London Borough of Havering v P & Ors [2024] EWFC 468 (B)

Case No ZE23C50121[2024] EWFC 468 (B)
IN THE EAST LONDON FAMILY COURT
Date Thursday, 4 th July 2024
Courtroom No. 1
6 th& 7 th Floor
11 Westferry Circus
London
E14 4HD
Before
RECORDER PICCOSB E T W E E N:LONDON BOROUGH OF HAVERINGP, Q & RMR C POOLE appeared on behalf of the ApplicantMS A SLINGO appeared on behalf of the Respondent Father (Q)NO APPEARANCE by or on behalf of the Respondent Mother (P)MS K SANGHA (Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Child (R)through the Children’s GuardianJUDGMENTThis 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 Borough of HaveringClaimantRespondent FatherDefendantRespondent MotherDefendant
[1]These are care proceedings brought in relation to R, who was born prematurely in 2023 and who is aged 15 months. R is represented through her Children’s Guardian, Sarah Kusogbo, and her solicitor is Ms Sangha. R is the child of P, who has sadly not attended this hearing. In addition, due to lack of instructions being provided to her solicitors, she is no longer represented in these proceedings. R’s father, Q, is represented by Ms Slingo. The London Borough of Havering, who I will call the Local Authority in this judgment, have been represented by Mr Poole.

The Applications Before Me

[2]The Local Authority’s application for a care order, which was issued in March 2023 and the Local Authority’s application for a placement order, issued in October 2023.

The Position of the Parties

[3]The Local Authority seek care and placement orders for R. They seek that the parents’ consent to the making of the placement order is dispensed with. If a placement order is made, they will fund a transcript of this judgment. They have confirmed they can prepare an updated care plan within seven days of today, incorporating their plans for the reduction in contact and post-adoption contact should the Court make the care and placement orders they request. They ask that the Court make a finding that the father has used cocaine since August 2023.[4]The Local Authority’s position was supported in its entirety by the Children’s Guardian.[5]The mother has, sadly, not engaged with these proceedings for approximately a year, and was not present or represented at this final hearing. I was satisfied all efforts had been made by the Local Authority to try and ensure that she was notified of the final hearing, and I will set out the steps they took later in my judgment.[6]The father seeks for R to be placed in his care and that of his partner, Ms S. He suggests a 12-month supervision order be made, the designation of which would need to be further considered as he now lives in another Local Authority with Ms S and that Local Authority have not had notification of the possibility of a supervision order being made. Subject to confirmation with Ms S, it was said that R could live with her father and Ms S under a child arrangements order. Q stated he last used illicit substances in August 2023.[7]The father confirmed at the outset of the hearing that he was no longer seeking an order for direct contact under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act, 2002, should a placement order be made.

Background

[8]The focus of the professional concerns in this case relate to both parents’ history of substance abuse including crack cocaine and heroin and its consequential impact on their ability to provide safe and appropriate care to their daughter. In addition to a methadone script, the mother has used street drugs during the course of her pregnancy, including on the day of R’s birth, when she admitted to having used crack cocaine.[9]R was born at the T Hospital. She initially displayed withdrawal symptoms following her birth with a neonatal abstinence score of seven recorded in March 2023, which subsequently fell to a mild score of nought to three.[10]In addition to the concerns regarding the parents’ substance misuse, P alleged that there had been domestic abuse in her relationship with Q. She subsequently retracted that allegation. Q is known to MARAC as a result of concerns relating to domestic abuse in his previous relationships.[11]The mother has two older children U and V, both of whom no longer live with the mother and are cared for within their paternal families. There has been a significant historic involvement from another Local Authority in respect of the mother and her older children.[12]The Local Authority’s involvement in this case was triggered by a referral received from a safeguarding midwife at the hospital where the mother had initially registered for antenatal care in November 2022. The mother at that stage was living with Q. Q shares parental responsibility for R by virtue of being named on her birth certificate.[13]R is currently placed in foster care under an interim care order made in March 2023. R has been placed in the same foster placement since her discharge from hospital in March 2023.[14]There have been numerous assessments in these proceedings, including parenting assessments of the parents separately, a psychological assessment of the parents. There has also been a previously listed final hearing in February 2024, which was adjourned so that a joint parenting assessment could be undertaken of the father and his partner, Ms S.

Evidence

[15]There was a delay to the final hearing commencing on the first day, as it transpired the first witness, the independent social worker, for reasons that are unclear, had not read the updating reports and documents in the case. As a result, time was afforded for her to do this. This resulted in a later start time than anticipated.[16]The father had, in one of the earlier housekeeping hearings, prior to commencing the evidence, spoken loudly in the Court about his concerns about whether his case would be properly considered. I had reassured him that I had not made any decisions in the case, and I would be listening carefully to the evidence this week before I did so. Unfortunately, after only a few questions being asked of the independent social worker by counsel for the Local Authority, the father became frustrated, he swore about the Court process, and he also walked past the two social workers in Court and swore at them. He and Ms S then both left the courtroom.[17]Having considered the safety measures required for the hearing to continue, the father was asked to return to the court room. He and Ms S had in fact left the building. They were asked to return that day or any day of the final hearing. They were offered to be joined by video link, but they failed to do so. Sadly, despite their attendance being constantly revisited by me throughout this final hearing, neither of them have wished to attend Court, either in person or remotely, for all or even parts of the final hearing. They refused to give final evidence. I am grateful to Ms Slingo for all her efforts to try and get them to attend, including for the judgment today, which they have also, sadly, failed to attend. Ms Slingo was content for the trial to proceed in father’s absence and said he had been told, by her, of the adverse impact his non-attendance may have on his case. The Evidence The Independent Social Worker

