Care Proceedings (wishes and feelings of a child aged 14 ½), Re [2025] EWFC 169 (B)

[2025] EWFC 169 (B)Date 21st May 2025
IN THE FAMILY COURT
Before
RECORDER COOPER
Between
A Local AuthorityClaimantA MotherDefendantA FatherDefendantR – a childDefendantA Local AuthorityA MotherA FatherR – a child
Mr Squire instructed for Local Authority(instructed by SA Law Chambers Solicitors) for Mother(instructed by Goodman Ray) for FatherMs March instructed by Beck Fitzgerald representing R the childHearing Hearing date: 2nd-6 th May 2025
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 21 st May 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National ArchivesRECORDER COOPER:Re Care Proceedings (wishes and feelings of a child aged 14 ½ )This judgment was given in private. The judge gives permission 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 this judgment the anonymity of the child and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court. No party objected to the publication of this judgment.
[1]This is an application for a Final Care Order brought on 21st December 2023 by a LA in relation to R, who was born in 2011 and who is now aged 14 years and a half.[2]Since January of 2024, R has lived with the same foster carers pursuant to an Interim Care Order. The realistic options are for her to remain living with those foster carers pursuant to a Final Care Order for the duration of her childhood or for her to return to live with her mother, M, under a Supervision Order. Her father, F, does not put himself forward as a carer. The LA, the Guardian and her father wish her to remain with the foster carers whilst the mother and R support her rehabilitation to the mother.[3]At the outset, I make it clear that I have decided that R should remain subject to a care order and will not be returning to live with her mother but with remain in foster care.[4]My decision is not a reflection of the clear love that this mother has for R and the love that R clearly shows for her mother, but rather it has been necessary for me to take this decision solely based on ongoing and serious welfare concerns connected with the mother's mental health given her diagnosis of bipolar disorder leading to psychosis on occasions. The evidence is quite clear that, save for difficulties with her mental health, this mother has been a very good parent as can be seen from the closeness of her relationship with R, her attentiveness to R’s needs and the fondness which each have for the other as well as the more practical side of parenting including issues around school attendance. R is a bright and generally happy teenager who is well socialised and liked by her peers and her school. This is a great credit to the mother in whose care she has been for the majority of her life.

The parties and their representation

[5]R's mother, M, was represented by Ms Hughes whilst her father, F, was represented by Ms Mir. The parents had entered a religious marriage although had been separated for many years prior to these proceedings and both had formed further relationships since their separation albeit neither of them were in relationships at the time of this hearing. It was very clear from the evidence that R's parents still do not get on and there remain many unresolved disputes between them. The court was not asked to resolve those disputes and did not do so but they form a part of the background to these proceedings.[6]As is conventional, a Guardian was joined to the proceedings to represent R's interests. Unfortunately, the first Guardian left the employment of Cafcass as a result there was a change to Ms Leeman in September 2024, and who on 9th December 2024 provided her Final Analysis. This resulted in a delay of some months to these proceedings in 2024. The Guardian’s recommendation was that R remain in foster care with contact with both parents and some extended family.[7]The Guardian’s recommendation was not in accordance with R's own wishes and feelings which were to return to live with her Mother, as a result of which R, having been deemed competent to do so by the court, instructed her solicitor directly together with Counsel, Ms March. Ms Leeman was not represented.[8]The Local Authority were represented by Mr Squire who unfortunately became ill during the proceedings but was able to continue after a short break for which the Court is very grateful.[9]The court thanks all Counsel and the Guardian for their cooperation with the court and between themselves and for the additional work carried out a result of a considerable number of further documents and witnesses being admitted during the final hearing, an issue to which I revert below.

The hearing

[10]The final hearing took place in May of 2025 - 16 months after these proceedings had been commenced and well outside the timeframe for public law proceedings of 26 weeks. No time has been spent during this final hearing exploring the precise reason or reasons for this delay. However, it is clear that the main delays were firstly the unavoidable change of Guardian which necessarily resulted in a delay of a few months in 2024 and secondly, the listing in early December 2024 of the final hearing five months later.[11]That listing delay is in my judgement to be deplored and is a sad indictment of the difficulties listing even the most serious and sensitive cases involving children and young people who are clearly well aware of the decisions that are being taken about them. I can only apologise on behalf of the courts to the parties involved, particular to R, for the no doubt extra stress that this has caused all of them.[12]This delay has been in no sense “purposeful”. It is not only unhelpful for R, who wished to understand where she would be living and was entitled to have that certainty, but has also generated challenges in relation to the evidence, as I set out below.[13]The hearing was a hybrid hearing at which some of the witnesses appeared in person but some appeared remotely. The mother attended in person each day save for the first day which was in any event fully remote save for the Judge. The father did not attend the hearing. He gave his evidence remotely and did not request any link to the hearing. The Guardian was surprised that he did not attend court to give his evidence, a sentiment I share.

R’s meeting with the Judge

[14]On the morning of the first day of the final hearing I met with R together with her solicitor Miss Hughes and a support worker, Ms Mirza, for the purposes of an agreed meeting in accordance with the President's 2010 guidance.[15]Miss Hughes kept a note of the meeting which was circulated to all parties. Whilst the purpose of such a meeting is not to gather evidence but to answer questions and to explain the procedure, during the meeting R made it clear that she wished to return to live with M. R was also confident and incisive during the meeting asking the very same questions and raising the very same issues that the Final Hearing considered.

The documents

[16]The court was provided with a bundle of 1000 pages, but no reading list. It was not clear that permission had ever been given for the bundle to be this long. Needless to say, I read the whole bundle most of which was highly relevant.[17]It included many contact notes in respect of time spent by M with R which I have read and from which I can see that there is a very warm and close relationship. It included contact notes in relation to the father which again demonstrated a good relationship with R.[18]It also included various documents in respect of previous proceedings in 2015. The 2015 documents included a previous parenting assessment carried out by the H Family Service, the service which provided an assessment in these proceedings. That assessment was dated the 21st of December 2015 and provides much of the background information I have noted below.[19]The index to the bundle did not indicate the date on which various documents had been generated. As it transpired, save for three exceptions, there was no evidence generated since August 2024 in this matter listed for May 2025.[20]The three most recent documents were the Guardian’s Final Analysis from December 2024, now some six months old, an addendum psychiatric report on the mother, which, while being dated in February 2025, in fact was not an up-to-date assessment of the Mother but was only a response to written questions on the original report from July 2024 and a new schedule from the LA in relation to F’s future contact.

