“[Alice] is concerned about the lack of action with regards to [Bethany’s] ongoing social media campaign which places herself and other individuals named as being connected to her, at risk of harm within the local community. … The Court has noted that [Bethany] continues to express her views on social media and is therefore very much aware that she has a position and matters to contribute to these proceedings. The Court has already been disadvantaged by not having direct evidence from [Bethany] when having to make an important decision about the interim arrangements for [Mary] and the Court wants to ensure that future decisions are made with the positions and evidence of all parties being heard.”
“8. [Mary] has been involved with the local authority and the family courts since 2017, which is most of her life. She has known little other than a life of parental conflict, disruption, and interference from professionals at the highest level (care order). The most stable period for [Mary] appears to be when she was living with [Alice] between 2018 and 2022. Information from this period of time [F1-F95] shows that [Mary]’s needs were met consistently and to a good standard. 9. At the end of proceedings in 2018, Safeguards were put in place to manage the risks identified within the previous assessments, those being risks that [Bethany] posed and which needed to be addressed by way of [Mary] residing outside of her care and limitations being put in place in respect of her relationship with [Mary]. 10. While [Mary] remained subject to a care order, she was relatively settled and accessing a relationship with both [Bethany] and [Alice], albeit her time with [Bethany] was limited. Importantly, [Mary] held a positive view of her parents at that time and she shared this consistently with many professionals. The information shows that whilst not ideal, the safeguards maintained stability for [Mary]. 11. In 2022, the local authority removed the safeguards. This resulted in an immediate disruption to [Mary] and [Alice]’s relationship, which ultimately led to a total rejection of [Alice] by [Mary]. The issues raised regarding [Bethany] in previous assessments, namely the psychological and parenting assessments, quickly emerged as predicted. 12. When considering the history and the circumstances which led to the breakdown in [Mary] and [Alice]’s relationship in 2022, the evidence points to this being due to [Bethany]’s influence. I accept it is for the court to determine what and who was responsible for the breakdown of relationships. 13. [Bethany] has never concealed her feelings about [Alice] from professionals; they are documented extensively in various documents and have been shared on social media and directly with me during my limited communication with her. 14. Likely, [Bethany] has not been able to contain her feelings, and as she spent more (unsupervised) time with [Mary], her feelings have been projected onto her, who in turn has aligned herself with [Bethany]. [Mary]’s response, as evidenced, is indicative of her being alienated. [Mary]’s rejection of [Alice] will have been an attempt to protect herself from the difficulties of managing her relationship with [Bethany] and [Alice] simultaneously. It is evidence of emotional and possible psychological harm (splitting). 15. Given the history of this case, the local authority should have been alive to the risks in this case as they are set out clearly in the numerous assessments and court judgments. It appears that the local authority has played a significant role in enabling [Bethany]’s behaviours. Their decision-making has contributed heavily to the current situation and the harm and disruption [Mary] has suffered and continues to suffer. 16. When I became involved with [Mary], she was somewhat surprisingly emotionally/psychologically ready to be reintroduced to [Alice]. The court’s decision for [Mary] to move to foster care likely gave her the emotional space and freedom to make sense of her experiences and contemplate relationships freely and without influence. The support [Mary] has been provided by her foster carer has been and continues to be excellent and underpins much of [Mary]’s progress. 17. My role was facilitation, offering reassurance and explicit permission for [Mary] to access a relationship with [Alice], which successfully moved matters forward quickly. It is within the context of how quickly relationships were re-established that provides, in my view, firm evidence of [Bethany]’s influence over [Mary]. 18. Reunification of [Mary]’s relationship with [Alice] has been straightforward. This is likely due to the strength of their relationship and a lack of interference from [Bethany]. [Mary] is a remarkable young girl who shows an exceptional level of resilience. She is, however, emotionally fragile. She has faced and continues to face significant instability and uncertainty. This has compromised her emotional and psychological welfare and will continue to do so, until matters are resolved to finality. Any further and ongoing intervention and litigation will likely compound the harm she has suffered and compromise her future development. 