The Evidence

[18]The independent social worker, kindly attended court on day two to give the rest of her evidence. She had undertaken the initial parenting assessment of the father and mother, together with an addendum. She had assessed them both separately. She said the father was keen to address his substance misuse, but he had failed to engage with her assessment initially, but then had done so fully in June and July 2023.[19]Mr Poole asked her about a passage in her report at E81, which states: “I consider Q is already on the early path of making changes around his mental health and substance misuse issues by engaging in a range of support services. I consider that, as he is in the very early stages of dealing with his substance misuse, I am unable to predict the likelihood of sustaining changes. He only stopped using two weeks ago”.[20]She explained, in her view, Q was finding it more challenging than he thought it would be to address his substances misuse. In fact, it was this question that caused Q and Ms S to leave the courtroom in the circumstances previously described. The independent social worker said she did not think Q had been honest with her about his drug use or his relationship with Ms S, which he did not mention to her. She was concerned about the number of contact sessions the father had missed.[21]She accepted to Ms Slingo that there are positive aspects to the father’s parenting, including him being an experienced carer in being able to meet R’s basic needs and that there was emotional warmth, and he deeply cares for his daughter.[22]She accepted it may have been helpful to speak to the father when she prepared her addendum assessment and explained her initial recommendation that the father would need six to twelve months’ abstinence was caveated on any contra-medical opinion when this was obtained. She agreed with Dr W that a more appropriate timescale was 12 to 24 months’ abstinence before he could be considered as a carer for his daughter.[23]Ms Slingo, the independent social worker was concerned that the father had misled professionals and not undertaken the domestic abuse or therapeutic work Dr W had recommended.[24]I found the independent social worker to be a fair witness who appeared to give careful consideration to her answers to questions.

The Social Worker : Ms X

[25]Ms X has been R’s allocated social worker since she was six weeks old and had undertaken the more recent joint parenting assessment of Ms S and Q. She confirmed P had, sadly, not sought contact with R since June 2023. P has not participated in proceedings since around the same time.[26]Following the order of Her Honour Judge Suh on 3 May 2024, the Local Authority had sought to ensure that the mother was aware of this final hearing listing. The social worker contacted the mother on all four telephone numbers she has for her, three were disconnected but one dialled out, but there was no answer, and her call was not returned. The mother has been evicted from the only address the Local Authority have for her.[27]By chance, the social worker and a colleague of hers, saw the mother in Romford town centre in June 2024. It was sad to hear the mother was clearly in a concerning state, unkempt, believed to be under the influence of substances, clearly distressed, and speaking incoherently. She was not able to process the social worker’s efforts to speak to her. The social worker had also contacted the Local Authority, where the mother’s other children reside, and they also had no current means of contacting the mother.[28]To Ms Slingo, Ms X acknowledged there were no concerns with Q taking his medication for his mental health, as far as she was aware. She was concerned Q had not been truthful and had used drugs since August 2023 and that he had not engaged with therapy, which CGL could have provided.[29]She acknowledged he had done an online parenting course, but she was concerned about whether he was actively able to put this into practice.[30]She was concerned Q had not done the domestic abuse programme, as recommended by Dr W, although she was aware he had attended the BBR programme, Building Better Relationships, whilst on probation. She had not seen any evidence of his learning and reflection resulting from his attendance on this course.[31]In terms of Ms S, she was concerned she had not been open and honest with her about the father’s drug use and previous social services involvement with her own children. She had only admitted this when Ms X had found out information and gone back to speak to her about it.[32]Ms S has previously been in relationships where she has experienced domestic abuse. The social worker was concerned her relationship with Q may not be equitable, which led her to have concerns about Ms S’s ability to protect R. She considered Ms S vulnerable to abusive relationships, she said she had found Ms S’s account of spending weekends and being in a relationship with Q since May 2023 more believable that Q’s account that their romantic relationship commenced in December 2023.[33]In terms of Q’s ability to work with professionals, the social worker thought: “It is difficult to say as it depends on his mood, how he is coping, and his stress, and his own insight about the need for support”.[34]The social worker said, in respect of her care plan recommendation: “My concern is not drugs in isolation, but his mental health, his emotional regulation of himself, his emotional ability to care for himself and R. The burden of Q’s needs on Ms S are significant”.[35]She was concerned the father had not been honest with professionals.[36]I found the social worker to be a fair witness who had clearly had an understanding and compassion for Q’s mental health difficulties. In addition, she was, in my view, thoughtful and considered in her responses to questions.[37]It is unfortunate that neither Q nor Ms S wished to give evidence, either in person or remotely. I understand Q has found this process difficult and I know that hearing the things in Court must have been hard for him. However, sadly, them not giving evidence has meant, not only did Q miss the opportunity to present his case more fully by being able to give instructions as he heard things in the courtroom, but the Local Authority and advocate for the child, did not have the opportunity to challenge the father about the concerns of the professionals in the case, such as him not being honest with them and their concerns about his continued drug use, after he says he stopped using cocaine.

