Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 37 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:

A District Judge
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	X Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	Ms S	1st Respondent	
	Mr H	2nd Respondent	
	K (the child through a Children’s Guardian)	3rd Respondent	

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

Ms A of counsel	for the	  Applicant	
Mr N of counsel	for the	 1st Respondent 	
Ms B of counsel	for the	2nd Respondent	
Ms C, Solicitor	for the	3rd Respondent	

Hearing dates: 21st – 24th June 2010
Judgment Delivered 1st July 2010

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

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

Justices’ Reasons

1.	
This is an application by X  Council (the council) for care and placement orders in respect of a child, K who is 2 years old.  K’s mother is Ms S (the mother) who is present in court and was legally represented throughout part of the proceedings.  K’s father is Ms H (the father) who is also present in court and was legally represented during part of the proceedings.  Both parents oppose the applications before the court.  K himself is represented through the Children’s Guardian Mrs G who supports the applications.
	
2.	
BACKGROUND

This is helpfully set out in the case summary/written opening prepared by Ms A on behalf of the council.  The council’s concerns centre on K’s father who has six older children, not the subject of these proceedings.  The father had a child to his first wife in respect of whom he was convicted of kidnapping and assault in 1992.  The father then had five children to his second wife, those children being removed from his care following care proceedings in 2003.  The judgment of within those proceedings can be found at page E61 of the bundle.  The events giving rise to the care proceedings also led to the father being convicted of child neglect for which he was sentenced to four months imprisonment.  The father has also been convicted of other criminal offences and his record is to be found at D37.  The last recorded conviction is dated 15th February 2007 when for an offence of dangerous driving and other road traffic offences he was sentenced to nine months imprisonment suspended for two years together with requirements for supervision and unpaid work.   This offence is referred to in the various assessments before the court and involved, inter alia, the father jumping out of a moving motor car in order to escape the police whilst the mother was still in it.
	
3.	
It was not until December 2008 when K was 6 months old that the council received a referral from another council alerting them to father’s history.  The council concluded that a risk assessment was required and that father should leave the family home whilst this was carried out, which he did.  The result of that assessment is at C133 of the bundle.  In early 2009 both mother and father indicated that they had separated and the mother made allegations of serious domestic violence details of which can be found at D27-35 and C141.  In August 2009 the council became aware that the parents had reconciled and were living together with K.  As a result the council made an application for an emergency protection order which came before me on 18th August 2009 and my judgment can be found at pages 8 – 10 of the bundle.  I made an emergency protection order and thereafter an interim care order which has remained in force up to the present time.
	
4.	
The parents have remained together as a couple since August 2009 and still present as a couple at the time of this hearing.  The mother refuses to accept that the father presents a significant risk to K and both would like K returning to their care.
	
5.	
The council believe that in the light of the assessments which have been carried out and to which I shall refer later in this judgment that the father still presents as a risk to any child in his care and as the mother is unable or unwilling to recognise that risk she is unable to protect K from it. Furthermore, until such time as the mother is prepared to acknowledge the perceived risk from father it is impossible to do any work with her to mitigate that risk to an acceptable level.  The council have therefore concluded that K’s short and long-term needs can only be met through an adoptive placement and this view is supported by the Children’s Guardian.
	
6.	
THRESHOLD

The schedule of findings sought by the council can be found at pages 11-13 of the bundle.  The parents have responded to that schedule (pages 14-16 and 17-19). The father accepts the convictions as set out in the schedule and he also accepts that as a result he poses a risk to K but he believes that risk is manageable.  The father denies any domestic violence towards the mother.  For her part the mother does not accept that the father presents any risk to K and she believes that he has dramatically reformed since 2003.  The mother has also retracted the allegations of domestic violence and claims that she was pressured into making these by her own mother.  Both parents accept that they obtained a tenancy of a property with the intention of setting up home together along with K but both maintain that they intended to notify the Local Authority about this.
	
7.	
ASSESSMENTS

Various assessments have been undertaken since the council became involved with the family.  As I have already mentioned, when the council first became aware of the historic concerns about the father he was asked to leave the family home whilst a risk assessment was undertaken (C133).  Mother engaged well in this process and indicated that she clearly understood the risks which father posed resulting from his neglect of his older children (C150 and C155).  At that time the mother was also clearly stating her wish to secure a tenancy in her own name to ensure that she and K would have the security and stability of their own home (C151). Consequently, and on the premise that the parents had separated and intended to remain apart, the assessment concluded that the mother herself posed no risk to K and was able to meet his basic care needs.  It recommended that the file be closed.  However, subsequent to the assessment the parents reconciled and the mother withdrew her allegations of domestic violence.
	