19. [Mary] continues showing some signs of being conflicted and she worries about what [Bethany] thinks. She has voiced these worries to me, her foster carer and other professionals. It is likely that with further support, [Mary] will continue to talk about her experiences, make sense of them and overcome them. [Mary]’s feelings are currently contained and managed by her limited relationship with [Bethany]. If [Mary] and [Bethany]’s relationship progresses, there will likely be some adverse impact. In my view, this impact will be significant. 20. For [Mary] to access a safe relationship with [Bethany], she must demonstrate her ability to genuinely support [Mary]’s relationship with [Alice] through acknowledgement, acceptance, and a commitment to change. This must start with meaningful engagement with the court, local authority, and [Mary]. It must be on terms set by professionals and not directed/controlled by herself. Perhaps one of the best indicators of change that [Bethany] can show is her ability to hand over control to others. 21. In looking at what the future holds for [Mary], it is my clear view that she desperately needs permanence, a finality to the court proceedings and some finality to the local authority involvement. The risk from future court proceedings will be significant and cause cumulative harm to [Mary]. The impact of harm should not be underestimated and will likely result in lifelong and irreparable, emotional and psychological harm. 22. In terms of the future involvement of the local authority. Ongoing involvement, particularly if [Mary] is going to be subject to a care order, will be intrusive, set her apart from her peers, and prevent her from achieving secure permanence. It will create an ongoing situation of uncertainty, likely increasing as she grows and tries to affect her autonomy and independence within the restrictions of being subject to a care order. 23. There will need to be careful consideration of whether a care order is necessary and proportionate. Consideration will need to be given to whether [Bethany] can meaningfully engage and have a role in [Mary]’s life. If it is found that [Bethany] cannot genuinely support [Mary] or work towards the same, then consideration will need to be given to limiting her role. Under this circumstance, a care order may not be necessary, and consideration should be given to other, less restrictive orders. 24. My assessment of [Alice], which will be discussed later, effectively concludes that she can affect parental responsibility in line with [Mary]’s interests. The only complicating factor is the management of [Bethany]’s involvement. Therefore, her involvement and what that looks like will determine the appropriate final order. The court must clearly determine and define [Bethany]’s future role to support [Mary]’s welfare and safety.”
“there is no evidence before the court that she has made any significant changes since the original set of care proceedings were completed. In particular I have considered the psychological report that was completed during those proceedings and the judgements by the court made against [Bethany] when the care order was made with a care plan that [Mary] should be placed in [Alice]’s care… I believe there is no substantial evidence before the court that [Bethany] has made any significant changes, indeed I feel there is a substantial case that with the alleged abduction by [Bethany] and the posting on the Internet of the video of [Mary] during the initial hearing would indicate that at the very least her ability to meet [Mary]’s emotional needs has not progressed since the original care proceedings. In light of this I do feel that [Bethany] continues to pose significant risks to [Mary]’s emotional well-being that means she cannot be placed back in her care.”
“[Bethany] did not attend today’s hearing. Her counsel informed the Court that [Bethany] does not intend to engage further with the proceedings, with professionals or further assessments, or to attend contact with [Mary] other than in accordance with her proposals as set out in her statement dated23rd May 2023 .” order: a. This matter was listed at 2pm and commenced at 2.26pm. [Bethany] attended court in person at 3.26pm and left before the hearing ended. [Bethany] is aware that the Children’s Guardian invited the Court to direct that she takes down all social media posts that relate to [Mary] and/or [Alice] and/or these proceedings. Whilst the Court was not sitting pursuant tos9 Senior Courts Act 1981 it did encourage [Bethany] to engage with this request, made on [Mary]’s behalf. b. The Court strongly encouraged [Bethany] to engage in contact with [Mary] and emphasised that in the Courts analysis no contact, which is the current position, is detrimental to [Mary]’s welfare. [Bethany] confirmed that she would not attend for the contact as she felt supervised contact in a centre would be more harmful to [Mary].