Re C: Care and placement proceedings [2025] EWFC 118 (B)

IMPORTANT NOTICE 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.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.[2025] EWFC 118 (B)Case No ZW24C50156IN THE BARNET FAMILY COURTVenue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate 29 April 2025
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE OLIVER JONES
Between
LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEYApplicantMRespondentFRespondentCRespondent(By her Children’s Guardian, Claudia Gross)Respondent
MS CAITLIN FERRIS for ApplicantMR JAMES SHAW for First RespondentMR GILES BAIN for Second RespondentMS ANNIE DIXON for Children’s Guardian
JUDGMENT
[1]These are care proceedings relating to a little girl, who is 1 year old.[2]The local authority is the London Borough of Haringey, represented by Ms Ferris. The mother is represented by Mr Shaw. The father is represented by Mr Bain. The child is represented by her children’s guardian, Ms Claudia Gross and by counsel, Ms Dixon.[3]The local authority seeks a care order and a placement order. Its plan is for the child to be adopted. The father seeks to care for the child; however, his primary position at this hearing is that he seeks an adjournment so that he can have a further parenting assessment. The mother supports the father’s position. The mother has taken a very difficult but child-focussed decision to not put herself forward to care for the child. Unfortunately, she has a lengthy history of substance misuse problems and to her credit she recognises that she needs to do further work to address her alcohol and drug use before she would be able to meet the child’s needs. The children’s guardian supports the local authority.[4]In due course, this judgment will be published in anonymised form on the National Archives. In order to facilitate the process, I have avoided referring to the parents and the child by their names and have instead referred to them as “the mother”, “the father” and “the child”.

Threshold

[5]The parties have agreed a set of facts which I am satisfied meet the threshold criteria test under s.31 of the Children Act 1989:
“Final threshold At the relevant date, that being 23rd April 2024, the child was suffering or was likely to suffer significant harm and that harm was attributable to the care given to him or likely to be given to him, if an order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give due to the following: Substance Misuse The Mothers misuse substances, which impacts on her parenting and causes the child significant harm. For example: a. Mother has a history of chronic alcohol dependence and substance misuse (recently crack cocaine), extending well over a decade and throughout her pregnancies b. Mother has continued to misuse substances and drink alcohol excessively during this pregnancy against the advice of numerous professionals, placing the baby at risk of alcohol foetal syndrome, c. Mother self reported to health professionals that she is (as of 12.4.24) currently drinking 2-3 beers and 4-5 cigarettes for the majority of the time. Mother admitted also using cocaine and drinking Vodka in early pregnancy. d. Mother has been assessed, based on her given history, with features consistent with (i) chronic alcohol dependence, current use continuous, and (ii) cocaine dependence e. Dr McDermott in the proceedings which only concluded in November 2023 concluded that “My opinion has not changed in respect of the significant risk that Mother’s substance dependence represent to her children” f. Mother has not engaged or completed the recommended intervention by Dr McDermott following the care proceedings in November 2023, “The intervention which [the mother] chronically continues to need is a substantial engagement with a drug and alcohol service on a one to one, rather than a group, basis. b. [The mother] would need an intervention for a significant period of time, months rather than weeks. Relapse is always a risk, but relapse prevention work would form part of a comprehensive intervention. Also, relapses can be recovered from. c. [The mother] would need an individual and patient intervention, to help her develop some trust and interest in the process.”
Domestic Violence There is a history of domestic abuse between the parents, they have not taken adequate steps to address this or demonstrate separation from each other, which places baby at risk of physical and emotional harm. a. On 14.12.23 LA have received a police notification to state that Mother attacked [the father] and was escorted by police to the train station to stay with a friend in Rochester. [The father] reported that Mum drank ½ a bottle of vodka following the initial visit from social care. They argued about his comments when speaking with the Social Worker and what he had said regarding her elder children's Dad, [name redacted]. This escalated to her punching him in the head and throwing an ashtray across the small studio space. [The father] said initially he just ran out of the property but when he returned, she attacked him again and so he called the police. Unborn baby could be and may be harmed; hurt or significantly injured in such a volatile environment. Mother – accepts that she threw an ashtray at the father but does not recall punching the father b. Mothers previous relationships were characterised by domestic violence Mother – accepted. Mother says that her relationship with Father has now ended Previous Proceedings The Mother has had 6 previous children removed from her care as a result of the ongoing concerns as set out above which featured in all of the cases involving the older children: i. On 25 November 2014 a Special Guardianship Order was made to [the mother’s] ex-partner in respect of her two eldest children ii. On 15 January 2016 a Special Guardianship Order was made in respect of [the mother] and her ex-partner’s son [O] iii. On 20 August 2018 a Care and Placement Order was made in respect of [the mother] and her ex-partner daughter [A] iv. On 8 October 2020 a Care and Placement Order was made in respect of [the mother] and her ex-partner son [L] v. On 9th November 2023 a Care and Placement Order was made in respect of [the mother] and her ex-partner’s son [B]”. Substance Misuse The Mothers misuse substances, which impacts on her parenting and causes the child a. Mother has a history of chronic alcohol dependence and substance misuse (recently crack cocaine), extending well over a decade and throughout her pregnancies b. Mother has continued to misuse substances and drink alcohol excessively during this pregnancy against the advice of numerous professionals, placing the baby at risk of alcohol foetal syndrome, c. Mother self reported to health professionals that she is (as of 12.4.24) currently drinking 2-3 beers and 4-5 cigarettes for the majority of the time. Mother admitted also using cocaine and drinking Vodka in early pregnancy. d. Mother has been assessed, based on her given history, with features consistent with (i) chronic alcohol dependence, current use continuous, and (ii) cocaine dependence e. Dr McDermott in the proceedings which only concluded in November 2023 concluded that “My opinion has not changed in respect of the significant risk that Mother’s substance dependence represent to her children” f. Mother has not engaged or completed the recommended intervention by Dr McDermott following the care proceedings in November 2023, “The intervention which [the mother] chronically continues to need is a substantial engagement with a drug and alcohol service on a one to one, rather than a group, basis. b. [The mother] would need an intervention for a significant period of time, months rather than weeks. Relapse is always a risk, but relapse prevention work would form part of a comprehensive intervention. Also, relapses can be recovered from. c. [The mother] would need an individual and patient intervention, to help her develop some trust and interest in the process.” a. On 14.12.23 LA have received a police notification to state that Mother attacked [the father] and was escorted by police to the train station to stay with a friend in Rochester. [The father] reported that Mum drank ½ a bottle of vodka following the initial visit from social care. They argued about his comments when speaking with the Social Worker and what he had said regarding her elder children's Dad, [name redacted]. This escalated to her punching him in the head and throwing an ashtray across the small studio space. [The father] said initially he just ran out of the property but when he returned, she attacked him again and so he called the police. Unborn baby could be and may be harmed; hurt or significantly injured in such a volatile environment. Mother – accepts that she threw an ashtray at the father but does not recall punching the father b. Mothers previous relationships were characterised by domestic violence Mother – accepted. Mother says that her relationship with Father has now ended i. On 25 November 2014 a Special Guardianship Order was made to [the mother’s] ex-partner in respect of her two eldest children ii. On 15 January 2016 a Special Guardianship Order was made in respect of [the mother] and her ex-partner’s son [O] iii. On 20 August 2018 a Care and Placement Order was made in respect of [the mother] and her ex-partner daughter [A] iv. On 8 October 2020 a Care and Placement Order was made in respect of [the mother] and her ex-partner son [L] v. On 9th November 2023 a Care and Placement Order was made in respect of [the mother] and her ex-partner’s son [B]”.

