London Brough of Newham v P & Anor [2024] EWFC 460 (B)

[2024] EWFC 460 (B)Case No ZE23C50556
IN THE EAST LONDON FAMILY COURT
Date Wednesday, 11 th December 2024
Courtroom No. 3
6 th and 7 th Floor, 11 Westferry Circus
(Entrance in Columbus Courtyard)
London
E14 4HD
Before
HER HONOUR JUDGE SUHB E T W E E N:LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAMP & SMR M CONNOR appeared on behalf of the Applicant Local AuthorityMS E NARTEY appeared on behalf of the Respondent MotherNO APPEARANCE by or on behalf of the Respondent FatherMS M STEVENS (Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Child through the GuardianJUDGMENT(Approved)This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
Between
London Brough of NewhamClaimantRespondent MotherDefendantRespondent FatherDefendant

HHJ SUH:

[1]Today, I am concerned with K, born on [redacted]. She is currently under an interim care order made in December 2023 and she is seeing her mother in supervised contact three times a week. She is in foster care. Her mother is Ms P and her father, Mr S. He has not taken part in these proceedings but I am satisfied the Local Authority have taken all reasonable steps to ensure he is aware of them.[2]This is an application for a care order dated 19 December 2023 and a placement order application dated July 2024. I heard this matter on 5, 6, 10 and 11 December 2024. I am very grateful to Mr Connor, representing the Local Authority; Ms Nartey, representing the mother; and Ms Stevens, representing the child through her Guardian, Ms Linehan.[3]The positions were, at this final hearing, that the Local Authority seek care and placement orders and tell me that no section 26 order is necessary. The Guardian agrees this is the best forward for K, and both the Guardian and Local Authority agree that the care plan should specifically ensure that there is permanency planning for K, and that this should be on the agenda at every LAC review which the adoption social worker should attend, and that there should also be a point at which the Local Authority take stock if K has not been adopted and take a conscious decision to parallel plan for her future in the light of this. The mother does not oppose the making of a care order but seeks the return of K to her care. She thinks that the Court’s intervention in terms of making a section 26 order should set the template for the way forward for contact. Background[4]By way of background, K was subject to previous care proceedings initiated by Norfolk County Council on 19 December 2021. The concerns at that point were of the parents’ history of criminal offences, the involvement of the mother in drug use, her poor mental health and substance misuse, and domestic abuse between the parents, and the father’s suspected drug dealing. The care proceedings in Norfolk ordered a residential parenting assessment and a community-based assessment, a psychological assessment of the mother, and viability assessments of family members.[5]On 14 October 2022, those proceedings concluded with a 12-month supervision order to Norfolk County Council. The father was released from prison where he was serving a sentence, in March 2023, and Norfolk County Council became aware that the parents had recommenced their relationship. They subsequently moved to Newham and, in October 2023, the supervision order was extended for a further 12 months and Newham were designated as the Local Authority. A safety plan was put in place for the mother not to have contact with the father or to attend his home. Threshold[6]The threshold in this matter is agreed and annexed to my order of August 2024, and I commend the mother for being able to own the issues in that threshold document and take responsibility for them. Evidence[7]The Local Authority brings this case and they must prove it, on the balance of probabilities. Some of the material in my bundle is hearsay. That weighs less heavily in the balance because it has not been tested in cross-examination, and I remind myself of the potential weakness of that evidence.[8]Dr Martinez’s evidence has not been challenged. Her reports are in the first set of proceedings and in these proceedings dated March 2024 and an addendum on 18 November 2024. Dr Tilley’s report was completed pre-proceedings and dated 22 December 2023, and he, too, has not been called to give oral evidence. I am going to summarise the oral evidence that I have heard.[9]I, of course, have considered all the written and oral evidence and bear it all well in mind but I will specifically refer to the evidence which is most material to my decision.[10]Accordingly, Ms Tingle, whose report is dated June 2024 was a measured witness who readily accepted the positives about Ms P. She accepted there was a period of calm before she assessed the mother. However, she said she took a holistic view and bore in mind the significant history of domestic abuse and instability. She said the mother was able to reflect on how the past had impacted her but only had a little bit of insight as to how it has impacted her daughter, K’s, emotional journey. She thought the mother was at the initial stages of her journey.[11]When asked about the mother’s position at this final hearing, she said, “I will ask the Court to consider K’s age, the length of proceedings and the fact that there have been two orders in relation to her and whether it is within her timescale and her long-term needs.” Ms Tingle’s report was prepared after a relatively short period of assessment and was criticised by Ms Nartey for not being robust. However, Ms Tingle herself pointed out that she was tasked with doing an addendum assessment, and although it is a focused piece of work, it is not sloppy and it has not taken shortcuts. The answers that Ms Tingle gave in court to counsel were not formulaic but were informed and thoughtful. Accordingly, in my view, she has not merely adopted the conclusions of the previous assessor without thought and independent enquiry.[12]Mr Bevan has been the allocated social worker since March 2024 and he was able to change his view, and was not fixed or dogmatic. He said the mother’s decision not to oppose the care order showed insight and was positive. He said that if the Local Authority see evidence she is engaging with her therapist and is consistent with contact, then they would propose face-to-face contact once a year post-adoption. If not, he would still support virtual contact once a year. He was able to accept where Social Services could have done things differently. For example, when asked why Social Services did not fund therapy, he replied:
“We should have done more sooner and there have been interventions before, however. There is more that we could have done, but there was also a support network around her. We should have taken more responsibility earlier but we cannot take sole responsibility. We would not have paid for private therapy immediately.”
