Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWMC 17 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:
     
The District Judge
     
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	X Local Authority     	Applicant	
	and		
	Ms S the mother     	1st Respondent	
	                  Mr P the father
	2nd Respondent	
	                  K (a child )	3rd Respondent	

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

Ms H   for the   Applicant
Ms G      for the 1st  Respondent
Ms S for the 2nd Respondent

Hearing dates: 7-11.12.09

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

WRITTEN REASONS

The written reasons are being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report, no person may be identified by name or location (Other than a person identified by name in the reasons themselves) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved

		
1.	
This is an application by X Council for care and placement orders in respect of a child, K who was born on the 9 July 2008 and who is therefore 17 months old.  K’s mother is Ms S (the mother) who is present at court and legally represented and who opposes the applications.  K’s father is Mr P who is named on K’s birth certificate and therefore shares parental responsibility for her.  Mr P has not engaged in these proceedings since about July 2009 neither has he maintained contact with K and he has not attended this hearing despite being asked to do so by the mother.  I am satisfied that he knows about the hearing and has therefore deliberately chosen not to attend.  He was represented by Miss S of counsel but I released her when it was apparent that Mr P had not attended.  K herself is represented through the Children's Guardian who supports both applications.  

2.	There is a longstanding history of social care involvement with the mother and her family.  The mother was subject to sexual, physical and emotional abuse by her own parents which resulted in her being removed from their care in 1995 and she was made the subject to a care order, together with her siblings, C and A, on 22 April 1996.  However, the mother's own parents were never convicted of any offences relating to her or her siblings.

3.	The mother's previous child, EM who was born on 29 April 2006 was subject to care proceedings following her birth and was made the subject of a care order in November 2006.  She is placed with her paternal grandparents.  K was made the subject of a child protection plan prior to her birth.  This was following a pre-birth assessment (C1-23) and she was registered on the child protection register under the category of sexual abuse which relates to risks from the maternal grandparents.  Nevertheless, K was allowed to live with her parents without any statutory order in force.  However, concerns began to emerge about the parents’ ability to care for K and as a result a Public Law meeting was held on 5 September 2008 (C 61-65). The Council's application for a care order was initially issued in October 2008 at which time, following a contested hearing, an interim supervision order was made.  In addition, the parents also agreed contracts with the Council (D 49-50). The mother's contract focused on ensuring the K stayed at her mother's home address and also restricted which adults K could have contact with. A further child protection plan was drawn up on 12 November 2008 (C 94) which provided for an assessment, visits by social workers, health visitor, family resource centre worker and family aide, the last of these to be everyday except Sunday, although Sunday was later included.  The high level of support and monitoring provided was a marker of the perceived risks and needs in having K at home.  The plan expected certain standards at the parents’ homes and went into detail about who could have contact with K and in what circumstances.

4.	A child protection review conference was held on 25 February 2009 the minutes for which can be found at page C142 of the bundle.  Once again, concerns were expressed that the parents were not taking the plan seriously and that there was a lack of engagement with agencies on the part of the mother.  It was decided that the plan should continue.  It was at this meeting that the Children's Guardian commented, as she told me in evidence, that time was running out for the parents  (and mother in particular as the primary carer) and the Guardian needed to be convinced that mother was trying harder (C144).  Concerns for K’s welfare increased to the point where the Council brought the matter back before the court seeking an interim care order with a plan for removal of K from her mother's care.  This application came before me on 8 April 2009 when I made an interim care order.  My judgment can be found at pages A 46-48 of the bundle.

5.	K was immediately placed with Mr and Mrs P who are the father’s adoptive brother and his wife.  Mr P will be referred to hereinafter as Mr  JP. They were assessed as long-term carers (C 291) but unfortunately the placement broke down after some five months and K moved into a foster placement on 18 September 2009 where she remains to date.  Since going into foster care, K has had contact with her mother three times per week for 1 hour 30 minutes.  Father was offered contact twice per week but, as I have said, has not attended since July 2009.  Detailed contact notes are contained within the bundle and all those who have observed contact agree that on the whole it is positive.

6. 
	A full parenting assessment was carried out (C154-181) and concluded that K should not remain in her mother's care. The father disengaged with the assessment of himself looking at whether he should having increased contact to K and this report can be found at pages C182-203 of the bundle.  A psychological assessment of mother has also been carried out (C 228-260 and C 292-294) and she also concluded that mother is not yet ready to care for a child.  The Children's Guardian accepts the conclusions of both of these reports and shares the concerns which have been raised.  
	
