IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT CENTRAL LONDON 	ZC16C00351.

	First Avenue House,
	42-49 High Holborn,
	London  WC1V 6NP.

	Friday, 23rd September 2016.

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE HARRIS

Between:

KD
	Applicant

and

(1) LOCAL AUTHORITY
(2) CD
(3) PD (Minor)
(by her Children’s Guardian)
	Respondents

____________________

MR DAMIAN WOODWARD-CARLTON  (instructed by Philcox Gray, London SE1 6BD)
	appeared for the Applicant.
MR NICHOLAS O’BRIEN  (instructed by Local Authority)
	appeared for the First Respondent.
The Second Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
MISS SIMONE McGRATH  (solicitor from Osbornes, London NW1 0AE)
appeared for the Children’s Guardian.

____________________

Digital Tape Transcription by:
John Larking Verbatim Reporters
(Verbatim Reporters and Tape Transcribers)
Suite 305 Temple Chambers, 3-7 Temple Avenue, London   EC4Y 0HP.
Tel:   020 7404 7464     DX: 13 Chancery Lane LDE

____________________

Words:   9028	JUDGMENT
Fos:   125	(As Approved)
	
Friday, 23rd September 2016.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGE HARRIS:

1.	I am giving judgment today on the mother’s application for discharge of the Care Order in respect of her daughter PD, who was born on 5th August 2007 and is therefore nine years one month of age.  The Applicant of course is Miss D; she is represented by Mr Woodward of counsel.  The Respondents to the application are, firstly, the Local Authority, who hold the Care Order; they are represented by Mr O’Brien of counsel; and, secondly, PD, represented by her Guardian Kathy Deutz; PD and her Guardian are represented by Miss McGrath, their solicitor.  

2.	I am going to announce my decision, unusually for me, right at the outset because I do not think that the agony for the mother should be prolonged any longer than is strictly necessary.  After very anxious consideration and with a very heavy heart I have to say I have come to the conclusion in what is an extremely finely balanced case that I should not sanction the plan for rehabilitation and that the Care Order with PD’s placement with her foster carer should continue.  I will explain now in some detail why I have reached that very sad conclusion.

3.	The mother, as I have said, is KD; she is 42 years of age.  PD’s father is CD; he has played no part in these proceedings or indeed in any of the proceedings which have ensued since the making of the Care Order and indeed he plays no part in her life currently.  PD is the fifth of the mother’s seven children.  Her other siblings are KD, aged 24; DD, aged 22: JD, aged 19; SD, aged 14; and her half-siblings C, aged six, and K aged three.  PD was made the subject of a Care Order following a 10-day hearing before His Honour Judge Serota QC in March 2012.  She was subsequently made the subject of a Placement Order by the same Judge in May 2012.  

4.	I am extremely familiar with this case.  This is the fourth application that I have dealt with concerning Miss D and her children.  Firstly I dealt with care proceedings concerning K brought by another Local Authority.   In those proceedings I determined that K should remain in the long-term care of his mother and made a Supervision Order.  I am happy to report and relate in this judgment that K has remained in his mother’s care and she is parenting him successfully.  

5.	The next application was the mother’s application for leave to apply to revoke the Placement Order which was made in March 2014.  Very regrettably those proceedings for various reasons took an unduly long time to resolve and I gave judgment on 10th October 2014 refusing the application to revoke the Placement Order.

6.	Next in time was an application by the Local Authority to revoke the Placement Order.   This was granted by consent by me on 9th May this year.  Following on immediately from that application was the mother’s current application to discharge the Care Order which of course is the subject of today’s judgment.  It is agreed by all parties that the two options before me are firstly whether there should be a trial of rehabilitation of PD to her mother’s care lasting for a period of three months or so, the aspiration being that PD would be placed permanently with her mother by Christmas of this year.  This would take place under the auspices of the current Care Order.  The obvious benefit of such a trial of rehabilitation under the Care Order would be that there would be the safety net of PD being able to return to the home of her current foster carer, ST, if the rehabilitation were unsuccessful.  This is particularly important as the mother lives in a different borough.  The other alternative is for PD to remain living with ST under the Care Order.  If there is no trial of rehabilitation I need to go on to consider the issue of contact between PD and her mother about which there is not agreement between the professionals.  In relation to the application to discharge the Care Order or more properly for a trial of rehabilitation this has been opposed by the Local Authority and by PD’s Guardian.

7.	I have read a large lever arch bundle containing not only the evidence in the current proceedings but also evidence from the various previous proceedings and judgments where appropriate.  I received expert assessments from Dr van Velsen and Dr Blincow, both of whom have reported in each set of proceedings including the original care proceedings.  I have heard oral evidence from Maria Gayle, the currently allocated Social Worker; from the mother; from Dr Blincow, consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist, and from the Guardian Kathy Deutz.  No party required Dr van Velsen to give oral evidence.