Witnesses at the hearing

[21]The court heard oral evidence from the parties and the Guardian as well as Miss Mohammed, a social worker who had been allocated to R and Miss Dawson, who had carried out a parenting assessment in July of 2024. In addition, the Court heard oral evidence from the following: (a). Doctor Edward Murphy, who was an emergency doctor in March 2023 when M attended hospital and who wished for her to be assessed for the purposes of being sectioned; (b). Miss Lander, a social worker who was the approved mental health practitioner at the time that the mother was sectioned under s2 MHA 1983 in January of 2024; (c). Dr Ivey, the psychiatrist who had reported on the mother.[22]It became immediately apparent at the start of the hearing that in fact, since summer 2024 the mother had not experienced any serious mental health crises. I therefore requested that her GP notes since summer 2024 be produced to all parties, which they were.[23]The court was referred to the November 2024 Local Practice Note “Ensuring adherence to the public law outline in London” from Mr Justice MacDonald. The purpose of that note is to urge parties to take all steps such that public law cases are resolved within 26 weeks. I note at paragraphs 25-28 restatements of the limit on expert evidence and that a direction for the attendance of any expert at the final hearing is an exceptional course.[24]In my judgement given what is the key issue in this case, namely whether or not the mother's mental health is such that she would no longer pose any future risk to R, the updating of the expert psychiatric evidence which was now 11 months old was necessary and proportionate in order to ensure that this was a fair hearing. Despite the direction at the pre-trial review on the 8th of April 2025 and a concession by all parties at that hearing that it was not necessary for Dr Iyer to be called as a witness, I made an order that the SJE psychiatrist Dr Iyer should attend the final hearing for cross examination as he had not seen the mother since June 2024, almost a year ago. I also directed that he should be provided with the mother's GP notes from July 2024 which indicated that in the year since he had seen her, she had not been suffering from any serious mental health problems.[25]No party objected to this course of action and Dr Iyer attended remotely and was cross examined by all parties.

Threshold

[26]There was no agreed threshold and the court was required to make findings in relation to particulars 1 and 2 of the threshold and it has done so in the document appended to this Judgment. Particulars 1 and 2 relate to M’s mental health in March 2023 and December 2023/January 2024 respectively.[27]I found both of these particulars proved on the balance of probabilities as I set out below.

Background

[28]The mother was born in Bangladesh, where she was married at the age of 15 to Y. They had two children, G and L who are now aged in their mid to late 20s. G is in prison for drugs offences whilst L is married and has two children who are also subject to care proceedings. M had a third child P born in early 2000s who is looked after by her sister S and who is in her mid-20s. M indicated in the 2015 parenting assessment that sadly P was the product of a rape by a “dealing partner” of Y by which I assume that she meant drug dealing.[29]F was also born in Bangladesh albeit he moved to the UK when he was aged 2 months old.[30]In 2001 when M's 2 eldest children were then aged toddlers, social services first became involved following a domestic violence incident with their father, Y.[31]It appears that by about 2008 M had separated from Y and formed a relationship with F. They entered into an Islamic marriage apparently not known to F’s family. At that point M was saying that she was taking cocaine and that F had introduced her to drugs. M and F separated within a year or so of R's birth in 2011. Following that separation there was a high level of conflict and allegations of domestic abuse between M and F and also his family, with the police becoming involved. Shortly afterwards both L and G went to live with other family members. They were then aged 15 and 14.[32]In 2013, when R was 2, M was arrested and cautioned for common assault against G, her son, and R and G were placed under police protection. The local authority carried out a core assessment in May 2015, following which R was made subject to a child in need plan due to domestic abuse and neglect.[33]In late June 2015, a police raid took place at M’s home and three bags of crystal methamphetamine were recovered. There were ongoing concerns about M’s alcohol and drug use.[34]In 2015 as a result of this police raid, the first set of public law proceedings were brought which were compromised by agreement between all parties in April 2016. To the best of this Court's understanding, there was no evidence given and no written judgment. This Court entirely accepts that allegations made within those proceedings remain merely allegations save to the extent that they appear to have been accepted by one or other of the parties.[35]During the 2015 proceedings M was noted to have a history of being in violent relationships. There is reference to five police Merlin reports for domestic abuse during the first 18 months of R's life. The Court assumes that these related to F and his family.[36]In addition, the social work evidence in 2015 was clear that F at the time was using Class A drugs and he appears to have accepted he was indeed using cocaine. F was not willing to access support with regard to his use of cocaine and the social worker at the time considered that F had not been open and transparent with professionals. The social worker wrote:
“although it is positive that F has started to reduce his drug use, I feel that professional support to establish his triggers would be beneficial to ensure he was able to remain abstinent long term.”
[37]The 2016 care plan was for R to remain with M under a 12 month supervision order. It included that F should engage with the Drug Support Service and future drug tests to be provided this by F for one year to provide accurate evidence of his drug use.[38]The Guardian’s report in 2016, at a time where R was aged 5, recommended that whilst F have contact with R every fortnight for the day that this should be supervised until such a time that he could evidence he was no longer misusing drugs.[39]In 2016 M’s father sadly died. She was though able to enrol in an undergraduate law degree at University, graduating with a 2:1 in 2019.[40]By 2017 the local authority was no longer involved with this family and this remained the situation until about March 2020, when several referrals were received reporting adult conflict and substance misuse in the household albeit no formal action appears to have been taken by the local authority. It is not clear in relation to which adults these referrals were made.[41]M went on to form a relationship with Q. In the meantime, the father had remarried and had a further child. It appears that his mother and possibly his wife did not know about M and R and that this caused further problems between the mother and the father. The father has since separated from his wife and the mother’s evidence was that she had separated from Q in November 2024.[42]The mother later started the LPC course in order to qualify as a solicitor.[43]In March 2023 M attended hospital with R as the mother considered R was having problems with her arm. The healthcare professionals on that occasion took the view that there was nothing wrong with R’s arm but that the mother was having a serious mental health crisis and in fact needed to be assessed for the purposes of being sectioned. M discharged herself prior to any such assessment being carried out. R was informally removed from her care and went to stay with the father for a few days. This incident forms the basis of paragraph 1 of the threshold. A few days later M attended a Police Station to complain R had been kidnapped. The Court has read those police reports.[44]The mother also withdrew R from her school in March 2023 as she considered that they should not have facilitated R going to live with her father. R did not recommence attending school until 2024 when she returned to the same school where she remains, but she missed 10 months of schooling.[45]At around this time the mother stopped studying and has not recommenced the LPC.[46]M became pregnant by Q in early 2023 and during antenatal appointments in autumn 2023 concerns were raised as to her mental health.[47]In December 2023 these concerns culminated in M being assessed as needing to be subject to a section 2 MHA order for assessment and treatment. M was taken from her home in front of R in circumstances which were no doubt very upsetting for both her and R. M livestreamed this incident on TikTok and it was seen by her friends.[48]M remained in a secure hospital and in January 2024 the mental health professionals considered that she needed to be subject to a further Section 3 section under the Mental Health Act 1983. As her nearest relative, namely her eldest daughter, would not agree to the extension of the section the hospital sought legal advice, but, in the meantime the mother discharged herself from the hospital. The circumstances of the mother's mental health from late 2023 to early 2024 form the basis of paragraph 2 of the threshold.[49]In January 2024 an interim care order was made by the court, R having been living with maternal family members since early December 2023. R then went to live with her current foster carers.[50]In mid-January 2024 M gave birth to a daughter, C. Unfortunately, C had been diagnosed with a life limiting condition as a result of which, very tragically, she died shortly after her birth. This would have been a further deeply distressing event in M’s and R’s lives.[51]Shortly thereafter M’s mother died of cancer.[52]From January 2024 to July 2024 the mother refused to have contact with R at a contact centre selected by the local authority because it was where she had attended for the parenting assessment in 2015. The parties The Mother M