7.	During the course of the hearing I have heard evidence from the following witnesses:

8.	Mr D from The assessment family centre (C 154)
	
9.	Ms F, social worker (B 82 and B 94, CP3, Annex B report and e-mail at C 295)
	
10.	Ms S, mother (page14 and B100)
	
11.	The psychologist (C228 and C 292)
	
12.
	Mrs P (B 58 and B 86) (wife of Mr JP)
	
13.	Ms M (B90)
	
14.	Ms B, Children's Guardian (C 66, C204 and C 297)

15.	The schedule of findings in support of the threshold criteria have been agreed in this case and at my invitation the mother and all advocates have signed a copy of the schedule which is annexed to this judgement.  I approve the schedule and make findings of fact accordingly.  I am therefore satisfied to the required standard that at the time protective action was taken K was likely to suffer significant harm, that harm being a risk of neglect, emotional and sexual harm due to the care likely to be given to her by her parents not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. 

16.	I must now consider what order, if any, to make having regard to the welfare principles set out in section 1 Children Act 1989 and in particular I must remind myself that it is K's welfare which is my paramount consideration.  As I have already said, K is now 17 months old and is in her third placement having lived for approximately 9 months with her mother and five months with Mr JP and Mrs P before moving to her present placement in September 2009.  Although no one's fault, this must have been very unsettling for her.  I am told by the Children's Guardian that K appears to be suffering some signs of delay and she does not appear to have had a positive attachment to either her mother or Mr JP and Mrs P.  However, I have been informed that she does appear to be developing a secure attachment to her current carers which is hopefully a good sign for the future although yet another change of placement, which is inevitable, will once again be unsettling.  It is the view of the psychologist that K displays characteristics consistent with a disorganised attachment to her mother.  It is also the view of both the psychologist and the Children's Guardian that K urgently requires a placement where the totality of her needs can be met and her next move must be her last (C 257 and C 301).  I am in total agreement with these views.

17.	In my judgment of 8 April 2009 I remarked that I did not think that mother would deliberately harm K but that any harm would arise through inadvertence on her part and the lifestyle she leads rather than an overt act.  Although I expressed that view at an interim stage and it is not binding on me, it is nevertheless one that I still believe to be true.  It is the risk of future harm to K if returned to the care of her mother which is the issue in this case.  In her evidence to me the current social worker, Ms F, set out her concerns as follows:-

18.	•	mother's ability to meet K’s day-to-day needs particularly around routines and consistency of care;
	
19.	•	inability to cooperate with professionals;
	
20.	•	inability to protect K from others including mother's own parents;
	
21.	•	inability of mother to keep to agreements;
	
22.	•	mother's own history which means that she has her own needs to meet.
	
23	I now intend to review the evidence in order to establish whether these concerns are justified.

24.	Mr D from the assessment family centre was the co-author of the assessment report on mother which was conducted over a total of 11 sessions.  Since completing his report Mr D had read the further evidence filed in these proceedings and feels that it all support his conclusion.  The report is in my judgment, a very balanced document setting out mother’s acknowledged strengths (C 176) but also setting out a number of concerns at C 177.  Those concerns are then amplified at pages C178 and C179 leading to the conclusion that the assessors did not consider it appropriate for K to be returned to her mother's care.

25.	In evidence, Mr D told me that he still believes that mother’s attitude towards her own parents is inconsistent.  She understands they have harmed her but she still feels an emotional tie to her mother.  He told me that he did not know if mother would be drawn back into a relationship with her own mother but she is still very vulnerable.  He added that he thought that if mother believed that she could have a relationship with her own mother she would ' go for it '.

26.	Mr D said that he thought mother's relationship with her friend, Ms M, was positive but her judgment about relationships with men was not very good.  She has not had an opportunity to meet men who might be a positive influence on her.

		
27.	He said that mother was very lonely.  She did not like living in her house alone and will sometimes accept visitors at any price.  She does not have much by way of support except Ms M.

28.	Mr D said that mother finds it difficult to accept constructive criticism.  She could get emotional when criticised.  She found it difficult to understand her own upbringing and would therefore find it difficult to protect a child from this sort of abuse.  However, she could protect a child from direct harm.  Mother found family aide to be  unhelpful and intrusive.