[13]He gave evidence as to how he tried to involve Ms P’s leaving care support worker but with no support and success, and how he tried to arrange meetings with them and remind them of their duty towards her, but with no response. When asked by Ms Nartey if the mother had been alone in doing her preparation for these proceedings, he replied, “Yes.”[14]The Guardian was a very fair, compassionate and thoughtful witness. She described this as “a very sad situation” but “it was clear…”, she said, “…that K needed permanence and it wasn’t fair on her to have to wait any longer.” She gave the mother credit for the insight she had shown and for her ability to work well with the foster carer and the Guardian herself. She accepted this year had been relatively calm with no crises, but she was clear that the care plan should be kept under review so that K does not languish in foster care, and needs to be reviewed at every LAC meeting. She supported a time-marker for review such as when K is five years old, although she was not prescriptive in this respect.[15]Ms P gave evidence which took real courage. She clearly adores her daughter and wanted to speak up as to what she thinks is best for K. She has had a difficult past and she was tearful at times and came across as fragile and quite a vulnerable young lady. However, she struck me as genuine when she told me what she had learned from her domestic abuse group. She is open to change. “I believe in myself”, she said, “I believe in change; everyone has the right to change and I am willing to be the best version of myself I can be.” She wants to do health and social care as a degree and become a counsellor. She is not in a relationship and has good housing, and has not used cannabis since December 2023.[16]Accordingly, she is not only talking about change but beginning to make change, and she has shown insight accepting that the Court may well make a care order for K, and she accepts she needs the therapeutic support that Dr Martinez recommends. However, she did not seem to grasp that K remaining in foster care might lead to uncertainty and instability. Her evidence, maybe understandably, did not unpack the hard work that will need to be done in therapy for a return of K to her care to be possible.[17]K’s welfare is my paramount consideration, and I remind myself of the no delay principle in both the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I look at all the circumstances of the case and, particularly, K’s ascertainable wishes and feelings in the light of her age and understanding. The social worker and the Guardian both accepted the mother has a good bond with K and there is a good attachment between them. The mother comes prepared at contact and the social worker said there were no issues at all about the nature of contact. K clearly enjoys her time with her mother, and the videos and photos that I have seen show a happy little girl who loves her time with her mum and, no doubt, if she were able to express her wishes and feelings, would say that she want to be with her mummy if it is safe for her to be so.[18]I look at her physical, emotional and educational needs. She has been diagnosed with autistic spectrum condition and speech and language delay. The mother was concerned that she had had febrile convulsions in summer 2024. There was also one in summer 2023. This has been explored and is likely to be due to a viral illness. It has also been explored in her review health assessment of September 2024 that she has started potty training and will smear poo if she is not changed immediately. The assessor says this is not uncommon for early potty training and probably related to sensory behaviour linked to her autism. She is a sickle cell carrier which means that extra care may be needed in future, for example, if general anaesthetic were to be used. She has also been referred to a physio to look at the inward turning of her legs.[19]When we look at her educational needs, the need for an EHCP plan will need to be kept open as this is an option that she is likely to require. When I look at her emotional needs, she needs stability and someone who can meet her particular needs related to autism and delayed language after an unpredictable start in life. In order for the carer to meet K’s own need for stability and consistency, they will need to be able to manage their own needs. Ms Tingle refers to Ms P’s limited understanding of her own emotional needs, as well as her limited insight into the reasons for the care proceedings, and her inconsistency about the domestic abuse that she has suffered, and her limited insight into the impact on K of traumatic experiences that she has gone through. The Guardian says that “K’s mother loves her and has good instincts but struggles to understand her emotional needs because they are so confused with her own that have been so affected by trauma.”