History

[6]The mother is 36 years old. The father is 57 years old. This is his first child. He has some problems with his physical health, with pain caused by a shoulder injury and cervical arthritis. He is not working due to his health problems. He uses pain killers to manage his pain. He was addicted to tramadol in around 2012 as it was the only painkiller that worked but has not used it for some years now. He takes nefopam, amitriptyline, and paracetamol as painkillers and has been taking the anti-depressant citalopram since 2020. His finger nail sample drugs test on 3.5.24 was positive for cocaine at a low level, which could have been direct cocaine use, or environment exposure. A later test was clear. His medical records contain reference to him having smoked cannabis regularly but having stopped in 2020. They also contain references in 2020 and 2021 to the father having “long standing history of suicidal ideation”, and of cutting himself with razor blades. However, the medical records also state that in 2021 the father denied ever self-harming or attempting suicide – which is the account he continues to give.[7]The father has a criminal history. He has convictions in 2019 for an offence against property; and in 2022 for racially/religiously aggravated intentional harassment/alarm distress and for racially/religiously aggravated common assault/beating. He told professionals that conviction related to him having “called a white cop a Nazi”. He explained that the altercation arose when he had been told not to listen to music outside Darent Valley Hospital and he was “dropped to the floor by a guard”.[8]The medical records contain a letter from Darent Valley Hospital dated 16.7.19 relating events on 6.7.19 when the father:
“…was reported to be arguing in the waiting room and when approached about his behaviour, he refused to talk but started to video staff and other people in the waiting room, which he refused to stop doing. He was abusive to staff and at he [sic] was watched going back to his car to allegedly smoke illegal drugs on hospital grounds. He was issued with a first and full warning.”
[9]A further letter from Darent Valley Hospital dated 24.7.19 states that:
“[The father] was ‘deliberately antagonising security staff’ in the emergency department by following them around, taking unauthorised photos and videos of them. He had screamed at the security manager demanding to see someone called ‘fat Tom’. As a consequence, he was issued with a letter which was to be regarded as ‘red card sanction’ which limited his access to hospital to emergency care only.”
[10]The parents were in a relationship from about March 2023 until April 2024, when the father ended the relationship.[11]The mother presented late for antenatal support. She saw her GP at around 14 weeks pregnant. Her attendance was inconsistent. She attended the 20-week scan and a consultant appointment. However, she missed a scan on 11.3.24. She missed two appointments for flu/whooping cough vaccination before eventually attending on 1.3.24.[12]The parents attended a scan appointment on 3.2.24. The father was alleged to have been involved in an altercation with staff at the North Middlesex Hospital, which resulted in him being “red carded” by the hospital. He had a further altercation with security guards at the hospital on 21.3.24.[13]The child was born in 2024 in the car park of the emergency department at the Whittington Hospital. She did well with no reported concerns, good APGAR scores.[14]The local authority made its application for a care order on 23.4.24. On 17.5.24 I made an interim care order.[15]Dennis Scotland, independent social worker, completed a parenting assessment on both parents on 11.10.24. He concluded:
“182. I do not recommend either parent has evidenced sufficient parenting capacity to provide ongoing safe care for [the child]. 183. [The mother] continues to drink alcohol which has been a feature of since the start of her parenting and was a contributory feature in the removal of all her children. Despite requesting the opportunity to evidence change, she has not been able to engage with services required to assist her break her evident and acknowledged dependency on alcohol. Even if she were to engage with service immediately it would require a considerable time of abstinence, testing and support to assist her break the dependency and there is no guarantee that she would be able to sustain the change and certainly not within her daughter’s timescales. 184. [The father] is unrealistic in his evaluation of what it would take to provide [the child] with the care and support she will need in the coming weeks, months and years. He appears not to have a proper grasp of the impact of [the mother’s] drinking on his daughter’s health and refuses to see how alcohol has impacted her to date. He did accept his history of depression brought on by persistent chronic pain in his shoulder but denied a history of suicidal ideation, the Psychiatric report clearly indicates that this was a factor in his medical records. He also understated his police record, his history of drugs and alcohol use. This tendency to understate important facts means it is difficult firstly to trust his word but also to understand what his triggers and how he could be supported properly when caring for daughter; he is an unknown. Disengagement with Children’s service due to disagreeing with an assessment suggests, he would have to agree with each report otherwise there is a risk that he would again disengage. 185. I am also not convinced that given their history together that [the father] would not gravitate back to [the mother] for his own support and with the care of his daughter. It cannot just that [the mother] has been failed by others which has led to the removal of her children, [the mother] accepts some responsibility for this, however [the father] does not, or was not able to say so. While he does accept that [the mother] drinks a lot, he appears to not fully grasp the risk she poses to his daughter in many situations and circumstances. He said if the court ordered him not to leave [the child] in [the mother’s] care he would comply, however he has a history on non-compliance, and it would be difficult to monitor. I am concerned that he would require the court to order him not to leave [the child] in her mother’s care at any time. 186. There is no doubt that [the father] will require support with his daughter’s care, even if she does not suffer the ongoing effects of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, all children require the care and attention of their parents. He suggests he will care for his daughter alone, however given his medical history, difficult interaction with professionals and weak support network [the child] will be exposed to levels of vulnerability which are likely to lead to harm.”
[16]Dr Adam Campbell, clinical psychologist assessed the father. In his report of 15.7.24 he stated:
“78. As I assessed him, and based on my reading, I did not discern that [the father] is a malevolent person who poses a direct risk to [the child]. He came across as devoted to [the child] and certainly as wanting to parent or co-parent her. He voiced anger that his connection with her has been, as it were, undermined. 79. In my view, the issues of concern remain that [the father] does not present as wholly mentally healthy, as having insight into his need to work concordantly with professionals, and in general as recognising that there is assessment work that needs to be done and there is good reason why professionals want to know quite a lot more about him than they do. 80. Given his history of substance use, mental health problems, at least one offence against a person (racially aggravated common assault), domestic disputes with [the mother] (not pursued by either party, I gather) and his apparent lack of insight, I believe it can be argued that [the father] would not be good at working cooperatively, openly and honestly with professionals such that they can lead a risk management process. 81. Rather, [the father] gave off fairly clear signs that he would be resistant and hard to work with. This suggests that risk factors identified would not be easily managed by professionals seeking to do so… 85. I note the words ‘from a psychological perspective’, and focusing on this I would say that if [the father’s] task is to create and maintain a safe, consistent and positive human, physical, social and educational (etc) environment for [the child], then he is not showing a very good amount of readiness. 86. My observations of and inferences about him lead me to conclude that he would struggle to be consistent, as well as struggle to avoid exposing [the child] to his tendency to fall into conflict with the world. This is not to suggest that he should not feel free to speak his mind and speak up with he does not agree with something, and so on, only that it appears his way of doing so may not be constructive. In turn, this could bring problems to the family situation [the child] would be living in. 87. I am sure [the father] is very much inclined to prioritise [the child] and her needs, now and into the future. What I would be concerned about, however, would be what I would call his distractions and preoccupations that could compete withhim leading a relatively simply life where he raised his child, focuses on her, and avoids expending energy on things he may not be able to change.”
