Ref.  ME16C01226
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT MEDWAY
Anchorage House
47-67 High Street
Chatham

17th JULY 2017

Before

HER HONOUR JUDGE CAMERON
______________

IN THE MATTER OF KENT COUNTY COUNCIL
– v –
[ADULT A], [ADULT B], [ADULT C] AND [ADULT D]
______________

MS Y JAMIL appeared on behalf of the Applicant Kent County Council
MR J THORNTON appeared on behalf of the Mother [Adult A]
MR R EDGINGTON appeared on behalf of the Father [Adult B]
MS G BUCKLEY appeared on behalf of [Adult C], father of [Child A]
MRS S MURKIN appeared on behalf of the Paternal Grandfather
MRS GLEESON (solicitor advocate) appeared on behalf of [Child A]
MR G BRAITHWAITE appeared on behalf of the Guardian, Ms Jenny Lobb
MRS F MUNRO appeared on behalf of Gloucester County Council on Day 12 only
______________

RESERVED JUDGMENT
17th JULY 2017
(AS APPROVED)
______________

Hearing days were:  8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 31st May
and 1st, 2nd and 7th June 2017

If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached.  This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.
JUDGE CAMERON:

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.	The Court has done its best in this lengthy Judgment to summarise the considerable amount of evidence heard over 12 days and also the very large volume of documents read in more than two substantial lever arch files.  Because of the sudden tragic death of a Court user in another case, and also the need for the social workers in this case to travel to Gloucester to deal with enquiries that had been generated by some of the evidence, there were some inevitable delays.  In order not to prolong the agony and uncertainty for all parties, I gave the Court’s Brief Decision and Judgment on day 12, 7th June, and reserved this full Judgment until today due to other immediately overlapping cases and also a period of annual leave.

2.	This has been an extremely difficult and anxious case to hear and determine, involving the four youngest children of a large sibling group of eight in all.  The oldest child, [Child B], is now 20 years plus but has been mentioned in the proceedings as being present at the various homes at times.  He now lives elsewhere with his girlfriend, Ashley’s, mother, I believe.  

3.	The case has been unusual also because my brother Judge, learned District Judge Green, had already read into the matter and made decisions about the three next oldest children, the mother of those children being [Adult E], and the father being [Adult B], on 22nd February of this year in these public law care proceedings.  In view of [Child C]’s age (he then being 16, and 17 on 28th May 2017) the Local Authority obtained permission from the Court to withdraw proceedings in relation to him, no public law order being necessary.  He had been living by his own choice with his mother, [Adult E], the father’s previous wife or partner. 
 
4.	The Court also dealt with the next two children, they being twins, born on 8th October 2001, [Child D], a boy, and his sister, [Child E], often known by the family as [S].  So those children are now 15 years of age.  I refer to the Judgment in their case dated 31st March 2017 for a full understanding of the Court’s decision.  Essentially in earlier private law proceedings the father had had the twins placed with him as a result of alleged neglectful parenting by [Adult E], those parents having separated when the twins were young.  The father had then begun a relationship with the mother in this case, [Adult A], more than eleven years ago when her own daughter, [Child A], was only a few months of age.  These older children have suffered from neglect and have been badly let down by both their parents and, as District Judge Green recorded, have moved around a great deal in a fluid way between various family members just as has happened here in an unforced way on occasion with [Child A].  

5.	Again, very much like [Child A], who has had her own separate representative and her own views about her future, because those diverged from her Guardian’s recommendations, the older children have also stated very firmly where they will and will not live.  There was a realistic appraisal that, if placed where they did not want to be and where their father could not support them living, there was a real likelihood of them voting with their feet, making themselves vulnerable and returning to live with [Adult B] and the younger children.  Accordingly, [Adult E] withdrew her application, although she had been positively assessed, and the Court was obliged and “severely constrained” as the Judge put it to accede to [Child D] and [Child E]’s emphatic determination to live with their father.  [Child A] similarly has emphasised what her views are.

6.	The Court in that case also made a twelve month Supervision Order wanting the Local Authority’s involvement to be robust, finding that the children remained at significant risk of harm.  

7.	I then inherited this case on 24th March 2017 for a Pre-Trial Review in preparation for an 8 Day Final Hearing that had been listed, the children’s timetable having already well expired on 10th January 2017 and the case having been extended by then by some 44 weeks.  My predecessor had recorded on his Order that the reasons for the delay were “the number of children involved, the potential complexities surrounding the family relationships and the number of proposed witnesses for a final hearing resulting in a listing of eight days being required.”  

8.	Cognitive assessments have been conducted on both parents by Dr. Alison Conning.  The mother is 31 years of age and has a markedly low IQ of 55 while the father, some ten years older than her, was assessed as having an IQ of 72.  In the event, he actually refused to have the services of an Intermediary at all (which of course would have been provided for him at the trial) but a Formal Ground Rules hearing was held in relation to the mother who has been assisted throughout most of the trial by the excellent Ms Lexie Rogers from the organisation Communicourt.  Because of the mother’s limited concentration span, breaks had to be held after every 40 minutes or so of evidence which inevitably made the process of hearing a great deal of evidence fairly slow.  The mother was enabled to give her own evidence in the best possible way which she did to her credit by questions being put to her having already been prepared and agreed between all the advocates phrased in simple language and which had been approved by both the Intermediary and by the Court.  

9.	There was also some unexpected delay when the Proposed Special Guardian for the three youngest children, Mrs [Adult K], had what was termed “a wobble” necessitating the two very experienced social workers, Ms Jan Wilson and Mrs Gill Skinner travelling to Gloucester to see her and producing a further statement thereafter.  I am satisfied that overall a scrupulously fair Article 6 compliant hearing has been held.  

10.	As stated, the Court’s Decision and brief Judgment has already been given to the parties.  On a very finely balanced basis, given all the circumstances of this particular case and the family dynamics and on the fact that time has passed, I just decided to depart from the Local Authority’s care plans, supported by the Guardian, and ordered that the children that I am concerned with are to remain within the care of their parents, albeit with a tight structure of support to be implemented and with the presence of the grandmother, [Adult D], on a daily basis.  Realistically, there is an Agreed Threshold Document here with the three heads being “Poor home conditions, failure to meet the children’s educational needs and failure to meet the children’s medical needs,” all of which have been accepted by and established against both parents.

THE CHILDREN THE SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

11.	The children who this hearing dealt with are the four sisters:  [Child A], born on 14th June 2005, who has, therefore, just celebrated her twelfth birthday at the end of the hearing; [Child F] born on 6th December 2011, therefore, more than five and a half now, she having some delay in speech and language and being assisted at the school in relation to that; [Child G], born on 23rd August 2013, now three and three quarters and four next month.  She too, has speech delay and was not toilet trained in February or March of this year.  I should say that [Child F]’s school attendance is some 98 per cent now.  Then there is the baby of the family, [Child H], born on 23rd June 2016 and therefore who was 1 as the Hearing ended.  She has a mild physical developmental delay.

12.	 In fact as was revealed to [Child A] in a most regrettable and inappropriate way, apparently by reading messages on her mother’s phone in December at a time when she was then staying with her maternal grandmother, [Adult F], in Gloucester with the Court’s approval, [Adult B], who has always raised her as his own child since she was a few months old, is not in fact her biological father.  The parents’ evidence about this was woeful suggesting that they would suddenly announce to [Child A] when she was 16 the news of her real parentage as before then, the father said, her brain could not cope with it.  [Child A] is a very troubled and confused young girl as all the experts have found.  It is now known that [Adult C] is [Child A]’s father.  I will deal with his involvement and his wishes later on in this Judgment.  For shorthand, I hope it will be understood that I have referred throughout this Judgment to the parents, meaning [Adult A] and [Adult B] rather than forever highlighting [Adult B] as the stepfather to [Child A].  The Court means no disrespect to [Adult C] at all in this regard. 

13.	Although [Child D] and [Child E] in a way are semi-detached from this case, those decisions having already been made about them, inevitably they have featured in this case, too, as they have been daily visitors with their father, as the Court heard, to the paternal grandmother’s, [Adult D]’s home, where the mother and the three youngest girls went to live on 1st July 2016, so now a full year ago.  The mother’s and the father’s case is that all six children should live together again back at the family home in [Address given].

THE LOCAL AUTHORITY’S INVOLVEMENT

14.	This is not a one-off incident case, far from it indeed, although I am unclear quite how long and how in-depth the various packages of Local Authority support in the past have lasted.  Most recently, the precipitating event which triggered the split of the family occurred on 30th June 2016, when the midwife visited the home in [Address given], to which new-born [Child H] and the mother, who had had a caesarean section only a few days earlier, to which they had just returned, that home being found to be in a truly appalling state, quite unsuitable and uninhabitable for all the children and adults living there.  The conditions were utterly squalid with no hygienic surfaces and shocked all who saw them.  There were dogs both in the garden and elsewhere, about five in all, I believe, and there were cats and kittens, certainly five or six kittens looking at the photographs that I have seen, and they again were all over the place.   One or two – in fact it may be three different dogs looking at their faces – were photographed at various times in the upstairs bedrooms and dog feeding and water bowls were found in the children’s bedrooms.  Faeces and urine were all over the place.  It was plainly a shocking environment for the parents to believe was acceptable for their children of any age, including a new-born.  The police and Social Services were contacted and the family was required to make those immediate alternative living arrangements for everybody.

15.	At some stage [Child D] was placed initially with the paternal step-grandmother, [Adult G], then he moved to join [Child E] who was living with her paternal Aunt [Adult H] and in January 2017 he, too, moved to the paternal grandmother [Adult D] at her property where the mother and [Child E] were with the three younger children.  By the time of the February hearing [Child D] was back residing with [Adult H], his own school attendance being a very low 76.8 per cent and [Child E] was back with her father at [Address given].   Her school attendance at 94.6 at various times has been recorded as acceptable in the last academic year.  

16.	While these may not be the best or acceptable arrangements from the Local Authority and the Guardian and the Court’s point of view, that is how this large family operates.  The twins and perhaps [Child A], too, to a lesser extent, have determined who they are prepared to live with at any time.  The Local Authority were content with the arrangement whereby [Child A] lived with her grandmother, [Adult F] in Gloucester.  They have had a good relationship always and the child has spent some time with the grandmother over the years, the grandmother originally living in Kent, including with [Child A]’s mother when [Child A] was a baby.

17.	Although [Child A] had settled well and was enjoying the school and had made some good friends, the parents acted entirely irresponsibly and retained [Child A] after a period of agreed contact in Gloucester and brought her back to Kent on 22nd January 2017 in an entirely unplanned and unilateral way.  They did not tell any of the professionals about this, nor did they discuss it in advance with [Adult F] and simply brought [Child A] back without her clothes, her asthma inhaler or her phone.  They had arranged for her to stay with the mother of a school friend, [Adult I].  Unfortunately, because [Adult I] has had a period of ill health and hospitalisation and also her own relationship had broken down, [Child A] has now been sleeping on a sofa at her aunt [Adult H]’s home for some months although that was not necessarily known to the social workers at times, it would seem.  There is a Supervision Order in place in relation to her.  [Child A]’s school attendance now in Kent is a commendable 98.5 per cent this academic term so that has stabilised back in Kent.

18.	There is a significant background history here although not concluding in previous Care Proceedings when the Local Authority have become involved at various times in the family’s life as the Local Authority’s lengthy chronology documents show.  The record in fact starts back in April 2007 with the maternal grandmother, [Adult F], reporting that [Adult A] had a tendency to abscond and to take toddler [Child A] with her.  Support was also then offered to the [Adult B/A] household in 2011 but was rejected.  Then in February 2012 there was concern at [Child A] being admitted to hospital in a dehydrated state and very unwell and the mother not showing much understanding of her daughter’s needs.  In May 2012 the whole family had decamped then to Mrs [Adult D]’s home due to some sort of disagreement with a local family.  Whether that allegedly was about drugs or about some perceived jealousy over [Child B]’s boxing prowess and threats from another family, as [Adult B] sought to explain, is unclear and I do not need to make any finding about that.  It was felt then, back in 2012, that the children’s needs were being neglected and that they needed safeguarding.  A visit by the fire brigade for a safety check was met with opposition and abuse from the father who would not permit a smoke alarm to be installed without [Adult D]’s or the landlord’s expressed consent even though there was concern about an extension lead providing a trip hazard and potentially poor housekeeping then.  

19.	Pre-proceedings actually were considered in June 2012 due to the overcrowding, with eleven people living in the house and the children sharing a mattress on the floor and the children not going to school or attending medical appointments due to the father being afraid to go out because of alleged retaliation.  At an Initial Child Protection Conference held on 18th July 2012 the Local Authority were aware that the family by then had been approved for a 5 bedroomed house to deal with the overcrowding concerns.  Family support was in place together with support from Specialist Children Services.  The family had advised them that they would undertake the necessary changes although professionals were sceptical in view of previous deterioration and non-engagement.   The Chair concluded that it was unreasonable to suggest at that time in those circumstances that the children were at continuing risk of significant harm.  

20.	Happily, on 1st August 2012, the Family Intervention Programme worker reported that the family were doing well, improvements were being made and they had completed all requested work.  Similarly in March 2013 the house was seen to be clean, all was positive for the children and the family reported feeling happy and safe in their new home.  There was concern that school attendance had dropped for [Child B] and [Child C] that month.  Within nine months in December 2013 there was a new referral by Early Help that home conditions for the children had deteriorated again to an unacceptable and unhygienic level with dogs being an issue then and support again was implemented.  A visitor in October 2014 reported animals everywhere, cat faeces on the floor, a smell of urine and a one-year old child lying on the floor amongst all the dirt with the father shouting and swearing at the seven children and allegedly smoking a joint at that time but no decision was taken to launch proceedings at that juncture.  The RSPCA had made a welfare check in relation to the animals in May 2015.

