Bristol City Council v M & Anor [2026] EWFC 91 (B)
[1]This is my judgment in respect of Bristol City Council’s application for a full care order in respect of C, who will be 10 in the autumn. Bristol City Council are represented by William Heckscher. C has been living in a residential placement, ‘A’ [an out of area placement], since May 2023, and attending a mainstream school local to that placement.[2]C’s mother is M and she is represented by Susan Hunter. Ms M has asked to be called M during this hearing and so I will call her M in my judgment. M wants C to return home. She would wish that return to be under a transition plan rather than immediately, and with a package of support including respite care. If C cannot return home M agrees that C should remain at A rather than being placed elsewhere, for instance in foster care.[3]C’s Guardian is Ms Asamani, who has been represented by Claire Starkie. The Guardian, Local Authority and the jointly instructed expert psychologist Dr Stevenson consider this would not be in her best interests. Instead, they say that C should remain in A, where she is settled, but that she should have regular staying contact with her mother and sisters (D and E) in the school holidays. The Guardian advocated on behalf of C that the contact proposals needed some minor upward adjustment, which has led to a revised care plan. She also sought assurances that the plan was not for a move to foster care in the short term, something which she did not think C was ready for. That is also now agreed and clarified in the care plan, which is now supported by the Guardian.[4]Both the Guardian and the Local Authority say I should make a full care order, on the basis of that revised plan, to ensure C’s placement remains stable, to allow the LA to regulate contact, and to manage C’s medical and other care.[5]C’s father has played no part in these proceedings, or indeed in C’s life for most of it, although he is aware of the proceedings and that this final hearing has been arranged.[6]Everybody agrees that C and her mum have a warm and loving relationship, and that when she is well M has a great deal to offer C. Unfortunately, as a result of her complex and fluctuating physical and mental health difficulties she has not always been well, and was not always able to look after C, leading to her being accommodated by social services several times in the period running up to May 2023. Even if C can’t return home, everyone agrees that her connection and contact with her mum and sisters is really important for C, and that should be an important part of her care plan and her future. As a reflection of this, the care plan provides for substantial, unsupervised staying contact at home in each school holiday.[7]Everyone agrees that A is caring well for C and that she is thriving there and at school, and if she cannot return home it is the best place for her, for probably the next couple of years.My decision
[8]Because M will need time to process my decision with her lawyer and lay advocate, I am going to provide it in writing. I am also going to tell M the decision I have made at the start of my judgment so she doesn’t have to wait. I will go on and give my reasons after.[9]Before I give M my decision I want to say that I have read and listened to everything she has said and which has been said on her behalf by Ms Hunter, and recognise why she makes the points she does, and how she feels about this process and the way she has been treated. I don’t think she is dishonest or a bad mum and as I will explain I do think some things could have been done better by social services. But as I think M knows, my job is to do what is best in the long term for C, even if that is not the decision that she would like me to make. And I have to make my decision based on the situation as it actually is, not how it should have been. C has asked me to make that decision for her and I take that job really seriously. I want C to have a positive future, and one which her mum and sisters play a big part in.[10]My decision is that it is necessary for me to make a care order, so that C can remain in her placement at A until she is ready to move on. I approve the amended care plan, and I will make some observations about contact later on.[11]I am going to pause now so M can decide if she wants to stay or go.The law
[12]The law is familiar to the advocates and there are no novel points arising in this case. However in summary: i) Where I need to determine a fact I must do so on the basis that it is more likely than not, ii) In order for the door to be open to the making of a care or supervision order the s31 threshold must be met (on the same standard of proof), iii) When deciding what order to make I must consider all the circumstances including the factors in the welfare checklist in s1 Children Act 1989, iv) I must base my decision on the evidence, including the lay, professional and expert evidence. If I am to depart from the expert evidence I must have good reason to do so, v) I must consider the realistic options in a holistic way i.e. I must consider the pros and cons of each option side by side, with reference to the checklist, and in light of relevant support that might facilitate a particular option, vi) I must consider the ‘permanence provisions’ of the care plan, which includes those parts of the plan which set out a) the impact on the child concerned of any harm that he or she suffered or was likely to suffer; b) the current and future needs of the child (including needs arising out of that impact); c) the way in which the long-term plan for the upbringing of the child would meet those current and future needs. vii) I must make orders which, insofar as they interfere with the family’s Article 8 ECHR rights to private and family life, are no more than are necessary and proportionate.[13]I have tried to set out my reasons in this judgment in a logical order so that they make sense to the reader. That doesn’t mean that this is necessarily the order I’ve approached those issues. I have not set out every point of evidence or submission that has been advanced - that would be impossible and is not necessary. I have tried to highlight the most important aspects of the evidence sufficient for my decision to be understood. I have based my decision on a synthesis of the evidence from all the people who know C and M and who have assessed them, rather than one single source of information.The background