[17]Dr Campbell reports that at the end of his assessment the father gave him a positive rating, saying “9 out of 10”. Nonetheless, in his addendum report, Dr Campbell appends a series of communications he received directly from the father alleging that Dr Campbell had breached professional ethics, lacked informed consent to administer the tests, had significantly breached confidentiality and would be the subject of a complaint to his professional body. He took particular issue with Dr Campbell’s use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. Dr Campbell wrote:
“carried out an initial screening for this measure to determine whether more in-depth assessment of this issue was necessary, clinically. The initial examination of the facts including his history indicated that further exploration was unlikely to be more informative. This suggests he is unlikely to be presenting with any marked psychopathic features of clinical significance.”
I did not hear in the father’s evidence why he had taken such exception to an initial screening which had cleared him.[18]Dr Sumi Ratnam, consultant psychiatrist assessed the father. In her report dated 30th October 2024 she confirmed that that the father had suffered an episode of depression in 2020/21, but was not depressed at the time of assessment. She did not identify a diagnosable mental illness:
“Whilst [the father] has exhibited difficulties in interpersonal functioning with distrust of some professionals and a somewhat combative style of interaction, he does not fulfil criteria for a diagnosis of a personality disorder. He has a tenacious sense of how others should conduct themselves which can lead to issues if he perceives that they have not adhered to rules and protocols. He can lack self-reflection of how this might be perceived by others and rationalised his actions… I am not of the view that [the father’s] history of interpersonal conflict and offending is related to a mental illness or personality disorder.”
[19]At the IRH on 3.2.25, the Children’s Guardian applied for a residential assessment of the father. In her final analysis, she set out that since the father’s negative community-based parenting assessment, he had maintained excellent attendance levels at contact, that the quality of the relationship between the father and the child was very good and that he appears to be developing insight into the concerns. The local authority opposed a residential assessment, but I decided it was necessary and approved the plan for the child to transition from the foster carer into the father’s care at Jamma Umoja and a 12-week residential assessment.[20]On 7.3.25 the assessment period began. There was a period of contact that day. Then there was a slow transition with the child spent increasing amounts of time at the unit with the father. This increased to overnight on 12.3.25. The child moved in full time on 17.3.25. Until then, the father did not stay at the unit and was mostly only present for periods when the child was present.[21]The process of the child moving between the care of the foster carer and the Jamma Umoja unit involved a process of staff from the residential unit checking over the child and creating a body map to identify any marks or injuries. I have seen body maps created over the period of 10th-14th March 2025, with at least two body maps each day. On 14.3.25 there was an additional body map created (along with a photo) after an incident when the paternal grandfather had tripped while holding the child’s hands to help her walk. He had fallen on top of her but apart from a red mark on her back, no injuries were observed and no medical attention was required. On 17.3.25 a body map was created when the child moved in. On 24.3.25 a further body map was created when she moved out.[22]The observation of the child for the preparation of a body map happened with either the father or the foster carer present. On 10.3.25, a body map was created without the father being present, because the child had arrived at the unit before the father had returned. That was the only occasion when he was not present for the preparation of a body map.[23]The preparation of the body maps has been the source of considerable friction between the father and the residential assessment centre. He has repeatedly questioned their use and said they are illegal. The last time a body map had been prepared was on 17.3.25 when the child moved in. Thereafter the father declined to leave the child with staff because of his concerns about further body mapping.[24]Over the weekend of 22nd March 2025, the father began requesting copies of staff DBS certificates and qualifications. He located staff on the Social Work England register. He emailed staff quoting legislation to support his view that the use of body maps was illegal. On 23.3.25, he was found “partially inside” the staff office, which is an area that residents are not allowed to access. He claimed he was searching for the location where the body maps had been completed.[25]On 24.3.25, the father was asked to attend a placement stability meeting. He attempted to enter the office again and was stopped by staff standing in the doorway. Later that day instead of attending the placement stability meeting the father again attempted to push his way into the staff office but was again stopped by staff. He became argumentative and repeatedly demanded to know what was being hidden.[26]The father called the police and made allegations that the body mapping process was inappropriate, and that staff were taking pictures of the child. As a result of the father’s disruptive behaviour, Jamma Umoja terminated the placement with immediate effect. Fortunately, the child was able to return to the same foster carer.[27]On 28.3.25, Mr Recorder Browne approved the separation of the child from her father.[28]I excused the mother from attending Day 1 of the hearing. That was the child’s birthday and the mother wanted to attend contact instead. The mother did not attend Day 2 of the hearing, although I have not been told why not. She did attend on Day 3 for the closing submissions.[29]Just prior to the final hearing, the local authority made an application for an exclusion order to be attached to the Interim Care Order. Unfortunately, this was not seen by the court until the day before the hearing commenced which was bank holiday Monday. The local authority had inadvertently disclosed the foster carer’s address when the child’s medical records were served. I am told that the error had been identified before the records were ever sent to the mother. However, the father did receive the records. Indeed, it was him that alerted the professionals to the data breach.[30]The issue was ventilated at the end of the closing submissions. There was a high level of agreement between the parties, including to their great credit the parents, that a protective order would be helpful to reassure the foster carers. There was legitimate concern that the foster carers might give notice to terminate the placement as a result of the data breach – indeed this had happened earlier in the proceedings with a first set of foster carers when their address had also been accidentally disclosed by the local authority.[31]After hearing from all parties, I was persuaded that I should of the court’s own motion and by consent make a non-molestation order that prohibited the parents from going to the area where the foster carers reside for the period of 9 months.