The parties

[53]M is clearly a loving mother and a highly intelligent woman. I was shown at the beginning of her evidence her University degree certificate. The court commends all of her steps to try and improve her situation and that of R.[54]She gave evidence in court for almost a full day, being cross examined by all of the parties, which was clearly very difficult for her but I hope that she feels that she was able to say everything that she wished to say. She maintained her composure throughout despite it being an upsetting day for her. Whilst at points in her evidence M became agitated and loud, in the court’s experience she was no louder than many other witnesses who are being challenged in cross examination.[55]The mother had submitted 2 witness statements in these proceedings, the first from June 2024 and the second from September 2024, now over 7 months old. In both of those statements, the mother did not accept either that she was bipolar or that she had had serious mental health crises in either March 2023 or December 2023. This remained her stance in her oral evidence.[56]During the hearing, and at my request she produced her GP reports from summer 2024 to date. Those show that she had been reviewed for her mental health in July of 2024, only months after both her daughter’s death and that of her mother, and that her GP had not found anything of concern. The GP notes also showed that in January 2025 she had contacted the GP with symptoms of anxiety but when the GP had tried to follow it up with her, she had not engaged and told the court that in fact the issues were resolved.[57]M clarified that she had not been able to resume studying the LPC but that she had recently found a job that she was due to start soon.[58]In relation to contact in 2024 the mother explained that she did not like the Family Centre as it reminded her of the previous proceedings. It was agreed between the parties that from the date that the ICO was made (early January 2024) to contact starting at another contact centre (early July 2024) that R only saw M on 6 occasions.[59]Although the court has considerable sympathy with this mother who had lost a baby in early 2024, lost her mother shortly after and who had been very seriously mentally ill in December 2023 and January 2024, from February 2024 through to the beginning of July 2024, a period of five months, the mother only saw R twice.[60]The issue for the Court was clearly not to ascribe responsibility to M for not seeing R during this very tragic and difficult period during which she was mentally ill, but whether, over a year later, and in the context of M stating that her mental health is now stable, she now has insight into how this lack of contact with R would have impacted on R. Her oral evidence was sadly lacking in this regard. M stated that R not seeing her had no impact on R as she spoke to her every day on the phone and that R was fine. The Court does not accept this as the evidence is quite clear both from the Guardian and also from the social worker that R very much wants to see her mother and therefore not seeing her mother over such a prolonged period must have had a seriously negative impact on her.[61]The court accepts that after the contact resumed in July 2024 on a weekly basis, it has generally been consistent and very good. It was only cancelled by the mother on 6 occasions, 2 of which were related to her overseas trip to Bangladesh and two of which were because the mother was ill.[62]M emphasised that from about July 2024 she had wanted an increase in that contact and for it to go into the community with a view to having overnight contact, but that had not yet happened. M also stated that R had visited her house on the 4th of April 2025 after school when she was distressed, that she had stayed 15 minutes and she had asked her to leave.[63]M was clear that she did not find therapy helpful and nor would she take any medication. She stated in terms that the only help she needed was “getting my daughter back home”. There was no suggestion that either illicit drugs or alcohol were now being used by M in contrast to the position in 2015, albeit she confirmed that although she sometimes had an alcoholic drink, she no longer used illicit drugs and I accept her evidence in this regard.[64]M stated that her main support was her friend U although she had other friends as well. M told the Court in her oral evidence that she had told U that she had not been mentally ill. The court notes that within the bundle there were various pieces of evidence connected to U. The first was a manuscript statement from her from January 2024, in which it appeared that she had been watching the live stream on TikTok filmed by the mother when the mother was sectioned. It was quite clear that U was entirely opposed to the mother being sectioned and did not accept that the mother was mentally ill.[65]The mother had also proposed that U be considered for a viability assessment that was carried out in January 2024. Within that assessment it is again very clear that U does not accept that M suffers with poor mental health but considers that she is just a bit loud and that is it her personality. U stated that R should be returned to her mother's care.[66]In my judgement, in the absence of U accepting that the mother has a bipolar diagnosis and that she is at real risk of remission of another psychotic episode, U does not offer any protective structure around R and the mother.[67]In relation to other potential family and friends sadly it is also clear that the mother has not wanted them to be involved. She had been asked for their details by various professionals but had not agreed to provide them. There is, in any event, no evidence that there is anyone else living nearby who accepts M has a bipolar disorder and is in a position to identify this early to prevent a full psychotic episode in order to protect R.