[14]There is a long history of social care involvement in M and C’s family. Initially M was looked after. She describes a very traumatic childhood involving abuse both by adults within and around her family and from others whilst in the care of the local authority. It isn’t necessary to pick over the detail of the background in this judgment, but I appreciate and acknowledge that this background has made things much more difficult for M, and that includes all aspects of her life including her relationships and parenting, and her ability - sometimes - to work with professionals.[15]There are different possible labels that have been applied to M’s profile and behaviour. They include EUPD, Neurodiversity in particular ADHD / autism, PTSD and somatic disorders such as non-epileptic attack disorder. Working out which conditions have been formally diagnosed, which diagnoses are valid, given the history of drug and alcohol abuse and probably some missing records, is not straightforward - but I take from Dr Stevenson’s evidence that it is likely that aspects of personality, neurodiversity, trauma and self-medication all interact to make up the picture of difficulties across M’s life. For M it will be important to try and clarify these diagnoses, so she can identify the best support and treatment for herself, but that is not something that I can resolve. All the evidence in this court case suggests that whichever label is applied, and whichever element is most prominent, the difficulties are enduring and likely to endure in substantial measure. It also seems that at times M’s emotional wellbeing impacts on her physical wellbeing, with functional disorders emerging at times of particular stress or overwhelm.[16]All of M’s older 3 children were removed from her care against a background of substance misuse and domestically abusive relationships. Her first child F was adopted. D and E were placed with their paternal grandmother some years ago under special guardianship orders. More recently D’s placement broke down and she now lives with M, whilst E visits and stays over regularly. Whilst there has been professional involvement regarding D in her mother’s care, and whilst D is obviously still a vulnerable young person, social services involvement is currently closed. This is not therefore a case of a parent who lacks the ability to care for any child. The issue in this case relates to M’s ability to meet the needs of C in addition to her own needs, and her other responsibilities to D and E without herself destabilising and becoming unable to manage. Whilst it appears that all three of M’s daughters probably have higher than ‘average’ needs, C’s particular background means that she needs a particularly high level of care to thrive, and has a particular need for stability. The professional view is that this is not something that M can manage continuously and consistently, and that further fluctuations in M’s health and wellbeing will be very damaging for C.[17]The background for C is that after proceedings issued at birth and a short period in foster care, C did spend her first few years of life in her mother’s care. However, the challenges of meeting C’s needs became more pronounced as she grew. C is a partially deaf child with likely neurodiversity, and who has displayed challenging behaviours since infancy. I do not underestimate the challenges that this would have presented for any parent, particularly one with the life experiences and vulnerabilities faced by M.[18]C had been under a paediatrician Dr Khanna since 2020. By the autumn of 2022 M was actively asking for help from ‘Families in Focus’ and National Deaf CAMHS became involved in assessing C’s needs. In December 2022 C was accommodated under s20 for just over a week due to her mother’s ill health and hospitalisation because of kidney stones and breathing issues. She was accommodated again in January 2023 when M underwent surgery for the kidney stones. Although M says that C ‘did really well’ in the placement she stayed in during this period, the evidence also shows that by the end of that month C had been excluded from school as a result of her physical behaviour at school. No doubt this further increased the pressures on M. In April 2023 M was admitted to hospital again following an asthma attack, and two foster placements broke down almost immediately due to C’s behaviour, leading to the LA arranging for two workers to care for C at home and M ultimately discharging herself from hospital to resume care due to the difficulties those workers faced. Two weeks later on 12 May 2023 C was again accommodated, but within 4 days notice was given on that foster placement.[19]So it was that C found her way to A on 16 May 2023. I have no doubt that this period of bouncing in and out of different placements, losing the stability of both home and school will have had a lasting impact on C.[20]In March 2024 the previous social worker completed a positive parenting assessment of M and a transition plan for C’s return home was put in place. However, that plan was paused in order to allow M to secure alternative more suitable housing, with the support of the then social worker. Unfortunately, by the time this was achieved in late 2024 the level of the local authority’s concern had increased again, and the transition plan was not restarted.[21]An element of the previous rehabilitation plan had been the completion of EMDR work by M, with the LA agreeing to fund 12 sessions. The therapist indicated after two sessions in 2024 that a substantial number of additional sessions would need to be undertaken (around 25) to be effective. The funding for this was not agreed. Although the mother completed six sessions she did not complete the six remaining funded sessions and was last in contact with the therapist in August 2024. This pause coincided with a period during which the housing (and neighbour) issues were unresolved, M reporting some increase in substance use, a further hospitalisation in October 2024 due to seizures, and an increase in concern about C’s behaviour following contact with her mother. There was a further period of hospitalisation in around March 2025 due to M being unable to walk, apparently due to a disc issue. In June last year, the court recorded the LA’s agreement to fund further EMDR for M, but it appears that a commitment to confirm in writing within 7 days how many sessions would be funded was not kept and ultimately the matter was no further forward until this week after the social worker’s evidence, when the LA confirmed in its ‘roadmap’ document that it would fund the further sessions subject to M completing the remaining 6 sessions and engaging with that work. It is regrettable that the work hasn’t progressed, meaning that I am faced with a final hearing where really important work has yet to be carried out.[22]C has continued to spend time at home with her mum and sisters on a regular basis, usually in holidays or around medical appointments, which are still in the Bristol area. That contact has been unsupervised and overnight, and everyone agrees that it is important to C and that she enjoys it, even though there are some worries about its effect on C when she returns, from some of the professionals. Everyone agrees it should continue. When C returns to A after staying with mum she usually takes some time to settle back into her routine and can present with more challenging behaviour. Everyone agrees that to an extent this is inevitable and to be expected, but this is not the only cause of the ups and downs in C’s dysregulation and behavioural challenges, and sometimes it is difficult to identify which factors are prompting a downturn. After C spent three weeks with her mother at the start of the summer holidays A report that she took a really long time to settle, and her behaviour was heightened for the rest of the summer holidays. That continued until the start of this year, but in addition to the lengthy stay in July, C also had to cope with the arrival of a new young person in placement and disruption to the start of her school year because of a medical appointment in Bristol in September. A think that these factors also contributed to her difficulties, and have noted before that the introduction of a new young person (with all the associated diversion of staff attention that comes with it) has been difficult for C before.[23]Since January C’s behaviour has been more settled and she settled well after her most recent stay with mum in February half term. She is once again the only child in placement (the LA is currently paying to keep the second place in the unit free until a final decision is made by me).The evidence I have considered