	The legal position.
8.	In an application to discharge a Care Order the Court is applying Section 1 Children Act.  The welfare of PD is my paramount consideration and I have to have regard to the matters set out in the welfare checklist.  I also remind myself of recent authorities, in particular the case of Re W [2016] EWCA Civ 793 which in turn referred to the decision Re H [2015] and the words of the Court of Appeal that there is no presumption in favour of a natural parent; rather the Court will consider in carrying out a welfare evaluation all the benefits which flow from a child being brought up in his or her family of birth.

	The background.
9.	This judgment needs to be read together with the judgment I gave in October 2014 which sets out in some detail the background up to that point.  I will therefore deal with the complicated background relatively shortly.  PD was removed from her mother’s care along with her four siblings on 17th February 2011.  She was then aged three and a half.  She was placed with ST, her current foster carer, in October 2011 and has lived with her ever since save for a short period in the summer of 2012 and between February and May 2015 when she lived with her prospective adopter (to whom I shall refer as M).  The concerns about the mother at the time of the care proceedings were multiple.  They included misuse of alcohol, the mother entering into unsuitable relationships, domestic violence, lack of boundaries for the children, and finally the catalyst for the proceedings which was the mother’s relationship with a 14-year old boy leading to her being convicted of criminal charges.  PD also alleged that she had been sexually abused by her brother JD, which His Honour Judge Serota QC found was likely to have occurred.  The mother was diagnosed by Dr van Velsen as having a personality disorder mixed borderline and dependent in type.  

10.	The mother’s position at the time of the care proceedings can be stated shortly and succinctly; she was at rock bottom.  Fortunately and fortuitously, it was the conviction in the criminal proceedings which led to the beginning of the mother’s journey whereby she has succeeded in wholly turning her life around in a way which was described by Dr van Velsen during K’s care proceedings as being most unusual.  She had the good fortune as part of her sentence to undertake psychological therapy with a Dr Ward.  She continued with that therapy long beyond the requirements of the sentence.  That therapy plainly was extremely successful therapy in which the mother was able to engage fully and from which she has derived incalculable benefits. 
 
11.	Following the birth of K the mother lived for a period of about nine months in a mother and  baby foster placement and then successfully moved into the community with her young son.   She has built up a reliable support network including the previous foster carer of K to whom K refers as Granny.  She has undertaken a considerable number of courses and continues to do so, particularly with a view to improving her parenting and her understanding of child development.  She has not entered into another relationship since the breakdown of her relationship with K’s father before his birth.  She has a cooperative relationship with K’s father to the extent that he is now having overnight contact with K each weekend.  She has not consumed alcohol for a period of four years or so.  She appears to me generally to be living what can be described as a tranquil and well-regulated life.  She has been having ongoing contact with PD on four occasions each year.  I do not consider she has always been given sufficient credit by professionals for the remarkable turnaround that she has achieved in her life.  In my experience of dealing with these cases over many years what she has achieved is unusual and exceptional.

12.	I return to PD’s story.  Considerable efforts were made to find an adoptive placement for PD following the making of the Placement Order.  These were unsuccessful until June 2013 when the prospective adopter, M, a single woman, expressed an interest in adopting PD.  PD was matched to M on 19th November 2013.  In February 2014 PD and her older sister S, who had hitherto been placed together, were separated and S was moved to a new foster placement.  Part of the reason for this was because of the difficulties in the relationship between the two sisters.  Sadly, currently they are not having any contact.  

13.	In March 2014 the mother launched her application to revoke the Placement Order.  She was not at that time seeking the return of PD to her care.  She was no doubt mindful of the advice Dr van Velsen had given in the care proceedings concerning K that there was potential for destabilising K’s placement if the mother took on the care of more than one child.  Rather the mother was suggesting that as time had moved on and PD had continued to have contact with her birth family that adoption might not necessarily be the plan which was in her best interests.  I took the view that two years on it was necessary and appropriate to review that plan of adoption and I granted her leave.   I note that PD was then aged almost seven and therefore at the upper cusp in terms of age of a child who may be successfully placed for adoption.  Ultimately in October 2014, as I have related, I refused the application to revoke the Placement Order.  I was particularly influenced by the evidence of Dr Blincow, who suggested that the primary need of PD at that time was for a mother figure.  ST was seen by her as a grandmother figure and by implication was considered not able to fulfil that role.  Dr Blincow concluded that despite her age PD was adoptable.  

14.	PD moved to the care of M on 20th February 2015.  Within a short time PD’s behaviour began to deteriorate and she was acting out in an alarming way.   M spoke about aggression, biting, and smashing items in a friend’s home.  PD’s behaviour was described as very controlling.  She had to be physically taken home after refusing to leave the park and then broke the lock on M’s door and ran away.  Within a very short time the prospective adopter felt unable to cope with PD’s behaviour and the placement broke down by 12th May 2015, less than three months after she was placed.  PD spoke of wanting to return to ST’s home.  Following an initial period when she was described as very clingy and needy, she has settled back in a very satisfactory way to ST’s care.   She refers to ST as Nanny and to ST’s granddaughter, for whom ST cares, as her sister.  

