“At the relevant date,10 January 2024 , L is likely to suffer significant physical and emotional harm attributable to the care given to him by the mother not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. 1. The mother is unable to consistently met L’s needs in a safe manner without significant external support and prompting. The deficiencies in the mother’s parenting capacity including regarding her ability to adapt to L’s changing needs and assess and manage risk would place L at risk of neglect and significant physical and/or emotional harm. 2. The mother struggles to control her emotions and often presents as angry and/or threatening towards professionals involved with L, including in L’s presence, particularly when given guidance on her parenting. This would expose L to risk of significant emotional harm and/or physical harm. 3. Ms K [then the social worker] visited the mother in placement to participate in a CIC review [on24 February 2024 ]. The mother refused to allow her entry into the room and slammed the door in her face. After Ms K re-opened the door and explained she needed to see L, the mother continued to shout at her to get out. The mother then rushed ahead of Ms K and proceeded to drag her from the room by her clothes causing her significant distress.”
“I have absolutely no doubt that the mother loves L very much, and that he loves her. L is a delightful little boy, who is thriving.”
“This incident is not ‘minor’; this incident is in fact a snapshot of the wider and serious safety concerns which have been present since L’s birth - the falls from the mother’s lap, the fall from the bed, L’s face being covered with a pillow, L left unattended on a bed, L putting something in his mouth. The mother does not see the risk, she does not act to prevent or minimise the risk arising, and despite challenge, does not acknowledge even after the event the fact of the risk or the potential consequences of that risk to L.”
“The mother’s evidence was striking in a number of ways. The mother displayed no insight whatsoever into the Local Authority’s concerns. The mother minimised the assault on Ms K, minimised the incident on 14th February, and minimised the Leicester Square incident. The mother also blamed others; making it clear that in respect of Ms K and the foster carer they were respectively at fault for the way the mother responded. The mother displayed no insight at all into the risks, as the Local Authority alleges, to L’s physical safety.”
“The mother presented with an unusual profile. She could be polite and almost professional in her interactions and there could be a rapid shift in her engagement, with vague and tangential responses. She struggled to regulate her emotions when advice was offered or in relation to exploring past concerns and future planning. There were times when she would disengage or focus on her feeling imprisoned. It has clearly been stressful for her. The mother was able to engage more in the present. The mother’s difficulties engaging with others and addressing her parenting has been a feature in work with numerous professionals, including the health visitor. It is acknowledged that her perceptions will be influenced by her cultural values and beliefs, and the fact that these proceedings and her current circumstances would be traumatic for her. However, the mother during these periods is not able to prioritise L’s needs. Despite a high level of need, she does not accept she needs support and continues [to] minimize the relevance to L. Difficulties with partnership working has led to difficulties in making some changes. However, I am of the view that from the knowledge available and an assessment of the mother’s parenting and practices, she is not able to make changes in L’s timescale and that she will struggle with any learning gained, to transfer it to new scenarios. The mother has not been diagnosed with psychological difficulties, but her profile impacts on her capacity to meet L’s needs, integrate him within the community and understand his developmental and emotional needs. There is also a serious risk of physical harm due to the mother's difficulties in assessing risk and keeping L safe.”
“Ms Harold reported that the mother was observed to be warm and attentive to L, she responded to his physical and emotional needs, communicated softly with him and displayed affection through touch and proximity.”
“88. The second ‘key’ concern of Ms Harold is the mother’s capacity to regulate her emotions and model this ability for a child. Ms Harold concluded that the mother’s difficulties in accepting help and advice, and her difficulties within her relationships with agencies indicates that she is not able to take the support Ms Harold believed she needed, even from community services. Furthermore, her difficulties with appropriate communication and outbursts exposes L to frightening behaviours, models mistrust in others, he will feel unsafe with his parent and impacts on his socialisation. [sic] That key concern was underlined by events on the14th February 2025 . 89. In considering whether any risks or shortcomings could be managed through a community-based support package, Ms Harold concluded that there is “limited confidence that then mother will engage sufficiently. The mother has been angry / dismissive of support offered from a range of professionals, most likely representing different backgrounds and perspectives. The mother has seen this as unnecessary and does not have insight into her level of need. These factors reduce confidence that support can be effective within the community.”