[24]I have been provided with a bundle of over 1000 pages, a supplemental bundle and a number of updating documents. I have read all the documents relating to these proceedings, and considered aspects of the papers from the previous proceedings where relevant. In particular, I have read all the material filed by the mother, the social work evidence, the report and responses of Dr Stevenson (psychologist), the Guardian’s report and material produced by A and various medical professionals looking after C and her care. I have read the ‘roadmap to rehabilitation’ document that the LA prepared during this hearing at the Guardian’s request, which is intended to help M understand the steps that the LA say she would need to take before rehabilitation could be achieved. It does not form a part of the care plan, but it has been a useful tool not only for the benefit of M but as an indicator of the extent of work or change that the LA say is required before a plan for rehabilitation would be appropriate.[25]I have also read the report of Ms Mann, lay advocate, and made participation directions adopting her recommendations for frequent breaks, keeping that issue under review as the hearing has proceeded.[26]I have heard oral evidence from Dr Stevenson, the social worker, M, and the Guardian Ms Asamani.[27]I have heard submissions from all counsel. Each party has been ably represented and has made all relevant points.Dr Stevenson’s evidence
[28]Dr Stevenson is an experienced psychologist who provided a lengthy report in September last year. In February she answered detailed questions in writing posed on behalf of the mother. She was cross examined at length.[29]Dr Stevenson does not recommend that C returns to her mother’s care, taking the view that there is a mismatch between C’s high level of need and M’s ability to meet those needs consistently day in day out. Dr Stevenson was doubtful that this would change in the medium term, but recommended that an updated psychological assessment should be carried out before any rehabilitation plan was put in place. She also recommended that before such report was commissioned there should be a screening process to establish whether such assessment would be worthwhile.[30]Like the local authority and guardian, Dr Stevenson emphasised the importance to C of her relationship with her mum and sisters, and of contact continuing, and acknowledged the many positives that M has to offer.[31]Dr Stevenson’s evidence was that the consequences of a failed rehabilitation back to her mother’s care would be ‘catastrophic’ for C, and likely for her relationship with her mother.[32]Dr Stevenson’s oral evidence was helpful in explaining her methodology, the way in which the standardised tests she used are structured, and how she made use of the results. In light of that evidence I accept that, whilst the mother experienced the assessment as one which was really challenging for her and which did not enable her to show her best side, the assessment was thorough and the tests appropriately administered and synthesised with clinical interview in order to produce a valid psychological opinion.[33]Dr Stevenson did not change her opinion as a result of cross examination.[34]Whilst Dr Stevenson may have been experienced by the mother as an unsympathetic interviewer (or even as someone ‘with an agenda’), I can see no basis upon which to reject her evidence as biased or flawed.[35]I can well understand why it was said that it took M’s legal team 20 hours to take her through Dr Stevenson’s report, since it is 110 pages long and contains a substantial amount of technical psychological language. PD27A requires that expert reports be no more than 40 pages long (including an executive summary), and this report exceeds that by some margin. Dealing with this report would be difficult for any parent to digest, but is harder for someone with processing and memory difficulties like M, particularly given the subject matter of the report.[36]Dr Stevenson’s report queried various of the mother’s diagnoses, in particular her apparent historic EUPD diagnosis and her more recent ADHD diagnosis. It is not appropriate or necessary for me to resolve that query, but it seems to me to have been appropriate to raise it, albeit that it in the end it will have to be answered by those responsible for M’s care. In any event, I can and do rely upon Dr Stevenson’s conclusions as to the traits displayed by the mother, and the likelihood that a range of factors combine to produce a profile[37]Dr Stevenson was obviously concerned about M’s ability to work openly and honestly with the LA, and to a degree about the honesty of her reporting in interview. There was certainly inconsistency as recorded by Dr Stevenson but having read the material about M’s cognitive abilities and profile, and seen her in court and during her evidence, I am not persuaded that inconsistency or inaccuracy is necessarily dishonesty. As I explain below, I do think though that there are moments where M struggles to acknowledge (perhaps to herself) the logical consequences of her own difficulties, and this can lead her to minimise things.[38]Dr Stevenson said in her report that ‘It is important to note that M is working very hard to ensure stability and positive breaks for C in the family home, despite struggling with her own complex needs’. I agree.The social worker’s evidence
[39]SW is a team manager. She has prepared all the social work evidence during these proceedings including SWETs, care plans, addendum parenting assessment and Placement with Parents assessment.[40]Her written material is detailed and incorporates both positive and negative points regarding the mother. Although she was taken to isolated parts of her evidence and challenged that those sections of the evidence were unbalanced, I take the view that, read as a whole, the positive aspects of the mother’s care are fairly and fully set out by SW. Indeed, SW made a marked effort in her written and oral evidence to specifically acknowledge the trauma and adverse experiences M has had, and to say that M’s difficulties are not of her own making. Inevitably though, the task of presenting evidence in support of a contested care plan is going to require a social worker to voice concern that is inevitably going to be received as criticism or blaming of a parent, however many times the social worker acknowledges that a parent whose parenting is impaired as a result of past trauma is not to blame.[41]It is true is that the social worker tended to take a somewhat narrower view of the likely cause of C’s dysregulation than either A or the Guardian, tending to locate this pattern of behaviour as predominantly caused by contact with the mother more than other factors. However this was really an issue of degree, as everyone accepts that C’s fluctuating behaviour and dysregulation is a product of multiple factors (for instance: her ADHD, trauma, possible undiagnosed neurodiversity, her deafness, attachment issues, the arrival of new young people in the placement and disruption of the dynamics with staff, the uncertainty of C’s current situation given the dispute over whether she can go home to her mum).