29.	Mr D told me that he thought mother would have difficulties in coping with an older child.  She would know how she wanted to parent the child but if she could not control her emotions she would have difficulties putting this into practice.  He thought she would find it difficult to cope if the child was naughty.

30.	Mr D believed that home conditions had improved following the practical parenting aspects of the assessment.  People had reported the home as grubby and mother did not appear to be well organised with piles of clothes around the house.  There were also concerns that K was often seen strapped in her buggy or bouncing chair.  When mother was spoken to about this she said that K was comfortable and happy there.  There was one session at the assessment centre where K was wriggling around in her chair and it took a couple of attempts to get mother to take her out.  He believed that the repeated instances of mother prop feeding K demonstrated her inability to accept professional advice.

31.	Mr D was asked about contact and said that at the contact centre food and nappies are all provided.  Mother can cope for short periods in a safe environment.  However, difficulties would arise in her looking after K seven days per week.  Mother finds life quite muddling.  She struggles to prioritise.

32.	Even if there were to be no contact between mother and her parents it would not alter his recommendation.

33.	When cross examined by Ms G for mother Mr D accepted that mother had repeatedly said that she did not want contact with her own parents and mother got very angry when Mr D suggested contacting them.  However, he went on to say that despite this anger he thought that mother would have a relationship with her parents if she felt this could be a positive relationship.

34.	Throughout the assessment Mr D felt that mother was trying very hard but there were practical issues which prevented her from succeeding.  The interaction which he saw between mother and K was positive but mother found it difficult to  multi-task, for example talking to the social worker and caring K at the same time.  Mr D accepted that mother is able to learn and that she has changed.  However, he felt this was a slow and gradual process and part of it was mother maturing.  Part was also due to her having contact with adults who can give her advice when she is willing to listen to it but he could not say how long it would take for the process to be completed.  He told me that mother needs time to grow up and she also needs adults around her to help her do this.  He was encouraged by the positive contacts which had taken place but contact was in tightly managed circumstances.  He told me that mother does not take advice from professionals and this is what stops the professionals moving things forward.

35.	Cross examined by Mr G for the child, Mr D told me that he did not know whether mother was seeing her parents during the assessment but he would not be surprised if she was.

36.	I accept Mr D’s evidence and the report in full.

37.	I next heard from the current social worker, Ms F, who was allocated to this case in April 2009 at the time of the making of the interim care order.  Ms F was responsible for placing K with Mr JP and Mrs P.
	
38.	Ms F told me that on the day she moved K to Mr JP and Mrs P’s home K did not show any signs of distress or anxiety.  Mother placed K in a child seat in Ms F's car and K showed no sign of distress at being separated from her mother.  When they arrived at Mr JP and Mrs P's home K again did not show any distress although she had only met Mr JP  and |Mrs Ps once when she was a few days old.  Ms F was concerned about this as K was nine months old at the time.  She would have expected her to show distress if she had had a secure attachment to her mother.  However, Ms F accepted that K appears to enjoy time with her mother and the quality of time spent together is good.  She was asked why K’s attachment difficulties had not been apparent when she was at home and Ms F suggested that this could have been for a number of reasons such as professionals concentrating on a range of issues or K’s attachment difficulties becoming more noticeable as she has grown older.  Ms F then set out her concerns should K be returned to her mother's care and I have already alluded to these earlier in this judgement.

39.	Ms F told me that should a placement order be made the Council would not agree to direct contact continuing between K and her mother for fear of it undermining any placement and it may also hinder a placement being found.

40.	Under cross examination by Ms G, Ms F accepted that contact was not an issue.  She told me that K recognises her mother and is pleased to see her.  However, contact is very predictable and is now a routine which K recognises.  It is in a very protective environment and there are no external influences.  Mother does not have to concentrate on anything else.

41.	Cross-examined by Mr G, Ms F told me that her main concern if K is returned home is that her safety and welfare would not be met and she would be at risk of significant harm.  She told me that K has additional needs to an ordinary child and these would not be met by mother. K’s needs must be met wherever she goes next.

42.	I accept Ms F’s evidence.
	
43.	
I next heard from the mother, Ms S.  Ms S confirmed that the contents of her statements were true.  She told me that she had moved to her current address about three months ago.  She did not feel safe at her previous address. She had problems with her neighbours and she asked to be re-housed.  One day she was attacked by a neighbour and she then went to the housing office and demanded that they move her.  She had to spend six weeks living with a friend before she was eventually re-housed and she now feels safe and secure.  She has re-decorated and carpeted her house on her own with some help from Ms M.  She has already prepared a room for K.
	