8.	
Both mother and father were psychologically assessed by a Consultant Psychologist and his report can be found at C20.  Mother told the psychologist that she had no concerns about the father (C23a) although father admitted failing to seek medical attention for his older children (C27).  The psychologist concluded that the mother would have a strong tendency to place her own needs before those of a child in her care (C29a) and that she is at a high risk of causing emotional neglect to a child in her care due to her lack of emotional availability (C29a).  The psychologist also felt that within an abusive relationship the mother would tend to prioritise the relationship with her partner before the need to protect any child in her care (C29a).  In respect of father, the psychologist believes that he has made some progress but this has not translated into a fundamental understanding of his actions (C30) and there is a high risk of future domestic violence stemming from his extremely problematic personality structure (C30a).  The psychologist believes that the risk of future domestic violence is high irrespective of whether mother’s allegations against father in 2008/2009 are true and that neither parent would be able to protect K from the effects of this (C31).
	
9.	
.A psychiatric assessment of father was undertaken by a Consultant psychiatrist.  The psychiatrist had prepared a report on the father in the previous care proceedings in March 2003 (C57).  The psychiatrist could find no mental illness in father and he was now exhibiting some insight into his actions towards his children in 2003, recognising that they had been extremely wrong (C45).  The psychiatrist has prepared an addendum report (C157) when he interviewed father with mother present.  Mother stated  “ that she could maintain and control any impulsivity on the part of (the father)” (C161) but nevertheless the psychiatrist concluded  that  father presents an ongoing risk of behaving impulsively in the future and he continues to exercise poor judgment (eg his ongoing use of cannabis during the parenting and risk assessment) and has not fully acknowledged the concerns of professionals (C166).
	
10.	
Having carefully considered all the documentation provided to him including the reports from the Consultant Psychologist and the parenting and risk assessment,  the psychiatrist  concluded that whilst father has no current diagnosable mental health issues there are clearly longstanding personality difficulties as set out in the psychologists report (C165).
	
11.	
The evidence of the Consultant Psychiatrist has not been challenged by either the mother or the father and I therefore accept his reports in full.
	
12.	
There was also an assessment by a Family Centre which can be found at pages C101 – 131 of the bundle.  Both parents engaged in the assessment and there is no criticism of them in that regard.  During the assessment father’s behaviour appeared at times to be unusual and threatening (C110) whilst mother presented as “vulnerable and in need of support. She presented as emotionally immature and dependent on (the father)” (C114). Neither mother nor father appeared to take the driving incident in 2007 seriously (C118 – 119).  Father initially lied but then admitted using cannabis during the assessment period (C119) which raised concerns about the couple’s ability to work honestly and openly with professionals (C124).  The Family Centre assessment concluded that the mother would not be able to effectively challenge the father or take action to protect herself or K (C123).  A summary of the concerns of this assessment are set out at C127 and the assessors concluded that the parents would not be able to provide adequate care for K.
	
13.	
ORAL EVIDENCE

Ms I, Senior Practitioner at the Family Centre. Her report can be found at C101.  I was told that the assessors looked at the parents both as a couple and also as individuals.  When they spoke to mother alone father reacted angrily and accused the assessors of trying to separate them.  Mother could not accept that father was a risk.  At times father was supportive but at other times he was critical.  The parents always presented as a couple.
	
14.	
When asked about domestic abuse mother was dismissive (C115).
	
15.	
At paragraph 4.1.8 of the report (C116) the assessors discussed the impact of mother making false allegations of domestic abuse but mother had difficulty in understanding the significance of this.
	
16.	
At paragraph 4.1.11 (C116) the assessors raised concern about the parents reuniting without informing Social Services.  Father appeared to blame mother for the reconciliation.
	
17.	
Father was clear he was not using cannabis until workers noticed the smell in the house on a home visit.  Even then father continued to deny his use saying he would take blood tests.  However, he did eventually admit to using cannabis during the assessment.
	
18.	
The witness concluded by saying that she did not feel that there was any more time in which to assess the parents.
	
19.	
Under cross-examination the witness told me that she thought father had minimized the concerns about him but she conceded that the parents’ care of K prior to his removal was “good enough”.
	
20.	
In re-examination the witness was referred to paragraph 5.5 on page C150 of the bundle.  The witness told me that mother was not exhibiting this level of insight into the risks which father poses when she was assessed by the Family Centre.
	
21.	
Mr D, Social Worker.  His statement can be found at B9, the care plan can be found at CP3, the annex B report and statement of facts can be found at AA10 and AA22 and the assessment of the maternal grandparents can be found at C60.
	
22.	
The witness told me that the earlier risk assessment at C133 was prepared in May 2009.  Since then there has been a significant change so far as mother is concerned in that she has now reconciled with the father.  The witness told me that in his view the case is not about the parents’ ability to practically care for K but rather the risk which father poses to K and mother’s ability to protect K from that risk.  The witness was also concerned about issues of domestic violence which mother described in detail (C141) but then retracted.
	
23.	The witness said that mother needs to accept and understand the level of risk which father poses in order for her to be properly assessed.  He believes that the risk to K had increased since the first assessment.
	