[42]SW was allocated in January 2025. She told me that the fact that she took over at a point when the local authority ‘had already made a difficult decision for C – or started to’, made for a difficult foundation for a relationship, although there had been times when she and the mother had got on well together.[43]SW told me that when she commenced her parenting assessment ‘the previous 12 months had shown that reunification was not possible and would not be successful’.[44]I can well understand why M may have felt that, despite the social worker’s efforts not to trigger feelings of being judged in her, SW had made up her mind about M and she was not given a fair shot. However, the assessment itself is balanced and properly reflects the complexity and nuance in this case, and of any plan for rehabilitation. The reality is that SW inherited a case with a long background of complexity, where a rehabilitation had been tried and had been unable to progress and remained ‘stuck’. Although the housing issues had – just – been resolved, other important aspects of the rehabilitation plan, in particular the EMDR had not been completed, the mother’s physical health had caused a recent further hospital stay and she had reported an increase in substance use. Alongside that, C had been affected by the uncertainty and changing plans and this was coming out in her behaviour.[45]The assessment itself sets out the difficulties ensuring M’s attendance at assessment sessions, initially due to her own health difficulties and latterly due to ‘overwhelm’, M’s statement in the first session that she ‘could not manage C’s needs full time and would need a high level of respite’, and the marked shift in the second session, where SW records that M ‘appeared more guarded and shared that she felt I had previously ‘twisted’ her words, which has contributed to a sense of mistrust and made it more difficult for her to fully engage. M’s view during this session is that none of her vulnerabilities would impact on her parenting as she did not allow any of them to affect her’. This aspect of the assessment was not challenged. This shift from reflective acknowledgment to defensive minimisation when feeling threatened is something that is a theme throughout the evidence in this case, and the mother’s own oral evidence.[46]Asked about question of funding for the further EMDR which had been a part of that plan, SW simply asserted that the responsibility for showing commitment lay with M in the first instance. She accepted that the commitment made by the LA in June had not been followed through, and said she was unaware of it. She had not made any attempt to secure funding herself, taking the position that M first needed to show willing by contacting the therapist and completing the six further sessions. She acknowledged that the EMDR would be of potential benefit to C whether or not she returned to her mother’s care. I thought that her approach displayed some inflexibility and placed unrealistic expectations on M to undertake challenging therapy which requires active engagement with past trauma, without any assurance it could be completed. Whilst it would have been better for a more proactive, supportive approach to have been taken on this, the simple reality is that the work remains uncompleted, and is as necessary now as it was previously.[47]Asked about the absence of any proposals for support in any of her evidence, SW accepted that she had not included any information about possible support or transition planning in her evidence ‘because it is not the local authority’s plan’, referring when pressed to the 2024 assessment and transition plan that had been drawn up at that point as an indicator of the sort of support that would be put in place. SW told me that enquiries there would need to be made about a suitable school, and respite carers before any plan could be drawn up / implemented.[48]I did not think that SW appreciated why this lack of information about the alternative option before the court at this final hearing might be unhelpful for the court tasked with making a decision, or why it might potentially be unfair.[49]SW accepted that she had failed to include in her evidence any analysis of the support package that could or would be put in place in the event that I did not agree with the LA care plan, apparently not recognising that this was a part of the LA’s obligation in care cases, in order to assist the court with its evaluation. This is regrettable and ought to have been picked up in training, supervision or by legal. Although in this case fortunately, it has not prevented me from making a decision, in another case it might have. It has not made my task any easier, and it has left the mother in this case having to do her best to articulate what she wants by way of support package. Apart from anything else, if the LA had clearly spelt out what was and was not available and why it would not in fact meet C’s needs or reduce the risk, M would have had the opportunity to reflect on that and any advice received before the final hearing commenced.[50]Although in closing submissions, in response to my specific request that it was addressed, it was said that in fact additional information was not required in order for me to make a decision, because rehabilitation to the mother was not a ‘realistic option’, if that was the LA’s position that ought to have been spelt out in terms and engaged with. Had I concluded that there should be a rehabilitation or that I was not satisfied a care order was necessary and proportionate, an adjournment would have been necessary in order for support / transition plans to be developed. That delay would have been positively harmful for C, who has been in limbo for almost 3 years already and is asking for me to make a decision.[51]SW was challenged on the focus in her written evidence on contact with M as being the main source of the dysregulation seen in A.I do not think that SW suggested that this was the only source of the dysregulation, but she did perhaps place a greater emphasis on this factor than other professionals (including A and the guardian). In part I think this perception was created by the necessary emphasis on this factor within the Placement With Parents assessment of contact, but in cross examination SW did acknowledge that other factors were also at play. I accept the submission that there is no straight line that can be drawn between the number of days at contact and the level or duration of dysregulation.[52]Overall though, I accept SW’s evidence as presenting a balanced picture and a fair analysis of the issues and risks in this case.M’s evidence