The Children’s Guardian

[38]The Children’s Guardian had prepared a very detailed and helpful final analysis to the Court in advance of the final hearing. The Children's Guardian is clearly concerned that R has waited a long time for a permanent decision about her future to be made. The Children’s Guardian said she supported the delay in February to adjourn the final hearing, as she fully endorsed the need for a joint assessment of Q and Ms S to see if they could care for R, given the requirement to ensure nothing else will do. She said, sadly, R’s mother and wider family were unable to care for her.[39]In terms of Q caring for R, she was concerned, the evidence from DNA Legal showed that the father had used cocaine since August 2023 and had not been honest with professionals about that. The Children’s Guardian accepted Q had stopped using heroin, but there was no baseline yet established if and when he had stopped using cocaine and this, therefore, affected about when the 12 to 24 months’ abstinence journey Dr W had recommended could have said to have started.[40]The Children’s Guardian was asked by Mr Poole if there were any reasonable adjustments that would mean that Q could safely care for R. She accepted, on Ms S’s evidence, she would have been spending time with Q when he says he was still using drugs, around the summer of 2023. She was concerned that Ms S seems to have not noticed or not reported that. She, therefore, concluded Ms S was not a protective factor for R if she was placed with Q.[41]She was concerned about the father’s missed contacts. She could not give any recommendations of any support she considered sufficient in order that R would be safeguarded should she be placed in the care of her father and or Ms S.[42]Overall, she concluded Q was not a realistic carer and it would not be in R’s timescales to wait to see if he could achieve abstinence from drugs for 12 to 24 months, when the drug testing evidence is that this journey has only started recently, or in fact maybe even not started.[43]I found the Guardian to be a fair and balanced witness.

The Law

[44]The Local Authority brings this case, and it is for them to prove it. In deciding any disputes of fact in the case, I remind myself the test I need to apply is that I have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. That burden of proof rests with the person making the allegation. I am required to consider the evidence as a whole, which I have done. I have considered the relevant law in respect of this case both in the Children Act, 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act, 2002.[45]Before considering whether to make any public law order, I have to consider whether the threshold criteria are met pursuant to section 31(2) of the Children Act, 1989. This sets out that: “A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied—(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to— (i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or (ii) the child’s being beyond parental control”.[46]When considering the likelihood of harm, this means no more than a real possibility it will occur, but a conclusion to the effect, it must be based on facts or facts established on the balance of probabilities, as per the case Re B [2013] UKSC 33.[47]It is an important also that I bear in mind the need for a vigorous analysis of the threshold, as pointed out in Re A [2015] EWFC 11, which sets out two fundamental principles which must be borne in mind in doing so, namely: The first is the Local Authority, if its case is challenged on some factual point, it must adduce proper evidence to establish what it seeks to prove. The second fundamental important point is the need to link the facts relied upon by the Local Authority, with its case on threshold, the need to demonstrate why, as the Local Authority asserts, facts(a) plus(b) plus(c) justify the conclusion that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm of types (x), (y) or (z).[48]There is not, in this case, any dispute that the threshold criteria is met. Indeed, an agreed threshold document is attached to the order of Her Honour Judge Suh of 3 May 2024.[49]In this case I have also reminded myself of the rights to respect for the parties’ family life, which is enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.[50]In determining what final orders to make, because the Local Authority’s plan is for adoption, R’s welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration. I have had regard to both Welfare Checklists, those in section 1(3) of the Children Act, 1989 and the Welfare Checklist in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act, 2002.[51]I may make a placement order only with the consent of all persons with parental responsibility, that is R’s parents in this case, or by dispensing with their consent on the grounds the child’s welfare requires me to do so.[52]Care orders with adoption plans, the cases that I need to remind myself of are that of YC v UK [2012] 55 EHRR 967 and at paragraph 134 of that, says that family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances, and everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to rebuild the family. It is not enough to show that the child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.[53]I bear in mind that a plan for non-consensual adoption is a plan of last resort, therefore I should not endorse such a plan unless I am satisfied that no less interventionist an order will do. This was reinforced by the forceful language in the case of Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33, paragraph 104, it is said: “The principle that adoption of a child against her parents’ wishes should only be contemplated as a last resort – when all else fails”.[54]Baroness Hale, having reviewed the case law of the European Court of Human Rights concluded at paragraph 198: “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”.[55]I also keep in mind the words of Lord Templeman in Re KD [1988] 1 AC 806 that: “The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not endangered. Public authorities cannot improve on nature”.[56]In Re D [2022] EWCA Civ 896, Peter Jackson LJ set out that:
“Adoption can only be approved where it is in the child’s lifelong best interests and where the severe interference with the right to respect for family life is necessary and proportionate”
. I must, therefore, weigh up all the realistic possibilities in this case and identify and analyse the harm which may flow from each plan as well as the benefits before coming to my decision. I must analyse whether any harm that I have identified could be reduced or mitigated. In this regard, I must consider what resources the Local Authority could make available to the family to meet the child’s needs. I have to be satisfied there is no practical way the authorities or others providing the required assistance and support before I make a care order with a plan for adoption outside of the family.[57]In Re O [2001] EWCA Civ 16, it was stated: “It will be the duty of everyone to ensure that, in those cases where a supervision order is proportionate as a response to the risk presented, a supervision order can be made to work, as indeed the framers of the Children Act always hoped that it would be made to work. The local authorities must deliver the services that are needed and must secure that other agencies, including the health service, also plays their part, and the parents must co-operate fully”.[58]The task of evaluating all the realistic options for the child and weighing them up side-by-side was the test considered in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. This case set out, in paragraph nine, the need for me to be vigorous in exploring and probing the Local Authority’s thinking in cases where there is any reason to suspect that resource issues may be affecting their thinking.[59]When considering the evidence, I have also reminded myself of the case of R v Lucas [1981] QB 720, which, although was a case heard in the criminal courts is nonetheless one that I can rely on. This case reminds us that just because a person lies about one thing, it does not automatically flow that they are lying about everything.[60]The more recent decision in the Court of Appeal of Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451 sets out the three reasons when I must consider the lie, namely(i) it is deliberate untruth,(ii) that it relates to a significant issue; and(iii) was not told for the reason advanced, such as shame, humiliation, loyalty, etc.[61]I have also been mindful of Practice Direction 3AA in respect of the father’s mental health vulnerabilities. The Court had the benefit of considering the full contents of the psychological reports of Dr W in respect of Q and of the mother.[62]I have had regard to the overriding objective contained in part 1(1) of the Family Procedure Rules, 2010 and in particular that sets out I must deal with this case justly, fairly and quickly.[63]Throughout this judgment, I have considered the parents and child’s rights to a fair trial and family life under Article 6 and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, 1989. I must bear in mind at all times the need for the Court to adopt the least interventionist approach.[64]I have considered the test identified by Sir James Munby in Re S [2014] EWFC B44, in the context of evaluating the capacity of demonstrating change. That was the case in the Family Drug and Alcohol Court, namely, the test is:
“First, is there some solid, evidence based, reason to believe that the parent is committed to making the necessary changes? If so, secondly, is there some solid, evidence based, reason to believe that the parent will be able to maintain that commitment? If so, thirdly, is there some solid, evidence based, reason to believe that the parent will be able to make the necessary changes within the child’s timescale?”
[65]In terms of making a placement order, the law in respect of that is contained in section 52(1B) of the Adoption and Children Act, 2002.[66]Finally, I must only make orders if I consider them to be necessary, just and proportionate.