24.	
The witness also told me that openness and honesty on the part of the parents is important as the professionals must have confidence in what they are being told. It is difficult to work with people who deny what has happened.
	
25.	
The witness agreed with the previous witness that K can not wait whilst further assessments or therapeutic work with mother is carried out; decisions need to be made now.  Further delay would be detrimental to K as he is at a crucial developmental stage.  K is also growing an attachment to his foster carers and this needs to be transferred to any new carer.  Any further delay will undermine this.
	
26.	
Cross-examined by Mr N, the witness told me that he had no concerns about contact; the parents have attended regularly and on time.
	
27.	
Asked about post adoption contact, the witness told me that the council would not seek to deny post adoption letter-box contact with paternal family members if this was in K’s best interests.
	
28.	
When asked about the matters set out in the schedule of findings sought, the witness said that the council do not rely on any individual point but rather upon father’s offending history going back over many years.  Given mother’s response in the initial risk assessment (C150) she appeared to understand the risks which father poses.  
	
29.	
The witness did not think that a residential assessment would be beneficial given mother’s continued denial and the delays it would produce.  Given mother’s position the witness did not think that there was anything further to work with.  
	
30.	
Cross-examined by Ms B the witness agreed that K did not come to the council’s attention during the first six months of his life.  
	
31.	
Since the witness took over responsibility for the case on 24th September 2009 nothing has been done to provide father with the help that the Consultant Psychiatrist recommended but equally father has failed to seek this help himself over a number of years.  The witness accepted that there had been some change by father but not a marked change.
	
32.	
Cross-examined by Ms C the witness told me that there would be a minimum of yearly post adoption letter-box contact but it may take place twice yearly.  Any prospective adopters will have to be consulted.
	
33.	
There are already potential adopters who would be able to meet K’s cultural and religious needs.   Full details of this are at B15.  They would wish to bring K up in the Muslim faith.
	
34.	
The witness was confident that K’s current foster carers and his parents would support any move to an adoptive placement.  
	
35.	
The witness said that although K’s speech is slightly delayed he was confident that he would catch up and he is well within his developmental milestones.
	
36.	
Dr P, Consultant Psychologist whose report can be found at C20 and a letter at C170.  The witness confirmed the contents as true. 
	
37.	
The witness had also received all additional documentation including mother’s most recent statement. His views had not changed; in fact mother’s statement had strengthened his view.
	
38.	
The witness described mother as being better at practical tasks that did not involve language and she would find it easier to learn better from practical demonstration.  However, she was still in the low/average range.
	
39.	
He said that mother was able to describe events but she had no emotional understanding of them, this was evident from paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of her statement.  She has the capacity to understand events but does not have the emotional capacity to internalize it.  
	
40.	
With reference to C30a he said that mother is suggestible and is emotionally dominated by father.
	
41.	
Referring to C24a he said mother was putting her own needs first by making false allegations and then repeating them.  This showed impulsive behaviour.  
	
42.	
Asked about the parents’ relationship, the witness said that he was not convinced that emotionally mother had never let go of the relationship.  It was never over.  There was a physical separation but not an emotional one.  This is another example of her putting her own needs first.
	
43.	
Referring to page C33 the witness said that as mother has ever actually seen the risk which father presents, so emotionally she does not believe it.  She has a considerable journey to go on.  Mother needs to see the risk, accept the risk emotionally and see the consequences of the risk.  If mother decides to separate from father then only at that point could work start with her.  At the moment mother still does not see the warning signs from father and there is no evidence that she has moved on in terms of their relationship.  
	
44.	
The witness believed that the risk of violence from father was high but mother has to recognise this herself otherwise any separation would be superficial as was the previous one.  Any separation would have to be for at least a year with unequivocal evidence of that separation before it could be accepted as true.
	
45.	
Referring to the father, the witness said that he failed to show any emotional understanding of past events and lacks victim empathy.  Father will have to show real substantive change and exhibit emotional insight into his behaviours before he is no longer a risk of using domestic violence.
	
46.	
The witness accepted that there was some evidence of maturational change.  In the past father would have met the criteria for a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder but the witness did not think he would meet these criteria now.  Although father can now say that what he did in the past was wrong he does not understand why it is wrong or why he did it.
	
47.	
Referring to C30a the witness said that he would be very concerned if K were returned to his parents.  What has happened in the past could occur impulsively in the future and mother could not protect from this.  Any protection on her part would be reactive such as running away from father.  Mother could not be proactive because she would not be expecting father’s behaviour and this would slow her reaction.  However, once father’s behaviour had manifested itself the witness believed that the mother would react at that point.
	
48.	
The witness thought that mother chooses not to accept that father is a risk because it would challenge the very concept of their relationship.  In their relationship father is likely to be the more assertive and mother more compliant.  At present mother is happy with this and sometimes in a functional relationship it is acceptable but the witness regarded the parents’ relationship as dysfunctional.
	