Evidence

[32]I have read an electronic bundle of 2392 pages. In addition I have received: a 2nd statement from the mother dated 22nd April 2025; the final assessment report from Jamma Umoja dated 21st April 2025 and a case note relating to contact which took place on a non-sitting day on 24th April 2025. I have also had access to a redacted bundle of 599 pages of medical records relating to the child.[33]I have heard evidence from the allocated social worker Dominic Jacques-Bernard, the team manager Amanda Dalladay, the Jamma Umoja service manager Yvonne Kemi; the independent social worker Dennis Scotland, the father and the Children’s Guardian.[34]Dominic Jacques-Bernard has only recently been appointed as the social worker. The local authority’s final evidence and care plan had been prepared by his team manager prior to his allocation. He made a mistake in his written and oral evidence when he indicated that the working agreement with Jamma Umoja had included a reference to the body mapping procedure. He prepared a very positive case note about how well things were going at Jamma Umoja when he visited on 13.3.25 – describing that the father had settled well into the placement and demonstrated a strong commitment to the child’s care and that the child appeared relaxed, content and well cared for during the visit, with an evident attachment to her father. He was challenged in cross-examination for his statement that there are, “no indicators that either parent is currently able to meet [the child’s] emotional and physical needs on a full-time basis” and he explained that he trying to give an objective perspective. He conceded that there had been some indicators, but not enough to change the outcome. I accepted his evidence.[35]I heard from Amanda Dalladay, the team manager. She explained that she was the primary point of contact for the father within the local authority. She said that at times the father could be amenable, polite and receptive, but on the flip side can be quite combative and not in agreement. I found Ms Dalladay to be reliable and I accepted her evidence.[36]I heard from Yvonne Kemi, she is the service manager for the Jamma Umoja unit where the father and the child stayed. She was cross examined about the body mapping policy and explained that she is not responsible for the content of the document which was a matter for the directors of the organisation. She explained that the policy protected the child, the parents, the staff at Jamma Umoja and the third party carer because it means that if any injuries or marks arise, there is greater clarity about when and where they occurred. Her view was that the body mapping policy became such a dominant feature because of the father’s rigidity and inflexibility. She explained that they gave a high level of support to help his understanding, both she and Ms Richards (the manager) had explained the policy and why they have it as a protective measure. She described “extensive time and resources used speaking about body maps and why they had to be done”. She described the father appearing to show understanding but by the next day he would have reverted to the same level of upset, despite the ongoing conversations. She said that the child was lost during these periods. Eventually, the father had contacted OFSTED, the LADO and the police about the body mapping.[37]Ms Kemi told the court that Jamma Umoja had experienced significant difficulties in working with the father that went beyond the body mapping policy. He was resistant to advice. He had asked team members personal questions in a way that they experienced as intimidating. He had found out one staff member’s middle name by looking her up on the social work register and used that name in emails to her.[38]Ms Kemi freely accepted the positives in the father’s relationship with the child and agreed that he demonstrated his love and commitment to her and showed warmth in their interactions. She would not agree that the father remained fully engaged with the assessment, and cited his fixation with the body maps even after they were no longer in use.[39]Her opinion was that there is no prospect of the father showing change or gaining insight. She described the father having extreme difficulty in taking on board advice or working with professionals which appeared to be a longer-term issue.[40]I found Ms Kemi to be a reliable witness and I accepted her evidence.[41]I heard from Dennis Scotland, the independent social worker who conducted a parenting assessment of both parents.[42]He told me that the father answered his questions “fairly openly” and described resistance about his enquiry into the nature of the relationship between the parents. He agreed that the father can be combative and rude. That had been his experience during the outset of the assessment, but they were able to get past it.[43]Mr Scotland accepted the positives about the father without hesitation, but maintained his view that they were outweighed by the negatives. I found him to be a reliable witness and I accepted his evidence.[44]I did not hear from the mother, who was not present on the day when she was due to give evidence. I was not surprised that she did not give evidence given her position and I would not have pressed for her to do so.[45]I heard from the father. He has plainly tried hard to demonstrate his love and commitment to his daughter. He spoke with emotion about how she means everything to him; that he loves being with her and she made him a better person.[46]The father was consistent throughout his evidence that he does not believe there are any shortcomings in his care for his daughter. He did not really believe a further assessment was necessary, but was willing to do it to satisfy the local authority and those that oppose him. He believes it would be best for the child to live with him and there is no problems with his parenting.[47]The father told the court that he has made mistakes, but really struggled to identify what they were. He was able to give one example, in Jamma Umoja, he had been given some advice about bathing technique, which he had learnt from.[48]He was adamant that he had been right to call the police to Jamma Umoja about the body mapping policy. He said they had been breaking the law. He said he had thought about the likelihood that calling the police would lead to the placement breaking down and said he was expecting there to be a new placement centre found or a “1-on-1” assessment.[49]He gave his own definition of what is meant by a “professional”. It was quite a subjective definition which was dependant on them being reciprocal towards him and able to meet him halfway. He was resistant to describing social workers as professionals. He dismissed the idea that he may struggle with other professionals such as teachers, saying, “these are hypotheticals,” and that, “if the teacher is doing their job as a professional, there shouldn’t be any problem”. He said that “100%” there would be no difficulty in him working with professionals.[50]When talking about the child’s medical presentation, he said that “all the indications are that she is not suffering from FAS [foetal alcohol spectrum disorder]”. He said there is “no indication at this point in time to suggest that [the child] is suffering detrimentally because of anything that happened prior to her being born and since.”[51]I found the father to be a truthful witness. There was no attempt to dissemble. He straightforwardly told the court exactly what he believes. The difficulty is that much of what he believes comes from his very idiosyncratic perspective. His oral evidence reinforced the observations of the professionals about his rigidity. I observed and agreed with Dr Campbell’s comment that, “He came across as emphatically inclined to dismiss criticism and challenges to what he was saying. He more or less denied all problems that might be seen as originating in him and his conduct.” My observation of the father in his oral evidence also gave credence to Dr Campbell’s comment, that, “To my mind this was someone whose mental functioning was a little ungrounded in reality”.[52]I heard from the children’s Guardian Ms Gross. She explained how she reached the point of proposing a residential assessment of the father, but that subsequent events had demonstrated that she had been over-optimistic. She gave considered and thoughtful evidence. She acknowledged the real positives about the father’s care of the child. She was unshaken in cross-examination and maintained her view that the adoption is now in the child’s best interests. I found the guardian to be a reliable witness and accepted her evidence.