The Threshold Criteria

[67]As I have already said, there is an agreed threshold document attached to the last order, and I was asked to consider whether I wish to make a finding in respect of the father’s drug use.[68]The father has had a number of hair strand tests during these proceedings. The first is at E44 to E63. He tested positive for cocaine use, including crack cocaine in all three sections tested in that test. It was in high range from the end of January 2023 to the end of April 2023 and the heroine use was recorded at the high-medium levels from the end of January 2023 to the end of April 2023.[69]The next hair strand drug test is at E220 to E235 of the bundle. That test shows that the father tested positive for cocaine use in each of three sections from the start of May 2023 to the start of August 2023, with decreasing usage. The father declared having last used cocaine on 5 August 2023. He tested positive for opiates at each of the three months tested and codeine was also detected in May and June, which was said to likely to be as a result of illicit heroin use. The father, again, declared last using heroin on 5 August 2023.[70]The next set of hair strand test results are at E237 to E252 of the bundle. These test results were received on 23 February 2024. The father says he last used cocaine on 20 August 2023 when the sample was collected. He tested positive for heigh concentrations of cocaine in both sections of the hair tested from the beginning of December 2023 to the beginning of February 2024. It was noticed there was a decrease in the metabolite concentrations detected and that this could account for the stopping of the use as indicated, by the father, but given the significant concentrations of cocaine, the use of that could not be excluded.[71]At E270 to E287, whilst the results were not segmented for that period, it tested from end of February 2024 to the end of May 2024 and the results were positive for cocaine.[72]At E289 of the bundle, is an email from DNA Legal explaining that the most recent results could not be segmented as the sample collected was below the minimum weight threshold.[73]During this final hearing, I have had the benefit of two further letters from DNA Legal, the drug-testing company. One was dated 1 July and following further clarification sought, a second letter was provided on 2 July. The 1 July letter at page two in the answer to the first question states: “When considering (Q)’s previous reports, of February 2024 and August 2023, the results of the February analysis do not indicate any notable decrease and even suggest an increase and even suggest an increase in the concentration of non-metabolites, which does not provide support for a claim of abstinence during this period”.[74]If I look at the cocaine metabolites during the testing at E195, which is the test period July to August 2023, the results of that test was 1.64. When this is compared at E225, for the December 2023 to January 2024 test, the level of that metabolite is at 2.26. The levels then drop again in the most recent test.[75]In respect of the letter from DNA Legal of 2 July 2024, and in their answer to question one on page three, they conclude, having considered the results of the February testing with the results of the initial testing: “The collective results show a reduction across all three tests, strongly suggestive of a reduction in the pattern of cocaine use of the tested periods. However, the overall decrease in concentrations is not to the degree that would be anticipated following the complete cessation of cocaine use in August 2023”.[76]Further on it says: “Even in cases where the retention of cocaine is encountered for some additional months outside of the appropriate time period, the relative concentrations of the remaining compounds, in my experience, would not be of the magnitude of those observed in (Q’s) most recent test results. Whilst there remains a decrease from the initial testing, I consider more likely this is suggestive of some additional use of cocaine within the testing period”.[77]I do not seek to speculate on the level of usage of drugs. However, on the balance of probabilities, I do consider that the higher reading spike demonstrates that Q has not been abstinent from cocaine since August 2023 as he declared, taking into account the variation in hair growth cycles, it seems more likely than not that he used cocaine around December 2023 and, therefore, he has obviously not been truthful with professionals when he said he has not used cocaine since August 2023.[78]As DNA Legal had not been instructed to undertake a blood test in conjunction with their recent alcohol testing, I was not asked to make any further findings in respect of his alcohol use.