21.	Then in November 2015 the Early Help worker again noted the house to be dirty with a strong smell.  At one visit there was an intense smell of ammonia and one of the toilets was blocked.  It was mentioned as an issue, [Adult B] saying he had not been paying his rent because of that.  £400 was provided by Early Help to buy new beds for the children.  There was a failure by the father to engage with educational welfare about [Child A]’s attendance which was only at 76 per cent at that stage and with no application having been made for her secondary school or for a place at nursery for [Child G] or the necessary form being signed for [Child D] for whom a CAMHS appointment was missed as [Adult A] was unwell.  In total in fact, five CAMHS appointments for [Child D] were not kept.  [Child F]’s nursery raised neglect issues in December 2015 when she arrived at nursery with dirty clothes and smelling.

22.	There was then an anonymous referral in January 2016 about the house being in an absolute state with dogs’ mess everywhere, including in the kitchen, three dangerous dogs living in the house being used allegedly for protection by the father, the younger children being filthy with dog mess on their shoes and being left to run amok, sometimes out in the street naked.  [Child B] and the father were said to smoke cannabis in the home in front of the children and there was an allegation that they were actually selling drugs from the home.  It is right to highlight fairly that the father in fact underwent a hair strand test in September 2016 which showed no usage of cannabis or amphetamines by him in the period mid-June to late August 2016.  The case once more was stepped down to Early Help.

23.	Seashells Nursery raised concerns that [Child G]’s most basic of needs, both care and hygiene needs, were not being met in March and April 2016.  She had dog faeces on her clothes and bag, she had nits in her hair and an aroma about her.  She had been referred for speech therapy.  [Child F], too, was seen during those two months, March and April 2016, to be dirty, wearing the same clothes, smelling strongly of urine, having to have her hands and face washed on arrival by nursery staff and her behaviour not being good, hurting her little friend.  A review meeting with Early Help was cancelled ten minutes before it was due to start with the mother stating that the father was not well.  On 29th April [Child F] said that Daddy was naughty and had punched Mummy in the face and “Mummy is good.”  Although the Local Authority had been concerned about the father controlling the mother, there is no direct independent evidence here of any physical domestic abuse but it is clear, and it is accepted between the parties, that the father does control the purse strings as the mother has real difficulty with the value of money.

24.	At a Joint Home Visit on 1st June 2016 by Early Help and CAMHS for [Child D], the smell experienced at the front door of [Address given] was recorded as “intense” and “not good for the children.”  All of that accumulated history with worsening conditions over many months culminated in the perfect storm, as I call it, that was witnessed on 30th June 2016 with a seven day old baby and a recovering mother found in the squalor that is seen in the photographs that everyone has now seen.  The conditions were said by the attending social workers to be the worst that they had ever seen in their careers.

25.	The Court accepts, therefore, that this was not just a snapshot of one day caused by a father coping on his own while his partner was in hospital giving birth to another baby.  It was a result of many weeks and months of sheer, chronic neglect, apathy and a failure to have any proper routines or systems in place to ensure floors and kitchen surfaces and the cooker were kept clean, that toilets worked, that the children had comfortable bedding in pleasant bedrooms and an expectation of clean clothes.  The parents abjectly have failed in regard to all of that and, belatedly, have now expressed shame, embarrassment, acceptance and remorse.  If the case had crystallised and stopped there, it would be unanswerable, in my judgement, to remove all the children and to place them with willing family members away from the parents who have been shown wanting in so many ways and for so long, even making proper and due allowance for their individual respective learning disabilities.  If one looks at the photographs it would appear that all three toilets in the home variously are blocked or cracked, have no lid and are downright disgusting for any child or adult to have to use on a daily basis, which is part of the Local Authority’s case.

26.	It is well understood that neglect is extremely damaging to children in both the short and long term.  The experience of neglect affects physical, cognitive and emotional development and also of course friendships and behaviour and life opportunities.  The Local Authority, strongly supported by the guardian, say in effect that enough is enough here.  These parents have been supported with some work going in over some years and there is a long history of neglect of all the children and failure to maintain consistently acceptable home conditions.  [Adult B]’s attitude has not helped, he tending to blame the agencies for failing to help him and also the older children for not pulling their weight and does not readily accept his own responsibility as father and his own failures.  That needs to change, I am very clear.

27.	The Local Authority’s view is that the physical changes within the home, which [Adult B] was able rapidly to effect within a very few days were due to self-preservation as the police of course were involved.  They had arrested the parents and they were looking to charge them with child neglect.  In fact the police have taken the decision not to take any further action against [Adult B] and [Adult A] and had very much left the matters, as they very often do in cases of chronic neglect, to this Civil Family Court.  

28.	In a very lengthy first statement dated 11th July 2016 Ms Hannah Taylor, one of the initial social workers on the scene, stated as follows: 

		“Given the history of deterioration once professionals are no longer 			involved, combined with the lack of engagement when they are involved, it 		is unlikely that change will be effected for the children within their 			timescales.  [Adult B] continues to blame professionals for the concerns 			and, although change has been made within the home, this is likely to be 			for the benefit of Social Services and self-preservation rather than his 			children.  [Adult A] has remained passive throughout the process and 			almost appears to be on the periphery of the family with no identifiable 			role.”

29.	In fact things, luckily and happily, have not been static over the intervening 12 months and the Court has found that there have been changes and improvements over the last year.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE:  

30.	I remind myself of the principles that the Court applies.  The starting point is of course that, all things being equal, the best people, whether they be wise or foolish and so on, to bring up their children are the parents.  However, things have not been equal here and the parents have let their children down.  I bear in mind what Aitkens LJ said recently in Re J (A child) [2015] EWCA civ 222:  

		“It is vital that local authorities, and, even more importantly, judges, bear 			in mind that nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or other.  The 		State will not take away the children of ‘those who commit crimes, abuse 			alcohol or drugs or suffer from physical or mental illness or disability, or 			who espouse antisocial, political or religious beliefs’ simply because those 		facts are established.”  

31.	Hedley J had said in 2007 that society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent.  He stated that it is not the provenance of the State to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting.  I remind myself also of the leading case of Re B-S Children [2013] EWCA civ 1146 requiring the Court to carry out that global and holistic view looking anxiously at all realistic options for these children.  Ryder LJ had said in Re Y that realistic has its ordinary, everyday English meaning.  Moreover, the Court of course is reminded that it is not in the business of providing children with perfect homes or indulging in social engineering but, as is stated in Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA civ 1625 that Re B-S has not changed the law and the Court is not required to strive to keep a child in a family at all costs if that is not in the best interests of the child’s welfare.

32.	I have of course taken into account section 1(3) of the Children Act and the welfare checklist, particularly in relation to the emotional well-being of these children and their full development and happy childhood to which they are entitled.  I have looked at their physical, emotional and educational needs and the likely effect on them, too, of any change in their circumstances and their parents’ capability in meeting their needs.  I have also had regard to the intervention by the State with the parents’ Article 8 rights and the children’s own Article 8 rights.   I have reminded myself also, as was said in Re G, that when undertaking my not easy judicial task that a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for each of these children’s future upbringing is required before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child’s welfare.  As was also said in Re C and B (Care Order: Future Harm) [2001] 1 FLR 611 by Hale LJ, intervention in the family must be proportionate but the aim should be to reunite the family where the circumstances enable that and the effort should be devoted towards that end.

33.	The Court is well aware that the Local Authority’s care plans for the four younger children, which of course it is the Court’s role to scrutinise, ruled out the parents as ongoing carers.   Although the Court had queried during the hearing and had posited an alternative care plan, that opportunity actually was never taken up by the Local Authority.  I have reminded myself of the comments made by the President in Re W (A Child), and RW and Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and others [2013] EWCA civ 1227 as the Court of Appeal recognised in that case that necessarily in a contested case someone involved will disagree with the judge.  That is inevitable.  The Court is not here simply to rubber stamp the Local Authority’s care plans if it does not feel them ultimately to be proportionate and an appropriate response to the situation that is offered to the Court.  Indeed there would be no merit at all in hearing many days of evidence being challenged if that were to be the case.  The Court’s powers extend to making an order other than that asked for by the Local Authority and requiring the Local Authority to give evidence about what services would be provided. 

34.	The Court of Appeal in the Neath case stated this at paragraph 64 and 65:  

		“(64) In proceedings where the local authority are asking for a supervision 		order but the court might make a care order, the care plan will of necessity 		relate to an option that is not being proposed by the local authority.  If 			directed by the court to prepare and file a plan, the local authority is 			obliged to do so even though the plan’s contents would not reflect their 			formal position.  A similar circumstance will arise where the local 				authority are asking for a care order but the court might make a supervision 		order. A supervision order does not require a care plan for its
		implementation but in order for the court to know how the local authority
		would implement such an order and what services would be provided there
		must be evidence of the same, whether that is put into the body of a care
		plan or in the authority’s written evidence or both.

		“(65) It can readily be seen that it is entirely possible in such circumstances
		for the care plan to be conditional upon the decision the court makes about
		an order or to be in the alternative to the authority’s primary position ... A
		care plan that is defective as to its content can be the object of an order
		from a family court or the High Court and there is nothing in the statutory
		formulation that prevents a family court requiring a local authority to
		specify the services that are practicable under each of the range of orders
		that the court may be considering and whether that is in the form of detail
		contained in the plan or a witness statement is simply a matter of form.”

35.	Their Lordships stressed in paragraph 83 of the Judgment in that case that a Local Authority cannot refuse to provide lawful and reasonable services that will be necessary to support the Court’s decision because it disagrees with the decision or the Court’s evaluations upon which this decision is based.  It is bound by the Court’s decisions and must act on them.  It states at paragraph 82:

		“The proportionality of placement and order are for the court. The services
		that are available are for the authority. In this regard, I cannot improve on 			the words of the court most recently in Re B-S (Children):

		‘It is the obligation of the local authority to make the order which the court 		has determined is proportionate work.  The local authority cannot press for 		a more drastic form of order, least of all press for adoption, because it is 			unable or unwilling to support a less interventionist form of order.  Judges 			must be alert to the point and must be rigorous in exploring and probing			local authority thinking in cases where there is any reason to suspect that 			resource issues may be affecting the local authority’s thinking’.”

36.	Then paragraph 83:

		“The same point applies with equal force to a less interventionist form of 			order which is argued for by a local authority whether that is because the 			authority disagrees with the judge or is unable or unwilling to support that 			which is necessary.  Although it may not seem as obvious, an order that 			fails to meet the risk may set up the child’s placement for failure.”

	Neath confirmed, if indeed confirmation were necessary, that it is the function of 	the Court to come to the value judgments that are the welfare evaluation which in 	turn informs the proportionality of the response which the Court decides is 	necessary.  

37.	The case outcome in this case may well have been very different if the Court was deciding it only two or three months down the line from the time of removal from the parents’ home and the new arrangements bedding in, as it were.  The time lag here has enabled improvements to be made and routines to be implemented by the three adults collaborating cooperatively, albeit in very cramped surroundings indeed in [Adult D]’s home.  The children draw comfort and [Child A], her resilience I believe, from the overall emotional warmth of the family and its wider family support, although there has been some justifiable comment that the mother in particular has been able to be of only rather limited emotional support to her eldest daughter.  

38.	I have borne also in mind in dealing with this case the key principles enunciated by the President in Re D (a Child No 3) [2016] EWFC 1 in a case involving parents with learning disabilities and the packages of support that can be devised and provided to bridge the gap between what the parents were able to offer a child and what the child needs.  Munby J had actually described that as one of the most difficult and unusual cases that he had ever had to try.  I rather echo that sentiment about this case in fact.  It was stressed that it is not the Court’s task to find a better family for a child if, in truth, the parents with proper support and assistance can provide a child with good enough parenting.  The President reminded himself that he must be vigilant not to countenance social engineering.  He endorsed, too, what was said in Y v UK [2012] 554 EHCR 33:

		“It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial 			environment for his upbringing.”

	He referred also to the well-known passage that I have already quoted from Hedley 	J in Re L (Care: Threshold criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 about society being 	willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting.  The particular 	circumstances of Re D involved both parents and in fact the child himself having 	learning difficulties.  The Local Authority having supported the family for some 	years then performed a complete about turn and concluded that the child should be
	adopted.   That was despite any fundamental change in the parents who were today 	the same parents as they were in earlier years, all absent the sudden emergence of 	anything previously unknown about them.  There was no acute incident or 	substantial change in the family circumstances or the parents’ abilities or 	engagement.  The Local Authority had admitted defeat and decided that its care 	plan, described by the Guardian there as courageous, had turned out to be 	unrealistic.  

39.	I bear in mind that the parents that I am dealing with here have never been offered, for example, a residential assessment with specific parental teaching about routines, stimulation, budgeting, organisational skills, emotional warmth and so on as their family enlarged over the years.  The support has been offered always to them in the home and has been of that uncertain duration and content but, when required to clean the home, [Adult B] showed himself to be more than equal to that task and has maintained good standards ever since.  The President in Re D endorsed the eight paragraphs appearing in the important case of Re G and A (Care Order: Freeing order: Parents with a Learning Disability) [2006] NIFam 8 as set out by Gillen J.  Those are as follows:

		“(a) People with a learning disability are individuals first and foremost and 		each has a right to be treated as an equal citizen ... and the courts must take 		all steps possible to ensure that people with a learning disability are able to 		actively participate in decisions affecting their lives.