15.	There has also been a serious problem about her school.  When PD left there was a goodbye party and it was obviously known that she was moving on to an adoptive placement.  She has now returned to her former school.  Since she has returned she has been the subject of some bullying as a result of her unexpected return and she is now saying very clearly that she is not happy at that school.   It has been resolved that whether she moved to her mother or remained with ST she will change school. 
 
16.	On 2nd June 2015 a Looked After Child Review was held to discuss PD’s Care Plan and a decision was made that she should remain in long-term foster care with ST.  On 13th July a network meeting took place when it was considered whether PD could return to her mother’s long-term care.  A decision was made against this.  Miss T, the initial Social Worker, in her statement states: 
	‘The reasoning for this was based on the recent conclusion of the proceedings initiated by Miss D and that she was not considered to be able to provide good enough care to PD.’

	That was not in fact the conclusion of the previous proceedings; rather it was the case that the mother was not seeking  the return of PD to her care at that juncture.  In my judgment it is regrettable that the mother was not involved in any of these discussions nor her current views canvassed.  

17.	The mother had had a goodbye contact to PD in January 2015 and it was now resolved that her contact should revert to four times a year  for one and a half hours only on each occasion.  The first contact after the breakdown of the placement took place on 30th December 2015.  Contact has continued, including K, and the quality of the contact has been reported to be consistently good.
  
18.	On 2nd March 2016 the Local Authority applied for revocation of the Placement Order.  As I have stated, this was granted on 9th May and the mother then issued her application to discharge the Care Order.

	The evidence.
19.	Dr van Velsen prepared an Addendum Psychiatric Report on the mother.  She reported that the progress that the mother had made had been significant and more importantly sustained.  However, she sounded a note of caution having regard to PD’s behaviour in the prospective adoptive placement.  She stated: 
	‘My concern is whether or not the stress of looking after PD, particularly should she develop significant behavioural problems, be too much for Miss D and trigger or precipitate a breakdown or decompensation on her functioning.  This would have significant and detrimental effects on Miss D, K and PD.’   

	As I have stated, Dr van Velsen was not required to give oral evidence.

	Dr Blincow
20.	Dr Blincow is a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist.  He prepared a full report dated 19th August 2016.  He had the benefit of Dr van Velsen’s updating report.   He met with PD, who made what he described as ‘an impassioned plea’ to return to live with her mother.  He had a long telephone conversation with the foster carer.  He noted the excellent progress that the mother had made in her own life.   Dr Blincow observed a contact between PD, her mother and K.  He observed considerable warmth between PD and her mother and also with K.  He saw nothing to indicate that PD had issues with her mother that might trigger similar reactions to that which she had with the prospective adopter in 2015.  He characterised PD’s difficulties as being her compromised attachments.  He said that when she feels threatened and anxious then she is much more likely than others to react in a controlling and hostile manner.  Very significantly, he did not consider that PD was likely to display those behaviours were she to return to the care of her mother.  The reasons for this were, firstly, PD’s strong investment in making the placement work; the second was that nothing of this sort had been evidenced in their relationship to date.  

21.	However, he foresaw some risks.  Firstly was the issue of the mother’s ability to protect in particular in relation to the issues of sibling contact.  Secondly was the issue as to whether PD would feel safe in her mother’s care; whether she would regard her as providing a safe haven for her.  The foster carer had expressed the view that PD’s ideas of being in her mother’s care were largely unrealistic and not based on any actual experience.  Thirdly was the issue as to how empathic the mother would be in relation to PD’s disrupted attachment.  Fourthly was the need to work consistently with the school and possibly others around PD’s peer relationships and her relationship with K.  Finally, he made the point that the risks of caring for PD differed from caring for K, who had always been in his mother’s care and had a secure attachment.  He pointed out on the other hand the risks of PD remaining in foster care.  Given her expressed wishes he considered that there was a risk that PD might vote with her feet as she grew older and that it would be better to have a planned and supported move.  He did not support a trial of rehabilitation as he considered that it had the potential to destabilise PD as well as the foster placement.   He concluded that PD should move to her mother’s care without any trial period.  If there was not rehabilitation he formed the view that the mother’s contact should remain broadly the same as it is currently or with only a modest increase to prevent the potential that it had for destabilising PD’s placement.  