Welfare

[79]The framework in which I must carry out my holistic evaluation of each of the options is the Welfare Checklist. I am mindful of the President’s guidance as set out on 29 November 2022 which relaunched the public law outline with a timetable of a view to disposal of applications without delay and within 26 weeks.[80]R’s case has been running for some 15 months, but it was with good reason that the final hearing in February 2024 was adjourned. The father had had a negative parenting assessment of himself, and professionals were now being told he was in a new relationship. A joint parenting assessment was ordered and the final hearing vacated. Sadly, that further parenting assessment was also negative. I agree with the Children’s Guardian that R needs a decision now and that it is not in her best interests for a final decision for her to be delayed any further.

My Welfare Analysis

[81]To begin with, I will evaluate the father’s ability to care for R. It is clear from my reading of the papers in the case, the strength of love Q has for R and how both he and R enjoy their time together during contact. More recently, this positive experience has been shared with Ms S.[82]Q has a good emotional bond with R during her contact and professionals agree he has the skills and experience to meet her basic care needs. The concern is whether he can consistently do this without undertaking the work identified that he needs to be able to do to safely care for R at all times.[83]Q is clearly committed to R and has tried hard, engaging well with the professionals and has cooperated with the many assessments in the case. The professionals in the case have acknowledged Q’s commitment to the proceedings, they believe he has complied with his mental health medication, they have acknowledged the commendable steps Q has taken with the 20-year history of using illicit substances, that he is now abstinent from heroin and methadone and has reduced his cocaine usage.[84]In terms of the welfare analysis, I wish to highlight some of the written documents as follows. Dr W, who is a childhood forensic adult psychologist, concluded that Q has a diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder and post traumatic stress disorder. He has also previously been sectioned under the mental health act and has a history of suicidal ideation and attempts. At the time of writing, he reported he was compliant with prescribed medication for his mental health and reported a positive effect.[85]In relation to personality structure, the current assessment revealed evidence to suggest he presents with a number of different traits. These will therefore affect his emotions. “He will need to monitor and enhance his ability to regulate his emotions to ensure this does not translate to difficulties in his day-to-day interactions and consequently lead to poor role modelling for his daughter”.[86]Dr W goes on to say: “In my opinion, the main issues impacting (Q’s) capacity to keep (R) safe from harm relate to his substance misuse, his mental health difficulties, and his choice of partners. There appears to be an established paQern of illicit substance misuse as well as dysfunctional intimate relationships and poor consequential thinking. In my opinion (Q) does not appear to have a good understanding of the nature of risk and potential physical and emotional harm exposed to (R). Whilst it is positive he has expressed a strong desire to parent his daughter, I do not believe he has demonstrated he can currently safely care for (R)”.[87]She recommends that Q will need a period of at least 12 to 24 months to demonstrate effective engagement with therapeutic services, to support the development of healthy coping strategies, to evidence a period of abstinence from substance misuse, to demonstrate positive change, and enable him to deal with the demands of full-time parenting. Satisfactorily completing the recommended interventions together with a period of adequate engagement with the Local Authority staff, Q should be reassessed to determine whether he can manage parenting without presenting the same level of risk to his daughter.[88]I have dealt with my conclusions about the father’s drug use earlier in this judgment. However, just to say, he is to be praised for his abstinence in respect of the heroin and the methadone and his reduction in his reliance on cocaine. However, I do agree with the Children’s Guardian that Q is at the start of that abstinence journey, one that Dr W says will need to be for a period of 12 to 24 months. At best, if the father last used cocaine, as I have found in December 2023, approximately, he is only six months into that journey and he has not yet started the other work identified, such as therapy, etc.[89]The independent social worker’s parenting assessment at E80 says that she considers he is still in the early stages of making the changes he needs to make around substance misuse, such that he is likely to be unable to consistently meet R’s care needs. “As stated in the substance misuse section, cocaine can have a negative impact on parenting capacity, Q has confirmed he last used it two weeks prior to this assessment and in my view, he needs to evidence abstinence for a considerably longer period before he is in a position to safely meet R’s needs”.[90]At that time, she was suggesting he needed to be abstinent for six months to a year. She also recommended that he engage with the perpetrators of domestic violence programme and a suitable parenting course and got support around his substance misuse and mental health. In her addendum report, she concludes that: “(Q’s) hair strand test result report indicate that in August 2023, several weeks after my assessment, (Q) reported he drank alcohol a few days before the hair strand test and also used crack and heroine a few weeks before. Around June to July 2023, when I completed the initial assessment, he informed me that he has stopped using. The hair strand test results also show that he was likely to be using substances during the time of my assessment. This suggests, when I completed my initial assessment, he was not entirely honest. If he was not honest about his substance misuse, this may mean his ability to work with professionals in a collaborative and transparent manner is limited. His lack of transparency may mean that professionals are unable to carry out effective risk assessments, which may leave (R) at risk of significant harm. (Q) has misused harmful substances for most of his adult life and there is an established pattern of misuse. He reportedly misuses as a way to self-medicate and cope with stress”.[91]Later, at E213, Dr W’s main view is that those three issues about his mental health, substance misuse and relationships continue to be the factors that I need to consider. They are the factors that most impact on his ability to consistently meet R’s care needs in the short, medium and long term.[92]I am going to use that useful structure to go through those three issues in my evaluation of whether Q is able to safely care for R in her timescales.