		“(b) Parents with learning difficulties can often be good enough parents 			when provided with the ongoing support they need.  The concept of 			‘parenting with support’ must underpin the way in which the courts and 			professionals approach wherever possible parents with learning difficulties.

		“(c) Judges must make absolutely certain that parents with learning 			difficulties are not at risk of having their parental responsibilities 				terminated on the basis of evidence that would not hold up against normal 			parents.  Their competences must not be judged against stricter criteria or 			harsher standards than other parents.”

		“(d) Too narrow a focus must not be placed exclusively on the child’s 			welfare with an accompanying failure to address parents’ needs arising 			from their disability which might impact adversely on their parenting 			capacity.

		“(e) The court must also take steps to ensure there are no barriers to justice 		within the process itself. Judges and magistrates must recognise that 			parents with learning disabilities need extra time with solicitors so that 			everything can be carefully explained to them ... The process necessarily 			has to be slowed down to give such parents a better chance to understand 			and participate. This approach should be echoed throughout the whole 			system including LAC reviews.

		“(f) All parts of the Family justice system should take care as to the 			language and vocabulary that is utilised.

		“(g) The courts must be careful to ensure that the supposed inability of 			parents to change might itself be an artefact of professionals’ 				ineffectiveness in engaging with the parents in appropriate terms.

		“(h) A shift must be made from the old assumption that adults with 			learning difficulties could not parent to a process of questioning why 			appropriate levels of support are not provided to them so that they can 			parent successfully ... The concept of ‘parenting with support’ must move 			from the margins to the mainstream in court determinations.”

40.	The President had described the concept of parenting with support as crucial and stated that that represents the positive and broad obligation upon the state to provide the specific support that is needed for the parents to be able to retain the care of their children.  The question is then whether the parents, if provided with all the necessary support and services, would be able to provide their children with adequate care and parenting in a session which promotes the children’s welfare and does not cause harm. The case also considered whether or not a child should be removed because the package of support is so extensive that a substantial amount of the practical parenting tasks are shared with professionals.  Even where parents are receiving a high level of help and support, it does not necessarily mean that the parents are not bringing up their children themselves.

41.	In the present case what the Local Authority are now suggesting in Amended Care Plans produced on 23rd June after an Advocates’ Meeting, after the Brief Judgment had been given, is a package of support involving a social worker or social worker assistant going into the home I think three times a day to monitor and assist with breakfast, getting all the children ready for nursery and school on time and then again later in the day at supper and bath time.  That presence hopefully will ensure that the home conditions are kept up to scratch.  The Court is required to explain its decision with full and careful reasoning because of the importance of the issue as was said in Re S (Adoption Order or SGO) [2007] EWCA civ 54.  Moreover, the Court needs to be satisfied that the order it makes is the proportionate response to the child’s welfare needs as required of course by Article 8.

THE ORAL EVIDENCE

42.	There has been a very experienced social work team working with this family for many months now.  I review the oral evidence that the Court heard, first of all from Ms Hannah Taylor who was the senior social worker allocated to all seven children and who dealt with the case for a 6 to 8 week period from 1st July to 1st September 2016.  Currently she is Acting Team Manager in Ramsgate.  She undertook what was the negative Viability Assessment of the paternal grandmother producing her report on 1st August 2016.  She only had some 4 weeks to produce that report and agreed that it was not an in-depth assessment but it was not rushed.  There was a purposeful approximately two hour visit to do that assessment but the children were there in a very small and busy house and that appointment had doubled up as a child protection visit as well.  [Child B] had been verbally abusive to her but the grandmother said that she was happy to say everything in front of the family members when another room had been suggested, so they stayed in that busy room for that assessment.  

43.	Ms Taylor said that she quickly had become aware that [Adult D] was very reluctant about and very unhappy at Social Services and social workers being involved in the family’s life and about the whole proceedings.  Ms Taylor’s evidence about the most concerning aspect for her is that the grandmother did not appear to share the Local Authority’s concerns about the children’s living conditions and their right to live in cleanliness even though [Adult B] of course had called her to attend and she went straight over to the property when the police and social workers were there and really should have seen the state of squalor for herself on 1st July or maybe 30th June.  

44.	The grandmother’s approach was that she would work with the Local Authority if she had to, the social worker felt, but her engagement did not appear to be meaningful.  Her body language, her demeanour and her monosyllabic responses gave Ms Taylor a hostile and resentful presentation, she explained.  That was very much echoed by Ms Skinner and Ms Wilson and Mr Levy but not, intriguingly, by the Health Visitor.

45.	The mother and the three youngest children have lived with [Adult D] since 1st July and Ms Taylor said that she was aware that the father, [Adult B], was visiting his mother’s address on a daily basis for the vast majority of the day to see his children.  He was seen there at different times of the day when the social workers visited every 10 working days under the child protection plan.  All the children, the older children, too, were often there as well.  [Adult D]’s role is to supervise and support the mother and her parenting as the Local Authority were aware of the mother’s deficits and also to ensure that appointments were kept.  Ms Taylor expected the grandmother to jump in to take [Child G] to the nursery.  Her responsibility was to meet the mother’s deficits and that had been discussed at a Child Protection Conference and at a Core Group Meeting but Ms Taylor felt that the grandmother was not very proactive.

46.	She had not known herself that [Adult D] cannot read or write.  Nobody had told her that and [Adult D] had actually said that she can read and write, it was said, when Ms Taylor had asked her.  That is what Ms Taylor recalled.  On every visit Ms Taylor made [Adult D] was sitting in her armchair in the living room during the duration of the visits and it was the mother or sometimes [Adult D]’s son [D], an adult son, or [Child B] who would see to the children.  That was of course in the early stages, the first few weeks of the family being there.  Ms Taylor’s impression of [Adult D]’s role was that she was not particularly involved in the care of her grandchildren, the majority being undertaken by the mother, the mother feeding [Child H] but [Child F] would sit on the grandmother’s lap sometimes and the children did go to her.  [Adult D] asked the mother or one of the other children to take Ms Taylor upstairs, [Adult D] saying she did not go upstairs and in fact slept downstairs because of some mobility issues.  Ms Taylor had noted that although the conditions were much better there in [Adult D]’s home, she observed the conditions deteriorating in the room where the mother was sleeping over 4 weeks but they then did improve so they were able to manage the chaos with everybody there.

47.	Ms Taylor remembers having to re-affirm that a GP, a general practitioner’s visit must be made for [Child H] as the Health Visitor noticed that she had oral thrush.  They had also wondered why the father had not promptly brought over the Moses basket for the baby and made excuses for not bringing it over when advice had been given more than once that it was required and other professionals had raised that.  Towards the end of her visits, [Adult B] did bring it over but it needed a mattress or something like that.  He tended to leave the property when she arrived, she told the Court.  

48.	The Health Visitor had expressed concerns about [Child H] having a flat head.  Ms Taylor observed the mother holding the child and [Child H] being in a chair a lot of the time and there were concerns that she was in the chair for long periods and not stimulated and taken out.  There were also concerns about text messages that [Adult F] had handed to the social work team of the mother communicating with an antisocial worker woman, Alana Carvell.  The grandmother had had to be told about a stairgate being necessary as there was not one there initially and the grandmother did not volunteer that actually she had one in the cupboard.  The grandmother did not respond to Ms Taylor very well, she felt.  Ms Taylor confirmed that the grandmother knew she was being assessed and the father did, too, and possibly some family member later had relayed what was in the report as the grandmother had said it was lies.  Ms Taylor herself had not discussed its contents with the grandmother or checked that she had received the report which, with hindsight, she might well have done, she said.  The Legal Department apparently sent out the report on 7th or 8th August and the grandmother was not aware that it was negative until after Christmas.

49.	Ms Taylor denied that her assessment had been prejudged or coloured by what she and Kerry Cannon, her co-social worker, saw at the family home where they all agreed that the conditions were horrific and neglectful, the worst she had ever seen, she and her colleague said, in their joint 15 years of social work experience.  She said that that was a fact and it was a fact that her colleague was ill thereafter but that cannot of course be directly linked to the home conditions.  She said that it is not a question of being judgmental as social workers do prefer children to be with their family.  She knew that the grandmother had been a daily visitor at [Address given] and would have had access to the downstairs and the front room.  The kitchen was on a par with the bathroom and upstairs they were equally as bad when Kerry Cannon and Ms Taylor saw the conditions.  There were also multiple pets, both cats and dogs.  She herself was worried that the grandmother was minimising the dreadful conditions which were simply not good enough for the children who were living in squalor but this grandmother visiting daily did not seem to accept that.  

50.	In particular the grandmother had gone as far as saying that the parenting was very good and had ranked the parents as being 9 or 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 and it had been double checked to ensure her understanding as she said she was extremely proud of them.  Her son was there and the social worker expected her to say something to him she but did not do so and the grandmother was able to make no difference.  Ms Taylor recognised that she herself did not have a particularly good working relationship with [Adult D] which might have made the grandmother rather prickly and defensive to her.  The grandmother was not able to answer questions posed to her about a possible future scenario if she became the sole carer for the younger children and one of the parents then turned up at her home.  The grandmother’s home, Ms Taylor felt, was adequate but the physical conditions of her property are a very small part of the triangle regarding her ability to care for the children.  There was some recognition that it had fallen below standard when the grandmother accepted that they were not ideal home conditions at [Address given].  But Ms Taylor felt that if the grandmother has no inherent understanding of why the children were removed from the home situation where there had been concerns for years, the social worker took issue about the grandmother having no insight or a real lack of concern.  The grandmother had also flatly denied that the father had used cannabis although he had apparently previously admitted such usage and the social work team were concerned that cannabis could be smelt in the room where [Child H] slept. 

51.	Ms Taylor fairly acknowledged that the father had done a remarkable job of turning the house round.  He had absolutely surprised her and had gone beyond their shopping list, as it were, above and beyond what she had asked him to do, as it were.  While there were still concerns about the flooring and upstairs there was still a smell at the time that she was involved, by 4th July downstairs was fit for the children to return to, so it was not a case of the father just not understanding how the conditions should be.  She absolutely denied saying to the father that if he could get the place sorted out, the children could come back.  She had challenged the grandmother about the comment that was plainly nonsense that her son was always tidying up whenever she visited and did not have time to sit down and have even a cup of coffee or tea with her.

52.	The parents blamed the number of children, those children not cleaning up after them and Social Services letting them down and the mother stood by the father’s description of blaming really everybody else.  Ms Taylor referred to the almost mixed response that she got, the children are loved and there is emotional warmth but she struggled to understand how the grandmother could allow young children to live in such absolute squalor.  Because there was that good deal of denial of responsibility, Ms Taylor said she would be worried about the parents’ capacity and ability to sustain change.  Social Services had been involved previously and they had not changed.

53.	The father himself had spent a large proportion of his childhood with Mrs [Adult G], where there are adequate conditions.  There is not a family culture of squalor at all.  Ms Taylor said she was surprised by the condition of both [Adult G] and [Adult D]’s home and his ex-wife [Adult E]’s home, too.  They all keep a very clean house and that raised her concerns as to how this family home had deteriorated to that point and why the necessary work had not been done.

54.	The Court also heard from two very experienced social workers who then co-worked this far from easy case from the beginning of September last year, so after the children had been removed from the home.  Mrs Gill Skinner spoke to her full statement in December 2016 in which she dealt with the family dynamics and undertook a full realistic options analysis and also in relation to her other updating statements, too.  She had accepted Paul Levy, the independent social worker’s view that the number of children with varying and competing needs overwhelmed [Adult B] and [Adult A] and their problem solving abilities due to their cognitive function and her opinion was that that was unlikely to change.  She had found it upsetting hearing [Child A], a bright and articulate young girl, state that her home was not that bad and [Child D] commenting, loyally, “Dad did his best.”  The unclean, unsafe and unhygienic home conditions had been the worst that she had ever seen in her 16 years as a social worker but [Child D] seemed to have become used to them although he had experienced a clean home environment when he lived for a time with both [Adult G] and [Adult N].  

55.	The case files had recorded that [Child A], who, Mrs Skinner confirmed, was really into her looks and toiletries, would apply body spray and deodorant when she went to school to disguise the smell of faeces from the animals kept at home.  Such a way of living for a young person can lead of course to social isolation and sometimes bullying from their peers.  [Child A] informed Mrs Skinner that she never had any friends back to play at the house and she has never spoken about sleepovers or visits to her friends.  At that stage [Child A] was well established in her grandmother’s home and the local community in Gloucestershire and wanted to stay there, while saying that she was missing her family.  In Mrs Skinner’s view, the home conditions had been going on for a long time.  Dog feeding bowls were seen upstairs in the children’s bedrooms, one of them near a child’s potty, and there were dog faeces next to a baby’s toy.  [Adult A] had stated to Mrs Skinner that she was not keen on there being so many animals in the home herself and if she had her way, she would not have any.  In his evidence, [Adult B] told the Court that he had made £850 from breeding and selling puppies but the conditions for doing so were clearly entirely inappropriate.  Mrs [Adult D] referred to the pups being kept in the kitchen, a highly unhygienic arrangement.