[20]I look at the likely effect on K of any change of circumstance. She has been subject to care proceedings or public law orders since birth. She was placed in foster care just after birth and then at five weeks old, she moved to the mother and baby unit. She moved from Norwich to London. She has had her father in and out of her life with the violence that he brought against her mother. She was separated from her mother in December 2023. She has been removed, therefore, twice from her mother’s care and placed with three different sets of foster carers. The Guardian notes K greets her like a close family friend and that is her behaviour towards all adults. She opines that this lack of stranger awareness suggests an early experience of instability and inconsistent parenting.[21]Accordingly, K has been subject to Social Services involvement her whole life and she needs consistency and for change in the future to be minimised for her. The mother was asked that it must have led to uncertainty for K that the Local Authority had been involved with her for her whole life. She replied, “But what’s wrong with that?”. I wonder if the mother has had so much change and disruption in her own life and the uncertainty that Social Care involvement brings has been normalised for her and so she found it hard to grasp why it was so potentially detrimental to a child and why the Court needed to minimise the number of changes in circumstance for K from now on.[22]Looking at her age, sex and background, she is a black British female of [redacted] and [redacted] heritage. She was born on [redacted]. Her mother is a Christian and the prison records suggest her father is Muslim. When I look at any harm she has suffered or is at risk of suffering, I have already referred to the threshold document. Under section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, a child, themselves, is treated as a victim of domestic abuse. When her mother was pregnant, Mr S kicked her in the stomach and her life was chaotic and she was exposed to tension in her parents’ relationship.[23]It is relevant because the risk of harm to K in the future needs to be looked at in the light of her mother’s understanding of the impact of the past harm on K. I see that Mr Tilley records that Mother knew the risks involved from Mr S but felt that she wanted to create a family and that was an overwhelming feeling for her. The independent social worker’s view in June 2024 is the mother had a limited understanding of the neglect experienced by K and lacks the knowledge of the harm that K experienced, shows a complex and inconsistent insight into domestic abuse and her understanding of domestic abuse was limited with a tendency to minimise or rationalise concern. The mother’s minimisation of the severity of abuse, she says, indicates a failure to protect K from ongoing harm. She said the mother is beginning to address her emotional well-being and insight but the change is not sufficient to be assured she would safeguard K’s needs consistently and effectively.[24]Ms Tingle was asked in evidence if rather than minimising, what the mother was actually doing was giving her a reason as to why she went back to K’s father. Ms Tingle cautiously accepted that and acknowledged that:
“My opinion at the time was that if domestic abuse work were further along, she may have expressed it differently. That might happen now to reflect some learning.”
[25]I can see that the mother has been learning. She has done work with Solace and I have a supportive letter from her support worker. She has been working with the mother since June 2024 and she has completed counselling with Solace. They have been meeting the mother at least once a week and her support worker says she has engaged exceptionally well. She has joined a group programme called “Freedom” where she is learning about domestic abuse. When the mother spoke of her work with Solace, she described it as “crucial.” She said she was learning so much and really needed it. Accordingly, this is not a mother who is paying lip service to change. She really wants to actively learn and change and I give her real credit for this because that is a brave thing to do. She has been actively trying to address the risks of harm that domestic abuse posed to her and her daughter, and I hope she can continue that work.[26]However, there is also a risk of harm to K if her mother’s own fragile mental health gets in the way of her being able to care for her daughter. Here, the psychologist says that because of Ms P’s own unresolved traumas, in spite of having a cognitive awareness of danger and the risks others pose to her, putting her knowledge into practice is difficult. She says:
“Due to her own distress, at times, the mother cannot perceive her daughter’s needs and though not intentionally, thus, cannot function as a consistent, protective figure for K. In moments of conflict or need, her decisions can be, therefore, to protect herself even at the expense of her daughter because of the projection mechanisms and this can lead to her daughter being exposed to potential harm as a result of the relationships she engages in, romantic or otherwise, including exposure to conflict and the risk associated with the behaviours of others around her.”