The Father F

[68]The father had made clear in his evidence and in his position statement that he was not able to care for R. He was, however, seeking unsupervised and overnight contact with her.[69]F did not attend any of the hearing save remotely on the third day when he gave his evidence. The court was asked to excuse his attendance. It did not do so and in fact had indicated that F could ask for a link to be sent to him. He did not utilise this opportunity.[70]Whilst the court appreciated that F was working night shifts all week and his role in these proceedings was limited as he was not putting himself forward as a full time caregiver, given his stance that he wished to restore a full relationship with his daughter during contact, it was noticeable that he had not taken a day's holiday the night before he was due to give evidence.[71]F gave evidence remotely at 10 am in accordance with his Counsel’s request but having worked a full night shift beforehand. He appeared to the court to be able to answer all questions and to be alert despite no doubt needing to rest.[72]F indicated in general terms that he was content to agree to all of the conditions that the local authority had suggested for him in contact, including in relation to further hair strand tests. He also agreed when asked by the court that if the local authority thought that R should not have contact with his mother, with whom there is a strained relationship towards R, that he would also agree that. He stated that he did not have a good relationship with his mother either and that he did not intend to take R to her house.[73]In relation to the practicalities as to how overnight contact would take place given his overnight work patterns, he explained that he would indeed take a night off work so that he was in his home when R was staying overnight with him. He confirmed that he lived alone and he was estranged from his wife and child. He confirmed that should he reconcile with his wife, that she would need to understand how important R was to him and he would have no issue with the local authority speaking to his wife.[74]In relation to his drug use, F accepted that he had used drugs for a very long time. He stated that as late as 2023 he was using half a gramme of cocaine every fortnight. He indicated that the triggers for this use were drinking alcohol and being around a particular social circle. He said he had been told by the drug rehabilitation service that he was not dependent on cocaine and he did not appear to accept that he had any need to attend any drug rehabilitation service but indicated that he would do should the local authority wish him to attend and it fitted him with his work patterns. At a hearing in April 2024 the Father had told the Court he was attending drug rehabilitation in May 2024.[75]Three Hair Strand Tests were carried out on the father. The first was in January 2024. This first test, for which the sample covered only a month in December 2023 due to the shortness of the Father's hair, showed that cocaine was detected. This was despite the father having given a declaration that he had not taken any illegal drugs. While the father was not cross examined on this particular hair strand test, equally, I can detect no suggestion that he ever sought to challenge this report such that on the balance of probability, my conclusion is the father had not been honest in the declaration he had given that he had not taken cocaine in late 2023. I also note that in any event this is broadly in line with his evidence to the court in May 2025 that he was indeed taking cocaine in late 2023.[76]The second hair strand test was from April 2024. There was no declaration one way or the other as to whether F had used any illicit substances but in fact the two months analysis from 19th of January 2024 to the 19th of March 2024, detected no illicit substances, and in particular, no substances from the cocaine group.[77]The third hair strand test was carried out in late April 2025. It covered the period between the start of December 2024 and the start of April 2025. The conclusion in terms stated “the distribution of the drugs in the hair is indicative of the repeated use of cocaine. In my opinion, this is inconsistent with the declared one off use of the drug. Please note, however, the results could be consistent with the declared date of last use, December 2024.”[78]The report included a declaration by F in which he declared that he had used cocaine once on the 28th of December 2024, when he had taken roughly half a gramme. In his oral evidence, F appeared a little confused as to what the pattern of his drug taking had been immediately prior to December 2024. The court had at one point understood that he was accepting he had been taking cocaine every fortnight immediately prior to December 2024, however, he clarified that that was not the case, that this had been at an earlier point in time and in fact, as of December 2024 he was not using cocaine save on the 1 occasion on 28th December 2024 as the report had recorded. This does not align with what he told the Guardian which was he had used cocaine recreationally 6 weeks prior to 3rd December 2024.[79]On the balance of probabilities, I did not accept his evidence in this respect. Whilst any finding in relation to drug use cannot rely on hair strand tests alone, I also take into account a serious history in relation to cocaine use as documented during the 2015 proceedings, coupled with the fact that he was not truthful in January 2024 and in his own evidence, F does not consider that he is dependent upon the drug. F has not sought assistance with any rehabilitation services save for contacting Reset who he says told him that he was not dependent on drugs. Whilst F told the court that his current employer carries out random drug tests, he clarified that he himself has not been tested.[80]I also note the parenting assessment of F carried out by Ms Nobrega in April 2024. This referenced R being a secret child in relation to F's family as her paternal grandmother had not wanted the father to marry her mother. It also referenced the high level of conflict between the father and his mother and notes that the reason for F’s separation from his current wife, W, was that she was not happy with his lifestyle of misusing drugs and alcohol. The report further notes that despite the clean HST results on the 4th of April 2024 F had admitted that he had dabbled in cocaine and alcohol over the 2024 Easter Bank holiday weekend. The report was quite clear that F held very negative feelings towards M.[81]In my judgement, F’s drug use remains an issue in this case, not least because R is now 14 ½ and of an age when it is particularly important that she does not normalise illegal drug use.[82]Whilst I accept that there is no evidence that F has ever used cocaine whilst R is in his care, equally, I have no confidence that he would be frank about his cocaine use with authorities unless he understands he is going to be regularly tested. In my judgement it is absolutely vital that in relation to all unsupervised contact that F has with R, that a very robust structure is put in place to ensure that he is not taking cocaine whether in her presence or before an overnight visit. This is not just because of the immediate risk that R might choose to use cocaine herself but also because of the very real risks that are involved in the purchase of cocaine and the violence surrounding people who sell it. This court is not prepared simply to ignore the very serious long term issues in relation to F’s drug use.[83]F also stated that in relation to R he would be happy for her to live with M provided it was safe for her but he did not consider M was a good parent and was concerned that if R went to stay with her that R would not be permitted to spend time with him. He accepted R wished to live with M but gave evidence that R was not doing well academically in school and he felt she was:
“Sensible but also gullible and misled quickly”
[84]Given my findings in relation to F's evidence in respect of his cocaine use, I approach his evidence as far as R is concerned with some caution. Not least as it is clear that the parents still have a very strained relationship.

Evidence in relation to the Mother’s mental health

[85]The court had various documents in relation to the mother's mental health. These included: (a). Documents in relation to the incident at A & E in March 2023 including a letter written by R about the incident whilst she was at school (b).

(c) GP reports from July 2024 to date

[86]Although over 2 years have passed since the March 2023 incident and almost 18 months have passed since the January 2024 incident, the mother still does not accept the reality of her mental health on these occasions. The mother's position remained that healthcare professionals had exaggerated issues in relation to her conduct and behaviour on both occasions and that on neither occasion was there any justification for any healthcare professional to consider that she should be assessed with a view to being sectioned. This was despite voluminous documentary evidence from a variety of sources in relation to both incidents in relation to which a number of different healthcare professionals were involved.[87]M’s stance during the final hearing indicated just how strongly the mother still holds those views that she was never seriously mentally ill and was confirmed in her oral evidence. M stated in relation to the March 2023 incident that witnesses were not telling the truth, she was not unwell and everything was normal on that day. She denied that she had been shouting and swearing despite the manuscript letter produced by R and said that her behaviour had had no impact on R. On the mother’s case there was no trigger for this episode.[88]In relation to December 2023 M stated that it was a normal day for her and R on the day she was admitted, and she was not unwell and that she had never left hospital against medical advice and she did not know why she had been sectioned.[89]In the view of the court the mother's continued inability to accept that she was clearly very seriously ill in March 2023 and December 2023 to January 2024 raises very serious concerns as she is currently in a period of remission and might now have been expected to have some insight into these episodes.