44.	Mother told me that she met Ms M several years ago through some other friends.  Ms M has a little girl of her own who is a few months older than K.  Ms M has been very helpful to mother and given her lots of advice.  She told me that in particular Ms M had advised her to get K into a routine and although she tried she found it very hard.  Mother denied keeping K up at night in order to keep her company.  Mother described her usual routine but said that sometimes when K would not go to sleep she put her in her own bed.  She said that if she was still in bed when the family aide came in the morning this was because she had had a bad night.  She said that she was allowed to stay at Ms M's house one night per week but she stayed more frequently as she did not feel safe at home.  She denied that K was ever left in dirty clothes and she also denied failing to stimulate her.  She said she discussed any concerns with her health visitor and tried to implement her advice.  She agreed that her house was cold particularly in January 2009 but said this was due to the loft installation having been removed.  K. was taken to hospital with red and swollen hands caused by the cold but within two weeks her hands were back to normal.  In October 2009 K had attended contact with red and swollen hands once again and this was on a cold day.  Two days later mother bought a coat for K which had mittens attached to it and she sent this to the foster home.

45.	Mother denied that she had struggled to meet K’s basic needs and said she had a good relationship with her.  She could not leave her.  She told me that she usually goes to contact sessions but she has missed some or been late.  However, she always lets people know.  She missed contact organised by the Children's Guardian because she was taken into hospital but she left a message for her which the Guardian did not receive.  (This is accepted by the Children's Guardian)

46.	She told me that K is always pleased to see her at contact and she tries to encourage her to play and walk.  She told me that she thinks she would be able to parent K as she grows older.  She would listen to advice and she has learnt her lesson.  She told me that she has dealt with her past in her own way.  She does not want to raise the issue anymore or talk about it.

47.	Mother is no longer in a relationship with Mr P or anyone else.  She sees her brother, A, about once every week and keeps in touch with him because he is also close to Ms M’s partner.  Mother conceded that there had been an incident when A had been violent to her because he (A) had wanted mother to give her bus ticket to him and she refused.  Mother told me that she and A had had some arguments before K was removed from her care.  A can be very moody and that a result she would not let K see him and unless it was supervised by someone else.  Mother also sees her sister, C, but has told her that she would not be able to continue seeing her in the future if K comes home.  This is because C has her own problems and has suffered from mental health difficulties in the past.

48.	Mother told me that she does not want to see her own parents and she has not seen them since she bumped into her mother in Morrison's supermarket.  She categorically denied going with her mother to the home of Mr P's adoptive brother shortly after K’s birth.

49.	When asked about the abuse she had suffered whilst in the care of her parents, mother told me ' I don't remember.  I can't remember.  I don't want to get to the bottom of things. I blame my mum and dad for a situation I'm in now.  '
	
50.	Mother agreed that she did not co-operate with family aide but told me she would do so in the future.  She had learnt a lesson.  She told me she is proud and wants to do things herself.  She argues back.  She also told me that she would make use of Sure Start and nursery if K came back to her care.

51.	Cross examined by Ms H for the Council, mother told me that she had had difficulties in communicating with some of the professionals trying to help her.  However, she felt that she was able to talk to the current social worker, Ms F.  Ms H referred mother to a number of references within the bundle which demonstrated that professionals had been trying to assist her (C 91, C 94, B36, D 196, D200, B 40 and B40a) and at times she had not accepted the support and advice which was being offered.  Mother accepted she that she was dismissive of some of the advice she received.  

52.	Ms H highlighted one of the concerns which was mother putting K into mother's own bed.  (B 39 and D187).  Another concern was mother continuing to prop feed K despite being advised about the dangers of this.  Ms H referred to the following occasions when mother had seemingly continued to ignore the advice she was given: 19th January 2009 (B179), 23 January 2009 (C 166), 24 February 2009 (D 211), 3 March 2009 (B 44), 6 March 2009 (C 167) and 17 March 2009 (D 223).  However, despite this compelling evidence and the observations of trained professionals, mother refused to accept that this was evidence of prop feeding and claimed that at the time K was old enough to hold a bottle herself and was therefore doing no more than feeding herself.  I do not accept this as being an accurate description of what occurred.  I am satisfied that there is clear evidence of prop feeding with a bottle being held in K's mouth supported by a quilt or suchlike and that mother chose to repeatedly ignore the advice she was given.