“91. Dr Fitzsimons believed that both the Local Authority and the mother could “work toward improving their working relationship through some of my recommendations, bearing in mind the significant power of the Local Authority in their relationship. Should these recommendations not be taken up, it is likely that parties involved will continue to work against each other at times rather than together. There have been some examples of attempted culturally sensitive co-working at her most recent placement which appears to have coincided with improve relations and generally more positive reports of the mother’s parenting. 92. Dr Fitzsimons did not find the mother to be hostile, dismissive or otherwise uncooperative. Dr Fitzsimons records in some depth the many positives identified by the foster carer in respect of the mother’s parenting; “The foster carer reported that the mother is very “focused and organised”
“In my clinical opinion, the mother places high value on self-control and has a preference for keeping her emotions private rather than outwardly expressed in many contexts, particularly with unfamiliar people or those in positions of relative power or status. Based on the mother and interpreter’s feedback, published research and my clinical experiences, it is my view that this is almost certainly in keeping with the norm within Japanese culture... In addition, it is my opinion that it is critical when assessing, seeking to understand and collaborating with the mother that one has an understanding of her communication style. Without taking into account her cultural background, it would be very likely that the mother's behaviour could be erroneously or at least overly negatively evaluated... The Japanese "communication culture" can be described as "indirect", whereby communication is far less verbally direct than in, say, Great Britain, particularly with those who have relative power over the speaker... The mother’s tendency for restraint in outwardly showing her emotions and in avoiding direct confrontation are, in my view, significant explanatory factors when considering some of the difficulties relating to professionals who have relative power over her in this context. It is likely that the mother is not accustomed to proactively creating or using opportunities to share and resolve differences of opinion with those who have relative authority over her. As a result, especially given the current stakes, the mother's feelings of disempowerment, frustration, and probable resentment can build and at times she can struggle to maintain them as private. The mother's control of her emotional expression could thus at times give way to instances where she has far less control and her pent up so-called negative emotions are expressed in a more uninhibited way. Evidence of this comes from her raising her voice at social workers or foster carers. … In my view there is not enough evidence to suggest that this relational dynamic is a persistent and problematic pattern across multiple other areas of the mother’s life.”
“Every day since I gave birth social services have been with us all the time, and L is almost two years old.”
“56. From available information and having observed L, there appear to be no concerns about his development, according to the psychologist. L is growing well, meeting his developmental milestones, and not showing any obvious emerging psychological difficulties. L would have been expected to present with some difficulties by now should his mother’s difficulties be impacting on him. Whilst it is very likely that L has been afforded different opportunities and experiences whilst in foster care, his relationship with his mother, based on observation, is not one of concern.”
“72. I was left to question how underneath that seeming happy exterior L was coping emotionally with the strained atmosphere he has been living in for the last six months.”
“136. Mr Wheway explicitly addressed the question of whether in his view enough recognition had been given to the mother’s cultural background, and raises his many concerns about the profound difficulties arising from the ongoing tension and conflict within the household in which L lives. Acknowledging all of those complicating factors, Mr Wheway nevertheless concluded that care and placement orders should be made in this case; “the risks to L identified by the independent social worker appear too great to be capable of mitigation by way of further support to the mother. I am concerned that the mother does not appear to sufficiently recognise the risks to L and their implications for his welfare.” 137. In his oral evidence, Mr Wheway made clear that his key concerns are L’s safety, and his emotional welfare were he to return home with his mother. Mr Wheway agreed with Ms Harold that the mother would require 24/7 supervision, that the mother’s parenting lacks in all domains, that the emotional impact of the mother’s dysregulation is significant for L and that having heard all of the witnesses, his conclusions had been reinforced.” “the risks to L identified by the independent social worker appear too great to be capable of mitigation by way of further support to the mother. I am concerned that the mother does not appear to sufficiently recognise the risks to L and their implications for his welfare.”
“138. This is a complex and difficult case. I acknowledge unreservedly the love the mother has for her son. I similarly acknowledge unreservedly the incredibly difficult position the mother has been in throughout these proceedings. She is a highly educated woman. She is 56 years of age, and is therefore significantly older than many new mothers who find themselves in care proceedings. The mother has a home, she had a job, she is a respectable person with an admirable and strong work ethic. The mother is financially stable. The mother has no diagnosed mental health disorder or psychological disorder which would require treatment. The mother has no history of drug or alcohol misuse. This places her in a very rare category indeed, and the genesis of the difficulties the mother has encountered in parenting her son have been difficult for the professionals working with her to understand. 139. The structures in place to monitor and support a new mother about whom there are concerns are, in the unusual circumstances of this case, more difficult for the mother than they might be for - for example - a 19-year-old new mother. The mother moved into an assessment unit, away from her established and settled home, with many other strangers and the constant scrutiny of staff. The mother thereafter had to move into two foster placements, where again she was under scrutiny and felt that she was failing. I accept entirely that these steps are likely to have been very difficult for a woman in the mother’s position, and that given her social, educational and financial standing this will all have felt incredibly intrusive and difficult. The mother is slightly younger than the foster mother, but the role of a mother and baby foster carer may well be trickier to navigate when, as in this case, the age gap is small and the resultant power dynamic more complex. 140. Those difficulties do not even touch on the cultural complexity of this case. Whilst the mother has lived in England for many years, it is not the country in which she was born or raised. What might otherwise be just interesting cultural differences have come to be extremely important in assessing the mother’s behaviour, her communication-style, her receptiveness to the Local Authority’s role, and to advice given. Much will be ‘lost in translation’ despite the best efforts of all concerned to bridge the cultural gulf that exists. I have considered with great care the evidence of Dr Fitzsimons, and I accept much of what she says about the difficulties for the mother, the mother’s experiences of these incredibly stressful proceedings, and the approach that should have been taken earlier to addressing the cultural issues in play. 141. Many of the Local Authority's concerns might appear, when taken in isolation, to be relatively minor. There are concerns about weaning, basic hygiene, co-sleeping, a general 'resistance to advice'. There is also, as Ms Gilliatt rightly points out, evidence from the foster carer in particular that the mother is capable of providing good care to her son. Ms Gilliatt rightly reminds the Court that it is not my job to protect a child from parenting "including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent." My task is to consider whether, in light of all that I have read and heard, the parenting the mother can provide to L falls on that side of the line, or whether - as the Local Authority and the Guardian suggest - in fact the very high bar for making care and placement orders, in my view the most draconian orders any court can make, is satisfied.”
