the passage in paragraph 47 (iv) of the guardian’s report where she said that she had spoken to four professionals involved with the family of the paternal aunt and uncle in the North West and that ‘all consider that it would be too much for the aunt and uncle to care for G. All have been clear that, in their opinion, G should not be placed with the aunt and uncle’.
21.	Thus, as there were only two options in this case, the evidence about the aunt and uncle became of core relevance. I regret to say that the preparation of that evidence for this hearing was inadequate and so I need to explain more about the history of this case and how it came before me. 
22.	A brief history of the case - This case had a particularly unfortunate history from the start. Once G came to live with FC it was obvious that proceedings would have to be issued in order to determine her long-term future. Regrettably, the proceedings were not issued for another five months, during which period G remained accommodated by the local authority under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. Following the issue of the proceedings it has taken over nine months for them to be concluded. It should not have taken fourteen months to sort out the life of this little girl and the effect of that delay now is that I have to consider with very real care the consequences for G if she were to be removed from the loving home that she has found with FC. 
23.	Once the proceedings were issued, the first major step that was taken was that a psychologist, Dr Dowd, was ordered to report in relation to the mother. He reported that she had a full-scale IQ of 91 [E45] and that she had the cognitive ability to understand issues of parenting, how to provide for her daughter’s needs, to learn new parenting skills and to benefit from professional guidance [E30]. However he thought that her ability to care for G depended upon her ability to stabilise her lifestyle, surmount her clinical depression and avoid substance misuse [E30]. Given that each of those factors was already quite apparent on the facts of the case I am not sure how much that report added. 
24.	I also note that, in a number of passages in the Local Authority’s documentation, his report is misquoted. He did not say that ‘a 12 month period proof from substance misuse would be a pre-requisite to consideration of caring for G’ [as stated by the Local Authority at A15b]. He said: ‘I would recommend that a period of at least 12 months free from substance difficulty is demonstrated by her in order to offer a more positive prognosis of long term stability…I do not however wish to suggest that a 12 month period proof from substance misuse should be considered a pre-requisite prior to considering any form of childcare responsibilities being returned to her’ [E31-32].
25.	The local authority also carried out an assessment of the father, which was negative. I am not going to cite from that report because, on 11 May 2016, the Guardian sent an email asking the Local Authority to re-assess him. The guardian felt, as I do, that the Local Authority assessment did not take into adequate account the very positive quality of contact between the father and G, the father’s background and the efforts that the father had made to improve his life through psychotherapy. However, the local authority’s views of the father did not change and, in the light of the position of the father within these proceedings now and the views that I have already expressed about the somewhat harsh approach to him within the assessments, I do not think it necessary to analyse the local authority’s processes in assessing the father further. Its assessment remains negative.
26.	The local authority then carried out the special guardianship assessment of the father’s sister (the paternal aunt) and the uncle. I have already commented upon that. That report resulted in the local authority committing itself to an original care plan which recommended the making of special guardianship orders to the aunt and the uncle. That original care plan was filed with the court and so the position of the Local Authority as a whole, not just the individual social worker who wrote the report, was to support the aunt and uncle.
27.	Why did the Local Authority change its mind? An inevitable issue investigated at this hearing was why the local authority wished to depart from the very positive report that it had written about the paternal aunt and uncle. 
28.	In her evidence the social worker said, understandably, that the local authority had been influenced by the contents of the Guardian’s report. However, the social worker also sought to lay emphasis on a suggestion that, since the writing of the report in favour of the aunt and uncle, there had been a regression in G’s speech and that her stammer had become more pronounced. It was suggested that the stammer was more evident during and after contact with the father and that this added to the need to regard G as a vulnerable child whose circumstances should not be disrupted by removal from FC. 
29.	Neither the Guardian nor I were remotely impressed by the social worker’s suggestion that any regression in G’s speech and development and any worsening of the stammer could be associated in a negative way either with the father’s contact or with the wish of the paternal aunt and uncle to care for G. I ignore that part of the social worker’s evidence. 