[53]I do not think that M is a dishonest witness. I think she did her best to give me an accurate account of past events, but as she would accept, her processing and memory difficulties make that challenging, particularly when dealing with dates and sequences of events.[54]M displayed an impressive level of insight and understanding when describing C’s needs, and her approach to parenting C and her sisters. It was obvious that she loves her children and that she knows their particular characteristics well, and that she has developed some good strategies to manage them in the moment.[55]At times she was able to be candid about the level of her own need, but in my judgment she found it more difficult to acknowledge the limitations this might at times have for her parenting, tending to deflect by talking about things that the LA should do or should have done in the past to support her.[56]Whilst M was frank that she would need substantial support, including regular and potentially short notice respite care, and that the girls worry about her physical health, M wasn’t able to acknowledge what impact that might have on C, or the risk that respite foster care might be as difficult or more difficult for C as it was in 2022-3. She seemed to present a plan for respite care as a complete answer to any issues about her health or ability to manage. I think at these moments M was not able to think about things from C’s perspective, because she was focused on fixing what from her perspective the local authority had caused, and on her desire to secure C’s return home.[57]I noticed that M was much more able to acknowledge complexity when responding to questions on behalf of the guardian than the local authority. Mr Heckscher’s questions, whilst quite appropriate and appropriately put tended to result in a defensive response that focused on criticism of the LA or social worker, whilst questions from Ms Starkie, delivered in a softer and more conversational way produced somewhat more insightful acknowledgments. This mirrored the shift between parenting assessment sessions. I think that feelings of grievance, shame and blame are very close to the surface for M, and that she is easily triggered by a poor choice of words or other nuance, into feeling as if she is being attacked or blamed for past traumas, which makes her respond defensively and lose her focus on C’s needs as separate and sometimes different from her own. Given her experiences that is very easy to understand.[58]M talked about her cocaine use in late 2024 and again in mid 2025 as ‘blips’. Against a backdrop of longstanding but fluctuating difficulties with alcohol, cannabis and cocaine, I think this was a minimisation. By this I mean that, although the pattern and extent of use was broadly consistent with the hair strand test results, and although in recent months the results show cessation of cocaine, M’ minimised the significance of these blips having happened, and what they demonstrate about her coping strategies at tricky moments in her life.[59]Although it is good that M is now prescribed medicinal cannabis and is making good progress reducing her illicit cannabis use, reporting the effects as ‘life changing’ her engagement with a drug agency is related to cannabis only, presumably because she does not perceive herself to have a difficulty with cocaine. In her evidence M described the cocaine ‘blips’ as a coping response to trauma, in particular stalking and then an assault in May 2025, but when I asked her about what might happen if there were future life challenges, M told me that although she was mindful that because of her ADHD she ‘goes towards cocaine and dabble with it’, ‘a support package would have a positive effect on how I can manage’ and would be ‘the ideal solution’. I don’t think that M really accepts that the repeated use of cocaine in the recent past as a way of coping with life challenges is a problem, and I don’t think that she has developed any strategies to find better ways to cope in future. M told me she never used cocaine whilst C was in her care and would not do so, which makes me wonder what coping strategies she would use instead.The Guardian’s evidence
[60]The Guardian has produced two reports. They are detailed and thorough. She tells me that she met recently with C who expressed that she wants me to make a decision. C’s wishes have fluctuated throughout the proceedings, with her sometimes saying she wants to go back to mum and other times that she wants to stay at A.[61]The Guardian has been an active advocate for C, encouraging the LA to adjust its care planning to increase the level of contact, to ensure that C was not hastily moved into foster care, and seeking clarification for the mother of the steps she might need to take before a safe rehabilitation could be realistically considered. She does not support rehabilitation now or in the future without the mother working on her own issues first, but she has not simply adopted the LA care plan without thought.[62]In light of the mother’s evidence that there had been some staff changes over time at A, she told me that she had made enquiries during the hearing about the extent of staff change at A to date, which had been minimal. In fact there was really no dispute about this, and it is accepted that there has been some staff change, but at a much lower rate than is typical for such placements. That is to C’s overall benefit, albeit that it cannot be guaranteed in future.Threshold
[63]I am grateful to the advocates for agreeing a basis of threshold in this case on the first morning of the hearing. It has been specifically agreed the threshold need not set out every live factor as at the relevant date in May 2022, and that other factors continue to be relevant to welfare. I agree that in the context of this case an exhaustive threshold ‘pleading’ is neither necessary nor helpful, and I approve the basis of threshold making the finding that as a result of M’s own complex physical health needs she was unable to parent C leading to C being accommodated by the Local Authority. As a result of these matters C suffered and was likely to suffer significant harm by impairment to her emotional health as a May 2023.My conclusions
[64]I am not going to slavishly follow the welfare checklist in this judgment, but I have considered each factor, addressing matters I hope in a logical order.[65]I have addressed C’s wishes and feelings above. I add only that C’s mixed messages along with her request that I make a decision, may be an indicator that she just wants a settled plan, and that she wants both A and her mum to be a part of that plan.[66]The factors of particular importance in this case are the child’s particular needs (emotional and educational especially) in light of her profile and experiences, and the harm she has suffered, in conjunction with her mother’s capacity to meet those needs and any risk of further harm arising, and the likely effect on C of a change in circumstances.C’s particular needs
[67]I accept the evidence from multiple sources that C is a child with a high level of need, and as such her care will be more demanding that for many other children of her age. I express my conclusion in this way because M has (understandably in my view) struggled with the phrase ‘good enough parenting’, making the point that the tailored care she can offer to C is ‘good enough’ for C, and that is all that is required. Put simply, parenting C will be more demanding that the parenting of a child without C’s particular characteristics and background. Those characteristics are her deafness, her ADHD, her possible neurodiversity, her history of trauma (for instance as an infant as a result of domestic abuse, and regrettably apparently a physical assault by a staff member shortly after placement at A, subsequently dismissed), her history of disruptions in her education and care in 2022-3 before eventual placement at A, her attachment profile, and her fluctuating dysregulation and challenging behaviour.[68]That she needs a particularly high level of attention and care from her parent or carer is demonstrated by the fact that even two foster carers and a school have been unable to manage that care when she is in a dysregulated state, and that A have probably been able to sustain their consistency of care only because of the availability of staff to takeover at the end of a shift.