49.	
Cross-examined by Mr N, the witness said that he saw the same trends now in father as in the past namely his previous behaviour towards others and this was evident from the professional assessments dating from 2003 to the present time.  The witness accepted that there was some maturational progress by father but felt it was very slow.  He felt that there was a wealth of evidence to show that father currently presents as a risk.
	
50.	
At this point in the proceedings a disagreement arose between the parents and their respective counsel.  I allowed time for further discussions to take place and the parents’ solicitors also attended at court at my request.  However, both parents indicated that they had lost confidence in their counsel and although I allowed time to see whether they could be represented by their solicitors I was eventually informed that the parents wished to represent themselves with the assistance of father’s brother, Mr SH as McKenzie friend.
	
51.	
The mother had no further questions of her own for the witness.
The cross-examination of the witness continued with father in person.
	
52.	
The witness said that he thought father would have trouble controlling his impulses in future and that there was a high risk of further domestic violence.  The witness said he could not ignore what he called the static risk factors namely father’s previous convictions.  He said that he did not think that father understood why he did those things.  Father accepts that he did it and says that he is sorry but he does not understand why he did it.
	
53.	Again, the witness accepted that there had been some change by father but thought he was still impulsive.  He said he still acts without thinking and this is a major issue.  As father’s past conduct was so serious it made him a high risk for the future.
	
54.	
The witness said that very little could be done by others to improve antisocial behavioural traits which father exhibits and certainly nothing could be done within a reasonable timescale.
	
55.	
Mr SH, father’s brother.  With the agreement of all parties I agreed to hear from Mr SH before either parent gave evidence so that he could continue to act as McKenzie friend.
	
56.	
The witness told me that any child is important.  He has six children of his own.  
	
57.	
The witness was not present at the time of the earlier abusive behaviour by the father as they had fallen out.  However, when it came to K the father did everything perfectly.  If the witness had any concerns about father’s behaviour he would telephone the police immediately.  He had left his own children with the father and he trusted him.  He described father as caring and loving.  He also said that mother was able to care for K.  Although the witness lives in a different area he visits the parents’ home regularly.
	
58.	
 Ms S, the mother.  The witness started by confirming the contents of her most recent statement dated 23rd June 2010.  However, she did wish to clarify the contents of paragraph 14.  She told me that on the day in question the father telephoned her.  The call was answered by the mother’s own father who started shouting.  Her father told K’s father that he would make sure that he did not get K back.  That night the mother’s parents went to a local social club and returned about midnight having been drinking.  The mother informed them that the police had been to see her to check that she was alright as a result of something the father had said to the police.  The mother’s mother told her to contact the police the following day and inform them that father had been violent to her in the past.  The mother said that if she did not do so her own mother had threatened to throw her and K out of the house.
	
59.	
The mother told me that she would always put K’s needs before her own and had always provided for him.
	
60.	
She knew father presented a risk and if anything happened she would lock herself and K in a bedroom and then telephone the police.
	
61.	
The mother identified the risk from father as being either neglect of K or violence towards herself.  
	
62.	
She went on to tell me that father has always attended K’s medical appointments and was present when K was circumcised.  He has always attended to bath times and taken K for walks and to the park.  Together, the parents took Mr SH’s children to seaside for a day trip.  
	
63.	
Mother accepts the assessments which have been carried out on the father but told me that she has support from her brother in law.  She acknowledged that father presents a big risk but felt that she could manage it.  She had not seen father behave inappropriately in the four years that she had known him.
	
64.	
She said that she would accept help from others including the social worker, other family aid resources and the health visitor.
	
65.	
Referring to the incident in 2007 for which father was convicted of dangerous driving, mother told me that father did not realise that the car he was driving was not insured.  The police stopped them and told father to turn the engine off but he decided to drive away.  Mother said that father went “really reckless”.  He was driving on the wrong side of the road.  He then jumped out of the car before it crashed into a bollard.  Mother was in the car when it hit the bollard but she did not sustain any injuries.  Mother said that she could have been injured or killed.  Father ran away and was chased by the police.  Mother was arrested and kept in custody for eight hours until the police established that she was not involved in any criminal wrongdoing.  Mother told me that it was “unbelievable” what father did. 
	
66.	
Mother went on to talk about K and spoke with great pride about the progress he is making.  She told me how she had been instrumental in him having the swine flu vaccination and how she had read books on child development.  She described how she had helped him start walking and how she had promoted a healthy diet.  She described him as being independent and likes to try and feed himself rather than rely on others.  
	
67.	
Mother told me how K enjoys playing with the father whom he trusts.  
	
68.	
Mother told me if a placement order is made she would like K placed with a Muslim family and that she would co-operate with letter-box contact.
	