30.	I also do not accept as relevant the social worker’s suggestion that the paternal aunt told her that ’if it didn’t work out with G she would know that she had done her best’; in my opinion that is the sort of loose conversational remark that might well be made on the telephone and which does not have any evidential value at all.
31.	I agree with the Guardian that there are two main reasons why the local authority changed its care plan and decided to recommend a special guardianship order in favour of FC rather than in favour of PA and U:
i)	It was influenced by the contents of the Guardian’s report. I do not understand how it could be other than influenced by a report that states that four professionals involved with the aunt and uncle in the north-west were all ‘clear that G should not be placed with the aunt and uncle’.
ii)	It was only after the Guardian spoke to FC at the time of writing her report (i.e. when the Guardian had made her enquiries into the position of the aunt and uncle) that FC put herself forward with clarity as a potential Special Guardian of G. FC is undoubtedly a very kind and perceptive woman, on everything that I have read and heard. She and the Guardian would have been very alive to the fact that if G could not live with her parents and if there was no one in the extended families who could care for her, the only remaining options would be care by an unknown third party (in circumstances where adoption might very well have arisen for consideration) or that she should remain in the care of FC. Thus FC in her devotion to G, put herself forward as G’s long-term carer at a time when the guardian had expressed her firm opposition to placement with the only available family members, the aunt and uncle. I accept the Guardian’s evidence that, although initially FC had said that she would wish to adopt G, later in these proceedings she expressed the understandable wish not to do so. Thus, the second reason why the local authority changed its care plan is that FC came forward firmly as a potential Special Guardian. The local authority therefore became able to conduct a comparative and balancing analysis between the family care offered by the aunt and uncle and the offer of very good and established care by FC.
32.	Evidence about the aunt and uncle - Very regrettably the issues raised by the Guardian in her report were not investigated thoroughly by the local authority. Further, it did not consider adequately the terms of its care plan; when this case started the care plan still suggested that there should be a care order with G being placed, under that order with FC. Further still, the bundle does not yet contain the special guardianship support plan. What is more, there had not been proper dialogue with the aunt and uncle to explain the local authority’s changed care plan. Evidence was not obtained for this hearing from professionals in the North West of England.
33.	At 18.14 p.m. on the evening before the case started before me I received an email from solicitors in the North West of England stating that they had proffered advice to the aunt and uncle and that the aunt and uncle still wished to be considered as Special Guardian is for G. There were no statements from the aunt and uncle and no arrangements had been made for them to give evidence. There were no arrangements for any of the professionals in the North West to give evidence either and there was nothing in documentary form from any of them. 
34.	By the terms of the order of District Judge Howell dated 8th August 2016 (at what lawyers call the Issues Resolution hearing) the aunt and uncle were sent a copy of the special guardianship report relating them and the evidence that had been filed since then, including the guardian’s report. They were invited to write to the Local Authority by 25th August 2016 after obtaining legal advice as to whether they would wish to contest the Local Authority’s care plan (which was then that a care order should be made and G should live with FC). An advocates meeting was arranged for 7th September 2016 and the parties were given liberty to restore the case if the aunt and uncle wished to challenge the care plan [B102-3]. Given those directions, it is quite wrong that the evidence was prepared in the way that it was.
35.	Preparation for this case was made even more difficult because were no position statements within the bundles and I was only provided with them from two parties just before the hearing commenced; therefore when I read the papers I did not know the final positions of the parties and did not have a reading list – I read over 500 pages of documents the night before the case started from a non-Practice Direction 27A compliant bundle.
36.	Therefore, this case has involved considerable case management. There could be no question of adjourning this hearing given the delay that has occurred and no party suggested that as a sensible option in any event. If I had adjourned it, it would not have come back before me until January by when G would have been with FC for a further four months.