[27]She says:
“In my professional opinion, without reparation of Ms P’s mental health difficulties and resolution of her past traumas, she will remain at risk of engaging with problematic relationships with submissive behaviours that could restrict her ability to anticipate and act on the risks posed by others. And her high levels of psychological distress can compromise her capacity to intermittently meet the needs of her daughter consistently, particularly at times when her own mental health deteriorates.”
[28]Dr Martinez is very clear that without intensive therapy to address this trauma, Ms P will be a risk to K, despite the positives and her evident love and commitment to her daughter. The Guardian notes that K has been diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder and speech delay and that it is impossible to assess whether these are organic or linked to early experiences because both can be linked to trauma and fear in an infant. The Guardian’s view is if K was returned to her mother’s care and had to be removed a third time, this would be devastating for K and likely to cause significant emotional harm. Accordingly, it would be harmful to K in the future if the mother could not be consistent in her life.[29]I look at how capable the mother is of meeting her needs. Both parenting assessments conclude the mother is not capable of meeting the totality of the child’s needs. She is able to meet K’s physical needs but it is her emotional needs that are more complicated. There are many positives about Ms P. She has accepted where she could have done things differently in her statements. In her personal life, she tells me she is not in a relationship. She has started a university course. She has not been using drugs, as her tests show. She has been working with Solace. She has found suitable housing. There is no evidence before me that she is in touch with Mr S and there is a strong and loving attachment between her and her daughter and the contact she has with K is warm and loving.[30]I think she has also improved her ability to work with others. She has got a good relationship with the foster carer and the Guardian, and when I look back at all the evidence from the Norfolk proceedings and Mr Tilley’s report it seems to me that she has learnt to work better with the professionals in her life. This social worker says that she has always responded to him within 24 to 48 hours and has been able to move on when she takes a different view from him.[31]I also have looked back at all of the evidence and think she has become more open and honest in her dealings with the professionals. Looking back right at the beginning, the residential assessment says that one of their concerns was about her ability to be open and honest and not evasive when working with professionals. Mr Tilley, in his assessment, thought that she had not been open and transparent and gave the example of her decision to resume the relationship with Mr S. However, I think that the mother has become more open and, in the witness box, I did not have evidence of her being dishonest, and I cannot see evidence from the bundle of her being dishonest with the social worker or Guardian. This is a real step forward in her being able to meet her daughter’s needs because she does need to be able to work openly with other people.[32]I want to look at her ability to meet K’s emotional needs because Ms Tingle says that her overall ability to care adequately for K is compromised by her limited understanding of K’s emotional needs. She says Ms P is in the process of beginning to address her emotional well-being and insight but this is not sufficient enough to be assured she could safeguard her daughter. The Guardian’s view is that Ms P shows limited but not no responsibility for the care proceedings, placing blame on others such as the social workers and discussing her own difficult childhood and saying:
“No justice was served. I was not listened to in Norfolk or Newham.”
[33]She discussed the impact of her trauma with the Guardian but appeared to struggle to apply this to K, insisting K’s physical care was good and the problems were practical, like a broken boiler of lack of heating in the flat and lack of support and isolation in London. The psychologist had the benefit of seeing Ms P during the previous proceedings and so has met her over a period of years at intervals. The 2022 report says:
“It is likely that she will require practical and therapeutic support over a sustained period to enable the long-term modification of dysfunctional schemas of self and others as well as ensuring stability and change.”
[34]When asked a further question in May 2022, the expert is clear that psychotherapy which focuses on the reparation of negative schemas was her recommended way forward for increasing Ms P’s self-love and compassion towards herself. The expert then emphasised that the mother was at the beginning of the therapeutic journey of change and that the consistency of professionals in her life was important, and intervention would require a number of months, potentially a year. The care plan which ended those proceedings says that:
“Ms P need to demonstrate her commitment to the funded therapy with [name redacted], as at the time of writing, there were two missed appointments since the beginning of August when sessions commenced. This will need to be carefully monitored as without Ms P bravely addressing her own past trauma some of which related to her relationship with her mother and siblings, then, sadly, the likelihood that this will continue to impact her own emotional well-being and subsequently impact K by not being able to prioritise the child’s emotional needs.”