56.	In the Special Guardianship Report that Mrs Skinner provided in respect of [Adult F], the grandmother had expressed disbelief that the family home had reached the state that it had.  [Adult F] had informed Mrs Skinner that “[Adult A] is a clean person” and she cannot herself understand how her daughter had allowed this to happen, even acknowledging her daughter’s learning difficulties and the fact that she needs support.  

57.	About the paternal grandmother, Mrs [Adult D], Mrs Skinner said that [Adult D] was not the easiest person to get on with.  She presented as quite hostile and did not want to be in the presence of the social worker at all.  She herself, too, was not aware that [Adult D] could not read or write and had not checked about that.  She recalled some months ago telling [Adult D] that she could challenge the negative Viability Assessment of her.  She disagreed that [Adult D]’s perception was that she was to take a back seat.  Mrs Skinner said, “No, she would have known that she was there in a supervisory role for the mother.”  Although they had seen her holding [Child F] on her lap, the Local Authority were concerned that [Adult D] did not exhibit a grandmother’s natural nosiness and get involved with the discussions or seem to recognise the developmental delay in [Child G] and [Child H].  

58.	Mrs Skinner dealt also with [Child A] disliking the boundaries her grandmother in Gloucester was trying to put in place about monitoring her Facebook usage, her Skype access to her parents, and setting a time limit for her to be at home before it was dark.  At a sibling contact in [Town given] on 26th October last year [Child A] had become upset and stated that she wanted to return home to [Town given].  Both mother and [Adult B] were observed as struggling to placate or comfort her in any way.  [Child A] told Mrs Skinner that she did not want to live in Gloucester anymore and wanted to go home and [Child A]’s school teacher, where her attendance in Gloucester was 100 per cent, had received a letter written by [Child A] saying she did not like it at her grandmother’s home.  She had also written a letter to Mrs Skinner who was not clear if this was actually the entire work of an eleven year old child.

59.	There was then a contact visit in Gloucester on 19th January 2017 when the mother and stepfather arrived at 10.30 pm and [Adult F], although not keen on the idea, as it was a school day the next day, realised that [Child A] was still awake and may in fact have made prior arrangements with her mother on Skype or whatever or on her tablet so allowed a 30 minute visit.  That was then followed by a heated debate when [Adult B] made it clear to [Adult F] that she was upset that [Adult C] was then seeking custody of or contact with [Child A] and [Adult B] said that he was [Child A]’s real father.  He was also displeased to learn that [Adult F] was actually speaking regularly to [Adult C] every Friday to let him know how [Child A] was doing.

60.	Two days later of course, as we now know, [Child A] was removed from [Adult F]’ care.  Mrs Skinner described [Adult B] as quite argumentative and headstrong and in future such just turning up would not be acceptable and boundaries would need to be put in.  [Child A] had mentioned to her on the way back to [Town given] from a contact visit, as she had done to [Adult C] as well at a contact visit on 7th April this year, that she did not want to live with her grandmother and the grandmother’s partner, Mr [Adult J], as he had been to prison.  She said she had asked her Nanny about that but her Nanny would not tell her anything.  [Adult F] actually stated to Mrs Skinner that [Child A] had never asked her anything at all about [Adult J] being in prison.  Mrs Skinner said she did not really know, therefore, where that information had come from.  

61.	When Mrs Skinner asked further about how [Child A] knew this she was met with the response that [Child A] had overheard someone talking about it, perhaps further unhelpful adult issues being conveyed to her but could not recall who it was that had said it.  This of course had necessitated then further checking about [Adult J]’s background and the Court sought and received a full memorandum of his previous convictions.

62.	In his January statement, [Adult C] had referred to some Facebook entries which had concerned him.  In one exchange the mother had messaged her mother, [Adult F], “Felt so down today, why can’t this shit be over, just want my baby home.”  [Adult F] had said, “Chin up, sweetheart, I’m sure it won’t be long.”  [Adult A], “It’s really getting to me now, missing [Child A] so much.”  [Adult F], “I know, and she misses you as well.”  [Adult C] had been worried that on one reading of those messages it looks as though [Adult F] could be expecting that at some point [Child A] will return to her mother.  He expressed real concerns about her ability to stand up to her daughter and to manage contact and in particular to avoid things that had been said that might cause [Child A] further emotional harm.  The impossibility of policing all of that caused the Court concern also.  Asked about these messages Mrs Skinner said she had spoken about this to [Adult F] and did not see it herself as a collusive message.  She was trying not to placate but to support her daughter while they waited for the hearing and the Court’s outcome.  [Child A] and [Adult A] of course had lived with [Adult F] for the first few months of the child’s life and there has always been a strong attachment and time spent with the grandmother I think in the summer holidays in particular.  

63.	Mrs Skinner said that she felt a lot of the time that [Child A] does not know what she wants.  She is a very confused little girl whose view fluctuates all the time and, as the adults cannot give her the security and predictability that she is seeking, she is making decisions for herself.  Her views had seemed different at different times and, as was expressed to John Cotton, the social worker in Gloucestershire [Child A] then something different said to Mrs Skinner.  By late October last year [Child A] seemed angry about the situation and said that she was not getting on well with her grandmother as well as she first had and was arguing with the others, although she did get on well with her auntie who lives up the road, that of course being [Adult K].

64.	It concerned the Court that [Child A] with her older cousin, [Child I], and her grandmother and [Adult J] living there would have a very different experience from her younger sisters with three cousins and her younger aunt just up the road and might well have found all of that difficult.  Mrs Skinner commented that there were a number of influential adults and an awful lot of negative communications coming from [Town given] which were tending to sabotage [Child A]’s stability.   [Child A] had complained that no one was listening to her, she did not like living in a rural area and so on.  Mrs Skinner said that she would not put it past the parents asking [Child A] to take photographs of [Adult F]’ kitchen when Mrs Skinner said to [Child A] that the conditions were nowhere as near as bad as at home in [Address given].  [Child A] just said that she had got used to those. 

65.	Mrs Skinner harboured some concerns about any future removal of [Child A] if placed with the grandmother in Gloucester.  She did not consider that the mother and stepfather could work openly 100 per cent with the Local Authority and they have the ability to destabilise the placement once more by putting their own needs first.  They had just taken things into their own hands before and brought [Child A] down without consulting anyone.  Future contact, she said, should take place in Gloucester not [Town given] so that [Child A] does not get any mixed messages about things changing and her potentially going back to her mother’s care.  Mrs Skinner of course had observed the three contacts that [Child A] had with [Adult C], her father, and they took place at a ball pool, on the beach and at his home at times with his partner, [Adult L], and their two young children being present and all of those [Child A] seemed to enjoy, Mrs Skinner felt.  Mrs Skinner said she was a bit surprised when she heard that [Adult C] was now asking the Court to have [Child A] to live with him which, whilst understandable, was not what he had been saying to her recently when he said he was quite happy for her to live with her grandmother, [Adult F].

66.	The Sibling Assessment undertaken in October last year had shown that all the children have a close bond.  Mrs Skinner agreed that the parents had rallied, they had tidied up and decorated since the police and Local Authority escalated their involvement.  She felt that a lot of the time the older children were being asked to do or just did do things that the parents should do such as [Child C] changing a nappy or the feeding of the baby and they had school and their own friends and their own lives to concentrate on. There had been an improvement and the parents had been more honest about their financial situation with this £4000 water bill and some reality was starting to hit home, as she put it.  There had been the inappropriate purchase of motorcars, the motorbike and the promise of a Segway to [Child A] but the puppy and other money had not been utilised to improve the detrimental home conditions for the children.  She would have expected the mother to go back up to Gloucester and discuss the devastating revelation for [Child A] realising that her birth father was not whom she thought he was.  Mrs Skinner thought that both mother and stepfather were capable of doing it, of going and supporting [Child A], but she felt they just ignored it.  That was her view.  Later it was said that [Adult J] would have come down and collected the mother at least and driven her back but I do not think that that offer was actually ventilated at that stage.  

67.	At a later contact, when the parents were in Gloucester again, [Adult B] had talked to [Child A] and had given her some pocket money but it was the grandmother who had come over and reassured [Child A].  Mrs Skinner felt that the mother should have dealt with the lie, as it was, and reassured [Child A] that she could know her birth father but still be part of the [Adult B/A] family.   Overall, Mrs Skinner opined that the Local Authority believes that only [Adult F] can offer the consistent parenting that [Child A] so desperately needs, even with the geographical and psychological distance of being away from Kent where her home has been for the last three or four months or more, since 21st January, first with [Adult I] until she fell ill and thereafter with her Aunt [Adult H] since 25th April.  Mrs Skinner said that she did not know if [Child A] would make her way back to Kent if she was placed by a Court Order in Gloucester.  The Local Authority’s preferred option is for Gloucester and for the parents to see the children simply six times a year with no turning up at any other time at all.  If the Court decided to order [Child A] to live with [Adult C], Mrs Skinner said that the Local Authority initially could set up and support contact, [Adult C] being adamant that he wanted no contact with [Adult B] and wanted contact to be supervised at a contact centre.  However, [Adult C] would of course have parental responsibility and the Local Authority would not want to have intrusion and involvement in all their lives after a settling in period.  Mrs Skinner’s view was that [Child A] and her birth father are only just beginning a relationship.  [Adult L] is a very nice person but one of her children has global delay and it would be setting up [Adult C] to fail to move a young girl to Ramsgate to a man whom she barely knows.  The Court very much echoes that approach.

68.	Similarly, Mrs Skinner did not think at that stage, before the parents and of course [Adult D]’s evidence had been heard, that [Adult F] would need a twelve month Supervision Order.  She believed that [Adult F] is capable and can get on with it and with no more intrusion from the Local Authority.  She trusts the grandmother to make all the decisions including about [Adult C]’s future contact arrangements.  

69.	It was put to Mrs Skinner that the parents now fully accept the Local Authority’s concerns and together with the support of [Adult D] have made a vast improvement; however, Mrs Skinner said that the family is very resistant to working with the Local Authority and do not think that the Local Authority should be there.  She did not think that a Supervision Order would be strong enough if [Child A] was returned to the mother and they would not want to remain involved with a young person until she is 15.  Her overall conclusion is that this family has had many years and ample time to address their issues and she does not think that [Child A] has any more time with the family.  While [Child A] is very close to her mother, the mother really struggles to address emotional issues.  The risk for [Child A] is that she will not meet the optimum outcomes which she needs to achieve and will not have stability if she lives with her mother and stepfather.  Mrs Skinner concluded that [Child A] is best placed back in Gloucester.  She has been moved the most and is the most unsettled and saddest of the four children, her younger sisters of course not having undergone all those moves.  

70.	I find Mrs Skinner to be an entirely honest, very thoughtful and fair witness who gave her evidence in an entirely child-focused way in the very best traditions of the highly professional social worker that she is.

71.	Ms Jan Wilson told the Court of her 21 and a half years’ experience as a social worker.  She has been undertaking statutory child protection visits every ten days to [Adult D]’s home.  She spoke to her joint statements with Mrs Skinner.  She had tended to focus more on the younger children and had prepared their care plans whilst Mrs Skinner had had concentrated more on [Child A] but they jointly worked the case and had discussions and joint supervision about all four children.  She, too, had found [Adult D] to be quite hostile on the majority of occasions and not wanting to engage.  At times, though, [Adult D] had surprised her by engaging in conversations and can articulate when she wants to.  She was not aware that [Adult D] could not read or write and the home was much too chaotic really with all the children and people there for her to have read through the negative Viability Assessment with her.  She would have advised her to take legal advice and herself thought that it was a good assessment, more in-depth than a lot although Ms Taylor had admitted and accepted that it was rushed. 

72.	Mrs Wilson had herself seen [Adult D] going upstairs twice in order to see the bedrooms together and knows that she can do that.  It is not a question of her not being able to get upstairs at all although the bathroom is downstairs and at the back of the house.  She was not aware herself that [Adult D] was putting herself forward as a carer until 5th May during these proceedings.  Her view was that [Adult D]’s role had not been very limited.  She was not there to co-care but to support the mother in a supervisory role.  The children would go to her but she would not go to the children in Ms Wilson’s experience.  The father was often there during the visits preparing dinner, going to the shops, taking the children to school nursery and so on.  

73.	Mrs Wilson felt that there was strain between the two women as [Adult A] had stated to her on one occasion that she receives no help from [Adult D].  Ms Wilson said that [Adult D] has helped the parents with keeping appointments and with [Child F]’s 98 per cent attendance at school so that there were real improvements.  Her own view was that the mother is extremely isolated in the family as she has no support of her own in Kent.  All her family are in Gloucester and have been for some years and all the support in Kent is of course from the paternal family side.  The paternal grandmother’s role she thought was limited to having [Child F] on her lap and doing some cooking and amusing the other children at times.  Even if [Child A] did not return to the maternal grandmother in Gloucester, Ms Wilson’s opinion was that she still supported the little ones going to [Adult K] in Gloucester.  [Child A] had been exposed to the turmoil of multiple placements and she agreed that the parents had indulged in selfish and disgraceful behaviour by disrupting [Child A]’s placement with her grandmother in Gloucester.