March 2023 incident

[90]In relation to the incident in March 2023, whilst the mother accepted she attended the hospital with R, she did not accept that she displayed any manic behaviour or that she was rude and aggressive or that healthcare professionals wished to assess her further with a view to her being sectioned. In relation to this incident, in addition to the documentary evidence, I heard evidence from Dr Murphy, who was in charge of the emergency department that evening. Dr Murphy was called at the request of the mother.[91]The court is asked to make a finding of fact for the purposes of the threshold that: “Mother was observed by professionals to be behaving erratically in the presence of R. A medical recommendation for section 2 of the MHA was completed but mother left the hospital before an assessment could take place. She was experiencing manic symptoms, arguing with members of staff”.[92]It is quite clear that although the original reason for the visit to the emergency department had been for R's arm to be reviewed, in fact the only issue which was causing a variety of healthcare professionals concern was the mother's mental state. Not only did Doctor Murphy, who was acting as a consultant in the emergency department, carry out a mental health assessment on her, as a result of which he referred her to the liaison psychiatric team, but in addition, various nurses were also concerned about her mental health.[93]One of those nurses was the nurse allocated to triage R initially. Whilst the court accepts that there was no opportunity for the mother to cross examine the nurse, her statement indicates that the mother was raising her voice, was agitated, making large arm gestures causing sufficient concern to the nurse that she and her colleague agreed that they would both stay in the room for the initial assessment. The nurse also noted in her statement that the mother was reporting concerns about a gas leak in her home and that the water in her house had been contaminated as well as raising issues in relation to her son being in prison and this being the fault of the hospital. The nurse was so concerned that she informed both the nurse in charge of the paediatric emergency department and Dr Murphy.[94]The court did have an opportunity to hear from Dr Murphy, who had produced what appeared to be contemporaneous notes from late that evening and early the following morning. Those notes showed that there were serious concerns about the mother's mental health, as a result of which he had escalated the matter and had called in the liaison psychiatric team.[95]In the view of this court, Dr Murphy was a straightforward witness and whilst he was asked whether anyone else might have interfered with his notes or changed them online, he suggested that that was not likely because they had all been inputted during his shift. It would seem to the court highly unlikely that the notes had been entirely re-written by a third party.[96]I have also read the letter written apparently within a few days of the hospital visit by R whilst she was at school and was then aged just 12. R described her mother “screaming my name”, “swearing” and “arguing with the police” and “saying inappropriate stuff” to the doctors.[97]In any event, given that it is known that the hospital did make a referral both to social services and to the police as a result of the mother's behaviour that night, it is beyond clear that various healthcare professionals must have held very serious concerns about the mother's mental health that night.[98]In addition, within the police disclosure is a report from the police dated a few days later in relation to the mother making a report to a police station stating that she considered R to have been kidnapped. That police report indicated that there was a report made by the hospital staff who had contacted the police as they were concerned about R's safety due to the mother's clear mental health issues and that the mother was acting in an aggressive manner and they were concerned for the welfare of the child. The CAD stated that M was having a mental health assessment. It is very clear from this police report that when mother attended the police station, 3 days after the A & E visit, that the police had also identified issues with M's mental health: “I have concerns for the mental welfare of M. Her behaviour was erratic and she had difficulty explaining what she wanted to report and the circumstances around her attending hospital. She continually told the attending officer that she had somewhere else to go. “[99]On the balance of probabilities I find this part of the threshold proved. The evidence is overwhelming that M was very seriously unwell.

The December 2023-January 2024 attendance in hospital

[100]M also did not accept the details in relation to her December and January 2024 attendance in hospital during a period in time when she had been sectioned. She did not accept that she ever should have been sectioned in December 2023 or that at the start of January, having spent a month in hospital, that various healthcare professionals considered that she should continue to be sectioned for the purposes of treatment.[101]Miss Lander, an approved mental health practitioner and social worker gave evidence again at the request of M. I accept Miss Landers evidence. She was quite clear about what she could remember and what she could not remember. I do not accept that she exaggerated the extent of the mother's mental health problems when she saw her. Further, in relation to the January 2024 assessment she was deliberately limited in her evidence making it clear that she was not the consultant psychiatrist but an approved mental health practitioner and social worker.[102]Miss Landers also gave important evidence about the circumstances of the decision to section M in December 2023. That decision taken pursuant to Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 would have involved three healthcare professionals, namely, an approved mental health practitioner who is a social worker, a Section 12 approved consultant psychiatrist and a further psychiatrist. Miss Landers stated that she was not the AMHP on that occasion and she believed that the Section 12 psychiatrist was not the same Section 12 psychiatrist as that on the 3rd of January.[103]Miss Landers also indicated that in relation to any assessment for compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983 a statutory form needs to be completed. The form in respect of the decision 2023 was not available to the Court but the form in relation to the January 2024 assessment was available.[104]The January 2024 form showed that on the day of the assessment the AMHP Katie Lander together with Dr E assessed M for the purpose of considering whether she needed to be further detained pursuant to Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Miss Lander explained that she had been engaged as the AMHP by Doctor P who was the mother's treating consultant psychiatrist on the mother and baby unit and who considered that the mother needed to remain detained.[105]The form also refers to a second medical recommendation completed by Dr E who was of the view that M was presenting as paranoid with a loosening of association. The form notes he had described her as perplexed, guarded and suspicious.[106]If the court were to accept M's case at trial that she neither needed to be sectioned in December 2023 and nor was she still ill in January of 2024, then the court would be forced to conclude that six healthcare professionals had made a mistake at best, or had colluded together at worst.[107]There is simply no evidence on which to come to such a conclusion and whilst the court only heard from one of those six healthcare professionals, the court accepts that evidence.[108]The fact that M discharged herself from hospital and the hospital could not make an application for her to continue to be detained as they did not have the support of her daughter does not suggest that in fact, at that time, three healthcare professionals did not consider that she did still needed to be detained. The court accepts that in the eventuality, the mother was not further sectioned and that after having given birth did not have a further serious psychotic episode, which was one of Miss Landers’ concerns.

GP notes

[109]The GP notes from July 2024 to date did not reveal any contact with the GP for any mental health related matters, save in January 2025 when the mother had attended or had contacted the GP for anxiety. The mother’s evidence was that this was shortly after the break up of her relationship with Q. It was apparent that M had chosen not to follow up her request for a consultation. She had also attended various face to face appointments during 2025 for other ailments and I accept that there are no comments in relation to her mental health arising from those GP appointments.