Law

[53]The burden of proof in this case is on the local authority and it must prove its case to the civil standard of proof – the balance of probabilities.[54]Section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, sets out that the paramount consideration of the court must be the child’s welfare throughout her life, and Section 1(4) of that Act sets out the Welfare Checklist that the court must have regard to in light of the placement application.[55]My paramount consideration is the welfare of the child throughout her life. I am mindful of the statutory principle that delay is likely to be harmful to the child. I acknowledge that the court should take the least interventionist approach, commensurate with the child’s welfare, and also that I have to, and I have considered the human right of the parents and the child to private and family life, and that any interference with that right to private and family life has to be justified and proportionate.[56]I have considered the no order principle under Section 1(5) of the Children Act, namely where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under that Act with respect to a child, it shall not make the order or any of the orders, unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.[57]Sections 21 and 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 also apply. Section 52 deals with parental consent, and the subsection 1 of that states that the court cannot dispense with the consent of any parent or guardian of a child to the child being placed for adoption unless the court is satisfied that under subsection (b), the welfare of the children requires the consent to be dispensed with. Further, I remind myself that the court will only make a placement order if it is justified, having given paramount consideration to the child’s welfare throughout his or her life, and having regard to the other matters set out in the Welfare Checklist.[58]I remind myself that a placement order with a plan for adoption is one of the most draconian steps a court can take. I am mindful of the guidance under Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] 2 FLR 1075, and the need for proportionality when the court examines whether or not to sanction the placement of a child for adoption. Such course should only be approved as a last resort where all else fails, and the court must be satisfied that there is no practical way of the authorities or others providing the requisite assistance and support and where the child’s welfare dictates that, ‘nothing else will do’.[59]I also remind myself of the well-known case of Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 114, that although the child’s interests are paramount, the court must never lose sight of the fact that those interests include being brought up by the natural family, unless the overriding requirement of the child’s welfare make that not possible, and that the court considers all the realistic options before coming to a decision.[60]I have considered the decision of Hedley J in Re L [2007] 1 FLR 2050 and in particular that the court must be careful to avoid, “the temptation of social engineering” and 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 in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature.”