74.	Mrs Wilson told the Court that she is not trained in an official PAMS way but she has worked with adults with learning disabilities before.  The majority of her conversations were directed at [Adult A] but the grandmother would always be sitting here, sometimes entertaining [Child F] on her lap, looking at her phone or playing a game.  The grandmother had also been present at the last Child Protection Conference.  On one occasion she knew that when the mother was not present and the father was in the kitchen, [Adult D] was indeed giving [Child H] tummy time on top of a rug and towel with toys around her.  She confirmed that there are no concerns about the home conditions at [Adult D]’s home so they have not been allowed to deteriorate but she would have had concerns about [Adult A] and [Adult D] together.  She said in the main it is the mother doing all the work.  She was aware that Mr [Adult B] was round there every day.  She was aware that the parents can now keep a diary and off their own back had researched local resources on the Island, that is the Isle of Sheppey, and had undertaken in fact a parenting course at Seashells.  The father also used the experience of the nursery to help him complete the necessary forms for school entry.

75.	About [Child F], Ms Wilson agreed that there had been progress in school.  She had received additional support and speech therapy and there has been progress but she was still a little below her peer group.  She can be quite a boisterous little girl as [Adult K] had noted and does not always listen to adults.  Since December she has been noticeably calmer but she and [Child G] can still bounce off each other and she has a way to go in Ms Wilson’s opinion.  She said that [Child F] had said, “Mummy good, Daddy bad,” at one point although there was no context to that at all.

76.	In relation to [Child G] Mrs Wilson said that there were signs of developmental delay and she had very delayed social skills.  She was not able to interact with other children in the nursery and was very boisterous and loud and all over the place.  She was a physical whirlwind at times, as she was described.   There was concern about her muscle development and only two out of her four physiotherapist appointments had been attended.  The parents had been advised about trampolining and the soft play areas and swimming in order to build up her muscles.  Ms Wilson said that she did not think it had happened but it is known, and the Court accepts, that the mother does now take [Child G] swimming weekly and they have also taken her to a soft play area.  [Child G] has undergone some speech therapy and Ms Wilson said that she can now understand the odd word but [Child G] had not been speaking in sentences.  Whilst it is all fairly chaotic at [Adult D]’s home with the number of adults there, from her point of view [Child G] has calmed down now and understands that if they say “no” about her grabbing their handbags or keys or whatever, that they mean it.  She was not aware of any ongoing concerns in relation to a squint which had been mentioned at one stage.

77.	There had been the delayed toilet training issue which the nursery had noticed [Child G] being anxious about on occasions and trying to clear up after herself but recently [Child G] has turned a corner and has been dry as they are putting her on the toilet the whole time and she has grown in self-awareness.  Nits have been a perennial problem leading to [Town given] Neighbourhood Nursery requiring the child to be sent home in the past, leading to the parents and the paternal grandmother being quite angry and stating that they were discriminating against her.  It is now rare that she is seen with head lice, her attendance is regular and the communication with father is mainly suitable.  He is always asking how [Child G] is doing, he being keen to know different strategies that he can employ to help her with at home.  She is very behind in her academic progress but both parents interacted well with [Child G]’s speech and language session and the mother communicated excellently with [Child G] getting her to cooperate with an activity when the father had left the room for a short period.  While [Child G]’s moods can be extremely erratic and she can be hyperactive, the nursery said that she has come a long way since September 2016 with building relationships with staff and showing some progress, playing alongside her peers.  She had been seen eating fruit from the bin during snack time when she eats a lot, but overall there has been considerable progress with her care although not strong enough to carry on without direct supervision from Social Services in the nursery’s senior practitioner’s opinion.

78.	Ms Wilson’s very real concern was expressed about [Child H] who at ten months, when she saw her, should be babbling and doing much more than she is and whom she said she felt to be a vacant baby who does not hold eye contact.  She has had bronchitis on and off and the doctor has prescribed a pump to assist although she understood that the mother had cancelled some appointments.  The social worker said that she had not seen the mother smoke inside at home visits and detected no odour of smoke on either the mother or the father, so that, too, has improved and Mr Levy certainly had given additional advice about that.  [Child H]’s delay could be organic and that needs investigating but Ms Wilson’s opinion is that the baby has not received sufficient stimulation or attention.  The back of her head is flat and she is often put in a corner of the very small room in a baby chair or now in a baby walker.  The community paediatrician has referred her and Early Years and Portage will be providing guidance.  It was said that the father had missed one physio appointment for [Child H] as the train had broken down and on another occasion he was late but Ms Wilson was unsure about that, to be fair.  She did not feel that [Child H] had improved.  She felt that instinctively the parents and the grandparent should have noticed that [Child H] was behind and part of her concern was that historically the services had not been taken up.  

79.	Ms Wilson confirmed the joint visit undertaken by her and Ms Skinner to deal with [Adult K]’s wobble, as it was called.  She said that she was now confident that the maternal aunt was 100 per cent committed to the children and had the ability to care for all three of them plus her own three.   While properly daunted by the prospect, she had insight into the scale of the challenge that she must meet.  [Adult K] had felt extreme disappointment in how her sister [Adult A] had gone about photographing [Child F]’s eye injury and telling the father about it.  She confirmed also that [Adult K] had given the Facebook messages of the mother talking to the Alana Carvell activist woman and she felt herself that a Prohibited Steps Order would be necessary to safeguard the position.

80.	Ms Wilson said that some of her most productive work with the mother had been on a contact trip to Gloucester and that there is a big difference, in their opinion, with the mother on her own and the mother with the father.  The adult Social Services team had conducted an assessment to look at what can be provided for the mother.  Ms Wilson referred to Mr Levy’s report stating that it might be possible to expand the mother’s skills through experiential learning, tell, show, do, repeat if she was only caring for one or two children but not seven and the family needs an intensive level of support from professionals, with the parents effectively being parented, but that at some point she felt that [Adult B] will resist.  Ms Wilson agreed that something had happened to lead to the deterioration of the house in that period for the four youngest children.  It was a matter of will and willingness.  [Adult A] had referred to dealing with those three deaths of his own father, grandmother and grandfather all, it would seem, in quite a short space of time and finding all of that difficult to accept.  Ms Wilson said it was a question of capacity, of meeting all the children’s competing needs at one and the same time which she felt was beyond the parents’ ability.  While particularly [Child D] and [Child E] had their younger siblings in mind all the time she did not want reunification under one roof to happen.  I found Ms Wilson to be a very measured, honest and highly child-focused professional.  

81.	Dealing with the evidence of Rebecca Rowatt, the Health Visitor, who was allocated and has been involved since 25th November 2015 in relation to [Child G] and [Child H], she gave evidence and spoke to her own chronology of involvement with the family.  Actually she has never visited the family home at [Address given] but has visited the mother and children at [Adult D]’s home.  She said she has always felt welcomed at [Adult D]’s home in contrast to the social workers who, of course, in any event, fulfil a different role.  She had observed satisfactory emotional warmth between the mother and all the children and between the grandmother and all the children, too, albeit she said that it was quite a chaotic household.  She had observed [Child G] enjoying being cuddled by her mother and her grandmother on one visit.  She had no concerns at all about the conditions she saw at [Adult D]’s home.  She commented that [Adult B] was not happy with her assessment regarding [Child H] wherein she had identified developmental delay and he had wanted a second opinion and that was because it had not been completed at exactly age nine months for [Child H].  Ms Rowatt explained that they had done the assessment early and she would have discussed it with the mother and grandmother as the developmental delay became more noticeable.  [Adult B] had received an invitation in error to a developmental review of [Child H] at the Seashells Children’s Centre which he attended and that was despite her telling him not to attend but [Adult B] reported that he had been told at the last Child Protection Meeting to attend all meetings and appointments so he did.  The child was still not meeting her developmental milestones at nine months.  [Adult B] had also taken the child to a booked appointment on 28th March this year, so there is much more proactivity about appointment keeping.

82.	In relation to [Child H]’s development Ms Rowatt said she would have expected her to sit and to try and reach out to a toy not actually in her reach and to manipulate or to try and manipulate toys into a shape sorter although not actually to succeed but at least to try.  She also expected her to be vocal and babbling.  She had observed [Child H] to blow raspberries but otherwise to be very quiet and behind in her social skills for her age, although the mother said that [Child H] did smile.  She could not sit independently, she was not rolling at one time and she was not tolerating tummy time on her front for long.  Ms Rowatt explained that often if tummy time does not start early enough at eight weeks, the child may not tolerate it but the father said that they had indeed been doing it.  During a lot of her visits the child seemed to be in a baby bouncy chair, consistent with the child’s flat area on the back of her head and she had discussed with the parents the importance of tummy time which has been happening, as I have just dealt with.  She said that she could not recall their response.  The child has now been referred for Early Support and Portage and also to audiology.  She had just given to the family the usual booklet, “You and your little child.”  She does not recall anyone sharing with her the mother’s low IQ of 55 and had not been provided with a copy of Dr Conning’s report.  She had seen the grandmother involved with the children but she, too, did not know that the grandmother could not read or write.  Perhaps a few questions may have been asked about all that in fact.

83.	She confirmed that on 3rd August 2016 the mother had cancelled their appointment as she was at a solicitor’s meeting but Ms Rowatt had not let Social Services know that the mother had in fact consented to the health visitor visiting with the grandmother that day and that visit went ahead so again showing very much that the three adults can cooperate and ensure that appointments are kept.  While [Child G] and [Child H] were not the mother’s first children, Ms Rowatt said that time had passed since the mother had had a baby so as a general practice she goes through things again and certainly she said herself that she does not rush to judgement, just because this was not the mother’s first baby.  

84.	Looking briefly at her chronology of visits, on 18th August 2016 the father reported that they were going to see the GP that day with [Child H] as Social Services had said that the child had not been seen as requested by the midwife regarding thrush.  The parents denied that and said that they were using the yellow drops that had been given to them.  The mother said that looking back she thought she has always had depression and some anxiety when a low mood in her was identified.  On 22nd August the mother was seen preparing breakfast for [Child F] and [Child G] and emotional warmth was observed between all three girls and they were going to a dentist appointment later on that day.  The mother reported that [Child H] was uncomfortable during the day after a feed and when lying flat and when this was observed during a visit, a GP’s appointment was made to query reflux.   [Child G] was spiteful towards [Child F] but was appropriately dressed in clean clothes.  On 6th September mother took the initiative to ring the health visitor about a lost letter regarding [Child G] and, similarly, on 30th November the mother had phoned about an audiology appointment for [Child G] but had lost the appointment letter, so these things are not ignored, they are picked by the parents.  On 19th December the parents were unclear of the inhaler regime for [Child H] and said they would be going to the GP to review it and also to the child health clinic the next day although actually I think they did not attend that visit.  

85.	On 5th January this year although the mother had forgotten the appointment she was very happy to keep the Health Visitor’s appointment when she arrived and was observed to talk to and comfort both [Child G] and [Child H] and to smile at [Child H].  There was discussion about weaning on that day.  [Child G] was heard to use single clear words and to go to her mother for a cuddle on 20th February this year.  The father had reported toilet training to be going well, although with a few accidents at nursery and that they had some dates for the next block of therapy sessions.  The community physiotherapist confirmed on that date that [Child G] has been discharged from the group therapy and the exercises can be taught at home although the father had actually asked for more sessions and was proactive about that.  The father properly phoned to cancel a health visitor appointment on 21st February explaining that they were doing the parenting course in Canterbury that day.  Mother had cancelled three appointments with the GP for [Child H] but then did keep an appointment on 23rd February.  On 13th March the mother reported to Ms Rowatt that she is trying to persuade [Child A] to return to her grandmother as she thinks it is better for her.  [Adult B] reported that they had arranged for [Child G] and [Child H] to have health checks with the GP that evening and had done this off their own back, although he then denied that on 3rd April.

86.	At the same visit [Child H] was observed to roll from her front to her back but was not yet able to do the reverse of that.  The parents had brought her a door bouncer and also mentioned a baby walker but were advised against that.  At the audiology appointment for [Child H] on 7th April her chestiness meant a clear response could not be obtained.  Father then took her to the GP and was prescribed a new inhaler for her and she was accepted for Portage and further enhanced physio sessions on 11th April.  There is a theme, therefore, in the records of the parents taking the initiative and being proactive, which obviously is beneficial and helpful and to their credit but also of [Adult B] blaming the nursery for being lazy resulting in [Child G] having accidents and not fully taking on board that physiotherapy and speech and language do need to be continued and reiterated at home, too.  The Court accepts that Ms Rowatt’s evidence was very fair and accurate and well-balanced. 
 
87.	During the hearing, I think we received it on day 9, a report dated 18th May was received from the Children’s Therapy Team in relation to [Child H].  She had been seen in the Developmental Advice Clinic by the physio and occupational therapist.  The report summarised a mild physical delay with difficulty tolerating tummy time, unstable in sitting and reluctant to take the weight through her legs.  She can roll side to side, she can prop through straight arms when on her tummy and is starting to sit for a few seconds.  She has short tolerance to positions that she finds challenging and reduced stamina when pushing up on arms when prone.  The advice was that she would benefit from lots of time on the floor to develop her floor skills and strength in preparation for rolling, sitting, standing and crawling and she was going to be offered regular physiotherapist sessions at Orchards to facilitate her physical development and to ensure that she progresses through her motor milestones.  She had mildly reduced muscle tone, mild generalised hypermobility, her patterns of movement were normal, there was weakness around her shoulder girdles and core muscles but with no signs of neurological involvement.  There were some goals that she should be able to roll on her tummy independently by the beginning of July, she should sit independently to play with a toy by the same time and be able to move into a crawling position by the end of July.  