[69]C is approaching her 10th birthday, and she has ahead of her the changes to her body and school that come with puberty and secondary transfer. These can be challenging for any young person to adjust to but will be particularly big things for C to deal with. Everybody agrees that C struggles with change and this is obvious from the fluctuations in her presentation when she is presented with change, particularly unplanned change or unclear plans – at least some of her dysregulation is associated with changes of placement, changes within her placement and changes in her environment (from M’s home A and back).[70]C has an overwhelming need for stability in her care, and a clear plan for where she is going to live and when she will be able to see her much loved family. She needs a decision. She needs consistency of boundaries and routines, which does not mean that there should not be adjustments on weekends and in school holidays, but does mean that C needs to know what is expected of her and what she can expect from her carers.[71]C has been in my judgment affected by the uncertainty about whether and when she is going to go home, and when she will see her family and for how long. She will benefit from knowing that there is a plan for her to see her mum and sisters every school holiday, and that in the longer holidays it will be for about 5 nights, and if it goes well it could be up to a week in the summer, on two occasions. She will benefit from knowing that her mum accepts my decision that this is in C’s best interests.[72]There is some reference in the bundle to issues around medication and medical care. Those issues arise in part due to the fact that C’s accommodation to date has been under s20, and accordingly the mother has been ‘in charge’ of those matters. In fact though, the LA sensibly do not pursue any criticism of M. It is clear that M has been a good advocate for C over the years and has a good working relationship and level of knowledge about C’s medical needs and the history of her care under various services. Her cautious approach to the question of melatonin is supported by the recent letter from C’s paediatrician Dr Khanna in view of its limited benefit in the past. It appears that there is in fact no suggestion that C be medicated for her ADHD other than via melatonin for sleep issues (for example no proposal that she is prescribed stimulant medication in the daytime as is sometimes the case). If there is to be such a proposal that can and should be done with the mother’s input.[73]There has been some discussion this week about whether or not C’s medical care (CAMHS, paediatrics, audiology) ought to transfer to the local area if I make a care order. It seems to me that in all likelihood this is something that will be decided by the relevant services based upon their own criteria. As a general proposition it makes sense for C’s medical care to be received locally to her placement, albeit that there will be a need to ensure continuity of care and appropriate handover, and potentially more challenges in ensuring M remains involved and able to have input. The LA has helpfully incorporated into the plan that they will endeavour to ensure that M is able to attend either by public transport (funded by them if she is able to manage that means of transport) or remotely. It seems to me that I can and should invite the LA to communicate with the medical providers that M retains PR and should be invited to consultations, that she may need reasonable adjustments in order to facilitate remote attendance, and that she should be cc’d into correspondence arising from consultations.M’s capacity to meet those needs – with support
[74]M understands C and her unique profile well. She has some ability when well to adapt her responses to help C and her sisters calm themselves down. That she can do so is really impressive.[75]But as M herself accepts, she has some limitations because of the things that have happened to her and because of how she functions. M has been physically unwell requiring hospitalisation on many occasions, for a number of conditions continuing over a period of years (albeit not as far as I’m aware for the last year or so), and whilst some of those conditions are ‘one off’ resolved conditions (kidney stones) or now apparently better managed chronic conditions (asthma), some of them are susceptible to recurrence (Disc, seizures). Indeed, a GP Summary attached to M’s statement shows that as recently as December M was struggling with regulation, anxiety, stress and childhood trauma as resurfacing… feels like she is in auto…wants some more coping mechanism has previously used grounding and mindfulness however doesn’t think these are working at the moment… overstimulated and overwhelmed…physical health deteriorated recently, when stressed she feels is more prone to cysts and UTIs, back seizes up’. M’s last seizure was a fortnight or so ago, although it did not require hospitalisation. Of course, as the GP record notes, this may well be partly prompted by the stress of these proceedings, but these events do show the ongoing impact of stress combined with past experiences upon M.[76]M’s seizures appear to be at least potentially connected to her overall wellbeing and overwhelm, as is reflected by the fact that they are recorded by her GP as non-epileptic in nature (albeit subject to possibly further investigation to rule out alternate diagnoses), and are thought by Dr Stevenson to be likely somatic in nature – they certainly seem to coincide with pressure points in M’s own life. It seems to me that given the history and likely somatic nature of these episodes of debilitation, along with the need for further investigation to confirm diagnosis and identify a suitable treatment plan, there must be a risk that M will, through no fault of her own, become unable to care at short notice at some point in the future (even if she is beginning to identify the warning signs). If these attacks are somatic in nature the pressures of caring for herself, D (sometimes E and C will be great and run the risk of triggering further episodes. More so possibly if M is also trying to tackle EMDR therapy as she hopes to do. Whilst M evidently manages well during periods of contact, I am concerned that there is a real possibility that she will find herself unable to do so in future, particularly if she is also trying to meet C’s needs. There is real potential for C to struggle to adjust to her mum’s care, or a new school, or both – and that this will present as an escalation in behaviour that will be extremely difficult for any single parent to manage.[77]I have described C’s level of need and the struggles that teachers and foster carers (even as a couple) have had meeting the task of caring for C. It is no criticism of the mother to say that to take on the care of C as a single parent, day in day out, would be a very big ask – even without additional children and personal challenges to contend with.The absence of a support plan and my holistic analysis