Analysis

[61]The child is in good health. Urine toxicology at birth was negative and a cranial ultrasound was normal. In her earliest months, concerns arose about her limited weight gain and faltering growth. She was admitted to hospital on 18.9.24 for the insertion of a naso-gastric feeding tube which was used until late October 2024. The child has microcephaly – which is that her head is significantly smaller than expected. However an MRI scan was normal. She has undergone investigations for Fragile X syndrome and microarray testing in July 2024 which were all normal. Her health assessment in November 2024 did not raise significant concern about her developmental progress, although identified that she was at risk of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. A more recent developmental review in December 2024 noted that the child’s progress was in the expected range for her age – “very interactive, using age-appropriate grasps, starting to imitate, making good eye contact”.[62]The child is too young to be able to ascertain her wishes and feelings. It is clear that she is much loved by her parents and that when they spend time with her, the child greatly enjoys the time and benefits from the warmth and affection she receives.[63]The child has suffered significant disruption in the course of her young life. She has been separated from her parents, placed in foster care, while she was with a respite carer the local authority accidentally disclosed the foster carers’ address to the parents and the carers gave notice. She then moved to a new foster carer where she settled. She then moved to live with her father in Jamma Umoja for a short period before moving back to the foster carer. Although that period was relatively short, the foster carer reported that the child did not immediately adapt and took some time to settle back into her care. As a result of these many moves, the child has a significant need for stability and consistency.[64]The child has been exposed to drugs and alcohol in utero. The possibility exists that this may affect her development. At the moment, she is meeting her developmental milestones which is a good indicator and the MRI scan and micro array investigations did not identify any issues. However, she has suffered from poor growth – she struggled with suckling to the extent that it undermined her ability to gain weight and she required a nasogastric tube; and she has microencephaly and a “thin upper lip”. She has been exposed in utero to alcohol, cocaine, tobacco, and domestic abuse; all of which have been shown to have a potentially adverse effect on development. She has not been diagnosed with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, however it cannot at this stage be definitively ruled out. The majority of her older maternal half-siblings have received that diagnosis.[65]The child will need attuned sensitive care from carers who are alert to the possibility that as she grows older the impact of her early experiences may become clearer and who will be able to secure any additional support and services that she will need as a result.[66]The relationship between the mother and the child is an important and loving one. Unfortunately, the greatest limiting factor on this relationship has been the mother’s substance and alcohol issues which have reduced the extent to which the mother has been able to spend time with the child during the proceedings and have sadly meant that the mother is not in a position to care for the child at this time. The mother has a long-standing problem which has had a huge and detrimental impact on her life and the lives of her children. I can only hope that the mother will in time be able to address the issues which have affected her so badly. I hope she will be able to reach out and make use of the agencies and services that are available to help her. I am glad that the mother realises that she needs to address her drinking and drugs issues. That is an important first step. I applaud her for it. If she can build on that and take further steps on the path to recovery, that will be hugely important for her sake, as well as for the sake of her children and all the people that love her. I wish her well with it.[67]Unfortunately, the mother’s difficulties are such that her path to recovery is going to take longer than the timescales for the child can tolerate.[68]The relationship between the father and child is also an important and loving one. I have a wealth of evidence, contained within the contact notes and the observations of the social work professionals and assessors, that when the father spends time with the child, he is loving, attentive and kind. He is focussed on the child throughout the contact sessions. He is animated when he interacts with her. He shows obvious pleasure and pride in her progress. He ensures she is safe, comfortable and clean. He provides her with a range of age-appropriate toys and activities and encourages her engagement. He talks to her, sings to her and plays classical music. He comforts and reassures her when she needs it. He has a good understanding of her routines and is quick to pick up on her cues and even notices subtle changes in her mood, presentation and developmental progress. He has shown an excellent commitment to contact, attending every possible session. He typically arrives early for sessions and ensures the room is set up with the child’s preferred toys.[69]The child has an important relationship with her paternal grandfather. They have often spent time together during contact. Unfortunately, the paternal grandfather is advanced in years and suffering particularly poor health. He is seriously ill with cancer and the father described him as “living day by day”. Unfortunately, the paternal grandmother is also elderly, she has severe arthritis and struggles with her mobility. As a result she has been unable to spend any significant amount of time with the child. The paternal aunt has sent presents and birthday cards for the child, but has not seen her. She has been highly critical of the father to professionals. She emailed the social worker in May 2024 expressing, “legitimate concerns regarding my brother’s mental and physical health and his ability to look after a child. He has proven on many occasions to be aggressive, uncooperative and volatile. There are many incidents of antisocial and racist behaviour and extreme high and low moods”. She described the father as having issues with drink and drug abuse and regularly getting in debt. She has expressed the best outcome would be for the child to be adopted. The father told me that his sister has her opinion and he believes his sister will come round.[70]The father has made an application for a further parenting assessment. He does so on the basis that the court was satisfied that the Jamma Umoja residential assessment was necessary, but that the assessment by Jamma Umoja was so flawed that he has not had the opportunity that was intended.[71]While the Jamma Umoja assessment was far shorter than intended, it nonetheless provides the court with significant further information. Prior to that assessment, the court was obliged to consider the case on the basis of a negative parenting assessment that had been completed in June-August 2024 and had been followed by many months of extremely good quality, committed contact. In addition the professionals (guardian, allocated social worker and team manager) were expressing the view that the father had made efforts to develop his understanding of the child’s needs and improve his parenting skills.[72]The Jamma Umoja assessment demonstrated that the father was able to continue his very good hands on care of the child. Unfortunately, it also demonstrated that his ability to enter into highly confrontational and combative interactions with professionals remains unabated.[73]This case is not about whether Jamma Umoja’s body-mapping policy was appropriate, or whether it was inconsistently applied. It is about the child in this case and in particular whether her father is able to provide her with good enough care. In my judgment, the father’s fixation on the body-mapping process conducted by Jamma Umoja demonstrated a remarkable lack of perspective and an abject failure to prioritise the child’s needs appropriately. I do not accept the father’s belief that conducting physical checks on a baby within the context of her moving into and out of a residential assessment unit is inappropriate or illegal. In my judgment, it is a considered step which protects the child, the parent, the unit and the third party carer outside the unit.[74]The father has been highly exercised by the fact that the child’s clothes and nappy were removed to enable the checks to take place. In the context of a pre-verbal child, in my judgment that is a sensible step. Indeed, the body maps identify that on one occasion the child entered the unit with nappy rash which had cleared by the following day.[75]I note that children under the age of 1 year are frequently undressed and dressed again when nappies or clothes are changed and when bathing takes place. They are well accustomed to receiving such intimate care and would not ordinarily experience it as abusive. The father plainly believed that the body-mapping policy was harmful and inappropriate. I do not agree with him.[76]There is a wider issue at stake. Many parents have to cope with policies and decisions by institutions and organisations in relation to their children that they consider are inappropriate or even wrong. It is part of the challenge of parenting to find a route through these while also maintaining a constructive working relationship with the agency in question. These sort of tensions can arise with schools, nurseries, GP practices, even occasionally with hospitals. What the body-mapping issue at Jamma Umoja demonstrates is that this father remains capable of being so consumed by such a disagreement that he can lose sight of what is most important. His actions at Jamma Umoja continued and even escalated after the body-mapping process had come to an end (because the child had moved in permanently). Even during his oral evidence, he completely failed to recognise that his actions, in hounding staff about the body mapping and calling the police to the unit obviously placed his ongoing assessment in jeopardy. That should have been obvious to him. It is telling that he could not “suck it up” for the sake of continuing the assessment and maintaining his opportunity to care for his daughter around the clock. He still believes he was right to have acted the way he did. In my judgment, it was a significant failure on his behalf to prioritise the needs of the child.