88.	Mr Paul Levy, the experienced Independent Social Worker, gave evidence speaking to his negative joint PAMS assessment of the parents which was dated 24th October 2016.  That was conducted over 8 sessions, sometimes with 2 sessions taking place on the same day.  He concluded that the lifestyle of [Adult B] is chaotic and self-motivated and that [Adult B] is at best disorganised and at worst selfish.  He noted that the father wants to parent his children as his mates or friends rather than as a parent and in fact it is accepted by [Adult D] that she rather parented [Adult B] himself in that way because she was only 18 when she gave birth to [Adult B].  He opined also that [Adult B] lacks self-awareness, probably due to his lack of cognitive ability and the father’s denial that there was a problem in the first place even though the standards of hygiene in the home were so poor.  Mr Levy concluded that neither the mother nor the father had the ability to meet the emotional needs of the seven children, to set boundaries and routines, to offer long term stability, to safeguard them from harm, to promote education and their health needs or to provide a nurturing, caring, safe and secure environment.  He was specifically asked of course to deal with the parents’ parenting all the children and he advised that there would need to be a significant high level of support geared towards the couple’s low cognitive abilities if the children or any of them were to be returned to them.  Mr Levy was of the view that once that support ends, the mother and father will be unable to sustain the home environment and it will revert back to how it was before the children were removed from their care and the standards will again reach crisis point as soon as professionals withdraw.  The Guardian of course very much echoes that stance and concern.  As he said, the couple are not new parents, they have 8 children between them and really should know what are acceptable standards of hygiene.  That was his very black and white view of the situation.

89.	It was his professional view that if the parents could not exhibit changes within the 4 to 8 weeks that would be it in essence, that would be deemed to be outside the children’s timescales and you just could not keep the family together.  In fact, as the Court has found, changes have been exhibited within that timescale and have continued to progress.  He considered that it would need someone to go in two or three or four times a week, almost daily and it could be a family member who was capable to focus on one aspect of care and for the parents to cooperate with the Local Authority.   He thought that that was an area of difficulty.  The father did not fully acknowledge the mother’s cognitive limitations, in his view, referring to her learning to drive in the future or training to be a midwife at some time, both of which were likely to be well beyond her actual attainment capabilities.  

90.	Mr Levy was particularly concerned about boundaries that the parents could or should have put in place regarding the older children and that actually referred to some research he had done on Facebook or social media after completing his visit.  He had seen pictures of [Child D] not wearing a helmet when riding his motorbike and [Child C] holding a bottle of alcohol and [Child B] with a tin, the likes of which people often use to hold cannabis resin in apparently.  To be fair, he did not go back and ask questions about any of these matters which he characterised as poor parenting.  I found those to be prejudicial comments and not fair in the overall scheme of things because they were not properly challenged and pursued.  

91.	He was asked about [Child A] living at home, not with the younger three siblings which could take a lot of pressure off the scenario, as he put it.  [Child A] was now having contact with her dad and that needs to be facilitated.  She also needs some work to be done with her about her birth father and he was unsure about how long the level of support would go on for.  We could be back here in three to four months, he thought, even when reminded that the Court can put in a Supervision Order for 12 months in the first place and then extend that to 3 years in all.  In relation to [Adult D], having looked at the photographs himself, he struggled to see how she and other family members had not seen how there was a problem in the family home and saying in essence, “Hang on, what’s going on here,” and challenged the parents as a protective grandmother.  He had not met of course either [Adult F] or [Adult K].  He had felt [Adult D] to be quietly hostile and capable of being collusive with the father.  He went to her house twice, he thought, and had a brief interaction with her.  It was not discussed at all again whether she could read or write but it did not surprise him, he said, to hear that she could not.  He was told that she had now taken fully on board the home conditions and accepted that there was squalor and is now thoroughly ashamed of the situation.  He said that that was the first time he had heard that view.  He said that that was a step in the right direction and agreed that the last few months, albeit in cramped conditions, looked highly supportive, so that was a positive comment from him.

92.	Mr Levy did acknowledge some positives at the time that he prepared his report, those being the bonds that the parents have with the children, the then improvement in school attendance and attendance at appointments as well as full engagement in the PAMS assessment itself and in the father’s tidying of the house and completing some repairs, together with receipt of family support being accepted.  7 months on from his report there has been considerable progress in the principal care of the mother while living with [Adult D].  He was informed, too, that [Child F] was now close to 100 per cent attendance at school and that there are no concerns about her presentation and social skills.  There was improvement with her speech and there was an up-to-date immunisation record.  The nursery said that [Child G] had made considerable progress, too, and [Child H]’s health visitor had no concerns in November and there was an unclear genetic or environmental influence with regard to her, with no paediatrician’s opinion obtained as yet.  

93.	Just stopping there, I interpolate that [Child E]’ school attendance is at 94 per cent, [Child A]’s is 95.8 per cent while living in her aunt’s home in Kent and [Child D]’s is 76.8 per cent, with two exclusions.  He has that problem with authority but things are getting somewhat better for him, Ms Jill Skinner said.  [Child E] and [Child D] are apparently clean and well dressed and fed with no issues being raised about them under the Supervision Order or by the school at all, so that was good to hear.

94.	Mr Levy said he had read some of the updated evidence and agreed that we are not looking for perfection and social engineering, that is not to happen, but from memory he said he thought there were several missed health appointments.  He referred to the fact that several of the children had speech and language delay and that the brain of a two or three year old is so porous that even one missed appointment is unhelpful.  He took on board that the Local Authority had not done what it could have done to help the mother.

95.	The father he found to be more dominant and controlling and the partner does defer to him about money matters, not having that understanding of money.  Mr Levy confirmed that, as the Court found, the mother can speak for herself and think for herself.  She was imaginative about the dream catcher for instance.  The father brings some positive skills to prop up the mother, as he put it.  He found the father’s attitude to financial matters difficult to work out and rationalise.  There seemed to be no connection between selling the puppies but funding necessary things for the family like having the lavatories repaired.  He likened the situation to a gathering crisis as more children were added to the household in a recurring theme with both parents suffering from depression at times, with kittens and dogs added to it, one dog coming back even when he was there carrying out his assessment and, as he described it, the bucket being topped up and just overflowing and tipping the parenting over the edge.  He considered that the parents scoring themselves as an 8 or 9 when he was looking at the 14 domains, using the computer tools, and really not seeing the professionals’ concerns, which rated them at 1 to 4, made it really more difficult for a social worker to get them to understand the concerns as to why the Local Authority were involved at all.  

96.	He referred to the work required of the family as being vast and that they could not reach a good enough level of parenting without a high level of support that understood the mother’s learning disabilities and at the same time was able to engage with [Adult B] without being rejected.  In short, as he rightly put it, the parents need to parent and the children need to enjoy their childhoods.  He recommended the implementation of a weekly planner with all appointments placed thereon.  The professionals working with them should change their strategies for engaging with the couple and use short, simple concrete instructions, possibly taped so that they can be replayed.  Any deviation by the father from mandatory engagement should have swift consequences, he said, such as the children being placed in foster placements and not with family members.  That is what Mr Levy proposed, rather sanctioning and penalising the children without considering their welfare, I felt.  He did not feel that the parents had capacity to understand all the concerns in their finer detail relating to the different children even though they had had that real shock to their senses of police and social work involvement and the removal of their children.

97.	While the Court respects Mr Levy’s piece of work, I was concerned that he spoke of [Child F] being at a difficult age for adoption, making long term foster care a more likely option for her, and not necessarily a negative experience if she has the experience to live in a home free from squalor.  [Child G] and [Child H]’s respective ages he thought made the opportunity for adoption more realistic.  In relation to [Child A] he thought that she might accept living with her maternal grandmother, particularly if she learns that [Adult B] is not her birth father.  We know of course that that has not worked out even though she has that knowledge. 
 
98.	That glib splitting of the siblings’ approach very much concerned the Court because it wholly failed to acknowledge the very close bonds here, that adoption is always a last resort in any event and simply was not what the Local Authority was seeking here at all.  Overall I was not entirely convinced by Mr Levy’s methods relying on that entry into a computer model and really a lack of holistic thinking.  Of course, too, his report is now eight months old and the situation on the ground has not remained static.  The three younger girls have had their needs met despite his assessment.  [Adult D] and the wider family did not form part of his assessment either.  The grandmother is now much more clued up about what to look for in terms of helping these parents and obviously she has cooperated over many months now in meeting the children’s needs.  None of that really had fed into Mr Levy’s conclusions at all and undermines them as I find.  

99.	Both proposed special guardians gave evidence by video link for convenience rather than them travelling down to Kent, and particularly because [Child I] had been unwell at that time with the return of an epileptic condition probably because she was very upset about the recent death of her grandmother.  Understandably, [Adult F] did not want to leave her.  Both of those Proposed Special Guardians had not been required to provide statements and each of them of course had been assessed positively.  They live in close proximity, only minutes away from each other, the Court heard, and maintain solid and close family relationships, which has the obvious added benefit of promoting and nurturing the sibling relationships.  

100.	Dealing with their evidence individually, [Adult F], the maternal grandmother, struck me as a very pleasant and strong, confident woman who obviously is entirely committed to [Child A].  She lives only a ten minute walk away from her daughter [Adult K].  She had been to her daughter [Adult A]’s home and voiced her opinion about the four dogs and numerous cats then, to which she has an allergy and, therefore, would not stay.  [Adult A] responded that she had told [Adult B] not to bring any more animals home but he continued to buy them.  [Adult F] did not know or have a true understanding about how bad the home conditions were until she was shown the police photographs.

101.	She described how, when [Child A] first came to stay with her in July of last year, it was very difficult because [Child A] would not listen to or adhere to any boundaries that her grandmother was trying to put in place and there was no routine.  [Child A] had been living for a short while with [Adult G] but did not want to go back there and the grandmother, [Adult F], had then agreed that she could stay with her.  [Adult F] said she noticed quite a lot of Facetime and also mobile phone contact between [Child A] and [Adult A] and [Adult B] which was not really allowed and [Child A] would always play up and tell her she was not her mother and could not tell her what to do.  After contact with [Adult B] and [Adult A], [Child A] would be argumentative and play up again but then settle down again.  She became a happy little girl as John Cotton at Gloucester County Council reported back to Mrs Skinner at KCC. 

102.	However, things that normally would be taken for granted [Child A] would not do, like flushing the toilet.  She would ask [Child I], now 17, to do that for her.  Now [Adult F] said she understood why, having seen the pictures of the home conditions and the completely over-filled lavatory pans.  [Child A] would also want to sleep with the light on.  She loved the new clothes that her grandmother had bought for her and would not let them out of her sight, tending to carry them around in a bag with her the whole time.  It is going to be a long struggle, [Adult F] said, but, finally, [Child A] is starting to flush the toilet of her own accord and is eating a more varied diet.  There had been two recent overnight stays and by the second day [Child A] was fine.  It was like having the old [Child A] back again and her friends, including Lily in particular, were calling for her and wanting to know when she would return to Gloucester.  She understood, [Adult F] said, that [Child A] had in fact requested to stay on for longer on the second visit and was happy to be back.  She knew that Mr [Adult C] was very supportive of [Child A] returning to her care.  

103.	[Adult F]’s partner, [Adult J], whom she had known since the early 1980s, and with whom she had been in a second relationship, as it were, for the last two and a half years plus, thinks that [Child A] is a lovely little girl and fully supports her in a special guardianship arrangement.  [Adult F] said that [Child A] needs a lot of hard work to make sense of what has gone on in her past and she has a lot of anger issues.  Depending on what mood [Child A] is in, sometimes she is chatty with [Adult J], sometimes she is not.  Sometimes she does not like [Adult F] or her mother or her father, it all depends.  The removal of [Child A] from her care without her permission and against advice meant that she and the mother would need to build up some trust again in the future.  Accordingly, she would want contact to be supervised for the initial first year, 6 months having been recommended by the Local Authority, if [Child A] was to be placed by Court Order in Gloucester.  She knew that [Adult C] was [Child A]’s father and he had seen her in the past when she was a baby but [Adult F] said it was down to [Adult B] and [Adult A] to tell [Child A] the truth of her paternity.

104.	[Adult F] said, entirely understandably, that she was very disappointed in her daughter when she had taken [Child A] back to Kent on the Saturday.  When she had been told by the hotel manager where the parents had been staying that they had booked out of the hotel, she realised that [Child A] had left without her clothes, her inhaler, her phone and with no preparation or discussion and, therefore, she inevitably called the police.  [Adult B] had then phoned her on the Sunday night saying that he had had nothing to do with taking [Child A], he had had no option he said but to get on the train with them otherwise [Adult A] would have stayed in Gloucester.  However, [Adult A] had said to her mother that it had been their joint decision to remove [Child A].

105.	Dealing with the paternity issue, when [Child A] had found out and had mentioned it after the mother and [Adult B] had gone back to Kent at an earlier visit, [Child A] had had a heated discussion with her grandmother and [Child A] had said to [Adult F] that if her grandmother loved her she would have told her the truth before but [Adult F] said it was not her responsibility, it was up to the mother.  [Child A] apparently had been screaming and throwing things around and saying that it was the grandmother’s fault.  So that was all very distressing and traumatic, [Child A] apparently finding out the truth of her paternity from some message seen on her mother’s phone during the contact visit.  [Adult F] confirmed that she had passed to the social workers the copies of those communications that the mother was having with the person called Alana Carvell on a website opposed to social workers in which she had called the Local Authority “scumbags.”  They show that the mother was thinking or considering taking [Child A] abroad, away from the Local Authority’s involvement.  That of course has not happened.  [Adult F] said that she and [Adult C] are well able to talk and to make suitable contact arrangements between them and the Guardian, Ms Lobb, confirmed too that [Adult C] and [Adult F] have a good working relationship and can be trusted.  [Adult F] said she knew that [Child A] had had fun on the last contact with [Adult C] and in fact [Adult C] had been talking to her apparently about taking her to Disneyland and buying her a bike.  She feels that they have not got a strong enough bond at this time for [Child A] to go and live with her father.  The Guardian was very clear that [Adult F], knowing the challenges, has never wavered from wanting to offer her granddaughter a safe, secure and permanent placement and has the capacity to deliver that.  