[78]Although it has not been submitted to me that there is a gap in the evidence which demands that I adjourn this matter, I have been anxious to ensure that as the judge whose job it is to make this really big decision for C, I have sufficient information to fairly decide this case.[79]The two options before me are: i) to endorse the amended care plan and make a care order, which will leave C in A for probably another couple of years, when around the time of secondary school transfer, alternative plans (such as a move to local foster care) may be considered, ii) to decline to make a care order on the basis that there would be a rehabilitation home, with M continuing to give her s20 consent whilst that happened.[80]A third option would be, if I thought it necessary, to adjourn and gather more information before making a decision. I should only do that if it is necessary to resolve proceedings justly.[81]The evidence is very clear that C finds the uncertainty of her situation very difficult. In my judgment her welfare demands that she knows as soon as possible what the plans for her care – and her contact with her family are going to be. Further delay and uncertainty would be disastrous for C. It seems obvious that it will be contributing to her dysregulation at times.[82]However, had I reached the conclusion that I could not properly make a decision without a support plan I would have been forced to adjourn this matter. Having read and heard the evidence, and having thought carefully about the real issues and options in this case, I am satisfied that this is not necessary.[83]There is an outline both of the support requested and the support available were there to be a plan for rehabilitation. It is set out by the mother in her evidence and in the 2024 assessment. It would require time to organise and implement, it would require a school to be identified and a place arranged (and an adjustment of C’s EHCP), it would require respite carers to be identified and a programme of monitoring and support to be implemented. It would require the mother to manage her substance use and her own wellbeing, through counselling and EMDR. It would require liaison between A and the LA and the mother, so that C could move into her mother’s care in a planned way, probably during a school holiday. As noted by Mr Heckscher in many ways the support plan would look much like the support put in place before C’s final accommodation in May 2023 and as was beginning to be implemented after the 2024 assessment. That support wasn’t effective to prevent the chaotic collapse of arrangements.[84]The roadmap document is helpful in thinking about these issues. That document identifies the issues which are unresolved at the date of this hearing: i) There remain vulnerabilities in respect of drug use, which is very much a work in progress and cannot be considered a ‘job done’ with no risk of relapse. ii) There remain vulnerabilities as a result of the uncertainty of diagnosis and thus treatment plan for the mother, which could give rise to further periods of unavailability through ill health, iii) The EMDR has not yet been seriously embarked upon. It makes no difference to questions of risk why that hasn’t happened. It still needs to happen and that type of work in particular is likely to be challenging for M. Dr Stevenson does not recommend that it is carried out whilst C is in her mother’s care. It is at best a six month long project (assuming a session a week for about 25 sessions).[85]It seems to me that these are all really important factors which weigh heavily against a rehabilitation now being feasible or in C’s best interests. I do not think that any support plan could remove these risks or barriers. I do not think that the range of orders available to me (e.g. supervision orders or child arrangements orders) alter the balance or meet the needs of this case.[86]In addition, D and E are both vulnerable young people, who have high levels of need themselves. The demands upon M as a result of their needs may also fluctuate depending on their own circumstances, putting further pressure upon her.[87]There are no identified respite carers or a school place (although M has done her best to identify suitable schools). I do not think it is realistic to expect the same respite carers to be available to take C in at short notice in the event of a further period of ill health or incapacity. Even if regular respite carers are identified, C would take some time to connect with them and may find staying in their care destabilising, and they might not be able to care for her at short notice. I do not underestimate how big a challenge it would be for C to change schools now, when she is doing so well and is building relationships at her current school.[88]Perhaps most importantly, C has achieved a level of stability in recent times which results from a combination of the care offered to her by A (which M commended), by her school, and by her mother, when she is home. Inevitably, she struggles with the transition between placements in the context of uncertainty about whether she is going home for good, but overall she has achieved a stability in education and placement that is still fragile.[89]In my judgment the history of very disrupted care and education arrangements in 2022-3 means both that C has a particular need for stability but also that she remains vulnerable to harm arising from further change. Dr Stevenson’s view is that from a psychological point of view C needs time to consolidate her progress and develop a pattern of secure attachment before any move is contemplated. I accept that evidence.[90]My overall conclusion is that rehabilitation, even one that is carefully planned and implemented over the summer holidays as proposed, is not a realistic option now. It might be something that should rightly be explored in future, but the level and extent of risk of trying to move C now are simply too great for that to be a responsible plan.[91]I accept and acknowledge that a placement in a residential unit is not the same as being at home, cared for by family, regardless of how good a residential unit it is. In this case all the professionals agree that M has many positive qualities as a person and as a parent. In the context of this case, where the LA has had to persuade me of the risks of M’s position, it has been hard for M to ‘hear’ positive comments that have been made about her, but the papers are full of them. The relationship between M and C is joyful and warm and M can be responsive and creative in her parenting. Her home is appropriate and M is really knowledgeable about C’s needs. C and her sisters are mixed race children and M is able to support them with their particular needs (hair and skin care etc). C talks really positively of her time at home and of the activities that she gets involved in when there. Growing up in a family environment with a shared family history is qualitatively different from being cared for by professionals who are paid. They are not the same as a mother’s love and dedication.[92]I accept, too, that although C has benefited from skilled and stable staffing (since the initial incident that led to a staff member leaving) that might change. Such is the risk with any residential placement. There are risks and down sides to all available options.[93]But I agree with Dr Stevenson’s advice that a failed rehabilitation, as I think would be the likely consequence of a rehabilitation in the near future, would be a catastrophe for C, and would probably damage her relationship with her mother irreparably. Although if she remains looked after C will not be able to live with her mother full time, she will be able to gain substantial benefit from staying there regularly, and having more positive experiences when she does. I hope and think that once a decision is made, after perhaps some initial disruption, C may find the transitions at the end of contact easier to manage.