[77]The experience at Jamma Umoja is the latest in a series of highly problematic professional encounters involving the father. He has been banned from hospitals for his interactions with staff. He has had combative and difficult relationships with social workers. He has attacked Dr Campbell’s integrity and threatened to make or possibly has made a complaint for having undertaken an initial screening which showed no further investigation was required. At the outset of the proceedings, his sister warned that this is what the father is like. Dr Campbell’s opinion also identified that this was the pattern of his behaviour.[78]I do not consider there is a gap in the evidence. The circumstances surrounding the termination of the Jamma Umoja assessment are hugely significant in the context of the history. The father remains consumed by that dispute. Much of his final evidence and indeed much of this final hearing have been taken up by issues around body mapping. Ms Kemi expressed her exasperation that the first 15-20 minutes of her evidence was only about body mapping and pointed out that her courtroom experience reflected the residential assessment when she said that the body map issue “overshadowed the parenting assessment and what the child needed and this is what is happening again in the court.”[79]I am not satisfied that a further parenting assessment of the father is necessary. The court already has Mr Scotland’s completed parenting assessment. Although the Jamma Umoja assessment did not run for the intended 12-week period, it answered the questions about the father’s insight and ability to work with professionals that the children’s guardian identified in her main final analysis. I refuse the application for a further parenting assessment.[80]There are two realistic options in this case:(i) the father; and(ii) adoption. The benefits of placing with the father are substantial. The father’s love for the child is obvious. He is committed. He described with heartfelt emotion how much she means to him and how his life has changed for the better since her arrival. His interactions with the child are very positive and he is able to learn and put into place those skills. Although he is a first-time father, he is able to meet her basic needs to a good standard. In his care, the child would be able to maintain relationships with her natural family. She would be able to continue to see her mother. She would be able to maintain a relationship with the paternal grandfather and potentially get to know her other relatives, including the paternal grandmother, paternal aunt and some of the mother’s older children.[81]When considering the disadvantages of a placement with the father, I have firmly in mind the words of Hedley J in Re L. It is not the court’s role to separate children from their parents because those parents are disagreeable or combative with professionals. The issue is whether the father’s likely behaviours will be harmful to the child.[82]In this case, the father’s approach goes far beyond being an awkward customer. There are two aspects to this. Firstly, the father significantly lacks insight into his own behaviour and in particular its impact on the child. He still thinks he is right about the body mapping policy. He cannot appreciate that his fixation led to the collapse of that placement and his separation from the child, which was harmful for her and could have been even worse if she had not been able to return to the previous foster carer. Similar situations have arisen with alarming regularity. He has been repeatedly banned from hospital premises. As the Guardian observed, “His behaviour at Jamma Umoja is an extremely worrying indicator of his inability to parent [the child] independently in the community.” It is not difficult to see how this father could potentially become embroiled in and expose the child to significant levels of conflict.[83]Secondly, the child has significant vulnerabilities arising from her exposure to substances and adverse experiences in utero and her adverse experiences since she was born. I was not persuaded that the father had a balanced appreciation of those vulnerabilities. His approach was to point out all the evidence that pointed in one direction and to disregard the warnings. When I factor in this rigidity of approach alongside his antagonistic disagreements with professionals, I reach the conclusion that it is likely that the child’s needs will be missed, either because the father does not appreciate them, or because he rejects professional advice or because he acts in ways that mean that the child’s needs become lost in the bedlam.[84]The relationship between the parents poses an additional layer of risk. In his oral evidence the father recognised the concerns about the mother’s drinking and drug use and its potential impact on the child. The parents are adamant that their relationship has ended, however, during the Jamma Umoja assessment there were high levels of communication between the parents and the father deleted his message chain with the mother rather than allow it to be seen by the staff. In my judgment, the potential exists that the parents may reconcile in the future. If so, that would potentially expose the child to substance misuse, conflict and domestic abuse.[85]I accept the guardian’s point that as the child gets older and starts to assert her own personality, there is a risk that she may become the target of the father’s approach. This could involve her directly in conflict, or potentially could result in her feeling unable to express herself for fear of the reaction.[86]I have considered the support and services that would be available to the father. He has some support from his family members, in particular the paternal grandfather. However that is limited by the grandparents’ serious health problems and sadly by the passage of time given their ages. He currently receives no support from the paternal aunt because their relationship has broken down. There does appear to be some degree of support between the parents. I am not clear to what extent it is mutual. It was noticeable that during the disagreement about contact last week, the mother attempted to get the father to be more compliant. However, the ability of the mother to be an effective support for the father is heavily over-shadowed by the risks that arise through her substance misuse and the domestic abuse that has previously occurred between the parents. The father would be entitled to universal services for support as well as support from the local authority under a Supervision Order or a child in need plan. However, the father’s ability to make effective use of this support is severely curtailed by his belief that he does not need any help and his rejection of working with social work professionals who he deems to be unprofessional and wrong.[87]If the child were to become adopted, it will severe her legal ties with her family. She will lose the opportunity to grow up within her natural family. She will lose the benefit of the loving and affectionate relationships she has with each of her parents. She will lose out on the opportunity to get to know the extended family, her grandparents, potentially her parental aunt (although currently relations are strained between her and the father), and her older half-siblings who remain within their paternal family. Her understanding of her identity would be limited to life story work and indirect letterbox contact. When she becomes older, the child will come to learn that she has been adopted and that she is growing up in a family that are not biologically related to her. I do not know how easy she will come to terms with this information. For some adopted persons, they are quite comfortable about their status; however for others, coming to terms with their identity as an adopted person can prove to be a difficult and uncomfortable experience which continues to be challenging long after they become adults. There is a risk that no adoptive placement will be found for the child, in which case she will have an extended period of uncertainty about her future. There is a risk that an adoptive placement may break down. If that were to happen it would be devastating for this child to once again lose the connection with her primary carer.[88]On the other hand, adoption would provide the child with an opportunity to grow up within a stable home environment. She would benefit from carers who are able to prioritise her needs ahead of their own issues and who would not expose her to conflict, substance misuse or domestic abuse. She would grow up in an environment without the involvement of social services. She would have her needs met consistently and receive the care she needs. Adoption would create a life-long relationship between the child and her carers, so that she would be able to continue to benefit from their support and guidance beyond her childhood.[89]I do not consider that long-term foster care is a realistic option for this child. She is too young to be exposed to the uncertainty of foster care where there is a greater risk of placement breakdown compared to adoption. Foster care would expose the child to ongoing social work involvement throughout her childhood, with regular meetings with what would almost inevitably turn out to be a series of social workers, with child in care reviews, personal education plan meetings and other statutory processes. She would have to carry the stigma of being a child in care which as she gets older she may be increasingly embarrassed by.