106.	The parents’ evidence was that [Child A] had been saying that she hated it at her grandmothers and would not stay there anymore.  She was crying her eyes out in the hotel during the contact weekend.  There were discussions about whether a Court Order was in place.  Of course the Court had sanctioned [Child A] living with her grandmother.  All of the tensions had been building up for some time.  Back on 18th September [Child A] had stated to [Adult B] that Nan, Becky and [Adult J] are making her cry and [Child A] said that Becky’s door had been broken and they were spitting in [Child A]’s face and arguing and shouting.  [Child A] then messaged repeatedly that she did not want to stay there anymore because it scared her and they were being horrible and someone needed to tell the social worker that she was not staying any longer.  Later [Child A] said that she did not want to be there in Gloucester for Christmas and she was appropriately reassured that it was up to the Judge.  Then there was the message seen by [Child A] about her real dad wanting contact with her and her mother responding that there is a lot she needs to know but she does not want her getting upset.  [Adult F] said that [Adult A] did not ask about [Child A] and how she was coping with this bombshell news but of course the grandmother was not always present when [Child A] spoke to her mother about the emotional difficulties that she was facing and there was Facetime contact and so on.  The grandmother also did not know that [Adult B] had comforted [Child A] either.  [Adult F] said in her evidence that she wondered if that was done deliberately, that is letting [Child A] see details about [Adult C] at that time on the mother’s phone.  That is merely speculative and raised unsubstantiated suspicions and I make no finding about that at all.  Indeed the parents were not challenged about that aspect in their evidence.  

107.	The Guardian, too, had wondered whether there was a real possibility that photographs that [Child A] had taken of her grandmother’s kitchen showing some dirty dishes in the sink and of her untidy bedroom, saying she did not want to return as the home was too messy, again had been suggested to her by [Adult B] or by [Adult A].  Had that been the case that clearly would have been manipulative of [Child A] and set her against her grandmother in an unhelpful way with no regard to her emotional welfare.  Again, I can make no finding of fact about that and indeed I have not been asked to do so but the Guardian herself doubted it would occur to an eleven year old girl to take such pictures of a kitchen and of a bedroom to show to her social worker. 

108.	[Adult F] denied, when asked about it, that [Adult J] would ever have pulled the duvet off [Child A] to wake her up for school, something that [Child A] had also alleged.  There had been an argument when [Adult J] had been proactive supporting [Adult F] in accessing Sarah’s Law on the advice of the police when [Child I] became involved with a man they suspected of being violent but [Adult F] denied slapping [Child I] as [Child A] had alleged that she had witnessed.  [Adult F] does not know how [Child A] had found out about [Adult J]’s bad criminal record or that he had been in prison and why she was now saying that because of that, she does not want to live with her grandmother.  That was for an offence of armed robbery of a post office about which [Adult J] to this day maintains a degree of innocence as a taxi driver in whose vehicle the police found an imitation handgun.  He was sentenced in 2009 to a nine year prison sentence and then was released on licence in January 2013, so he has recently had the expiry of that licence period.  Again, whether [Child A] was told about the conviction by [Adult B] or by anybody else, the Court simply does not know.  However, that having been raised, a full PNC check was required and Mrs Skinner then prepared a further statement having spoken to both [Adult J]’s probation officer and [Adult J] himself.  [Adult J] properly had notified his probation officer of [Child A]’s arrival in Gloucester at the time last year.  Mrs Skinner is entirely satisfied that [Adult J] poses no risk to [Child A] or to any of her siblings.  He has been open and honest about being a tearaway when younger but now, at 58, just wants to get on with his life and poses no real risk of re-offending.  He is very willing to support [Adult F] fully in looking after [Child A].

109.	Finally, [Adult F] said she thought that it would not be difficult for [Child A] to settle with her again if she knew that her mother was living round the corner.  I am aware from the Guardian’s report that [Child A] had asked her mother if she would move to Cinderford as well if the Court decided that she and the younger children should move there.  Subsequently of course we have had the family’s plan to move lock, stock and barrel to Gloucester and I will deal with that in a moment when looking at the parent’s evidence.  [Adult F]’ response was that she did not think that [Adult A] will move immediately anyway as she has had months to move and had not done so up to now.  I bear in mind of course that that was while the proceedings were ongoing and awaiting a Final Hearing and the younger children were at [Adult D]’s home and in the light in any event of having brought [Child A] back to Kent.  [Adult F] was aware that I had met [Child A].  I found [Child A] to be a charming, pretty and very well-presented girl.  She was very articulate and I conveyed to all the parties contemporaneously what she had said to me, making it very plain that she does not want to go to Gloucester and wants to be with her mother and her siblings.

110.	That was at the beginning of the case and although [Child A] had apparently asked her grandmother a couple of weeks ago if she could go back with her and have a longer period of time with grandmother and [Adult J], the grandmother said she would give [Child A] emotional support and would certainly have her over the holidays, every holiday if necessary (and I certainly support that) and that [Child I] will teach [Adult F] to keep in contact with [Child A] by Facetime or Skype.  [Adult F] has been an important integral part of [Child A]’s life since her birth and it is crucial that that special bond between grandmother and granddaughter and time spent together is retained and facilitated.  I found [Child A]’s altering views very symptomatic of the utter confusion into which she has been pitched by her carers’ reactions to the whole scenario.  [Adult F] very much impressed the Court as an honest and open witness, wanting to do the best for her granddaughter in far from easy circumstances.  

111.	Turning then to [Adult K], she struck the Court as a very nice and intelligent woman with a real commitment to taking on the care of three extra children each with their own difficulties.  Her own children are [Child J] aged 15, [Child K] who is 12 and [Child L] who is ten, often referred to as [Name given].  The girls have problems with their sight and [Child L] has had bladder problems, too.  They have lived in Gloucester since 2009.  [Adult K] reflected that looking after all six children on her own, she is a single mother, would not be easy but she thought that it would be manageable.  She expects that they would all muck in together and help out where they can.  She was confident that [Child J], who has autism, would manage.  In Jan Wilson’s Special Guardianship Assessment, [Child J] had said that he would not mind the children coming to live with them as long as he has a “vault door” as he put it and that it would be okay as long as he was not bothered too much.  Of course nobody can guarantee that with young children.  Her three children have not always been there for the two visits that the [Adult A/B] children have made to her home.  On the first weekend visit they were all with their own father and on the second [Child J] was with his father, [Adult M], and only overlapped with the [Adult A/B] children for two days.  [Child J] is now spending alternate weeks with his father to give him a bit of a break and that will continue but obviously for one week in two there will be six children with [Adult K].  She said that all her kids were quite excited at the prospect of their cousins coming to live with them and felt they would be able to manage if it comes to that.  She had thought of later bedtimes for her older children so that they had some individual time spent with her.  

112.	[Child K] had said that she would be happy to share her bedroom with [Child G] as long as [Child G] does not mess up her stuff.  [Adult K] confirmed that after speaking to the Guardian after the last visit and the social worker coming to visit her the week before the hearing, she had felt a lot better although she had had that wobble beforehand as she called it.  The Guardian and the social worker had been able to reassure her that there was a lot of support from local services available to her that she could access rather than being left on her own.  In particular in relation to [Child H], who had of course recently been seen by the specialist paediatric physiotherapist Ms Palmer, and whom she knew was unstable in sitting and reluctant to take weight and regular physiotherapy sessions being offered, that all of that would be transferred to Gloucester.  [Adult K] said that actually she had been taken aback by the child’s delay and degree of difficulty.  Having raised her own three children, [Adult K] found that the baby was not doing what she would have expected at eight to nine months in terms of supporting herself generally and she has that good insight, therefore, into the children’s difficulties and needs.

113.	About the wobble, the Guardian felt that it might be [Adult K] having second thoughts but when Ms Wilson and Mrs Skinner travelled to Gloucester to speak to her at a face to face meeting during the course of the hearing, [Adult K] explained she was beginning to realise the enormity of the situation and the daunting task that she was taking on looking after someone else’s children.  Two specific issues had come to the fore in her own thinking.  There was an event very close to home with the sudden cot death of a friend’s baby, a baby whom she had seen only the day before its death, and that had brought home to her that that could happen to anybody and any baby and [Child H] is only ten months old.   She had not realised how delayed [Child H] is in her development and her ex-husband seeing the children had commented on that, too.  

114.	Secondly, there was the disquieting issue about how the parents had coped with the entirely accidental injury caused to [Child G]’s face, which I have referred to already, and her sister disappointing her in taking the photograph and [Adult B] wanting to take the child to the police when she was returned home.  So all of those very much had exercised [Adult K]’s mind.  She was now aware, as a result of speaking to the professionals, that if she had any worries there would be people to talk to and a lot of help available in terms of health and medical services which could be identified to bring her up to where the children need to be and Kent County Council would facilitate that transfer of [Child G]’s hospital care and for [Child H], too.  

115.	Gloucester City Council were actually represented on the last hearing day and had been provided with some essential papers.  They of course would not become involved as such unless and until they were needed to be designated to be the relevant Local Authority if the Court had approved Kent County Council’s care plan.  [Child G] and [Child F], [Adult K] found to be overly boisterous to her mind although they were quiet at times and they had started listening to her on the second visit to respond to her boundaries.  She explained perfectly validly why she would want the contact visits proposed at six times a year for the parents to be supervised and that should be done in a local contact centre, she thought, but certainly for the first year and for a settling in period.  Firstly, there was a whole trust issue about her sister unilaterally removing [Child A] from her mother’s care on 21st January this year and that had shaken her a bit in itsel,f although she was told that [Adult A] had commented that she would trust and support her sister caring for [Child F], [Child G] and [Child H].  She was also told that her sister had said she had done a good job with her own three children.  [Adult B], too, had said that [Adult K] was raising her own children well but that they are the parents of their three children and it is their responsibility to look after them and ensure that they all stayed together as a family.  That is what he had said to Jan Wilson.  

116.	Secondly, in relation to that recent bruised eye that [Child G] had sustained either in the house or in the garden during rough play with [Child F] in April, [Adult K] said she was upset and extremely disappointed that her sister had gone behind her back and photographed the injury and notified the father who was then saying he would take [Child G] to the police station.  In social media exchanges that her mother had given to the social workers [Adult B] was saying about that, that he will “F-ing make sure that people know that they can look after their f-ing kids, okay.”  [Adult K] said she could just not understand his reaction as it was just an accidental incident between two kids.  As a potential future carer of these children she felt let down and unsupported by her sister with regard to that and queried why [Adult A] had not felt able to come to her about it and discuss it.  

117.	If [Adult B] had an issue he, too, should have discussed it properly with her although she thought that if similar issues arose she could manage them and her mother was nearby as a close integral network support for her.  She said about her mother that [Adult F] sees as much of her 27 or 28 grandchildren as she can.  Regrettably, since then she and her sister [Adult A] have not been in touch at all and a real family rift it would appear has developed. 

118.	Of course at the time of her giving her evidence to the Court, [Adult K] was unaware of the family’s plan to move to Gloucester which the Local Authority considered would undermine her care of the children.  Once aware of that, both she and her mother, [Adult F], supported the Court making Prohibited Steps Orders to protect the placements and to prevent removal of the children as well as Family Law Act injunctions preventing the parents from attending the children’s respective homes and schools and nurseries other than at agreed venues and times for arranged contact.  The Court was also asked to make a 12 month Supervision Order further to buttress the stability of those placements and to provide additional support for them.  [Adult K] said that she had met [Adult D] on a few occasions both before and since the children had been living with her and while she felt that it was a little bit awkward, [Adult D] had welcomed her.

119.	I was left with a slight concern that [Adult K], while, as I say, was very committed and motivated to become the Special Guardian for these three young children, doubling her responsibilities in essence, was a little glib and cavalier about how this all work out given the actually very limited amount of time that she has actually spend with the [Adult B/A] children and they with her.  Crucial though it is to try to keep these children within the extended family, I was worried, too, about the impact on her own children which might well be detrimental to their own current lives and their devoted care from their mother.  Overall, the Court was left with a real question mark over quite how carefully the placement has been considered, whether [Adult K] was entirely realistic about the challenges that lay ahead and whether it could break down, leaving the Local Authority with a real dilemma and the children facing further disruption and a potentially further traumatic move.

120.	Turning then to the parents, the mother, [Adult A], to her credit and with the inestimable advantage of an Intermediary with whom she has established a helpful working relationship, gave oral evidence.  I found her to give a good account of herself and to be more articulate and independent than I had expected her to be.  Overall, she did well and was very clear that she sees herself in an ongoing relationship with [Adult B].  In October 2016 in a meeting with Jan Wilson and Gillian Skinner who prepared jointly the final statement dated 23rd December, so more than five months before the hearing started and after they had undertaken the negative Joint Parenting Assessment identifying that the parents do not have the capacity to care for six children in the long term, [Adult A] was stating to them that she would like to separate from [Adult B] so that she could assist [Adult K] in caring for the children.  She described the father as controlling all the money and often having her phone and [Child B] accompanying her to her solicitors as she did not have the confidence to refuse him.  Ultimately, by the end of the report, [Adult A] remained of the view that she did wish to continue to parent the children and to remain in a relationship with [Adult B].  She has continued in that vein to date.