22.	A professionals’ meeting then took place chaired by the Guardian on 9th September attended by Social Work management as well as the allocated Social Worker, the IRO and the foster carer’s supervising Social Worker.  In that meeting it was made clear to Dr Blincow that PD had expressed different views to her IRO and the allocated Social Worker indicating that she wished to remain with ST and indeed telling the Social Worker on 6th September that she wished to be adopted by ST.  The participants all also stressed the very strong attachment which existed between PD and ST.  Dr Blincow expressed the view that the situation was more finely balanced than he had appreciated.  There was also concern that if the placement with the mother was unsuccessful that PD might not be able to return to the care of ST.  It was resolved that Dr Blincow would meet again with the foster care and PD and he said this: 
	‘I am beginning to think that the assessment I have done already misses that part [seeing PD with her foster carer].  I mean, I had a long conversation on the phone with the foster carer.  Because I realise I just did not have enough information about that part of things I am beginning to think that is going to be important for me to see PD there, talk to the foster carer, talk to Sarah [Sarah being the supervising Social Worker for the foster carer].’  

23.	He then went back to see the foster carer on 15th September.  He was there for 45 minutes but only saw PD for 5-10 minutes with her foster-carer.  She was having supper.  There were therefore no real observations of PD with her foster carer as appeared to be envisaged by the professionals’ meeting.  Further, when he spoke to the foster carer there seemed to be little discussion about the nature of her relationship with PD.  She confirmed however that she was willing to have ongoing contact with PD, if necessary fortnightly at first, but expressed doubts about the mother’s willingness to allow that to continue.  She also confirmed that she would do her best to ensure that PD could return to her care if the placement broke down.   It does not seem to me from that visit that Dr Blincow did undertake what he said he was going to do in the professionals’ meeting.  

24.	He prepared an Addendum Report dated 20th September which was only received the afternoon before the hearing started.  In his Addendum Report he expressed the view that the situation was far more finely balanced than he had appreciated.  He changed his view about the need for a trial of rehabilitation and referred to a three-month trial with PD still having the safety net of the foster home with a move full-time to her mother’s care before Christmas if the trial was positive.  All the professionals – and I include myself – read his report as though he was still supporting rehabilitation.  However, on a closer reading, as he pointed out in his oral evidence, he actually said this: 
	‘Therefore I am now of the view that one should proceed very cautiously if [and I underline the word ‘if’] the Court is minded to test rehabilitation and that there is more value in and less risk attached to a trial of rehabilitation than there would be to proceed now with a full rehabilitation plan.’   

	Dr Blincow’s oral evidence.  
25.	Dr Blincow started his oral evidence by saying that he had changed his mind and no longer supported a trial of rehabilitation.   No one had had any discussions with him outside Court and this came as a startling revelation to everyone, not least the mother, who understandably looked completely devastated.  He referred to PD’s fluctuating views as expressed to different people.  He said that her presentation and behaviour and the quality of the relationship which subsisted between her and ST was a more reliable guide than what she actually expressed.  He considered that her changing views reflected her fragile sense of belonging.  He still felt the situation to be finely balanced but that her security could best be promoted and preserved where she was presently living.  He considered that given her previous experience of breakdown of the adoptive placement that this was not the right time for her to make another big change.  He considered however that there should be a progress towards a normalisation of contact with her mother, i.e. no longer supervised, and that the contact should be more frequent.   He spoke of the contact as being either monthly or two-monthly, and eventually settled on ‘approximately six-weekly’ contact.  This he felt would enable her to gain a more realistic view of her mother and on balance would help her to adjust.  I note that this also represented a change of view from his advice in his first report that contact should stay at roughly the same level to avoid destabilising the foster placement.  

26.	Under cross-examination on behalf of the mother he stated there had been no significant piece of new information which affected his mind, rather that there had been a process of ongoing review in his mind.  It was not flip-flopping but rather moving towards a settled opinion.  He referred to the risk of breakdown and stated that when things go wrong for PD they go wrong in a big way.  This too in my judgment represented a change of view from his first report when he expressly said that he did not consider that PD would be likely to act out in the same way as she did in the adoptive placement if there was an attempted rehabilitation to her mother. 
 
27.	It can fairly be said that Dr Blincow’s views have traversed a very wide arc.  He has moved from rehabilitation without a trial to a cautious position of rehabilitation with a trial to being against rehabilitation.  Regardless of the justification or otherwise for such changes of views, it was extremely unfortunate – to put it at its lowest – that his new views only became known when he began his oral evidence.  As I have said, this must have been devastating for the mother.  Not only did his views on the rehabilitation plan change but also his views on contact and PD’s potential behaviours if rehabilitation of the mother was tried.  I have referred already to his evidence that when things go wrong for PD they go wrong in a big way.  I have pondered what factors have led to such a change of view.  In my view they did not emanate from the further meeting with PD and ST, which in my judgment did not seem to throw up any new information.  His views in my judgment must have been changed by what he heard at the professionals’ meeting in terms of PD’s fluctuating wishes and the strength of her attachment to the foster carer.  Whilst it is a positive thing for an expert to be reflective and to continue to review his views on a case, I nevertheless find the trajectory from recommending an immediate placement without trial to being against the placement in a matter of a few weeks to be somewhat surprising.  There is also the change of his view about contact which did not appear to be based upon any new information.  In all the circumstances I regret to say that I did not find Dr Blincow’s reports and evidence to be as helpful as they otherwise might have been.