Mental Health Issues

[93]He has two mental health diagnoses as stated, which are unstable personality disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. There was a consensus that Q, as far as is known, is compliant which the mental health medication which is to his credit and no doubt helps him manage his conditions.[94]Evidence was heard from all the professionals about the importance of Q engaging with therapeutic support and their respective concerns that this had not happened. I am aware of the many reasons why therapy will assist Q with his mental health conditions, and, given his 20 years illicit substance misuse history, there have twice been referrals during these proceedings to talking therapies who have not provided therapy. Firstly, the reason for this was because they could not offer a duplication of services. The social worker explained that CGL, which is the drug services assisting the father, can provide therapy and hence Talking Therapies declined the first referral. As far is known, Q did not access therapy at CGL. The reasons for this could not be explored due to Q not attending the court to give evidence.[95]I have been provided with a letter dated 13 March 2024 from Talking Therapies, which decline assistance to Q for a second time. It says: “Following your referral to the Havering Talking Therapies I-App Service on 6 March 2024, it has been agreed, as you state, you are not experiencing depression or anxiety, we are not the most appropriate service for you at this time”.[96]The concern about Q’s lack of engagement with therapy is that, clearly, there are some issues identified by Dr W that Q needs to address. I am concerned about a possible inability of him to recognise the help he needs and that this, in fact, is why that second opportunity led to the service being withdrawn. The reasons he needs that therapy were not limited to what was stated in that letter i.e. of depression and anxiety.[97]Again, the Court is hampered about the circumstances around why this therapy has not been able to take place because it has not been possible for the father to be cross-examined.[98]There is no evidence before me that Q has disclosed Dr W’s report to his GP and sought therapeutic assistance via that route. When NHS options are available to Q, it is not, in my view reasonable for the Local Authority to be criticised by the father for not providing funding for private therapy, given that it has been made available to him on the NHS. We are all aware of what funding restrictions the Local Authorities face and their need to prioritise their budgets.[99]The Court heard evidence from the social worker that whilst Q can be cooperative, this is dependent on his mental health presentation. Indeed, in the very little time Q chose to attend the court hearing, he was able to participate, but on more than one occasion, was prone to an outburst if something was said he did not agree with.[100]As I said earlier, I have no doubt that Q found it difficult to hear the things in Court. However, equally, his reaction was such that he was insulting to the social workers and left. He then felt unable to participate in any aspect of the final hearing in respect of R, either directly or indirectly for the remainder of the final hearing.[101]I know how important it was for Q to contest this final hearing and seek that his daughter be placed in his care, yet, sadly, he did not feel able to do so. There has to be a concern that until Q gets the help he needs to be able to control his emotional regulation, that there must be a question mark raised over his ability to safely care for R.

Illicit Substance Misuse

[102]I have already outlined in my judgment the importance of Q be abstinent from all substances, as recommended by Dr W, for 12 to 24 months. He has admitted a 20-year history of misusing illicit substances. I do not underestimate the task for him to become abstinent in those circumstances and I commend him for his efforts so far. However, for the reasons set out above, I do find he is at the start of becoming or having just become abstinent from cocaine.[103]Q’s accounts about his drug use have caused professionals to be concerned. He told the independent social worker he was not using cocaine in the summer of 2023, but then in August, when tested by DNA Legal on the 5th of that month, said that he had been using cocaine. He did not say to them it was because he had relapsed. He just said he was using.[104]There are concerns too that Q has either not been honest about this usage to Ms S or she has not been honest to professionals that he has been taking illicit substances. This is because, on her account, when the relationship started, which the social worker thought was more likely to be believable, that of May 2023, than Q’s account of December 2023. It is considered Ms S is likely to have known about it.[105]I have to say, given that at the time of December 2023, Q was asked to be assessed with Ms S, it does seem likely that that romantic relationship has started at some point prior to that.[106]Q has said he has used cocaine daily and then stopped in August 2023. This would, of course, have been difficult for him to do, but he has been able to show that he has been able to do that with other illicit substances he has used.[107]It was brought to my attention that there is, also, of course, a concern about the letter from CGL of 14 August 2023, because on the father’s own account, he was using illicit substances daily at that time, so it is difficult to understand the quote in the letter which states:
“Regular drug testing, which have all resulted in negative for all substances, apart from prescribed medication”
. Those test results were all negative. Again, that raises concerns about whether Q has been able to be honest with professionals about his usage.