[35]The mother moved then from Norfolk to London and this seemed to disrupt the therapeutic journey. In evidence, the mother was asked whether anyone gave her help to find a therapist when she moved to London and she said, “I don’t think there was a problem finding a therapist but there was problem finding a nursery”, suggesting that childcare was a barrier she saw to getting the help she needed. In these proceedings, Dr Martinez assessed Ms P and said:
“Her current presentation indicates a decline in her mental health when compared to the previous assessment in 2022. She exhibits high levels of psychological distress, low mood, symptoms of trauma associated with developmental life events that have taken place in recent times. She exhibits a range of intrusive experiences which reflect post-traumatic reactions and symptoms, including upsetting memories that are easily triggered by current events as well as repetitive thoughts that are easily triggered and intrude into her awareness. The origin of these intrusions lies in her childhood trauma and are associated with her adult decisions and the relationships he has engaged in.”
[36]She is clear that:
“Without the means for self-soothing, the mother is vulnerable to mood swings, problems in inhibiting the expression of anger and strong emotions, and she has a relative inability to move from a dysphoric state without demonstrating externalising behaviours such as aggression or avoidance. She can, therefore, be seen as moody and emotionally reactive and can overreact to negative or stressful events.”
[37]She says:
“In my assessment, Ms P is still a very loving parent who clearly wants to provide good care for her daughter but has had difficulties in doing so because of her own insecure attachments, childhood developmental trauma and significant mental health difficulties. Her high levels of distress can compromise her capacity to meet the needs of her daughter if her own mental health deteriorates.”
[38]She then goes on to set out very clearly what would help Ms P. She says:
“Ms P requires psychological intervention in her own right in view of her mental health problems and disruptive personality traits. In terms of treatment, I would recommend she engages on a course of psychotherapy, preferably, integrative therapy that incorporates trauma treatment and cognitive work. This should be administered by an experienced, qualified clinical or counselling psychologist with access to this report which would be helpful in terms of understanding the formulation of her complex difficulties. It is anticipated this work will require not less than a year of weekly sessions, although this might not be sufficient for her to progress and will need to be re-evaluated independently of her therapeutic process. Sadly, in my professional opinion, in view of her difficulties in recent months and the additional trauma she has experienced, I do not consider that this treatment can take place with K in her care as the safety of the child will be compromised until she has made sufficient progress.”
[39]In her addendum report, she maintains this view. She says:
“In my professional view, it won’t be until Ms P has processed her trauma and addressed the dysfunctional aspects of her mental health and personality that she can consistently prioritise her daughter’s needs over her own.”
[40]Accordingly, I look at what therapy the mother has had, and in 2022, she had psychotherapy that started in Norfolk with a specialised MDT which looked at trauma and attachment. She was offered 12 sessions, and six were attended and a further 12 were commissioned but she moved then to London. She has attended counselling for victims of domestic abuse with 15 sessions between April and July 2024. On 11 September 2024, she started CBT in the Newham Talking Therapies with an accredited CBT therapist. She said that after three or four sessions online with this therapist, he asked her to come in for face-to-face work. Given her past, she found this a difficult prospect and so asked to have a female counsellor. The letter from the female counsellor suggested she started on 13 November with CBT and would be offered six to 12 sessions.[41]It appears to me that this is not the specific work that Dr Martinez recommends, and, of course, I give permission to disclose Dr Martinez’s report to anyone working with Ms P so they can see the level of therapeutic support that she needs. The view of the expert is that this therapeutic work “is complex and will require the input of a qualified therapist, not counselling, as well as the in-depth intervention to address her symptoms of trauma and her dysfunctional models of herself and others and her recent dysfunctional personality traits”.[42]The Guardian summarises as follows:
“Ms P still presents with unresolved childhood trauma resulting from the exposure to the care that she had that was physically, emotionally and sexually abusive. This is reiterated in multiple assessments but the crux is (a) that Ms P did not and does not have the benefit of parenting which would have helped her to develop security, confidence and secure attachments; and (b) the implications are ongoing as the impact of trauma is ongoing. As a result, Ms P is unable to manage her emotional regulation and attachment behaviours and, therefore, sadly, unable to provide the emotional parenting experience that K needs. That’s not Ms P’s fault, but it is a sad outcome of a sad childhood.”
[43]The Guardian in the witness box highlighted the complexity and uncertainty of the therapeutic process. “The difficulty we have…”, she says:
“…is we need to be cautious about how much we expect therapy to be a cure. This is a long-term intensive problem and this is a trauma-based, sad problem. If this therapy can start tomorrow, whether she would be able to engage and benefit from it, it is intensive and traumatic work and K could not be in her care while she does it. That’s a lot of trust placed in a difficult and complex process, and we can’t guarantee that the end would be right. It’s a long time for K to wait. The mother has had some support and K might have to wait two years.”