69.	
In response to a question from the father the mother replied (referring to the father) “no you were wrong with the dangerous driving and you told me it won’t happen again”.
	
70.	
Cross-examined by Ms A mother acknowledged that she should have told the council about the tenancy she obtained with the father in July/August 2009.
	
71.	
Cross-examined by Ms C mother told me that she wanted a second chance but she understood the Guardian’s concerns about risk. 
	
72.	
If a placement order is made she would like K to be placed in a full Muslim family and as part of the letter-box contact she would like photographs of K to see how he is developing.
	
73.	
Mr H, the father.  His statements can be found at pages 14 -16, 20-22 and 27-29 of the bundle.  He confirmed they were true.
	
74.	
Father described the parents’ current accommodation which is a five bedroom house they rent from father’s brother.  It has a shower room and bathroom together with kitchen, living room and dining room.  There are gardens front and rear.
	
75.	
Father told me he has changed.  He has come to the root of the problem.  He has assessed and analysed his past behaviour.  In the past he always though he was right.  He said the first step to change is accepting you were wrong in the first place.  He accepted he had been a risk in the past and may be in the future.  He accepted people may not trust him because of his past. He then said he was not a risk anymore.  He told me nothing had happened in the first six months of K’s life so that was a good start.
	
76.	
He accepted that the issue of child neglect was worrying but said he did not need any further help because he has his family.  He has also undertaken anger management work as part of a previous probation order.  He then said that “I am fine.  One hundred percent guarantee”
	
77.	
Referring to the charge of dangerous driving in 2007, he acknowledged his behaviour was wrong but said he had panicked.  As a result he said he had lost his driving licence and had to use public transport and so these consequences had brought the seriousness of his behaviour home to him.  
	
78.	
Referring to his use of cannabis he told me he can no longer afford to buy this.  He accepted he used to have a drug habit but he denied really lying about his use of cannabis during the assessment and maintained that as he was trying to give up his use of the drug but was suffering relapses it was not really a lie when he told the family centre assessors that he was not currently using it.
	
79.	
Father said that he agreed with everything mother had told me about K.  He said K has a strong attachment to both his parents and they take care of K.  They take precautions. They are alert.
	
80.	
Father repeated that he wanted everyone to understand that he was no longer a risk.  He had done well for the first six months of K’s life and he would carry on doing his best.  He said that he would like the opportunity to carry on from where he left off.  There is no danger at all.  If there was a risk his family would not support him.  He said he wanted to give K the best in life and would never make a mistake again.  He regretted what he had done in the past but he loved K and would never hurt him.
	
81.	
Father told me that he would work with Social Services if necessary.  However, if a placement order is made he would prefer K to be brought up in a family where both parents are Muslims.
	
82.	
He told me that he understood how letter-box contact worked as he has taken part in it for eight years with his previous children and he would do the same for K.  He told me that in itself was progress.
	
83.	
He said that he had the support of the mother and of a kind and loving family.
	
84.	
Cross-examined by Ms A, father accepted he had lied to the family centre assessor about his cannabis use because his willpower was not strong enough.  He also accepted that he lied to his solicitors leading them to file an inaccurate position statement on his behalf (page 20).
	
85.	
Father accepted that he had criticised the mother’s care of K at the time when she was living with her own parents because he believed that she was not providing enough food for K.  He therefore telephoned Social Services and asked them to check things were alright.
	
86.	
Father went on to say that throughout their separation the mother never stopped telephoning him.  She also asked him to find accommodation for them to live in together and he agreed that he did not tell Social Services about this.  He said he knew that Social Services would be unhappy if he told them that he had moved in with the mother.
	
87.	
Cross-examined by Ms C, father said that he had separated from the mother when the first assessment of mother had started.  They separated because he thought mother was seeing another man.  It was his decision but he did not really want to split up from her.
	
88.	
Referring to their reconciliation he said that mother wanted to move back in with him and that was the truth.  They had since thought about separating during these proceedings but mother told him he had done nothing wrong.  If mother had asked him to leave he would have done.
	
89.	
Ms G, children’s guardian.  Her report can be found at page C171.
	
90.	
The witness was asked about the risk assessment which was carried out in May 2009 (C133). She said she thought that it was an optimistic assessment given that the mother was living with her own father against whom she had made an allegation of sexual assault.
	
91.	
The witness confirmed that she had heard nothing during the course of the evidence to cause her to change her recommendation.
	
92.	
She observed contact on 26th May 2010 and reported the quality as good.  Both parents interacted well with K and they wanted to show her what he could do.  K greeted his parents affectionately and the parents responded well to him.  There is no reported distress on separation and this is to the parents’ credit.  The witness reported no significant concerns arising out of contact.
	
93.	
The witness told me that parenting is not the primary concern in this case but it is the risk of future harm from the father and mother’s inability to protect.
	