Expert Psychiatric evidence

[110]The Court had evidence from Dr Iyer, a registered medical practice who is also approved under Section 12 (2) MHA 1983. He is fully registered with the GMC and is a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrist and is currently working as a consultant psychiatrist in Colchester.[111]Dr Iyer’s first involvement with the mother was in carrying out an independent capacity assessment of her and producing a certificate on the 11th of March 2024. Doctor Iyer assessed M at M’s Solicitors office on the 29th of February 2024, when M attended on her own. He considered that M's mood was good and that no formal thought disorder was noted. M showed appropriate insight into the ongoing issues and was oriented to time, place and person. Overall Dr Iyer accepted that M had litigation capacity within the meaning of Section 2 and Section 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.[112]On the 19th of June 2024 Dr Iyer produced a psychiatric report on the mother in relation to her mental health more generally. M was assessed at her solicitor's office on the 4th of June 2024. She stated that she was no longer taking any medication. She had been on mirtazapine in 2021 and then changed to setraline but did not like it.[113]In this June 2024 assessment Dr Iyer noted that M's mood was good, with no formal thought disorder noted and no thoughts of harming herself. M did not believe she had a mental disorder but agreed that she had depressive and anxiety symptoms in the past. She was oriented to time, place and person.[114]Dr Iyer had also read M's GP records presumably up to about June 2024 as well as having seen various medical documents. He noted that M had for many years been in contact with her GP in relation to mental health issues. She had had symptoms of depression in 2002 and 2011 and an anxiety state in 2016 as well as mixed anxiety and depressive order in 2021. He also noted the incidents in March 2023 and December 2023 to January 2024. M also told Dr Iyer that she had stopped taking illegal drugs in 2016 following the involvement of social services in the previous proceedings.[115]In his July 2024 report Dr Iyer concluded that on balance, M would fit the criteria for mood disorder, bipolar affective disorder albeit she was currently in remission. He stated she has had depressive and anxiety symptoms in the past when it was documented that she had presented with manic type of symptoms associated with psychotic symptoms. He noted that M on 4th June 2024 was not currently suffering from any significant mood disturbance.[116]In the part of the report dealing with the prognosis for recovery or likelihood of relapse he stated that M did not have full insight into her mental health and did not agree for medication but agreed for psychological therapy, so referral to psychological services with a view of developing insight would be helpful. Dr Iyer did not answer what the likelihood was of a relapse. In fact, M did not engage in any therapy.[117]An addendum psychiatric report was obtained on the 6th of February 2025 from Dr Iyer. This was not based on a further assessment of the mother but was in response to the mother raising various issues of dispute with the June 2024 report. Amongst the questions asked was whether the mother did fit the criteria for mood disorder and bipolar affective disorder. Dr Iyer confirmed that he had indeed diagnosed her with bipolar disorder, currently in remission.[118]Importantly, Dr. Iyer was asked as follows: In light of the fact that M lost her baby and maintained stable mental health, what is the basis for your opinion that she will become unwell in the future and that it will impact her parenting if there are life stressors?[119]His response was as follows: “Though M appeared to have maintained stable mental health after losing her baby, there have been incidents where she has been admitted to hospital following life stresses or unexpected events and their work professional concerns about her parenting skills. Poor insight and a mood disorder without any treatment is a poor prognostic indicator and by nature will be vulnerable to life stresses. Studies do suggest that negative life events are significantly associated with both subsequent severity of mania and depressive symptoms and functional impairment. This also comes from my clinical experience.[120]As noted above on the first day of the final hearing, I took the view that it was necessary to hear from Dr Iyer both because there was not a clear response to the prognosis in relation to the risk of the mother's mental health declining again, and secondly, given that almost a year had gone by since he last reported and the mother had not suffered from any mental health crisis in the meantime.[121]Prior to Dr Iyer coming to give evidence on the final day of the hearing he was provided the mothers up-to-date GP reports, the statement from the nurse who witnessed M’s behaviour in March 2023, as well as the Mental Health Act report from January of 2024. He was also given a short summary of the mother's oral evidence, namely that the mother did not accept that either in March 2023 or December 2023, that she was ill and that she did not accept any bipolar diagnosis.[122]He was an impressive witness whose evidence I accepted. I do not accept that he was difficult to understand and I was concerned about suggestions that this was due to his accent. In his oral evidence he conceded various issues and was sympathetic to M but stayed firm in his main conclusions namely that M does indeed have a diagnosis that she has a bipolar disorder and that she may be in remission for months or years but that does not necessarily mean that she would not have a relapse.[123]In response to a question from the court, he was clear that he did not consider that M's denial of the events in March 2023 and December 2023 were evidence of her being symptomatic. He stated it was not uncommon for people to say that they did not have mental illness but this was not an indicator that the mother was currently unwell. It was, however, an indicator that the mother had a continued lack of insight.[124]He explained that any person with a bipolar diagnosis would always be at risk of a further occurrence but that if medication was taken in the medium to long term it would reduce the risk of relapse, as would therapy and it would help the mother to understand her symptoms more and to understand her diagnosis.[125]Dr Iyer stated in terms that in relation to the risk of relapse within the next 2 ½ to 3 ½ years ie within R's minority, that he considered that there was a high risk of relapse.[126]Both Dr Iyer and the Parenting Assessor Ms Dawson had recommended in summer 2024 that M undertake psychological therapy. This was restated in the Final Care Plan from August 2024. M’s position throughout these proceedings and at the Final hearing confirmed that she has in fact not accessed any therapy and does not intend to do so.[127]The court did note that the mother had made some attempt to engage with the Triple P Teen parenting programme in November of 2024 albeit ultimately she was unsuccessful in participating in the course. This course was in relation to parenting and not in relation to her own mental health. She also gave evidence that she had made an appointment with a Bangladeshi Women's Association in order to assist with practical matters around rent arrears but those attempts to book appointments had also ultimately not resulted in her obtaining any advice and housing proceedings had been commenced against her. It was not clear that M understood the outcome of those housing proceedings.

The Social Worker Ms Mohammed

[128]Ms Mohammed has been R’s social worker for most of 2024 and 2025. She produced one statement dated 12th August 2024 together with a Care Plan of the same date, the previous statement from January 2024 having been produced by another social worker. The Care Plan indicated that R should remain in foster care and that contact with the mother would be weekly in a contact centre and would be reviewed and contact with the father would be 1 ½ hours per week in the contact centre.[129]For reasons which are not clear to the Court, no direction was given for an updating statement or Care Plan for the Final hearing despite the fact that 9 months would have passed which is a very long time in R’s life and covers a period in which her contact with both of her parents had been changing or was expected to change. In my judgment her wishes and feelings would also inevitably be given more weight over this time frame as she was almost a year older.[130]Effectively hidden in the section of the bundle dealing with contact notes and not clearly identified in the index was in fact an entirely new proposal by the LA in respect of father’s contact. This schedule set out that the father’s contact would move to overnight contact at the end of May 2025 having moved into the community apparently on 5th May 2025.[131]During the hearing an email was sent by the LA updating their proposals for contact. Miss Mohammed was cross examined not just by the mother and by R's counsel, but also by the Guardian in relation to the level of contact for R with her mother, whether it was to be supervised and when reviews would happen. She was also cross examined about the conditions that the LA intended to put into place in relation to the father’s contact.[132]When she gave her evidence, she was asked what her view would be if the GP notes showed, as indeed they did, that the mother had not suffered from any further mental health crises since summer 2024. She stated very clearly that would not change her view because although the mother appears quite well the experts had raised significant worries in relation to her lack of insight and she had not engaged in any therapy. I share those concerns.[133]Whilst Ms Mohammed gave evidence and did her best to be flexible in relation to issues of contact with both parents, ultimately, I do not accept her evidence in relation to the level of contact suggested by her for the mother, nor in relation to the time scale for its review and I prefer the approach of the Guardian.[134]In my judgement, it is not in R's welfare for her contact with the mother to remain restricted to a couple of hours of supervised contact in a contact centre, given she is 14 ½ and given the risks identified in this case namely, of being exposed to her mother’s very poor mental health, particularly in a crisis situation. Limiting R’s contact will in my judgement, make it more likely that R would vote with her feet and move from the foster carers back to live with her mother. Equally in relation to contact with the father, I remain concerned about the father's drug use.