Decision

[90]When I consider the pros and cons of each of the realistic options I reach the conclusion that the only viable option for this child is adoption. It is the only means by which she will receive the stability and security that she needs to thrive and reach her full potential. I consider that the difficulties that the child would be likely to experience arising from her father’s interactions with third parties, and potentially in time with the child herself, are of a magnitude that go far beyond “the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent”. In my judgment the child would be likely to suffer significant harm in the father’s care.[91]I dispense with the consent of the parents to the making of a placement order because the child’s welfare requires that I should do so, for the reasons I have already given. I acknowledge how draconian an intervention this represents. However, in the context of this case, I am satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate. In this case, nothing else will do.[92]In this case the welfare of the child throughout her life requires that I make a care order and a placement order and I approve the plan for adoption.

Contact

[93]I turn now to contact. The local authority’s plan for contact was the subject of some variation in the course of the final hearing. The Children’s Guardian had suggested a slower rate of reduction, which initially the local authority was minded to agree. However the difficulties at last week’s contact have caused the local authority to reconsider and revert to its original plan. The Guardian now agrees with that approach in relation to the father, but not the mother whose behaviour at contact last week was not problematic.[94]The welfare of the child remains my paramount consideration. There is a real benefit to the child in having a stepped reduction in contact so that she can adapt over time to seeing her parents less frequently. However, that benefit will be lost if the father’s behaviour in contact is such as to make it combative or argumentative.[95]The parents’ contact is currently at a level of three times per week, although it has been less during this final hearing.[96]The local authority proposes a reduction as follows:(i) 1x per week for two weeks;(ii) 1x per fortnight for four weeks;(iii) Thereafter Monthly until matching is completed.[97]The guardian’s earlier proposal was that there should be two weeks at the outset when contact takes place 2x per week.[98]This decision depends on whether the father is able to engage with the contact in a way that does not become problematic or impactful on the child. If he can do that, then the slower reduction that the guardian proposed would be better for the child. If he is unable to put the child’s needs first and instead indulges in further antagonism and disagreements, then a more rapid reduction will be required.[99]I am not going to make any order in relation to contact. To do so would fetter the local authority’s discretion in a most unhelpful way. Instead, I am going to give an indication.[100]To his credit, the father has shown a considerable commitment to contact and has made contact a positive experience for the child over a very long period of time. The difficulties around contact last week came in the context of the pressure of a final hearing. There also appears to have been some confusion or miscommunication so that the father was surprised by the local authority’s plan to have two professionals present during the contact.[101]On balance, I take the view that it is in the child’s best interests for contact to be reduced more slowly. This will help her to adapt to seeing her parents far less frequently. The risks of the father undermining contact will exist regardless of which reduction proposal is followed. If the contact becomes unmanageable or problematic, the local authority will have to consider whether a more severe reduction is necessary.[102]I make it clear to the father that if the local authority decides that more than one worker is necessary, then that is a decision for the local authority. If he objects, then the contact will be cancelled. The father must not shield the child from the professionals during the contact session. If he does that, he can expect the contact to be brought to an end and future contacts reduced.[103]My sincere hope is that the father will be able to make the most of the contact sessions and spend meaningful time with his daughter without becoming unhealthily fixated on what the professionals are doing.[104]I propose that the contact for both parents should take place as follows:(i) Twice a week for two weeks;(ii) Weekly for two weeks;(iii) Fortnightly for four weeks;(iv) Monthly thereafter until a wish you well contact.[105]I want to express my gratitude to the advocates in the case for their assistance. Mr Bain in particular has represented his client with great skill and care. I am grateful to the professionals in the case for their assistance. I also wish to thank the parents for the respective ways in which they have conducted themselves throughout what I know has been an extremely difficult process for them.[106]That is my judgment.