Maria Gayle – Social Worker.
28.	Miss Gayle has only been the allocated Social Worker since 1st September.  She has only met PD once and has never met the mother.  She was therefore in the unenviable position of being the spokesperson for the Local Authority’s views in a difficult and complex case.  Whilst her written statement came across as being more considered, her oral evidence was of limited help to me and frankly quite basic.  She came back on each occasion to the fact that the placement with the mother remained untested whereas the placement with ST was a tried and tested placement.   As I pointed out, on the basis of that argument no child would ever be moved.  What was required was a far more sophisticated and nuanced analysis.  Further, her written evidence contained no analysis of the pros and cons of the two options before the Court.  Despite Mr O’Brien’s valiant efforts to convince me otherwise, there was no consideration at all of any possible negatives flowing from a continued placement with ST or of any positives arising out of a placement with the mother.  The statement also signally failed to address Dr Blincow’s then opinion and state why the Social Worker did not agree with it.  The statement was prepared before the Addendum Report.  It is right, as I have said, to record that the Addendum Report was only received on the afternoon before the trial.  Initially Miss Gayle said that there were no further discussions after receipt of the Addendum.  Later in her evidence she corrected that to say that there had been a discussion with the Local Authority’s legal adviser and her Team Manager.  Again I regret to say I did not find Miss Gayle’s evidence to be particularly helpful to me in this complex case in reaching a decision.  

29.	I have also formed the opinion that the Local Authority decided at an early stage following the breakdown of PD’s adoptive placement that rehabilitation to the mother was not feasible and have not been prepared in any meaningful way to reconsider that stance since.  Hence the failure to take on board the expert views of Dr Blincow, as they then were, or to suggest why they were wrong.

	The mother.
30.	Miss D gave her evidence in a measured, calm and reasonable way.  It is evident that she has made fundamental changes to her life, as I referred to earlier in this judgment; that she takes pleasure and joy in caring for K; and that she is managing this extremely well.  I did not form the impression that she was in any way overly proud of her achievements with K, as the Guardian suggested.  She is entitled in my view to take considerable pride in what she has achieved, which as Dr van Velsen said was most unusual.  Despite the Local Authority’s stance against her she has continued to cooperate with them and would in my view continue to do so were there to be a rehabilitation plan.  On the less positive side, she strongly believes and genuinely believes that there would not be difficulties anything like what PD experienced during her placement with M.  I have to say that I consider that she is minimising the potential difficulties. 
 
31.	She was also criticised by the Guardian for her stance concerning SD.  SD has not seen her mother directly since November of last year when they fell out over the mother’s decision, which was in fact supported by SD’s IRO, that she should not have a belly button piercing.  She is not permitted to contact SD and is therefore reliant on SD contacting her.  SD has indeed made contact by telephone and they are communicating again.  She has asked consistently for help from the Social Worker for SD to assist them in rehabilitating their relationship.  I felt that it was difficult to see what else she could realistically have done in the circumstances when SD is in care and she does not have free access to her.  

32.	I formed the view – and indeed it did not seem to be at the end a matter of contention – that she would protect; there was no real issue about protecting PD from her siblings other than potentially from SD.  SD does not currently have the mother’s address and when she has asked KD for it KD has refused.  Of course there is always the potential for SD finding her mother’s address at some point but I did not consider, whilst one cannot rule out entirely the risk of SD destabilising the position, not least bearing in mind her recent unannounced visit to the foster carer’s home in July, that this was not a major risk in this case.

33.	I will turn now to deal with the Guardian’s evidence.  Miss Deutz provided a detailed report and plainly it was a more nuanced and sophisticated analysis.  While she did not perhaps do so in a tabular form, she did over the course of her report consider the negatives and the positives of the two options before the Court.  I considered overall she was a thoughtful and careful witness.  I did not agree with all her views.  I have already referred to the question of the mother’s lack of empathy with SD.  I also do not consider that the risk of destabilisation of the placement by SD is a major consideration in this case.  Other than that, as I have said, I found her views to be balanced and that she had conducted an appropriate analysis.

34.	I will turn now to my overall findings and will consider them in the context of the welfare checklist first of all before considering the pros and cons of the two options.