Relationships

[108]In terms of relationships, as I have said, there is a discrepancy between Q and Ms S about when their relationship commenced. Ms S saying May 2023 and Q saying it was not a romantic relationship until December 2023. I accept that people can have different views about when romantic relationships are established, but as I have just said, I think, given he was asking to be jointly assessed by December 2023, it seems more likely to me than not that that relationship had been established romantically before December 2023.[109]The father filed a statement in October 2023 to say he was not in a relationship and again this raises a concern about whether he was being truthful at that time. Q’s refusal to give oral evidence about this another factor which hampered the Court.[110]It is positive that the father has undertaken the Building Better Relationships course. However, despite Dr W and other professionals being clear about the need for him to undertake further domestic abuse work, it is a concern for me that he has not engaged in that further work, especially given his history.[111]I listened carefully to the father’s case that there has been no domestic abuse alleged against him in the last four years, save for by P, who withdrew her allegations. However, this does not change the past concerns, nor the need for him to do this work, as recommended.[112]I also noted the social worker’s concerns, that she does not consider the relationship between Q and Ms S to necessarily be equal and that Ms S has vulnerabilities due to past domestic abuse she has suffered. The work identified for Q could only help this dynamic.[113]My conclusion in respect of the father’s ability to care is that time has shown that, sadly, he has not been able to implement the professional advice to undertake all the work identified and to achieve the 12 to 24 month abstinence required from illicit substances.[114]It is proposed on behalf of the father that R could live with him under a supervision order. Whilst this would allow him to gain support from social services, it would not resolve the three areas of main concern identified by Dr W which I have just been through, that the father still needs to address or is only in the initial stages of addressing.[115]The father has family support, that of Ms S, his mother and his sister. However, his relatives have other caring responsibilities, as does Ms S, although I appreciate her children are older.[116]The Guardian was clear in her oral evidence, when asked by the Local Authority, there is no level of support or reasonable adjustments, in her view, that will enable Q to care for R safely. I agree with that view. It is not basic care he needs assistance with, so options such as family support workers, etc. would not assist. Put simply, the support the father needs cannot be achieved in R’s timescales. The need for an abstinence from illicit substances of 12 to 24-months, his need to engage with therapy and domestic abuse programmes, as I say, have not started or are in their infancy.[117]These proceedings have been ongoing for 15 months and there has been sufficient time for this work to be done. Q has not done it. It is not in R’s best interests for a decision for her long-term placement to be delayed whilst the father is granted further opportunity to do this work. Especially when it not known, even if with this time, it would happen or the required progress he needs to be made would happen to allow him to safely and consistently care for R.[118]R’s age and welfare needs means she needs a final decision about where she will live. I was not asked to adjourn these proceedings for the father to undertake further work or to provide further time to prove his abstinence.[119]For all these reasons I conclude the father, with or without the help of Ms S, sadly, would not be able to meet R’s needs due to him not having achieved this abstinence from illicit substances, nor engaged with therapy that is needed to assist him with his emotional and mental health difficulties, nor has he undertaken the various work identified with regards to domestic abuse.[120]I realise how devastating this will be for the father to hear, given how much he loves R and deeply wants to care for her. I know how hard he has worked to have R placed in his care, however, sadly, I conclude that he cannot meet R’s needs in the long-term and there is no support package that can address the concerns about the father’s ability to care for her within her timescales. In addition, that the 15 months of these proceedings demand a permanent decision is made about her future.

Welfare Checklist

[121]In terms of the Welfare Checklist contained in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act, 2002, I confirm that my consideration of that is as follows. Given R’s age, she is unable to vocalise with whom she would wish to live. If she was able to express with whom she wished to be brought up by, I have no doubt she would want to be brought up by her father, mother, or another family member, providing that could be done so safely and in accordance with her best interests. I am also sure she would wish to have a relationship with her siblings, if this was possible, from a home that was meeting her needs.[122]R has all the needs of a young child, that is a need for a family where she can be kept safe, where her needs for emotional support and stimulation are met, and where she can grow and develop. As a young baby, R was exposed to illicit drugs misuse in utero and suffered withdrawal symptoms at birth. I understand she is now developing normally and meeting all her milestones.[123]I have considered the long-term impact on R of being adopted. This would cause her to lose her legal ties with her birth family. I recognise that, sadly, not all adoptive placements succeed. Adoption can cause real difficulties for children in adolescence and later in life.[124]R is a 15-month-old girl, her parents are both white British, she has a number of maternal and paternal older siblings.[125]R was at risk of harm when these proceedings were initiated. This harm is detailed in the agreed threshold document of May 2024.[126]Finally, the father wishes to care for R, and I have explained in my judgment why, sadly, I do not think he can meet R’s needs. The other family members put forward to care for R at the outset of these proceedings have been negatively assessed and their assessments have not been challenged by them or any other party.