37.	I therefore had to make arrangements to hear the aunt and uncle by video link. I also arranged, with the agreement of the parties, to take the oral evidence of one of the professionals from the north-west of England by telephone. In relation to one of the other key professionals in the north-west, a health visitor, I received an email confirming the contents of paragraph 47 (iv) of the Guardian’s report and, on the strength of that email (which was copied to everyone involved) I was sensibly informed that no party wished me to arrange for that health visitor to participate in this hearing as a witness.
38.	The circumstances of the paternal aunt and uncle - there has been a great deal of stress for these two relatively young parents to bear in recent years. Not only do they have the demands of caring for four young children whose needs I have already described but the uncle also suffered a very serious industrial accident three years ago when his right arm was caught in a rolling machine. The consequences of his injury led not only to physical pain and suffering but also to mental anguish in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder. Unsurprisingly, the overall circumstances of their family became stressful and certain aspects of their home life became less than optimal. Sensibly they turned for help and received it.
39.	I think it is important to bear in mind that, through a period of intense strain, their four children were not made subject to child protection plans or child in need plans. There was a common assessment framework (a ‘CAF’) plan and that plan was discharged at a meeting that took place on 14th September 2016. The aunt and uncle are now not behind with medical appointments, save for the immunisation of one child whose relevant medical appointment had to be cancelled through ill-health.
40.	I accept that the strain within this household had an impact upon the paternal aunt; however there is no evidence before me of any enduring concern about the aunt’s mental health. I also accept that the circumstances of the family will be improved in the near future when the uncle receives a large amount of compensation for his industrial accident. 
41.	However, I was left with the very clear impression that the aunt and uncle have required a high level of support and, as I was told by the professional who gave evidence over the telephone, have been repeatedly referred and then re-referred for the local authority’s services. I think that the evidence that I have heard is that they are only just coping with the many demands that they face and those demands are not likely to diminish significantly for some time - I am sure that the compensation will go some way to help but their overall circumstances will remain very demanding indeed.
42.	Thus I am left in the position that the professionals who know this family in the North West of England positively recommend that G is not placed with the aunt and uncle and appear to have good reason for doing so. Further I have the recommendations of the Guardian that I should heed and follow the advice of those professionals.
43.	The balance between the two options - I have already set out the key factors that have been argued before me. As I made plain to the advocates during the course of the hearing I have had to give very careful consideration indeed to both the short term arrangements and also the arrangements that will best promote the welfare of G in the long-term. 
44.	I am deeply conscious that, if G remains with FC, she will continue to have a high level of contact with her natural family and that research and common sense have demonstrated that natural families hold an inevitable magnetism to children of the same blood. One expert that I have heard has described this as the natural family sending out a beacon call to the mind of the child. Is the proposal for FC to care for G a sustainable and welfare based solution in the light of the high level of contact that she will have with her natural family and the love and care that are offered to her by them?
45.	The guardian had plainly considered that question as well and recognised the long-term uncertainties that may arise but expressed views which can be summarised in this way:
i)	As matters currently stand there could be no question of G being placed with the aunt and uncle in her interests.  G is settled, happy and well cared for where she is and there are very significant risks to her emotional well-being if she were to be moved to the aunt and uncle. Therefore, in summary, her advice was: ‘As matters currently stand don’t do it’. In the medium-term things are unlikely to alter.
ii)	FC is such a mature and intelligent woman that there is good reason to think that she would be able to meet the demands of caring for G with the proposed level of family contact. The mother and FC already know each other and FC is receptive to the involvement of the paternal family.
iii)	The Local Authority will have to remain involved to help FC and the natural family in their dealings with each other. This is not a question of mediation; it is a question of the Local Authority acting as an intermediary to assist where necessary (e.g. what happens if on a Friday evening the father is ill and has to cancel contact on Saturday –or one of his four trains is cancelled?). With that support the practical arrangements for contact should be possible, even if difficult.
iv)	How things will develop in the longer-term is guess work. It is possible that the father will continue to make the adjustments to his life that he has set in train. So may the mother. Balanced against the impact of that must also be the fact that it is likely that G will become increasingly dependent on FC as the years pass by and as the insecurities of the past quieten in her mind. Therefore it would be wrong to approach the current arrangement as unsustainable in the long-term. It will probably be sustainable, although the risks have to be understood and predictive measures put in place through the Local Authority’s continued involvement as an intermediary.