	PD’s wishes and feelings.
35.	As I have already reported, these have fluctuated.  When the IRO spoke to her in the summer and asked her what she thought of the Care Plan she said that it seemed to her to be a good plan.  I note however that the question was put in the context of what she thought of the plan rather than being an open question as to what she would like to see happening.  Miss Gayle also saw PD on 6th September.  She said that she did not probe PD’s wishes and feelings and PD without any prompting came out with the statement that she wanted to be adopted by ST.  She made it plain that she understood that would mean ST being her forever parent.  This is in contrast to what PD told Dr Blincow, her impassioned plea to him to go back to her mother.  Further the Guardian has seen her on two occasions and on each occasion she has expressed a wish to go to her mother and therefore it is obvious that her wishes have fluctuated.  

36.	I accept that she does have little conception of what life with her mother would be like having not lived with her since she was three and a half years of age, and I accept also that she may be idealising the situation of living with her mother.  To that extent in so far  as she expressed her wishes and feelings to live with her mother it can be said that they are not fully informed wishes.  

	PD’s needs.
37.	I am going to turn now to deal next with PD’s needs.  It is obvious from the history I have related that PD’s overwhelming need is for stability and consistency.  She has not really had that since the Care Order was made, some four years plus ago.  That is because of course the initial plan was an adoptive plan and therefore one can see her placement in foster care was to some extent a placement in limbo while she and her foster carer waited for that plan to be accomplished.  Then she had the trauma of the breakdown of the short-lived adoptive placement.  Now in the period since she has been placed back with ST she has also not had consistency because her Care Plan has been in a state of flux and is being determined by the Court only today.  Therefore what she desperately needs she has not achieved.  Because of her attachment difficulties and her history she has a far greater need than another child for stability and consistency.

	The mother’s ability to care for PD.
38.	I am conscious I am dealing with these factors out of order but it seems to me appropriate to deal with them in this order and I will turn to deal with the mother’s ability to care for PD.  I have already referred to the mother’s very good care for K.  I do accept that the situation in caring for PD is a very different situation from caring for K.  She is a child with compromised attachments.  I also accept that the mother had very great difficulty with all her older children during their adolescence, although as Dr van Velsen pointed out during the professionals’ meeting, the mother is now in a very different place.  However, she has still not been tested out in terms of her ability to deal with the choppy and sometimes turbulent waters that adolescence brings not least with a child with the history and attachment difficulties that PD has.  I therefore accept that one cannot simply extrapolate that because she is able to provide excellent care for K aged three with a secure attachment that things would be the same with PD. She might  encounter a very different situation with PD whose behaviour during the adoptive placement surprised everyone.

	The likely effect on PD of any change in her circumstances.
39.	This factor incorporates all the issues associated with the status quo.  ST is able to offer a high standard of care, as has been evidenced over the last few years, and undoubtedly has a very close relationship with PD.   I accept also that PD’s attachment with her mother will inevitably have been diluted and attenuated as Dr Blincow said during the mother's application for revocation of the Placement Order because there has not been a high level of contact.  It is also significant in my view that when the adoptive placement broke down PD saw her safe haven as being a return to her foster carer.  I have already referred to the fact that she has very little conception of what life would be like with her mother.  Further no one foresaw that she would react in the very extreme way she did in the adoptive placement.  This could be down to the chemistry or lack of chemistry which existed between her and the prospective adopter or the realisation of what it actually meant to move away from all that was known to her in terms of her home with ST and her relationship with her mother, or it may be a combination of those factors.  I find that it is extremely difficult to predict how PD will react when she is confronted with the reality of a move from ST’s home.  Further, life with her mother and K may not be as she anticipated it would be.   I consider that the effect of a further breakdown of placement on PD would be little short of disastrous.  If the breakdown occurred because her mother could not manage her, this would be likely to represent another failure in her eyes and would undoubtedly impact upon her view of herself and her self-esteem.  It would also, as the Guardian suggests, be likely to have an enduring effect upon her relationship with her mother going forward.  Even if the breakdown occurred because she herself expressed the desire to return to ST, the effect would still be extremely damaging in my view.  I also consider that the risk of a breakdown of the placement with the mother may be less likely to occur in the first three months or even the first six months which may be something of a honeymoon period.  My great concern is it may be that this risk arises further down the road when the safety net of a placement back with ST might or might not be available.  I would not wish to contemplate the effect on PD if she was required to go into a further and new placement.  

	Any harm that PD has suffered or is at risk of suffering.
40.	I consider that PD has suffered harm as a result of her future care not being resolved despite the number of years she has been in care.  I also consider that she has suffered significant emotional harm as a consequence of the breakdown of her adoptive placement.  This must inevitably have affected her view of herself and her self-esteem and has led directly to her current difficulties in school.  I consider that if there is another breakdown of placement this would have wide-reaching effects for her, as I have already said, probably worse if her mother was the one who felt unable to continue with the placement, but also extremely damaging even if it were PD who expressed a wish to return to ST.  Everyone has now accepted that there is no current risk to PD arising from her contact with any of her siblings except for SD.  Whilst I accept that there is potentially a risk of SD being able to destabilise the placement even if she does not currently know her mother’s address, as I have already said, I do not see that risk as being a significant one or one which should be allowed to stand in the way of a trial of rehabilitation.