[44]I look at the mother’s ability to meet K’s needs within the context of contact. Contact was reduced in May 2024 to an hour and a half three times a week. Of those 41 sessions between March and May 2024, seven were cancelled due to the mother’s ill health. The contact centre noted that the mother attributes this to feeling low and isolated and has cancelled contact because she is not in the best frame of mind to attend to K. The social worker said there was no issue around the quality of contact; it was the consistency that was the concern. Looking at the contact schedule that I have been sent, that takes us up to the present day, there is a pattern of non-attendance that continues. It is not just a one-off but rather a repeating pattern.[45]I know that Ms P has a limited support network to help her care for her daughter and that, at times, she comes across as vulnerable and isolated. I look at whether there is anyone else who is able to meet K’s needs.[46]The father has been in prison for the majority of her life. The Local Authority wrote to him very clearly on 25 October 2024, setting out their plans for K and he has not engaged in these proceedings at all. He is not on the birth certificate and does not have parental responsibility. The maternal grandmother and paternal grandmother were assessed negatively in previous proceedings and no response received from the maternal grandfather as to whether he wanted to continue with his assessments.[47]I look at the range of powers that I have and I consider whether making an order for K would be better than making no order at all, and I consider the range of powers that are available. I look at the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and the paramount consideration is the child’s welfare throughout her life. If I conclude a placement order accords with her welfare, I will then have to determine whether her welfare requires me to dispense with the consent of her parents to making such an order. I have reminded myself of the guidance in Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] Civ EWCA 535.[48]I am content that under section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act, I have already dealt with paragraphs (a), (d) and (e) in the context of the Welfare Checklist and I now turn to paragraphs (b), (c) and (f). I look at K’s particular needs in light of her autism diagnosis and her speech and language delay, and it seems to me that she has a need for consistency and stability given her difficult start in life. I look at the likely effect on her throughout her life of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person. Of course, this would be the severance of legal ties with her birth family; a lifelong and fundamental change.[49]Although legal ties may be severed, a relationship with her mother, of course, can be continued through post-adoption contact and, in this case, face-to-face is suggested, and, failing that, virtual and letterbox contact at the very least. It would mean she would have a limited relationship with her mother throughout her childhood and possibly, throughout her life. It is a lifelong decision that affects her sense of identity as she grows up. It would extinguish the parental responsibility of her mother. She would be treated in law as a child of the adopted family and this has an impact on the succession and inheritance rights, for example, and certainly a potential impact on identity, self-worth and self-image. I look at the relationship she has with her relatives and, of course, her mother and the value and likelihood of that relationship continuing. Of course, there is such value in her knowing her birth mother, and her mother is willing to care for her but has not always been able to consistently meet her needs.[50]I have to look at all the options for K and balance the pros and cons of each one. Ms Nartey has helpfully provided me with a very thorough note of the law, reminding me of the case of Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and the anxious scrutiny that a judge must bring to these cases before they can say that nothing else will do for a child, short of adoption. She has reminded me of the case of YC v The United Kingdom [2012] EHRR 967, that family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances. “Everything must be done to preserve personal relations, and, where appropriate, rebuild the family. It is not enough to show a child can be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing”.[51]I look at the pros and cons of each option because a decision leading to adoption requires such a rigorous evaluation and comparison of all the realistic possibilities for K’s future.[52]Accordingly, I first look at the mother’s preferred option of a care order with a view to transition back to the mother’s care on the completion of therapy. Of course, this has many advantages. Her mother really loves her. Her mother is open to change and open to therapy. This is a mother who has some insight and the family bonds could be retained under this option. The Local Authority would have parental responsibility, and K would remain with a vetted and carefully-chosen foster carer until permanency is achieved, and the mother says this foster carer is “amazing.” Of course, I have seen the beautiful photos she has given to the mother of K.[53]Against this option, the Court, before, has returned K to her mother’s care. With hindsight, maybe this did not go as well as planned, because it was not based on that firm foundation of therapeutic support. For K to be returned to her mother and removed again would be catastrophic. There is a real risk of harm, especially emotional harm to K if she were returned too soon and without real and lasting change in her mother’s ability to meet her emotional care needs. There is great uncertainty about whether Ms P will be able to make the changes and therapy and the timescales for this. The therapeutic process is not a quick fix. It is difficult. It is uncertain and hard work. It is not a “cure”, and it may or may not bring about long-term change. The mother has yet to start the specific type of therapy recommended. CBT, it seems to me, on the evidence, is not involved enough.