94.	
The witness said that she understood that the psychologist believed there to be a high risk of domestic violence and emotional and physical neglect.  She was also concerned about this and felt that K would be exposed to the risk of harm should he be returned to his parents.  The witness was unable to suggest a package of support which would significantly reduce the risk to a manageable level.
	
95.	
The witness said that her view might have been different had the parents separated but mother has not had good enough parenting herself to allow her to live independently and she did not want to go to a refuge as she thought this would be harmful to K.
	
96.	
The witness was in agreement with the council’s plan to reduce contact to the parents following any placement with potential adopters and she suggested that post adoption letter-box contact to the parents should be twice per year.
	
97.	
The witness felt that any adoptive placement should respect the parents’ wishes for K to be brought up in the Muslim faith and allow him to know about his background.
	
98.	
Cross-examined by the mother, the witness agreed that in an ideal situation it is best for two parents to bring up a child but if one person is deemed to be a risk he/she should leave the relationship.  The witness stated that in such circumstances parents should accept the advice of professionals and live apart until such risk is reduced.
	
99.	
The witness agreed that children separated from their birth parents suffer some form of loss, often in later life.  However, they can be provided with information to ease that loss.  The witness said that K would need the full facts of the case explaining to him if he is not returned to his parents.
	
100	
The witness agreed that K would be affected as a result of being separated from his extended birth family but repeated that such loss could be alleviated by the provision of information.  He can be told that he has two parents who loved him and fought for him.
	
101	
The witness said that any move from K’s foster carers to an adoptive placement would need to be managed carefully and slowly.  Any support from family members and/or the council would be helpful. 
	
102	
Asked about assessment of extended family members, the witness said that she believed the social worker had approached family members but no one felt able to put themselves forward.  At the last minute DS put herself forward but then withdrew.
	
103	
Cross-examined by the father, the witness agreed that there was no evidence that K was neglected whilst in the care of his parents.  However, she felt that the risk of future harm was simply too high to allow K to be returned to his parents.
	
104	
Mr D, social worker was recalled.  This witness was recalled to answer questions on the assessment of extended family members.  The witness referred to pages B11-14 of his statement which sets out the position.  He said he had not been asked to assess any other family members.  On Friday 18th June 2010 the parents came to his office and he discussed his most recent statement (B9) with them.  The father said that his brother wanted to be considered as a possible carer for K and the witness thought that an application for such an assessment would be made to the court at the start of this hearing. However, no such application had been made.
	
105	
Both parents then indicated to the court that they accepted Mr D’s evidence on this point and did not wish to challenge it.
	
106	
SUBMISSIONS

The father addressed the court on behalf of both parents.  He told me that K needed to live with his parents and he would get the best possible care.  He would never be left alone.  Father reminded me that the parents had looked after K for the first six months of his life and he assured me that everything would be alright in the future.  The parents would welcome the help of Social Services.  Father told me about how both he and the mother loved K and had done everything for him.  They want to be a family again and they know they would have the support of the father’s family to help them.  They asked that I return K to their care.
	
107	
It was unnecessary for me to hear further submissions from either Ms A or Ms C in the light of Ms A’s written opening/case summary and the detailed report from the Children’s Guardian.
	
108	
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS

Having considered both the oral and written evidence presented during the course of this hearing I accept the evidence of the professional/expert witnesses including that of the Children’s Guardian.  Firstly, the entirety of that evidence is consistent in its conclusion namely that father still presents a substantial risk to any child in his care and that mother is unable to protect from that risk because she fails to acknowledge the degree of risk that father poses.  None of the professional/expert witnesses could be moved from this position during cross-examination.  The evidence of the Consultant Psychiatrist was not challenged and although in his written report he indicated that he had noted some improvement in the father since he reported in the earlier proceedings in 2003, nevertheless he was in total agreement with the conclusions reached by the Consultant Psychologist (C165 and C166).  
	
109	
The psychologist was a most impressive witness.  He was clearly in complete command of all the material which had been placed before him and had carried out a thorough assessment of both parents.  Furthermore, when being cross-examined by the father in person he showed kindness and consideration whilst still maintaining his professional opinion.  I have no hesitation in accepting the whole of the psychologist’s evidence and the conclusions reached in his report.
	
110	
Similarly, the report from the family centre assessors confirms the risk which father currently poses heightened by the fact that throughout the assessments both parents have accepted a level of dishonesty with the professionals such that working with them in the future would, in my view, be problematical.  I refer specifically to mother’s allegations of domestic violence which she then withdrew which, as the Psychologist pointed out, must mean that either the original allegation or the retraction were untrue.  Furthermore, both parents colluded with each other to obtain accommodation of their own in August/September 2009 without informing the council and knowing that the council would not have approved.  Father also lied about his use of cannabis during the course of the family centre assessment leading to his own solicitors filing an inaccurate position statement.  I accept the conclusions of the family centre assessment and agree with them.
	