41.	I will consider now the pros and the cons of the two separate options bearing in mind my findings on the welfare checklist.

	A placement at home.
	The pros.
42.	The first and most obvious advantage would be that PD would be restored to her birth family with all that means in terms of her identity and self-esteem.  She would also have the opportunity of growing up with her half-brother K and of having a more meaningful relationship than can currently exist with her older sister KD, who is in regular contact with her mother.  Secondly, she would be free of all the disadvantages of being brought up within the care system.  She has already expressed her irritation at having to have a Social Worker and in my view this would be likely to chafe even more as she grows older.  She will always have a corporate parent, meaning that for example things such as sleepovers become complicated by the need to have individuals police checked.  The stigma of being a child who grew up in care is in my view something which is likely to endure into her adulthood and has perhaps been underestimated by the professionals in this case.  Further, foster placements are recognised not to have the permanency of adoption.  Whilst I do not doubt ST’s current commitment, she is now aged about 64 and unforeseen life events might mean that she would have to change her plan to foster long-term.  Further a foster placement is not a family for life in the way that an adoptive family is.  I also have no doubt that the mother is deeply committed to providing a home for PD and is heavily invested in it.  As Dr van Velsen said, the mother has been able to demonstrate perseverance, determination and commitment in her own journey to improve her life and I have no doubt that she would bring the same qualities to an attempted rehabilitation with her daughter.  I also take into account all the matters that I referred to at the beginning of this judgment in terms of how the mother is currently leading her life and the fact that on the face of it she is able to provide a stable home for her daughter.

	The cons.
43.	PD is a damaged child despite her superficial outward presentation.  It is an unknown as to how she will react when placed back with her mother particularly as her current view of life with her mother is not an informed one.  She has also fluctuated in terms of whether she wishes to return home or stay with ST.  As I have already stated, were there to be a breakdown of this placement this would be disastrous for PD and would be likely to cause permanent damage.  There also remains the issue as to the mother’s ability to deal with a young person with disrupted attachment when she moves into adolescence.  Whilst I do not wish to attach undue weight to the mother’s difficulty in caring for her older children when they reached adolescence given the changes she has effected, this is still a factor which cannot be ignored.  I also take into account Dr van Velsen’s note of caution that the placement may cause the mother to suffer a deterioration in her wellbeing with effects for herself, K and PD.  I say this taking into account all that the mother has said as to how she has reacted to the different stresses which have occurred in her life over the last few years.  

	The pros and cons of a placement with ST.  
	The pros.
44.	The first and most obvious pro is that this is a tried and tested placement and all professionals have referred to the close attachment which exists between PD and ST, who is plainly committed to PD.  Secondly, PD currently regards ST’s home as her home and a safe haven for her.  ST has committed to caring for PD for the rest of her minority.  PD has a close relationship with ST’s granddaughter to whom she refers as a sister.  There would not be the same risks of disruption by SD.  As the Guardian stated, the dynamics are very different in the relationship between SD and ST and SD and her mother.  However, as I have already said, this is not a factor which weighs very heavily in the balance for me.

	The cons.
45.	ST is now about 64.  The mother is about 20 years younger and will inevitably have the energy and vitality to care for her daughter into adolescence obviously to a greater degree than ST will have bearing in mind the difference in their ages.  There are also all the disadvantages to which I have referred of being a young child growing up in care.  Further, the emphasis throughout has been on PD’s need for a mother figure.  It is recognised by everyone that PD regards ST as a Granny figure and indeed refers to her as such.  Whilst I accept the point the Guardian makes that she has not hitherto had the opportunity to claim PD as her own, and while she will obviously be carrying out the parenting role that a mother would, there will still in my judgment be a deficit in that she will never be seen by PD as a mother figure.  Further, there is always an element of uncertainty in a foster placement and events such as illness or change in family circumstances can supervene despite the best of intentions on the part of a foster carer.  

46.	Weighing up the pros and cons of the two options, the factors which weigh most heavily with me are the unpredictability of PD’s reactions and the significant harm she would suffer in the event of a breakdown of rehabilitation particularly if it occurred further down the road and she was not able to return to ST.  Secondly, there is also the unknown quantity as to how the mother would deal with a troubled young person, particularly as she moves into adolescence.  As I have already said, I consider that the mother for wholly understandable reasons has perhaps minimised these concerns.  Finally, there is the fluctuation in PD’s wishes and feelings.  If she had consistently expressed a wish to go to her mother’s and she had not already suffered the effects of the adoptive placement breakdown, I would have been likely to have formed a different view of this case.  It is those factors which weigh with me to reach what is a very finely balanced decision not to go down the road of a trial of rehabilitation.