[54]It would mean that until the mother was ready, the child, K, would have a social worker involved in day-to-day decisions about her childhood. It would have the uncertainty of change and, potentially, numerous placements. It is an extraordinarily precarious legal framework for a young child, and even though this foster carer is committed to K until permanency is achieved for her, I cannot guarantee there would be no moves. Even the most devoted foster carer may find that their circumstances change. It would be hard for her as she gets older to be in foster care and see that she is different from her peers, and long-term foster carers cannot be expected to be as committed as a mother or adoptive parent may be. It is not clear whether this foster carer would be able to have K in the longer term or be interested in a special guardianship order.[55]This option does not ensure permanency and stability which this child needs after such instability in her early years and in light of her diagnosis. The Guardian describes it as “leaving K in limbo.” There would be uncertainty as to whether the mother would be in a place ever to discharge the care order. That leads to long-term uncertainty and instability with a child who needs permanency without delay. She is three years old later this month and has had social workers involved all her life.[56]The next option is adoption. In favour of this option, it would provide stability and permanence. It would provide a family chosen to meet her needs and give her a predictable home. The Local Authority would not be making decisions for K throughout her childhood. She would not be exposed to the risk factors that exist until her mother has done the work she needs to do and the carers would be rigorously assessed to answer the question if they could meet her needs. Adoption is not a punishment of her mother but a way of providing maximum long-term permanence and stability for a child whose welfare demands it. Against this, of course, adoption has lifelong implications. We have a mother who loves K and wants to be in a position to care for her. It will impact her identity and her later life challenges, and adoption is not a magic wand. Adoptions can and do break down, and contact with her mother would be limited.[57]I reminded myself of Re T (Placement Order) [2008] EWCA Civ 248. It is a case that held that uncertainty about the prospect of finding an adoptive placement does not, itself, rule out the making of a placement order. I also have in mind the case of Re D-S (A Child: Adoption or Fostering) [2004] EWCA Civ 948 and R & C (Adoption or Fostering) [2004] EWCA Civ 1302. These are cases that carry out that delicate balance between adoption and long-term fostering with a view to returning to a parent’s care. The task I have is to decide which is right for the child as a matter of principle.[58]I agree entirely with Ms Nartey that we cannot gloss over the fact that the mother has not had the therapeutic input she so clearly needs, and Ms Nartey seeks to persuade me in the light of this, that I cannot say “nothing else will do short of adoption.” I am clear that Norfolk, in particular, and Newham do bear some responsibility for not supporting the mother as they should have done. However, it was clear in 2022 what type of therapy was needed and that it was provided. The mother, too, has some responsibility to seek it out for herself, and it seems a shame to me that that move from Norfolk to London disrupted that first therapeutic relationship. There is no guarantee that the hard and difficult path of therapy will put the mother in a position where K can return. She has not yet had the specific help that Dr Martinez recommends.[59]Long-term fostering with a plan of rehabilitation with therapy being found and going well is inherently uncertain. The value to a child’s welfare of permanence which only adoption can provide has been recognised in many cases including in the passages cited by Pauffley J in LRP (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Placement Order) [2013] EWHC 3974 and in the case of Re V (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 913. Every Court, when considering a plan to adopt a child, must take into account the fact that adoption makes the child a permanent part of the adoptive family to which she fully belongs.[60]I have to put K’s welfare first, and there is no perfect solution. However, looking at the pros and cons of each realistic option, I am sadly satisfied that adoption offers the best way of meeting this child’s needs for permanence and security. Accordingly, I accept the Local Authority’s and the Guardian’s evidence that this is genuinely a case where nothing else will do. I am satisfied that the position is now so very clear that her welfare requires me to dispense with the consent of her parents.[61]The Local Authority has recommended once-a-year virtual contact with twice-a-year letterbox contact and, if the mother engages with therapy and contact consistently, face-to-face contact once a year. The Guardian, in fact, suggested this face-to-face contact and, to their credit, the Local Authority agree her way forward. I invite the Local Authority to amend their care plan to spell out there will be letterbox contact twice a year and virtual contact once a year, whatever happens. However, there will also be face-to-face contact, although I accept that if the mother does not turn up consistently or use her letterbox contact or if the contact is not otherwise supportive of K’s needs for stability, this would need to be reviewed.