The Parenting Assessment

[135]The parenting assessment was a detailed assessment of M which took place over a number of weeks from May to July 2024 and was carried out by Miss Dawson, a social worker who was employed by the LA but was independent of them. Her conclusion was that M did not currently have the capacity to safely meet R's needs without further changes and could not provide safe and attuned care for R at that time.[136]Ms Dawson recommended that M engaged with support services to enhance her further understanding of professionals’ concerns and for her to gain insight into her own difficulties. The recommendations she made were that M should self refer to talking therapies, that she should consider support from Sands to help her process the loss of baby C, she should access support from a local Bangladeshi Association around practical issues of rent, utilities and benefits and that she should refer herself to the Triple P Teen course to help strengthen her parenting skills. Ms Dawson also recommended in terms that M should formalise the support from her family and friends network.[137]Miss Dawson gave oral evidence. Whilst Ms Dawson was relatively junior she had had a few years of experience as a frontline social worker in the same LA as well as some previous experience working as a parenting assessor. She came across as measured and balanced giving M the credit for engaging well with her as well as noting some of the deficiencies in her parenting. I accepted her evidence.[138]Ms Dawson indicated that R was articulate and intelligent, but she emphasised that she is still a child.[139]Although the mother’s GP records were not available when Ms Dawson gave evidence and she had not heard the further evidence of Dr Iyer, importantly, Miss Dawson did not change her conclusion that R should remain in foster care even if there had been no further incidences of serious mental health crises since she had last seen M in summer 2024. Ms Dawson explained in evidence given M had not engaged with the recommendations, that she had little insight into what might trigger her mental health crises and further that M had found it difficult to consider the impact of her mental health crises on R.[140]Ms Dawson was asked about her recommendations and she explained that they were based on what she considered M needed to do to put herself in a better position in order to understand her own mental health better and to be more emotionally available for R regardless of whether R was or was not living with her. She stated that the mother needed to have a better understanding of R's needs.

The Guardian

[141]Miss Leeman produced her final analysis on the 9th of December 2024. This final analysis supported the recommendations in the care plan. She indicated at paragraph 78 that it was a “finely balanced” decision, and I agree.[142]She stated “at the end of these proceedings M does not accept the need to change and is not at the stage of contemplating this. I concur with her parenting assessor's description of her parenting as idealised. I'm concerned that if R returns to her mother's care, the mother's mental health difficulties will impact on her as they did in the past, and that R will be the main person having to support the mother.” I entirely concur with this opinion.[143]In relation to contact with the mother, Miss Leeman in December 2024 stated that supervised family time in the community could be considered and there should be extra family time in the school summer holidays. In fact, there was no change in the level of contact between R and the mother.[144]In relation to contact with the father, Miss Leeman agreed that there should be unsupervised contact for an hour and a half in the community once a week and also extra contact during the holidays. In respect of overnight contact, she recommended that there should be a risk assessment from the local authority, with a further home visit and ongoing hair strand tests and a written agreement not to use drugs or have drugs in the home.[145]Miss Leeman concluded her analysis stating “I am of the view that R would have the best relationship with her mother by having high quality focused time with her regularly with another adult meeting her basic care needs”.[146]The Guardian was the last witness. She was unrepresented but had attended throughout the final hearing and so had had the benefit of hearing all of the other witnesses, including Doctor Iyer. She confirmed that her view remained that R would not be safe if she returned to live with her mother. She stated that M had failed to consider the impact of her actions on R.[147]In respect of contact with the mother she stated that she agreed that the LA had delayed and that the mother's contact should have been unsupervised far earlier. She stated the community contact should be supervised on 2 occasions and then reviewed, and then there should be unsupervised community contact for a duration of four hours. She was enthusiastic about a move to overnight contact but stated that this would necessitate further police checks, in particular in relation to Q, if the mother had reconciled with him.[148]In my judgement, the Guardian’s recommendations for contact between R and the mother were far more in tune with R's wishes and feelings, which is important because it is one of the mechanisms to ensure that R does not in fact vote with her feet.

R’s wishes and feelings

[149]Whilst all parties and all witnesses accept that R has always been clear that she wishes to return to live with M, the court has limited information about R and her level of understanding in relation to other young people of a similar age of 14 ½. She has been described as bright but behind academically at school, which in itself is not surprising as she was not in school for nine months during 2023. Ms Leeman described her as polite and articulate which was also my impression when I met her. M describes her as intelligent. In my judgement her views as a 14 ½ year old young woman hold the same weight as those of any other child of that age.[150]At paragraph 5.16 of the Parenting Assessment there was an update in relation to R from July 2024. This states that she had settled back into school very well. The report also indicated that when speaking to R, she said she was happy with the mentoring support she received at schools and that her teachers had not expressed any concerns in relation to her emotional or behavioral development.[151]All of the professionals who have spoken to R have been consistent that she wishes to return to live with her mother, but that she does like living with her foster carers. Equally, they have all noted that she wishes for further time with her mother and enjoys the time with her father. In July 2024, Miss Dawson reported, in relation to R's wishes and feelings, that she had told her that her preferred place to live would be her mother. She did also say she liked her carers and she felt happy and settled in her foster placement. In August 2024 she told Miss Mohammed, the social worker that she had was enjoying returning to school and she spoke fondly of her carers.[152]The Guardian was also clear that R was highly frustrated by the lack of contact with her mother and the slowness in which it was being varied and reviewed. In my judgement it is highly likely that R’s desire to return to live with her mother is amplified by the fact that she is not seeing her sufficiently.[153]I also note the recent position statement from R's own barrister which stated:
“In terms of R’s third choice of remaining in foster care, R said she would be ‘very ok’ with this and that her foster family have looked after her well and that they are kind people.”
This is a real credit to those foster carers who should be commended for having obviously cared for R very well and I hope they are made aware of this paragraph of the judgment. The law Threshold[148]The threshold was not agreed in full by the Mother but on the balance of probabilities I have found paragraphs 1 and 2 proved. In relation to the remaining paragraphs whilst always bearing in mind that it is for the Local Authority to prove their case, it is clear that the evidence supports the remaining particulars in the Threshold.[149]On the basis of this threshold, my judgment is that pursuant to section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 R is likely to suffer significant harm or likelihood of harm and that this harm is attributable to the care given to her or likely to be given to her not being what would reasonable to expect a parent to give.[150]In this case I am satisfied that the threshold is made out in relation to significant actual emotional harm and that there is a real risk of future significant emotional harm.