[94]When I consider the pros and cons of both options there is a starkly high level of risk associated with a rehabilitation now, and I think that by endorsing that option now it would be likely to break down. If that happened C’s right to family life would be further damaged and she would be at high risk of a further distressing series of placement breakdowns.[95]I accept the submission that the best chance of giving C what she needs to develop and thrive as an adult is to allow her to remain in stable care whilst also nourishing her relationship with her family in a managed way through the contact plan set out by the LA. That will be the building block - if all the other components are in place - for any future rehabilitation and for a strong relationship between C, her mum and sisters in the longer term. It is the best way to promote her family life because it will give C the stability to be able to enjoy it in the holidays.[96]The Local Authority, overseen by the IRO will have a statutory duty to keep C’s plan under review, and they have now set out transparently how they propose to approach issues around rehabilitation. I am sure that the LA will confirm that the roadmap, the amended care plan and my judgment will be placed on Lealia’s file and provided to the IRO, so that it can inform future planning.[97]I cannot predict whether a rehabilitation will at some point in the future be in C’s best interests, Whether or not that is the case depends on many factors, some of which are in M’s control, and others which are not. But I do think that the best chance of that happening is for M to focus on the EMDR work, on her current very positive contact, and on continuing to collaborate with A and other professionals as a team working in C’s overall best interests. M is an important part of that process and will remain so.[98]Even though C is not going to return to live with her mum now, and even if she does not do so in future, self care and personal development, in particular through the EMDR that the LA has now agreed to fund, will benefit both M and C. The more M can overcome her past the more she can be present for C.[99]For all those reasons I endorse the amended care plan and make a care order pursuant to s31 Children Act 1989. I specifically approve the adjusted contact provisions and hope that M and the LA / A can work together to make contact work well going forwards, and that this will lead to C spending at least a full week in her mother’s care in the summer, as part of two stays of up to a week, if that is in her interests. The LA care plan now specifically sets out that the length of contact will be reviewed and I agree with the Guardian that I would expect that to be proactively and meaningfully reviewed.Publication
[100]My provisional view is that I should publish an anonymised version of this judgment. If I do so, in addition to the usual anonymisation of family names and dates of birth I would propose to redact the location and name of her placement and schools.[101]I am minded to anonymise the social worker SW because, although my judgment includes some observations about aspects of the social work evidence and the LA in this case, it has neither been possible nor appropriate to explore the reasons behind those issues in full in this hearing, and it is evident that SW has worked hard to manage this difficult case against a backdrop of resource and workforce limitations. I would not want what I have said to become a distraction from the positive efforts that SW has obviously made in this case, and I am confident she is committed to rebuild a positive relationship with M for the remainder of her involvement. I think that these issues are better dealt with by the local authority internally, through training and review. Moreover, it seems to me that there may be a risk of identification of the family associated with her name being published.[102]If any party wishes to object to publication of the judgment or to propose additional anonymisation, they should submit short written submissions within 7 days.[103]I am very grateful to all the lawyers who have assisted me greatly in this hearing and who have focused their questions and submissions on the key points of relevance. I am grateful to the professionals for their hard work in this case.[104]I am grateful to M who has dealt with the stresses of this hearing with good humour, even though I can see it was very difficult for her at times. I hope that M can in time see that her important role as C’s mum is recognised in this judgment and by professionals, and that she can overcome the feelings of blame and criticism that these care proceedings have obviously triggered. I hope that she will agree in time that the decision I have made is in C’s best interests.[105]I intend to write to C and propose to circulate a draft of my letter to the Guardian before I finalise it, so that I can be sure it is as useful to C as it can be.[106]There will be permission to M to provide a copy of Dr Stevenson’s report and my judgment to her GP and any therapist or medical professional working with her, and for the LA to do likewise in respect of C.[107]That is my judgment.Post script
[108]M did not feel able to stay and listen to my full judgment. No further representations were made about publication. I am grateful to the advocates’ for their (no doubt pro bono) assistance with anonymisation.[109]I have written to C in the following terms (having first circulated my proposed letter in order to enable the Guardian to provide comment if appropriate. She did not do so): Dear [C], My name is Judge Lucy Reed. My job is to make decisions for children when their grown ups need some help sorting things out. I know that Charlotte (your court Guardian) has told you that the judge is thinking about what’s best for you. Charlotte has told me a lot about you, and she has told me that you have asked me to make a decision. You probably know by now that I listened to what everybody had to say before deciding that the best thing for you would be to stay living at [A] and going to school in [X], but also to go and stay with your mum and sisters at home every school holiday. I listened to what you told Charlotte, what your mum, your social worker and Charlotte told me. I know that things have not always been easy, especially when mum hasn’t been very well, but I was really pleased to hear about how well you are doing in school now, and how you are getting better at dealing with big feelings. I can tell that you love your mum and sisters and that mum loves you lots back. I thought a lot about everything I have been told about you, [C]. I think there are things about [A] that are really good for you, and you like the people who look after you there, but that you also enjoy your visits to mum and all the fun things you get up to with her. I think that my decision will mean you have a bit of all the good things in your life. It must have been hard not to know if you were going home or not, and to not be sure when you were going to see mum. I hope that things will get a bit easier now you know you are going to stay at [A], and that you are going to see mum in every school holiday. I think it will be good for things to stay the same for a bit so you can carry on with all the great progress you are making. If you have any questions about what I decided or my letter, you can ask Charlotte or your social worker about them. Good luck for your amazing future, [C]. Judge Lucy Reed