53.	Mother told me that she had undertaken work to control her anger.  She did this with her sister, C, just after K was removed.

54.	Mother told me that at times she could not understand why the professionals were visiting her house and she could see no point in family aide visiting.  She also accepted that she did not keep any health visitor appointments between January-March 2009.  Mother could not give any explanation for this beyond the fact that she was struggling to keep track of all her appointments notwithstanding that family aide provided her with a calendar to record appointments.  I have to say that I formed the impression that even now mother only has a begrudging acceptance of the need for the involvement of professionals in her life.

55.	Mother denied that her own mother had visited her in hospital when K was born.  She also denied Mr P's father visiting her, as is alleged.  She said that Mr P’s father has never seen her in hospital and that he must be lying about this.  Mother said that she had only been to Mr JP and Mrs P s house on one occasion when K was 1-2 months old.  She said her mother was not present on this occasion.  Mother was referred to page B 59 of the bundle and accepted that the date was probably 20 July 2008 and that she had been in hospital the previous night due to low blood pressure.  She also accepted that she had stayed at Mr JP and Mrs P's house for about 45 minutes.  Mother told me that she thought Mrs P was lying when she said that mother's own mother had been present on this occasion but she could not think of any reason why Mrs P would lie as she did not really know her.  Mother accepted seeing her own mother in Morrison's supermarket on 13 July 2008 but said this was purely an accident.
	
56.	Mother told me that other than Ms M her only other source of support is from Ms M's parents who live close by.  She told me that Ms M comes to see her every couple of weeks and will stay for a week at a time.  She also goes to see Ms M at her home every time she is paid and sometimes she stays there.

57.	Mother accepted that in the days following K's birth she did have a number of visitors to the house but said this was only as they wanted to see K.  She denied that a Mr L and  Mr O  had ever stayed at her house.

58.	Mother accepted that full-time care of K would be more demanding than contact but she knew she could do it.  She accepted that she may not have kept K warm enough in the past but no-one had told her that it could affect K’s health.  The paediatrician had given her two weeks to change things and she had done so.  I have to say that I was surprised that mother appeared not to understand that if her own house was cold then K would also be cold.
	
59.	Mother told me that she thought she had struggled to keep K in a full-time routine and that by spending so much time at Ms M's house K was not sleeping in her own cot.  She knew professionals were concerned about the time K was getting up and going to bed.  However, mother told me that she did not see any reason why K should not stay in bed late into the morning.

60.	Mother was referred to page C119 of the bundle and accepted that she had not kept to regular routines the K.  She was unable to explain why this was so.
	
61.	The mother told me that if K was returned to her she could not think what help she would need, but if a problem arose she would seek help from her social worker or another professional.  She then said that she might need help with routines and she accepted that she may struggle a little bit.  She knew she would not get any more chances after this and she also acknowledged that she knew this in February 2009 and that she did not do anything to improve the situation between February-April 2009.

62.	When cross examined by Mr G, mother told me that she knew that she should have been available to receive family aide visits but she decided to stop committing to them.  Even now she did not have a different view of family aide and she still viewed them as being unnecessary.  She told me that she did not like to be criticised and she felt that the family aide workers did this.  However, in other respects, mother said that she had changed since K was removed from her care but she could not say how she could demonstrate this.  She admitted that she had broken the contract with the Council.

63.	Mother was asked whether she might seek counselling as suggested by the psychologist her report and mother told me that she has already been in touch with her GP who has provided a telephone number for a ' crisis team ' which mother has already called and she is waiting for them to get back in touch with her.

64.	Having listened very carefully to mother's evidence it is apparent to me that she has found it necessary to develop a resilience to overcome the deficits in her own parenting.  She is a very proud young woman who desperately wants to be able to live independently and care for her own child.  Unfortunately, her pride sometimes gets in the way and I am satisfied on the evidence before me that she has failed to cooperate with professionals and to take the advice that was offered and that on occasions this has exposed K to the risk of significant harm, in particular by her being prop fed and sleeping in mother's own bed.  It is also clear that mother failed to establish routines for K and that if this pattern of behaviour were to continue in the future it would be very harmful to K.  Unfortunately, despite mother's assurances, I was not persuaded that her view of professionals has changed and I think she still regards most of them with a great deal of suspicion and feels that they are an unnecessary interference in her life.  The psychologist told me that this was a legacy of mother’s past and I agree with this.
	