	Contact.
47.	I will turn now to the issue of contact.  On this issue I am far more closely allied with Dr Blincow’s final opinion than that of the Local Authority which suggests only a limited change in the existing regime and no current plan for the contact to move to be unsupervised.  I consider that the advantages of more frequent and less restricted contact to be, firstly, that the relationship between PD and her mother may be more normalised and, secondly, that it will enable her to form a more realistic view of her mother and her mother’s life.  I am still of the view that there is a real possibility that PD may gravitate back to her mother when she reaches adolescence.  More normalised contact will give her a better understanding of what life with her mother might be like and would make any move easier to facilitate.  Further, the relationship with her mother is obviously a highly important one and in my view should not be restricted to four times a year.  

48.	I accept that there is a need for work to be carried out with both PD and her mother in the light of my decision.  PD will need to understand that a decision has been made that she will be living for the foreseeable future with ST, and her mother will need to be able to deal with any questions that PD may ask.  It will also be important to see what the reactions of both the mother and PD are to my decision.  I do not consider in fact that the mother would act to undermine the placement with ST after my decision despite her obvious distress and disappointment at the decision.  

49.	I do not see the need to wait until Christmas for the dust to settle on both sides and for a period of reflection to take place.  I see no reason why there should not be a further contact visit in the late autumn, perhaps in the middle of November, which will allow at least two months for things to settle.  After that, assuming that I am right in my assessment that the mother will be able to accept the Court’s decision albeit with enormous sadness and not undermine the placement with ST in any way, I consider that there should be a move from the first contact to contact which is not strictly supervised but rather to contact which is observed.  At the first contact it may be that the contact needs to be observed quite intensively, but if that first contact goes well it seems to me that there can be a move to less observed contact and that that should move into the community; in other words, perhaps for someone to be present at the beginning and end only.  I consider then that assuming that all goes along the trajectory I consider it will go along, that there should be a move to unsupervised contact including visits to the mother’s home.
  
50.	Whilst one cannot be prescriptive about the level of contact, because it is impossible to predict how PD will react to my decision, and whilst I have views that the mother will react in the way that I have outlined, one cannot be certain, but I consider that Dr Blincow’s view of contact of approximately six-weekly to be about the right level.  All of this needs to be written into a new Care Plan.  

51.	If the Local Authority does not accept my views I will have to give consideration to the making of a Section 34 Contact Order which in my view would be highly undesirable because of the rigidity which it produces  I consider that simply leaving the matter of contact and a progression to unsupervised contact to LAC Reviews means I cannot be satisfied that contact will progress in the way that I consider is in this child’s best interests.  I say that given my views about the Local Authority’s attitude towards for example a trial rehabilitation with the mother to which I have already referred in this judgment.  

52.	I also consider that it is very important that the two important people in PD’s life, ST and the mother, form a better understanding of each other.  ST seems to be holding on to a number of concerns about the mother which may now be historical and it does not seem to me that she has been kept fully up to date with the mother’s progress.  Further, the mother has told me that she has a very limited knowledge of ST.  It seems to me that the obvious way to do this is for them both to meet at LAC Reviews when discussions about PD and her needs take place.  The LAC Reviews have currently been at the foster carer’s home and I consider there is a need for them to move to another venue so that the mother can fully participate.  I do not consider it is adequate for the mother to meet with the IRO separately.  I consider this provides an ideal opportunity for her and ST to meet and to understand each other better than they currently do.  

53.	I consider also generally that there is a need for this Local Authority to involve the mother more than they have done hitherto in decisions about PD.  I consider that the mother has to some considerable extent been sidelined by this Local Authority.  I consider that one of the reasons for this may have been that the Local Authority was not the Local Authority in dealing with K’s proceedings and did not hear the evidence in those proceedings and may be somewhat stuck in not recognising the full extent of the progress that the mother has made since the Care Order was made.  

54.	I would therefore hope to see that if PD cannot return to her mother as I have decided, that there is a far more normal and normalised relationship existing between mother and child.  That should be the aspiration.  I consider that, as I have said, there are no welfare reasons for the contact to remain supervised and providing it is handled sensitively I do not consider that it would lead to PD having the wrong message about likely rehabilitation.  The work should take place as soon as possible; it needs to be carried out by someone who, as Dr Blincow put it, has got some psychological nous and I would expect the Local Authority to give me chapter and verse as to who is to undertake that work with both PD and her mother and that that work can start as soon as possible because it is essential work.

55.	That is my judgment on the matters before me.  It has already been agreed that a transcript of this judgment will be made available to the IRO and to anyone else within the Local Authority who has a need to see it.  I end this judgment by saying to the mother that I hope she does recognise how difficult a decision this has been for me.  This is in no way a decision which fails to reflect the very real changes that she has made.  I hope that she will in due course be able to adjust to this decision and will be able to make the sort of contribution to PD’s childhood and adolescence that I have spelled out in this judgment.