Range of options

[127]The range of powers open to the Court are to make no order, a child arrangements order, and R can be placed in the care of her father, to make a child arrangements order or special guardianship order for R to live with a family member, this is not a realistic option in this case. To make a care or supervision order for R to live with her father, to make a care order and R live in foster care, or to make a care and placement order and R be adopted.[128]My analysis of these options is as follows. As I have just outlined, one option is for R to be placed with her father and Ms S. This could be done under no order or a live with child arrangements order, a care order, or a supervision order. For all the reasons I have outlined, I do not consider it is in R’s interests to be placed with her father as it will not keep her safe.[129]The two family options that were put forward were that of the paternal grandmother and the paternal aunt. The paternal aunt has caring responsibilities for a child with special needs. The other family member, the paternal grandmother, has caring responsibilities for another of the father’s children and it was not considered she would be able to care for R as well. It is sad that neither of those assessments were positive. They have not been challenged, there are no other family or friend alternative options for R.[130]With regards to the mother, Dr W stated that P has not, as yet, demonstrated a sufficient period to indicate she is capable of sustaining positive change and given the nature of her difficulties and treatment and monitoring for a period of at least 12 to 24 months is recommended before a reassessment is undertaken to consider whether she has demonstrated sufficient positive change with a view to being considered to gain full-time care of R.[131]The parenting assessment and addendum parenting assessment of the mother were both negative. She only partially engaged with the first assessment and did not engage with the second parenting assessment at all. Her addiction to illicit substances and the impact of this on her lifestyle and ability to parent R, means she could not safely care for her.[132]It is incredibly sad that she has not had contact with R since June 2023, which is when she started to disengage with the social work team, with assessments and with these proceedings and her lawyers. As the Children’s Guardian said in her evidence, “The mother, in fact, recognised early on the limitations of her being able to care for R”.[133]Another option available to the Court is for R to continue to be placed in foster care, that being a long-term foster placement. Given R is just 15 months old, I do not consider this to be in her best interests. It would mean she is a looked after child for almost 17 more years, with everything that comes with that, such as having a social worker, LAC reviews, etc. It would not offer her permanence. I recognise it would allow a greater level of contact for the father, but that is outweighed by the lack of permanence and the possibility of multiple placement moves during her minority and thus many different care givers. Therefore, she would not get the security of a family to which she can belong for the remainder of her childhood.[134]The Local Authority, supported by the Children’s Guardian, seek that R is made the subject of a care and placement order and adopted. I may only make that placement order with the consent of all persons with parental responsibility, that is R’s parents or by dispensing with their consent.[135]I have considered the impact on R of being adopted. I recognise, sadly, all placements do not proceed, as I have set out. However, I know that she has had the benefit of one placement since she was discharged from hospital, so perhaps she has got a better chance than some children of transferring the attachment she has made from one set of care givers to an alternative set of permanent care givers. My paramount consideration is R’s welfare throughout her life, and I have borne that in mind in reaching my decision.[136]I recognise that the father would have loved to have cared for her for her minority. However, he does not have the ability to meet her needs. There is no other family that can do so.[137]As these proceedings have been going on for some 15 months now, I consider a decision needs to be made for R. I do not consider that there are any support systems that can be put in place to safely enable the father to care. Therefore, having considered all of the realistic options, I conclude that nothing else will do other than adoption and only that can meet R’s immediate and long-term welfare needs.[138]I am required to consider the arrangements for contact. I have considered what is set out in the Local Authority’s care plan and their supplemental contact reduction plan. I endorse the search which looks for carers that can facilitate direct contact with R’s parents, especially her father with whom she has a relationship with, if that proves to be possible. I approve the contact plan for R to have indirect letterbox contact. I approve the Local Authority’s proposed contact arrangements as set out in their reduction plan. I do not consider any of these contact arrangements need to be ordered.[139]For all of those reasons, I make the final care and placement orders sought by the Local Authority. I am satisfied R’s welfare requires that I make these orders. I dispense with the consent of the parents to the making of the placement order on the grounds that R’s welfare requires me to do so.[140]I want to express gratitude to all of the professionals in the case for their hard work and careful consideration of what they consider to be in R’s best interests. I would also like to thank the advocates for their hard work and assistance to the Court. In particular, I would like to thank Father’s counsel for her efforts to try and get the father to engage with this final hearing.[141]As requested, I will order a transcript of this judgment at the Local Authority’s expense, and I give permission for it to be shared with R’s adopters in due course. Please can you address me in a moment about whether there are any other documents that would be useful to disclose to potential adopters, such as the Guardian’s report?[142]I would like the Local Authority to file their updated care plan and incorporating the placement order reduction of contact plan.[143]Please can you also add my finding about the father’s cocaine use to the threshold. Can I suggest that that amended threshold is attached to this final order, just for the ease of reference and completeness?[144]That concludes my judgment. I just want to say a couple of closing remarks.[145]I know that the father is not here today, but I hope that this can be passed on, that both he and Ms S have been involved in discussions around some of the life story work and I really would like to encourage him to do that. It will be incredibly important, I am sure, for R, in the future. In addition, given how much Q cares for her, I am sure he will be able to assist with that.[146]In addition, in respect of contact, I know Q is going to find it difficult, that this has been reduced. I know that he is going to find it difficult to have post-adoption contact, whether that is letterbox or whether it is possible for that to be direct. Again, I would really encourage him to take up that contact. I know that that will not be easy for him to contemplate, having heard the judgment, but hopefully, at some point soon or in the future, he will be able to do so. End of Judgment. Transcript of a recording by Acolad UK Ltd147. 291-299 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JG148. Tel: 020 7269 0370149. legal@ubiqus.com150. Acolad UK Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.