111	
Lastly, the report and evidence from the Children’s Guardian has critically examined all the assessments which I have referred to but the Guardian has concluded, in my view understandably, that the risk of future harm to K is simply too great to be ignored.  Again, the Guardian dealt with the parents’ cross-examination sympathetically but firmly and she could not be moved from her stated position.  I accept the Guardian’s evidence and the conclusions of her report in full.
	
112	
With regard to the parents, I would like to take this opportunity to commend them for the dignified and courteous manner in which they conducted themselves throughout the proceedings particularly from the point when they became litigants in person.  I would also like to thank the father’s brother, Mr SH who acted as McKenzie friend in a most helpful manner.  I have no doubt whatsoever that both parents love K and are desperate to resume his care.  They speak about him with justified pride and are anxious for all to know how well he is progressing and how much they care for him.  However, I believe that the father still poses an unacceptable level of risk to K if he were to be returned to his parents, and there is no suggestion here that the parents are going to separate. Indeed their whole case has been presented on the basis that they are very much a couple and wish to remain so.  Father repeatedly told me that he has changed and that he is no longer a risk.  He accepts he was a risk in the past but he has now analysed his behaviour and turned over a new leaf.  He seeks to show that there has been some considerable passage of time since he was last before the criminal courts but in reality this was as recently as 2007 when, impulsively, he engaged in dangerous driving and endangered the lives of not only himself but also the mother.  Even the mother told me in evidence that what he did was unbelievable.  However, when asked to tell the court why such behaviour could not happen again father said it was because he had suffered the consequences of his behaviour, namely the loss of his driving licence and having to use public transport.  He did not once mention the risk of serious harm to which he had exposed the mother by his conduct.  I therefore conclude from this that father lacks any depths of understanding about the consequences of his impulsive behaviour and is still unable to show any victim empathy.
	
113	
Both the psychiatrist and the psychologist agree that father has changed through the maturation process and he is able to acknowledge that what he did in the past was wrong, but I accept the psychologist’s evidence that father lacks emotional insight into his behaviour and is still unable to understand why his past conduct was wrong or why he did it.  The psychologist told me and I accept that father is likely to behave impulsively in the future and it is as a result of such impulsivity that mother would not be able to protect K against such behaviour. She would simply not be expecting it and this would slow her reaction time.  Father’s impulsivity could, in my judgment, manifest itself in either domestic violence or some other form of untoward behaviour which may not be directed towards K himself but which, because of K’s age, could adversely impact on him.  Furthermore, I agree with the psychologist that because of the seriousness of father’s past conduct, the risk of serious harm to K is increased.
	
114	
With regard to the mother, during the initial risk assessment she appeared to acknowledge the risk which father posed to K but she then retracted the allegations of domestic violence and told me in evidence that whilst father still presents a big risk, she can manage it.  Her evidence on this crucial point is therefore contradictory. However, when seen against the background of the psychologist’s assessment this is hardly surprising.  He describes the mother as not accepting the risk from father because it would challenge the very concept of their relationship.  Furthermore, father is more assertive and mother more compliant within the relationship; a relationship which he describes as dysfunctional.  The psychologist describes mother as suggestible and emotionally dominated by the father.  She has the capacity to understand events but does not have the emotional capacity to internalise it.  I agree entirely with the psychologist’s opinion.  Furthermore, the psychologist doubted that the parents had ever separated from each other at least emotionally and again this accords with my own view of the parents’ relationship.  Indeed, at the time of the application for the emergency protection order I described the mother as totally besotted with the father (page 9) and I think this is still the case today.
	
115	
In these circumstances, whilst I am sure that mother would want to protect K from father’s impulsive behaviour she would simply be unable to do so for all the reasons I have given and to that extent she would be unable to protect K.
	
116	
Finally, I can understand why all the professionals/experts feel unable to propose any package of support which could reduce the risk of harm to K to a manageable level.  Firstly, the risk of harm is likely to arise from father’s impulsive behaviour which by its nature is unpredictable.  This would make managing any risk extremely difficult.  In addition, despite the parents stated intention to work with care professionals they have not shown the level of honesty and openness which would give those professionals the necessary confidence that any protective measures which are implemented would be adhered to.  The parents wish to live what they regard as a normal family life and I think they would find it difficult to accept any oversight from the council.
	
117	
I acknowledge that father’s brother, Mr SH, spoke with great passion about his wish to support the family and whilst I found him to be a genuine and truthful witness I was not convinced he had a full grasp of the concerns in this case.  By entrusting his own children to the care of the parents he clearly does not see the father as a risk despite the overwhelming evidence in the case, and I found this to be very worrying.
	