65.	I next heard from the psychologist who has prepared a psychological report in this case.  The psychologist told me that her recommendation still stands.  She told me that mother's own psychological difficulties arising from her own childhood along with her distrust of professionals and the failure to grasp issues are all bars to her caring for K.  Mother suffered a traumatic childhood of her own and the legacy still lingers on.  She was abused by a number of different people and this affected her ability to attach and to work with people.  The psychologist said that unless mother addresses her own attachment difficulties she will have difficulty with attachments in the future.  Mother will need at least two years of therapy to make a real difference.  She needs to deal with the legacy of the past rather than the past itself.  She will also need ongoing support because she would not know when things are not right.

66.	Speaking about K, the psychologist told me that she has lost 12 months off secure attachments.  The psychologist was referred to mother's most recent statement at page B 101, paragraph 2, and said she was disappointed that mother could not acknowledge even now that she had had problems in caring for K.  The psychologist felt these were all part of mothers disorganised lifestyle.  The psychologist told me that mother is likely to be defensive of the intervention by professionals and again this is a piece of the legacy.  I have already remarked upon this when dealing with mother's own evidence.  The psychologist referred to page B102, paragraph 8, and said that she felt this says a lot about mother's own needs.  Again it was part of the legacy.  Mother's needs are important.  The psychologist said that mother finds it very difficult to manage herself and if she cannot do it for herself she cannot do it for a child.  With reference to page B104, paragraph 12, the psychologist commented that mother has not yet had a safe relationship (a similar comment was also made by Mr D in his evidence to me) and that she needs any relationship.  Mother has not experienced a safe relationship as a child and therefore finds it difficult to differentiate between safe and unsafe relationships.

67.	The psychologist was asked about contact and said that during the contact she had observed she saw some very skilful parenting by mother but that it was very different to do this outside contact.  (Again this was similar to Mr D’s evidence).  The psychologist said that she thought mother and K had a positive relationship but she was not sure about the security of the attachment underneath.  She did not feel that mother managed to make a secure attachments to K. during the first few months when K with in her care.  Although the psychologist had not observed K in her present foster placement she had read the most recent statement from the social worker and felt that K was beginning to form a secure attachment to her present carer.

68.	The psychologist said that mother has not had her own needs met and therefore it will be difficult for her to put these aside to meet the needs of a child.

69.	Cross examined by Ms H for the Council, the psychologist told me that a disorganised attachment it is one of two extremes and mother needs to find a middle ground.  The person is also likely to react or overreact impulsively.  You cannot switch off. You go to extremes.  She did not believe that mother would deliberately harm K but her care of K was disorganised and not reliable.

70.	She told me that she would have expected K to have had a major reaction to being removed from mother's care in April 2009 and that when she did not have this reaction it could indicate that K may have ‘shut down’.  The psychologist simply didn't know the reason.

71.	The psychologist was asked about the view she expressed at page C 253 of the bundle namely that the mother will be drawn back into the family dynamics at times because she is not strong enough or well supported enough to make the break.  The psychologist told me that mother's need for reparation is still very strong.  In 25 years as a psychologist she has never known a case where there has been a positive outcome in this respect.  The only way that it can be achieved is via therapy or a strong partner in order for a person to understand their past.  In any event, the psychologist said that mother still has links with her brother and sister who themselves were probably also affected by at their life experiences.

72.	Cross examined by Ms G, the psychologist said that it was mother's own difficulties which got in the way of her being able to care for K.  The psychologist accepted that contact appeared to be positive.  The psychologist accepted that mother has some insight into her difficulties but said that insight alone does not change behaviour.  The psychologist was encouraged by the fact that mother had attended an anger-management course arranged for her sister, C, but said that she needed to have her own anger-management help not simply sitting in on someone else's.

73.	The psychologist was asked whether mother could undergo therapy whilst caring for K but said that therapy is taxing and difficult and therefore looking after a child as well will tax mother to her limit and will set her up to fail.  The psychologist said that mother has the potential to benefit from therapy but not within K’s timescale.  