46.	Law – Under European Convention law the court is a public body that should only intervene in the family lives of others insofar as is necessary and proportionate. Any intervention must also be in accordance with the law. Plainly, it is necessary for me to intervene and make orders in the circumstances that now present themselves; the disagreements about G’s care cannot be left unanswered. The solution to where G should live does not lie in proportionality, on the facts of this case, in the light of the two options that present themselves (although proportionality is important on the question of whether a supervision order should be made).
47.	The answer to this case lies in the application of the law in section one of the Children Act 1989 which states that the paramount consideration is G’s welfare. Where, as here, there are only two options available (both of which lawyers would call ‘private law’ options since there is no suggestion of a care order now) there is no presumption of law in favour of a placement of G with her aunt and uncle even though they are members of G’s natural family. However, as more senior courts have reminded judges like me, it is obvious that, when considering what is best for G, I must take into account the advantages that she would have if she lived within her own family – perhaps the father put it as eloquently as anyone could but I have reminded myself of what the Court of Appeal said in paragraphs 28 to 45 of a case called Re E-R (a child) [2015] EWCA Civ 405.
48.	When considering the welfare of G the Children Act 1989 states that I must have regard to a checklist of factors that are set out in Section 1(3) of that Act and so I will turn to that now.
49.	Welfare Checklist – The checklist starts with a requirement that I should have regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of G which must be considered in the light of her age and understanding.  Given her age, G would not be able to express mature views about her future. I accept that her feelings are that she has settled into her home with FC but enjoys and benefits from contact with her mother and father. There are very positive reports of that contact and I have seen photographs on the father’s mobile phone of a very happy little girl spending good time with her dad.
50.	The next factor is G’s ‘physical, emotional and educational needs’. This is important on the facts of this case. G has experienced a very insecure upbringing in the important first two years of her life. Her parents’ relationship failed, her parents were both caught up in lives that led to the serious neglect of G’s welfare, her father has been absent for much of her early life and she has moved a number of times. G has now found a secure and stable home where she is very well looked after. Thus her needs are very well met where she is and are likely to remain met there.
51.	If G remains living with FC she will also have a need for contact with her natural family, especially her parents. That need will be met. On that issue I can see no basis at all for distinguishing between her parents. I am concerned about the impact on FC and G of a high level of contact and the risk that this might bear for the long-term stability of G’s placement but with the assurances that I have been given about FC’s acceptance of this level of contact and ability to cope with it, I see no reason why the father should have contact less than once a month if G is with FC. I also think that her need for contact with the extended paternal family could be met by the family joining in with some of the father’s contact from time to time.
52.	Therefore, on the unusual facts of this case and largely down to FC’s balanced and child-focussed understanding, G’s need for a continuing relationship her natural family can be met if she remains with FC.
53.	If G went to live with the aunt and uncle I have no doubt that she would receive all the love that the family offer her. She would have her need for an upbringing amongst her own family met. However there is a very significant risk that her emotional needs would not be met. Not only would her emotions have to adjust to yet another major move as she left the one-to-one care of FC but she would be living in a very different environment with them where they may well not be able to cope with the additional demands of caring for her. In my opinion that would not be fair on anyone and could not be in G’s best interests.
54.	I also think that, whichever way I decide this case, a supervision order is essential; if she remains with FC it will assist with ensuring that G’s need for contact is best met. I was very concerned with the initial suggestion that, after a period, the contact arrangements could be organised directly by FC with the family members. I think that would be very unfair indeed on her and to the family. It would lead to almost inevitable tension between FC and the family members.