118	
CONCLUSIONS

Returning to the schedule of findings sought by the council (pages11-13), I am satisfied on the evidence before me that each of the six findings sought is made out to the required standard.  Paragraphs one and two contain what the psychologist referred to as the static risk factors.  In addition to those I would include the father’s conviction in March 2007 for dangerous driving and other road traffic offences when through his impulsive behaviour he clearly exposed the mother to the risk of serious injury. If he were to behave in a similarly impulsive way whilst caring for K, he would also expose K to the risk of suffering significant harm.  With regard to paragraph five, Ms A indicated that she was no longer asking me to decide whether mother’s allegation of domestic violence was true in the light of the psychologist’s evidence that this was now immaterial.  By making the allegation not only to the police but also to those carrying out the initial assessment and then subsequently retracting it, mother had clearly lied at some point and this was evidence of both her impulsive behaviour and also putting her own needs first (C24a and oral evidence).  Finally, both parents have admitted obtaining a tenancy with the intention of making a home for themselves and K without informing the council.
	
119	
I am therefore satisfied on the balance of probabilities that K is likely to suffer significant harm, that being physical and emotional harm, due to the care likely to be provided to him by his parents not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give unless an order is made. 
	
120	
I must now consider what order if any to make having regard to the welfare principles in Section 31 Children Act 1989 and reminding myself that it is K’s welfare that is my paramount consideration.  K is just two years old.  He has a Pakistani Muslim father and a white British mother who is in the process of converting to Islam.  K lived with his parents for the first six months of his life.  He then lived with his mother and maternal grandparents until August 2009 since when he has lived with the same foster carers.  He is described in the Guardian’s report (C174) as thriving in foster care and being very attached to his carers even to the point where they have indicated that they would wish to be considered as adoptive parents even though they appreciate that they are not an ethnic or cultural match.  K is described by the Guardian as an exceptionally lively little boy who loves outdoor activities and is generally progressing well save that his speech is sometimes indistinct and he is to receive a speech and language assessment.  Nevertheless the social worker describes K as well within his developmental milestones and I am therefore satisfied that he has no special needs which I should take into account.
	
121	
Having declared myself satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is a factual basis for making the findings sought in satisfaction of the threshold criteria, I must now apply a different test when considering the welfare issues.  I do not intend to rehearse the evidence which I hope is clearly set out in this judgment.  From that evidence and the analysis which I have carried out I am satisfied that the father continues to pose a level of risk of harm to K which cannot sensibly be ignored.   To do so, would be to reject the conclusions of all the professionals/experts in this case and for the reasons which I hope I have clearly stated, I simply cannot do that. At just two years old K is still vulnerable and dependent on his carers to keep him safe. On the evidence before me, I do not believe that his parents can.  I know that the parents will be bitterly disappointed by my decision but I must have regard to K’s welfare as my paramount consideration and I am not prepared to expose K to the risk of future significant harm by returning him to his parents’ care.  I repeat once again that I do not doubt the parents’ love or commitment to K and, in the future, should he read this judgment, he should know how hard his parents have fought for him, but I agree with the psychologist and the Children’s Guardian that there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that if I did return K to his parents he would be exposed to an unacceptable level of risk of both physical and emotional harm.
	
122	
I am also satisfied on the evidence before me that there are no other family members who are able to care for K and I therefore make a care order to X Council to enable them to plan for his future. 
	
123	
PLACEMENT APPLICATION

I must now consider the placement application. As K is only two years old he requires a permanent, stable and loving home where all his needs can be met throughout his childhood and into adolescence. In my judgment this can only be achieved through adoption. K has already been considered by the council’s Adoption Panel on 5 May 2010 as suitable for adoption and the council have informed me that there is a  potential family with whom he could be matched. This would be with a mixed race couple, one of whom is a Muslim and they would wish to bring K up in the Muslim faith. K has already formed strong attachments to his current foster carers but it is believed that these can be transferred to his new carers provided any change of placement is handled slowly and carefully. However, in my judgment, the sooner this change of placement occurs, the easier it will be for K to begin to form new attachments.
	
124	
Neither the mother nor the father consent 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 his life.
	
125	
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 his future care, and that for the same reasons the consent of the mother and the father should be dispensed with.
In arriving at this decision I am aware that K will not be brought up in his birth family and will have only limited contact with his birth parents and other family members 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 his biological family as he grows older.
	
126	
I therefore dispense with the consent of the mother and the father and make a placement order in favour of X Council in respect of K. In doing, so I approve the care plan.
	
127	
HUMAN RIGHTS

During the course of this hearing I have had regard to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly articles 6 and 8 which have been engaged. I am satisfied that there has been a fair trial even after the parents dispensed with their legal representatives. They were assisted by the father’s brother as a McKenzie friend and both parents were able to cross-examine witnesses and present closing submissions to the court which they did very competently.
	
128	
With regard to article 8, I accept that the orders I have made will interfere with the right to family life both for the parents and K himself. However, I am satisfied that the orders are in accordance with the law and are both proportionate and necessary to protect K from future harm.
	
129	
Heard before a District Judge 21.6.10 -24.6.10 with judgment given on the 1.7.10.