“149. I similarly conclude that L is at risk of significant emotional harm. At times, the mother has demonstrated significant emotional dysregulation. The assault on the social worker, the incident on 14th February this year, and the incident in Leicester Square are perhaps the most significant, but by no means the only, examples of that dysregulation. In particular insofar as the 14th February is concerned, the mother’s emotional response directly led to her son banging his head on a hard floor following her shoving, or pushing him towards the foster carer. The mother’s evidence on this incident was extraordinary – she blamed the foster carer for 'starting it', she showed no capacity to reflect on her own responsibility for her behaviour, and she demonstrated no insight at all into the effect on L of either her physical treatment of him, or the emotional outburst in front of him. The mother seemed to see no difficulty with her behaviour in Leicester Square, and had shown no insight into the impact of such behaviour on L’s welfare. 150. It is clear that the mother has behaved aggressively and inappropriately with a number of individuals throughout this protracted process… I conclude that the mother’s behaviour has gone far beyond that which would be acceptable and that there is a risk of such behaviour continuing if L is to remain in her care. … 152. I have carefully considered whether, as Ms Gilliatt suggests, those risks would fall away if these proceedings were to conclude by the mother returning home with L. There is some force in that argument; certainly the polarisation between the Local Authority and the mother which has formed part of the relational difficulties might dissipate. The difficulty is that on the basis of the evidence before me, professional involvement would have to continue - at a very high level. I note that the assault on Ms K took place long before these proceedings were initiated, when the Local Authority's plan was very much to keep mother and baby together. It is likely, given my conclusions about the mother’s basic parenting and capacity to manage risk, that professionals would need to challenge the mother in the future. It is likely that the mother will in those circumstances respond with high levels of dysregulation, and that L would be exposed to that. 153. I also bear in mind that all children will interact with third parties throughout their childhood. Nurseries and schools in particular may have cause to challenge the mother. I am concerned that given the mother’s personality and combative style of interaction, future professionals may feel restricted from raising worries regarding L for fear of the mother’s response. This is a lesser risk in the overall context of this case, but it is there. 154. I have carefully considered the evidence in relation to the mother’s attunement to L. The evidential picture is – on this issue – very mixed. I have anxiously considered whether the mother’s inability to articulate the likely impact of her behaviour on for example 14th February is a consequence of the language issues, the cultural issues, the pressure of giving evidence or a combination oft those and other factors. But the mother not only couldn’t answer the question, she gave the impression that she did not see its relevance. Her answers suggest that at the very least, her attunement to L is something which will require a great deal of work in the future, which is consistent with the conclusions of Ms Harold on this issue. 155. I consider therefore that the risk of emotional harm to L is both real and significant.”
“176. This case is extremely sad. The mother loves her son very much, and desperately wants him to remain in her care. The reasons for the mother’s inability to protect L from physical or emotional harm remain unclear after nearly two years of state involvement. But for L, he cannot wait any longer and a decision must be made. 177. This has been a difficult decision; I acknowledge the progress the mother has made in placements. But that progress is limited, and cannot keep L physically or emotionally safe. 178. I have asked myself whether there is any less draconian step which might be taken to protect the mother and L’s relationship, conscious as I must be that any order made by the Court must be both necessary and proportionate to the risks as required by their respective Article 8 rights. I have sadly concluded that nothing short of care and placement orders can safeguard L’s welfare now and in the long-term. 179. I shall make a care order and a placement order. In so doing I dispense with the mother's consent on the basis that L’s welfare so requires.”
“Notwithstanding the lack of clarity and analysis of how risk can be managed at some points in the otherwise very careful and considered judgement the Guardian does not support the mother’s appeal.”
“… it is quite clear that the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s welfare, in short, where nothing else will do. In many cases, and particularly where the feared harm has not yet materialised and may never do so, it will be necessary to explore and attempt alternative solutions.”
“…before making an adoption order in such a case, the court must be satisfied that there is no practical way of the authorities (or others) providing the requisite assistance and support.”
“[F]amily ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to “rebuild” the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.”
“[S]ociety must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”