The welfare checklist

[151]Having decided that the parameters of s31(2) CA are met I must go on to have the welfare of the child as my paramount consideration and in doing so consider the factors set out in s1(3) Children Act 1989 when considering the orders I should make: "(a)the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding); (b)his physical, emotional and educational needs; (c)the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; (d)his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant; (e)any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering; (f)how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;”[152]The key issues in these proceedings are R’s emotional needs and to some extent her educational needs and her wishes and feelings as well as the emotional harm she has suffered. I must balance the factors in favour and the factors against reunification of R with her mother. The factors in favour, as Miss Mohammed notes, include an opportunity for R to be raised by her mum and that she will be more easily able to maintain her identity within her birth family. At the age of 14 ½ another factor in favour of reunification is R’s wishes and feelings which will then have been both listened to but also acted on.[153]However, the factors against a reunification with M in my view weigh more heavily. M has been clear that she will not engage with therapy and she will not take any medication in relation to her diagnosis of a bipolar disorder which she does not accept. As Dr Iyer has noted, that puts her at a high risk of a relapse including psychosis or being sectioned whilst R remains a child. It is also the case that M remains mistrustful of professionals and would not work with them if she did not consider that she was suffering from any mental illness. Given that M very sadly does not have any insight into the March 2023 hospital attendance nor in relation to being put under section in December 2023, the court cannot have any confidence that M would in fact ever accept that she was mentally ill. It is also clear that sadly there is no informal network to assist M in identifying any deterioration in her mental health. Her best friend, U, has been clear that she does not accept that M has any mental illness.[154]Whilst I remind myself that care orders should not be made in relation to barely adequate or inconsistent parenting, per Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050, para 50, I have found that there is a clear risk to R of the mother relapsing and that this would cause R serious emotional harm going far beyond inadequate or inconsistent parenting as can be seen from the very real consequences in 2023 when R was removed from schooling for 9 months and in 2024 when R was denied a relationship with her mother because the mother did not like the contact centre. It is also possible that the mother would prevent R from having a full relationship with her father or that that relationship would have to be conducted by way of subterfuge.[155]I must of course consider in terms what the impact might be on R that I am not following her wishes and feelings as she is now aged 14 ½, and I must treat her wishes and feelings very seriously. I have read the extract from Hershmann and note the case of Re P-S [2013] EWCA Civ 223 which were public law proceedings concerning a child of 15. In that case the Court of Appeal was quite clear that there was no rebuttable presumption that a mature child’s wishes should prevail.[156]The evidence shows that R is generally a well behaved teenager and that save for visiting her mother on one occasion in April 2025, she has not sought to take matters into her own hands and to move back to live with her mother. R is clear though, that she wants to spend far more time with her mother and on an unsupervised basis. In my judgement on the balance of probabilities R will not vote with her feet and leave to live with the mother provided that her concerns in relation to the extent of contact are being listened to and that she can see her mother far more and outside of the contact centre.[157]Whilst I accept that in any foster placement there is always the potential that the foster carers are unable to continue with that placement or the placement breaks down there is no evidence to suggest that that is a real possibility in this case, and in fact the evidence points the other way. R is in the same foster placement in which she was originally placed where she has now been for 16 months, she is happy there and does not dislike her foster carers and the foster carers have also indicated that they are happy that she should continue living with them until her age of majority[158]I also consider the case of Re A [2015] EWFC 11 which cites Re L. In my view Re A merely serves to emphasise that it is no part of my role to engage in social engineering and I do not do so. In addition, the case identifies that I must find facts to base the threshold on and then establish the link between those facts and the conclusion that the child has suffered significant harm or is likely to do so. I have done so. R has suffered and is at risk of suffering further serious emotional harm and possibly also harm to her educational needs due to the Mother’s poor mental health.[159]I also bear in mind the caselaw within the European Human Rights Convention and the need to engage Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR. It is incumbent on me to ensure that the orders of the court are proportionate to the risks involves and that the intervention of the state is the absolute minimum necessary to safeguard R's welfare. In my judgment foster care with generous contact to the mother is a proportionate response to the risks R faces.

Orders

[160]I was invited on behalf of the mother but not R, to make a contact order pursuant to section 34 of the Children Act 1989. In my judgement this would not add anything to the amended care plan which I propose below, in particular given R’s age and the fact that section 34 CA only applies to contact with parents and not to the extended family. I therefore refuse this application.[161]Provided that the contact to both parents is set out in an amended care plan based on my recommendations below I would approve a final care order for R to remain in foster care. I therefore invite the LA to amend their care plan to provide for:(i) further and improved direct contact with the Mother which should move to supervised community contact as soon as possible for 2 sessions, then community unsupervised contact for 4 hours. There should be a review within 2 months in relation to an increase in such unsupervised contact with a view to overnight contact and then frequent reviews thereafter which should not need to wait for the LAC reviews(ii) sibling contact with both the mother’s and the father’s other children(iii) family contact with her niece and nephew(iv) a robust structure in relation to any unsupervised contact with the Father to include:a. the father not to take any illicit substances, or drink alcohol, whilst R is in his care or for 72 hours before;b. announced and unannounced visits taking place at least once every 2 months;c. overnight stays must be at the father’s home and any change in his accommodation must be notified to the local authority within 24 hoursd. during overnight contact it shall only be R and father present in the home;e. the school will be informed about the father’s cocaine use so they can monitor his presentation when he attends;f. the father will inform the local authority within 7 days if there is any change in his relationship status;g. there will be further hair strand testing carried out by the Local authority and which must be carried out regularly and at least twice per yearh. support with drug rehabilitation,i. a PSO in relation to contact between R and the paternal grandmotherj. Mother not to be given father’s address[162]I have separately written a letter to R which Ms Leeson will give to her. That letter is appended below. Post Script An amended Care Plan was filed by the Local Authority and the final care order was approved. Recorder Cooper 21st May 2025 22nd May 2025 Dear R, Thank you so much for coming to see me last week at court with Z and V. It was lovely to meet you and I hope you did not find it too strange as the building is normally a hotel and not a court. When we met, I explained that my role is to listen to everyone and to read a lot of information about you and your family. I must do what I think is best for you even though you are already 14 ½. It is my job to make decisions, which sometimes can be very difficult. You were very brave in coming and telling me what you wanted and asking me lots of questions about the hearing. The questions you asked show you have a very “forensic” intellect as you understood that I would be considering your mum’s mental health. This case is about you and your future, so I am writing this letter as a way of giving my decision to you. When a case like this comes before the court, the judge has to apply the law as found in the Children Act 1989, and particularly in Section 1. You may have looked at this already, but if you Google it, you will see that when making my decision, your welfare is my paramount consideration – more important than anything else. If you look at s.1(3), there is also a list of factors I have to consider, to make sure that everything is taken into account. The information I have comes from a variety of sources. There are the papers from the old proceedings years ago. There are more papers from the proceedings this year, your mum and dad’s statements, the reports of Social Workers and your Guardian Jessica as well as evidence from a psychiatrist and the doctors and social workers who helped your mum in hospital. Most of these people came to court or appeared on a video screen and gave their evidence and were asked lots of questions by all of the lawyers and by me the Judge. I have taken all this into account. It was clear to me from what you said to Jessica, your Guardian, that even though you have not been living with your mum since December 2023 you are very close to her and you love each other a lot. I also know that you really enjoy spending time with your dad. I have listened to what you would like. I know that you have told Jessica and everyone else that you want to go back to live with your mum. I know that you have also said that you want to see your mum far more as well as your dad. I have decided though that you should stay with your foster carers. I think this is the best option to keep you safe and well. I have thought about my decision very carefully. I have decided that you need and deserve to be looked after without worrying about whether she might become ill again and what might then happen to both you and her. I want to say that I believe that your mum and dad both love you very much and want the best for you. At times in your life, they have had different views on what best looks like. This must have been very difficult and confusing for you. When I met your parents they both told me how much they love you and want what is best for you. I think you might be upset with my decision and I am sorry about this but the most important thing is that you are safe and being well looked after. I do realise that this order is not the one that you said you wanted me to make, but I am confident that it is the right order for you in the long run. It has been lovely to hear about what a bright and lovely young woman you are, and I want to end by wishing you all the best for the future you and to remember that you would be a very good lawyer if you decided this is what you want to be. Judge Cooper