74.	I found the psychologist's report and her oral evidence to be thorough and balanced.  She acknowledged that mother has made more progress without therapy than could have been predicted (C 254) and acknowledged the positive relationship mother has with K, exhibiting some very good parenting, but equally she does not believe that mother is yet mature enough to manage her life circumstances alongside the full-time care of a child.  She does not have the capacity to form a secure adult relationship as she has too many unmet needs of her own.  She is unable to discriminate between safe and unsafe partners and has poor interpersonal boundaries which make it more likely that she will be revictimised as an adult.  The capacity to manage K on her own is compromised by her own psychological difficulties, her social isolation and her difficulties in taking advice from professionals (C 254). Mother has the potential to develop a positive attachment with K but its security is likely to be threatened by mother's own unmet emotional needs if she was to look after K full-time (C 255). Mother is likely to need at least two to three years therapeutic work before some of these issues will begin to be dealt with.  Expecting her to do this taxing work and to look after a child is to set her up to fail.  This extra work would not be compatible with K's needs in that she needs to be able to be with carers who can forge the necessary secure attachment with her (C 256). The psychologist concludes that she does not believe that mother is yet ready to take care of a child without significant long-term therapy and that K cannot wait that long (C 257).  I accept the psychologist's evidence and her written reports in full and agree with them.

75.	I next heard from Mrs P who was called by the Council specifically to deal with the issue raised at page B 59 of the bundle, that is whether the mother had taken her own mother to the home of Mr JP and Mrs P on or about 20 of July 2008. Mrs P told me that when she met K she was about two weeks old.  Mother had just discharged herself from hospital where she had been admitted for either low blood pressure or anaemia.  Mother looked pale.  K. was accompanied by her father, Mr P, her mother, and Ms S's mother.  They had arrived in Ms S's mother's car.  No-one else was present.  Mrs P did not see the car but she was told that that was how they had arrived.  Mrs P had not met Ms S's mother before and all the arrangements for the visit had been made through her husband’s father.  Whilst there were no formal introductions, Mr P referred to the woman who Mrs P believed to be Ms S’s mother by her first name.  This indeed is the name of Ms S’s mother.  Mrs P said that they all stayed about 45 minutes, that K was in a car seat and Mrs P took her out of the car seat and changed her.

76.	Mrs P also told me about a time when her husband had taken some money to a woman who he believed was Ms S’s mother living in the Harehills area of Leeds because Mr P had gone on holiday, she believed to Lanzarote, and had missed his flight home.  He therefore needed to borrow some money for the airfare.  This had occurred prior to the home visit to the Mrs P's on  20th July and Mr JP had indicated to his wife that he had given the money to the same woman who had attended at their home on the 20th July and was believed to be Ms S’s mother.

77.	Cross examined by Ms G, Mrs P told me that throughout the visit Ms S had called the woman ' mum ' and that Mr P had called her by her first name. She denied that she was mistaken about the identity of the woman who visited her house.
	
78.	Questioned by Mr G, Mrs P said that she was in no doubt that the woman who visited her house on 20th July was the mother's mother,.  She said that the woman and the mother looked very much alike.

79.	I found Mrs P to be a truthful witness.  I can see no reason for her to lie about this incident as alleged by the mother in her own evidence to me, and furthermore the surrounding circumstances of the visit are accepted by mother.  For example, it is accepted that mother had discharged herself from hospital the night before the visit having been admitted with low blood pressure and that the visit lasted for about 45 minutes.  Mother herself claims that the woman who accompanied her on the visit was Ms M's mother, who she also refers to as ‘mum ' but despite this being an issue that was raised as long ago as the hearing on 8  April 2009, mother has not filed a statement from Ms M’s mother neither was Ms M’s mother called to give evidence before me.  I am satisfied that Mrs P did hear Mr P refer to the woman by her first name and on the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the woman who attended at the home of Mr JP and Mrs P on 20 July 2008 was Ms S’s mother. This is therefore further evidence that mother does find it difficult to break the ties with her own parents which is a concern of all the professionals in this case but even without this finding I still accept the evidence of the psychologist that on the balance of probabilities it is inevitable that mother will be drawn back into the family dynamics at times because she is not strong enough or well supported enough to make the break that her psychological functioning need her to make. She is still a child searching for a positive relationship with her mother in particular (C253).

80.	As I have not heard any direct evidence from Mr JP about the visit to the house in the Harehills area of Leeds together with the fact that Ms S’s mother does not live in Harehills, I cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the woman he visited was Ms S’s mother.