[62]I have looked at the case of R & C which deals specifically with the use of contact orders under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act. The Guardian and the Local Authority say that this order is not necessary. The case of R & C, of course, can be distinguished from its facts in that that was about sibling contact. However, it is fair to say that a section 26 order sets the tone and defines the template for future contact even before a prospective adopter commits to a placement with K. Section 26, of course, requires me to consider K’s welfare as the paramount consideration and she, in my view, needs predictability in contact. If the Court is satisfied that the Local Authority is committed to the level of contact approved by the Court, then an order is unnecessary; that is the case of Re C (Contact) [2008] 1 FLR 1151. I am satisfied that the Local Authority is committed to the contact scheme that I have just set out.[63]Accordingly, in the light of that, and given that the mother is vulnerable and that there has been a lack of consistency in contact, it is important that the Local Authority are assured she will commit to face-to-face contact in future. Accordingly, there needs to be a consistent pattern of contact, and this should be the foundation for the future face-to-face contact. Given the Local Authority’s commitment to face-to-face contact, all being well, and given the nuance and complexity in the mother’s situation, I do not think it necessary or proportionate to make a section 26 order but I will provide for the contact clearly in the care plan and as a recital to my order, and that must be shared with any prospective adopters. Accordingly, the contact should reduce to monthly until K is placed for adoption, and then, with consistency of engagement in therapy and with the letterbox and virtual contact, there should be face-to-face.[64]I am concerned, concluding this case, when I reflected on the social work evidence that the social worker tried to contact the mother’s leaving care worker to ensure that they were helping her to access the therapy she needs, and offering practical support. Her leaving care worker has been notably absent from these proceedings and, in my view, has failed to help their client at a time when she needed the most. This is utterly unacceptable. A copy of this judgment must go to Norfolk and their leaving care team. They have a duty to this vulnerable mother who has suffered so much herself as a child and, quite simply, they have let her down and not done their job. In my view, they should fund the bespoke therapy that Dr Martinez recommends for the mother. That is the very least they can do to put her in the best possible position not only to recover from the trauma of her childhood but the trauma of these proceedings. If Norfolk will not fund this bespoke therapy through their leaving care duties, I would ask that the Local Authority will take this matter to their funding panel to see if they would consider doing so as part of their parallel planning.[65]Dr Martinez specifies that the mother’s therapy needs to be re-evaluated, independent of the therapeutic process, and so I think Newham should take responsibility for this so that if the mother approaches them in a year or more so’s time, after that therapy, they should help her by assessing the changes she has made and then they will be in a position to take an informed view on their future planning for K. The permanency plans for K must be reviewed with the assistance of the adoption social worker at each and every LAC review, and there should be an express plan that takes stock when K is five if she has not been placed for adoption by then and to plan the best way forward for her.[66]Accordingly, subject to any further submissions, I make the following orders: I record the threshold criteria are met. I approve, with amendments to the contact provisions and the review provisions, the Local Authority’s care plan. I make a care order for K. I dispense with the consent of her parents. I make a placement order for K and I direct a transcript of this judgment be prepared and approved by the judge. I give leave for any relevant documentation to be disclosed to prospective adopters, and this judgment should be part of that so that they can be encouraged to understand why they might support face-to-face contact if the mother is in a place where she can commit to this. I make the usual orders about costs.[67]I do hope that Ms P can bring herself to participate in K’s life story work and, potentially, meet prospective adopters. I know that K needs her mum to be consistent for her in contact and it is so important that she knows how her child is getting on and that K knows that her mother thinks of her and, of course, never stops loving her. In later life, if K reads this judgment, I hope she will understand that her mother loves her and really wished to bring her up.[68]I thank the social worker for his time and the thought that he has devoted to this case and for his willingness to accept where he could have done things differently. That is a mark of professional courage rather than weakness. I am grateful to the Guardian for her really careful report. I think it is one of the most thoughtful and well-expressed reports that I have read and what comes through it very clearly is the weight of the decision that she felt she had to make for K and the compassion with which she made it.[69]I thank counsel for the constructive way that they have dealt with this case and, particularly, Ms Nartey who has said everything that could conceivably be said very clearly and forcefully on behalf of her client, whom she served very well. I hope a note of the judgment can go to the experts and the independent social workers. Finally, I trust formal thanks can be conveyed to the amazing foster carer who, as Ms P has said, has done an excellent job of caring for K. End of Judgment. Transcript of a recording by Acolad UK Ltd 291-299 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JG Tel: 020 7269 0370 legal@ubiqus.com Acolad UK Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. This transcript has been approved by the judge.