55.	The next factor on the checklist is the likely effect on G of a change in her circumstances. I have already considered that above when looking at her needs. I do not think that a change in her circumstances whereby she moved to the aunt and uncle could possibly be in her interests. Having spent a lot of time thinking about the short-term and long-term view (i.e. the beacon call point of which I have written above), I agree with the guardian’s opinion as summarised above. Thus a move to the aunt and uncle bears a significant risk of emotional harm to G who has already suffered emotional harm in the past due to the neglect and insecurity that she has experienced in her parents’ care (harm and risk of harm being the next relevant welfare checklist factors).
56.	In discussion with the bar during this case there was reference to the possibility of an application in the future by one of the parents for leave to apply to discharge any special guardianship order in favour of FC under section 14D of The Children Act 1989. Since the long-term future in this case cannot be predicted with certainty I think it important to record that the circumstances of the case are as I have stated in this judgment (i.e. not in some of the social work statements) and I would ask that any change of circumstances should be considered on that basis. Thus, at present, the circumstances of the parents are that they both accept that they cannot offer G a home because neither of them has sufficiently stabilised their lives to do so.
57.	There is no doubt that FC is highly capable of meeting the demands of G’s care in a way that the aunt and uncle could not despite their very good intentions, the backing of the rest of the family and their genuine love for G. However, on the issue of making arrangements with the natural family, I think that she and G need the support of the Local Authority through a supervision order. I do think that the formality of an order for the first twelve months is necessary and proportionate in the light of the very real difficulties that have been revealed in this case so far. I would wish to stress my opinion that the Local Authority needs to be involved in supporting FC and G in this regard well beyond 12 months. 
58.	The range of primary powers available in this case is limited to the making of a special guardianship order either in favour of FC or in favour of the aunt and uncle. In my opinion it is plain that the only primary order that will meet the welfare of G is one in favour of FC. In relation to the support that is needed from the Local Authority I have considered making no order, making a family assistance order or making a supervision order. I conclude that a supervision order is necessary, proportionate to the proven facts of this case as set out above and also in the paramount welfare of G.
59.	I accept the submissions that I have heard from the bar that contact orders should not be made. However:
i)	The order must state on its face that the special guardianship order is made on the basis that contact will take place as I have stated in this judgment – i.e. once a month for the parents, separately, with a review after six months. The father’s family should be able to join in with some of his contact.
ii)	There must be revised supervision and special guardianship support plans that are submitted to the court by 4 p.m. on 10th October 2016 recording the future arrangements. Those documents must be prepared in consultation with the other parties. If they cannot be agreed by that time, the case will have to be restored before me.
60.	I would also wish to add these remarks about matters that were raised before me:
i)	I think it essential that there should be a proper and formal meeting between the father and FC which the Local Authority should arrange and support.
ii)	This judgment should be shown to FC and to the aunt and uncle. I also give permission for the paternal grandparents to see it, if the father thinks that would help.
iii)	I think that the review of contact must take place on an open basis and with full involvement from the parents, FC and the Local Authority. The playing field for that review meeting should be level and based on full and timely exchanges of information. I do not foresee that there will be any reduction in contact at that stage.
iv)	I would ask the Local Authority to give the father as much assistance as possible with the contact. If it really cannot assist him with the cost of travel then I would ask that the practical arrangements for travel should be discussed with him. The guardian’s suggestion that a pay-as -you go mobile should be provided to FC for use only in relation to the father’s contact seemed to me to be a very good one; I cannot see why the father should not at least have that phone number.
61.	Finally, I would like to have short written submissions by the same time as to whether this judgment should be published in accordance with the transparency provisions. It seems to me plain that this is a judgment that falls squarely within those provisions.
62.	Conclusion - I therefore make a special guardianship order in favour of FC and a supervision order to this Local Authority for the period of twelve months.
HHJ Stephen Wildblood QC
2nd October 2016.