81.	Ms M was called to give evidence on behalf of the mother.  She confirmed that she has been friends with mother some time and she knew about the concerns which professionals had.  She told me she had never met Ms S’s mother but she did confirm that Ms S refers to Ms M's mother as ' mum '.

82.	Ms M accepted that at first mother did struggle with the routines for K and had advised her that she must be firmer with K.  Mother would give in too easily.

83.	Ms M also accepted in cross examination that mother could have worked with professionals more and been more trusting.  While she was struggling to maintain a routine with K, she was nevertheless trying.

84.	In my opinion, the evidence of Ms M really confirms that of the professionals in this case.  Ms M was aware of the concerns about mother's care of K and offered advice and support.  Sometimes it was accepted but on other occasions it was not.  Nevertheless, the two of them have remained good friends and Ms M has been at court to support the mother.  I am pleased for mother that she does have such a good friend and someone who she can turn to.  I hope the friendship will continue.

85.	The Children’s Guardian told me that although she had not been able to observe contact herself as a previous attempt to do so had failed through no-one’s fault, she was not surprised that mother can engage positively during contact.  She told me that it is what she would have expected and she saw the same with EM.  However she also said that K is not ready to be returned to her mother's care. Notwithstanding the good quality of contact The Children’s Guardian told me that she could not ignore the weight of evidence in this case, particularly that of the psychologist.  Furthermore, the Children’s Guardian did not know any way in which the risk could be managed.  She said that K’s demands can only increase.

86.	I accept the oral evidence and reports of the Children’s Guardian.  She has conducted a most thorough investigation in this case and she has concluded, as have all the other experts, that the mother is simply not able to care for her daughter safely now or in the future for the reasons associated with her own traumatic history and her lifestyle (C 301).  I completely agree.

87.	It therefore follows from my evaluation of the evidence in this case that if I were to return K to the care of her mother she would be at risk of future significant harm in the form of neglect and emotional and sexual harm.  I am also satisfied that this risk will remain until such time as the mother engages in the therapy recommended by the psychologist and which the psychologist believes is likely to take at least two years to complete.  It is the view of both the psychologist and the Children's Guardian, which I accept, that this timescale is completely incompatible with meeting K’s need for security and stability as soon as possible, particularly in the light of the disruption she has already suffered through the changes of placement.  Time is not on her side and unfortunately she cannot wait for mother to undertake the therapy which she undoubtedly needs.
	
88.	I have no doubt whatsoever that mother loves K and has a positive relationship with her during contact.  However, this is insufficient to persuade me that she could care for K on a permanent basis.  I also accept that mother's difficulties are not of her own making.  She is a victim of the care she received as a child.  I know how proud the mother is and I admire her for that.  I also know that she would not want the court’s pity but it would be remiss` of me not to express my sympathy for the position in which she finds herself.  Nevertheless, my paramount consideration must be K’s welfare and therefore the only order I can make is a care order to X which I now do.
	
89.	I must now consider the placement application. As K is only 17 months old she requires a permanent, stable and loving home where all her needs can be met throughout her childhood and into adolescence. In my judgment this can only be achieved through adoption as there are no other family members able to care for her. On 4 November 2009 K was approved by the council’s Adoption Panel as suitable for adoption and Ms F has informed me that there are 6 potential families in the Leeds area with whom she could be matched. K has already demonstrated attachment difficulties but is believed to be showing some signs of attaching to her current carers. Therefore, the sooner any change of placement occurs, the easier it will be for K to begin to form new attachments.
	
90.	Neither parent consents to a placement order being made and I can only proceed to make such an order if I dispense with their consent which I am asked to do on the grounds that K’s welfare requires that parental agreement be dispensed with. This, of course, mirrors the test which I must apply in considering the application generally, namely that the paramount consideration must be K’s welfare throughout her life.
For the reasons I have already given, and applying the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, I am satisfied that K’s welfare dictates that a placement order should be made so as to safeguard her future care, and that for the same reasons the consent of Ms S and Mr P should be dispensed with.
	
91.	In arriving at this decision I am aware that K will not be brought up in her birth family and will have only limited contact with her birth parents and half siblings through the council’s letter box scheme, but I am satisfied that these arrangements are the best that can be made in the circumstances and will help meet K’s needs for information about her biological family as she grows older.

	
92.	I therefore dispense with the consent of Ms S and Mr P and make a placement order in favour of X in respect of K. In doing, so I approve the care plan.
	
	The District Judge 
11 December 2009