121.	I can do no better than read a short passage from that report before dealing with the mother’s oral evidence, and it is at C77:  

		“We asked [Adult A] what her relationship with [Adult D] was like and 			she replied that [Adult D] was okay but she did very little to help with the 			children despite them being placed in her care.  The observation of [Adult 			A] with her three younger children was fairly positive.  She had arrived 			with food for lunch which she began to prepare and a bottle of formula 			milk to be made for [Child G].  She engaged well with the children and 			there was positive play between them.  She sometimes struggled to put in a 		boundary but listened to staff and took on board advice.  She informed both 		Mrs Skinner and Ms Wilson that she can manage the care of the children if 		she is allowed to get on with it.  She is embarrassed by the state of the 			home and stated that she never felt comfortable with the amount of animals 		in the property and the mess they made.  We asked [Adult A] why the 			house had got into such an appalling condition and she struggled to answer.  		She was asked about the impact that the home conditions could have on the 		children’s health but she failed to recognise that the surface dirt and 			engrained dirt were an issue and on one occasion stated that the children 			should have tidied up their own stuff.   We informed [Adult A] that the 			children were not used to having boundaries put place so they were often 			unaware as to what their role was.  I informed her that when I asked [Child 		A] what she thought of the state of the house and [Child A] replied, ‘It’s 			not that bad,’ that, in my view, the children had got used to it, [Adult A] 			did not know how to respond.  

		“We asked [Adult A] if she understood the concerns of the Local Authority 		and she responded by saying, ‘Because of the state of the house.’  She 			presents as being unable to comprehend how poor school attendance can 			impact on the children and that their health needs were not a priority as 			evidenced by a failure to attend health appointments for all the children.  			We asked her about her relationship with [Adult B] and how much they
		communicate with each other and parent the children.  [Adult A] stated she 		assumed that [Adult B] knew everything there was to know about being a 			parent as he had raised four children before he had met her.  [Adult A] 			stated that he is always playing with them and feeds them.  She described 			how she was feeling tired and her mood was low.”

122.	In the mother’s own statement she accepted that they had got to a really bad point in the past with the home conditions but now they had made lots of improvements to the property by painting and wallpapering and produced the after photographs which the Court has seen which show greatly improved and pleasant conditions.  She had fallen ill and was pregnant with [Child H], being sick every day, and she said that [Adult B] was trying to do everything on his own.  It all got on top of them before but it would not happen again, she stated.  They had got rid of the animals and will have no more and they will keep a diary and ensure that all health appointments are kept using her alarm or reminders on her phone.  Her oral evidence was that she had now started keeping a diary in fact so that she could not forget any appointments and she had also started in March the Solihull Parenting Course.  The children would have their own chores such as bringing down washing and tidying their bedrooms.  She has accepted that it is wrong to smoke indoors and will not do so.  She is now taking [Child G] swimming every week and they take it in turns to develop her social skills.  She said she had noticed that the back of [Child H]’s head was flat and the Health Visitor had told her that, too, so she is now putting her on her tummy and in a walker and in a baby bouncer, too.  It is good at [Adult D]’s, she said, as they all help each other out, taking it in turns cooking and sometimes bathing the girls and putting them to bed.

123.	She told the Court in her oral testimony that [Adult B] has been coming to [Adult D]’s house every day and stays 4 or 5 hours to see the little ones and she goes around and helps him in the [Address given] property, too.  [Child E] would usually go with him and she likes having her there to help her out quite a lot.  [Child D] comes around as well.  She smiled and said that she is worried that sometimes he, [Adult B], does too much for her.  The bad state of the property will never happen again because what is happening now, the whole case, has really scared them and they have spoken and do not want it to go back to what it was.  She accepted that she did not go about things in the right or proper way at all with regard to bringing [Child A] back to Kent and arranging for her to live with her friend, [Adult I], from 21st January and she apologised to the Court for that.  She said that because she knew that the Court approved of [Child A] living in Gloucestershire.  She said that a few days earlier [Child A] had been crying her eyes out saying she was going to run away if she could not return to her mother’s care and that she was not happy living with her grandmother.  She purportedly complained about [Adult J] pulling the covers off her bed if she did not get up in the morning, which is something that I have dealt with already, and that [Adult F] denied had ever happened.  [Child A] said that she had told the social workers what her feelings were but that nobody listened to her.  [Child A] had also told her mother that [Adult F] and [Adult J] were arguing and rowing all the time.  

124.	The mother had raised concerns about [Child A] and had spoken to Jill Skinner on 17thJanuary.  On Friday 20th January [Child A] was again saying she did not want to go back and would run away. [Adult B] had told the mother not to take [Child A] but she had said to him that she was going to do what was best for her daughter and the next day [Adult A] took the train back to [Town given] with [Adult B] and with [Child A] and took her straight to [Adult I]’s house.  She said that it was all her idea and she knew it was a mistake as [Child A] was settled in school and had made friends.  She accepted the contact with Alana Carvell on Facebook for some advice before Christmas.  [Adult B] had in fact told her to be careful because this woman could be anybody.  The mother was present in the room when [Adult B] had contacted the Guardian and [Adult B] had also phoned [Adult I] on her behalf and they said that that was because he was better on the phone.  She said now that it was a terrible idea to do that, she recognised that now, and it had left [Child A] up in the air with no routine and moving from [Adult I] to [Adult H] and [Adult B] had not wanted it to happen and thought it was a bad idea but she had made up her own mind and decided to act in that way.  

125.	She had been worried, she said, about telling [Child A] that [Adult B] was not her real father as she did not want [Child A] to hate her and be upset because she had been lied to throughout her life.  She said that after she had had a few conversations with [Child A] on the phone and on Facebook and she had also spoken to her own mother, [Adult F], everyday about this in December, that she had asked her to make sure that [Child A] was okay and to keep an eye on her, so, in essence, she was saying that she had reassured [Child A] and thought about her emotional distress.  She said that [Child A] was shocked and upset finding out that [Adult B] was not her father and they had spoken on Facebook about this and she explained who [Adult C] was and had asked [Child A] if she wanted to see him.  Although it was said after the event that [Adult J] could have driven down to collect the mother so that she could have spoken to [Child A] face to face about all of this and really given her emotional support, I do not think that that was ever actually offered at the time and the parents in any event could not afford the fare to Gloucester again, it was said, so there was that long distance comfort of [Child A].  

126.	[Adult A]’s oral evidence was clear that she was very happy with [Adult B] and had not thought about splitting up with him and that is not her plan.  She accepted fully that her sister, [Adult K], loves all her children and is good with them.  She had no worry that [Adult K] would hurt her children, that is the [Adult A/B] children.  There was that unfortunate incident when [Child F] and [Child G] were fighting in Gloucester and [Child F] had scratched [Child G]’s eye.  She said that [Adult K] was panicking because she thought that the mother would be accused of doing it although that was not put to [Adult K] and was clearly not the case, I believe.  She told [Adult B] of the bruised eye and he wanted to see it so she had taken a photograph of it and sent it over to him and explained to him what had happened.  Nevertheless, it was correct that [Adult B] wanted to take [Child G] to the police so that they would not be accused of hurting [Child G].  Although she accepted that Social Services knew or would know how [Child G] had been injured entirely innocently and that she was not involved, she was worried a little bit about being accused, so there was that damaging lack of trust which did very much concern [Adult K].  

127.	The mother said that if it was the Court’s decision she would support [Child A] living with her mother but did not want her to live with [Adult C] as there is no relationship, but she certainly would encourage [Child A] to see her birth father even if she does not want to.  She denied telling him that [Child A] was not his child or asking him to look after [Child A] overnight when she was a baby or toddler.  She said that if the three younger girls cannot live with her and the father, then she will support them living with her sister [Adult K].  There were rather a lot of “don’t knows” I remember during the mother’s evidence.  

128.	I found her to be quite a determined woman in her own right.  Her decisions about [Child A] and her failure to support her adequately emotionally when she was dealing with the most regrettable discovery while in Gloucester about her real paternity I found to be a failure on her part and all of that then fed into a question that I put to her at the very end of her evidence.  It was then that she revealed for the very first time to anybody that the family in fact had had all sorts of discussions some 3 to 4 months earlier and had planned to move to Gloucestershire and to take [Child E] and [Child D] with them, too.  The Local Authority have called this planned sabotage, further evidencing the parents’ failure to understand and empathise with the children’s need for stability and some physical and emotional space in order to achieve this.  My question stemmed also from the concern as to whether this mother would actually want to stay in Kent with two or three of [Adult B]’s older children but not her own children at all if the four younger children had been ordered by the Court to live in Gloucester.  The perhaps surprising answer then came out loud and clear.  

129.	So concerned was I about this on day 10 of the hearing that I sent an email to the advocates and put on record some judicial comments about the potentially destabilising implications of this wholesale move, making it plain that all options were still open to the Court.  The Local Authority indeed stated at the close of that day’s evidence that it would be looking again at its Care Plans.  It transpired also, once Mrs [Adult D] had given her evidence, that this had actually been the subject of a whole family discussion for some time, not shared with any of the professionals or individual legal representatives at all.  Moreover, it was to the extent that [Adult D]’s son, [D], and her other daughter, [Adult H], had had it canvassed with them, too, as to whether they would leave Kent and move to Gloucester, so a wholesale relocation of the whole paternal family.  

130.	Turning to the father, [Adult B], he is a strange combination of things.  He stresses what a committed family man that he is and that he cannot work outside of the house because of those commitments to the family, although he has started looking for painting and decorating jobs, the mother has said, and he plainly does have some skills in that department.  He takes considerable pride in raising the four older children single-handedly when he was granted living with a Residence Order by District Judge Green in previous private law proceedings.  There was an allegation within those about him abducting the children and him manipulating how much they could see or wanted to see their own mother, [Adult E], but this Court did not read and does not need to delve into all of that.  Either he does not have the intelligence to understand that it is not helpful to carry on denying facts, such as the nursery saying that they had seen faeces on [Child G]’s shoes and school bag when they of course have no reason to lie about such matters and blaming others, or there is misplaced male pride which he cannot let go.  I simply do not know.

131.	After he and [Adult E] had separated after six years or so he had [Child B] and [Child E] with him initially and then fought for all 4 of the children.  Subsequently District Judge Green did give him that Residence Order for all 4.  [Adult B] said that he had had the sole care of [Child E] from when she was about 16 months old and [Child D] from the age of three when he was at nursery.  He looked after the children for three years on his own and he highlighted that there were no concerns from outside agencies or Social Services about how he was looking after those children.  He felt he had done a pretty good job with them.  He dealt with all the medical appointments on his own.  [Child E] had had to have a brain scan at one time and [Child D] had asthma and he had to deal with the doctors about treatment and a pump and so on.  As well, he had dealt with all the school attendances and everything was fine and perfect, he said.  As he had been told at the Child Protection Meeting that he had to go to every appointment and not miss one, that was why he had absolutely determined to go to [Child H]’s developmental check.  He said that she had been having time on the floor in fact from 12 weeks of age.  

132.	He had met [Adult A] when he had lived across the road when she was actually pregnant with [Child A].  They were good friends and then when [Child A] was 3 to 6 months of age, they had got together.  He said about their relationship that they were friends as much as partners and stressed the important fact that they had been together now for coming up to twelve years.  They do things together although he is the more active one.  He keeps the diaries going, he has all the paper work now in a folder and makes sure that the family have their prescriptions and what they need.   He lets the mother know what the appointments are and she puts them on her calendar.  He looks at the timings and plans who can take whichever child to an appointment as the need arises just as he was able to do with [Child H]’s appointment on 18th May when he had organised his sister, [Adult H], to take her to her medical appointment.  He said that he has always treated and classed [Child A] as his own daughter, no different from the other children, and he has always been there for her, chatting, cooking, keeping appointments and so on.  

133.	About being difficult or abusive, which was a comment about him, he agreed that he had tried to explain to the fire brigade that it was not his property and he had no authority to deal with them.  To enable the work to go ahead to install smoke alarms they would need to deal with his mother, he was trying to convey.  He had had to give up his previous three bedroomed home to protect his son [Child B] who was a successful boxer and had been threatened by jealous people.  There was no truth at all, he said, in the allegation that he and/or [Child B] had been dealing in cannabis.  He agreed that the “before” photographs that the Court saw were a true representation of what the home conditions were that day last June and July.  He said he was ashamed.  The photographs disgusted him and he was sorry to his children for the way the home got and for the situation that the children are now in, the destruction of the family in essence.  He has really let them down and [Child D] and [Child E], too.  He said that the toilet had been blocked for 1 year but not the 3 years that had been referred to.  He had been to environmental health to complain and to get it unblocked.  His rent had been stopped on occasions to deal with that and the boiler had packed up on occasions, too.  Although they were told to simply put water down the toilet, that did not help and it would not flush.  Because they were renting from a private landlord who was difficult to get hold of and a new toilet was needed, they were not able to sort it out themselves.  He agreed that it was completely unhygienic and full of faeces and he had told the children not to use it as it was broken.  Quite, therefore, how this family functioned the Court simply does not understand.

134.	Now, [Adult B] acknowledges that he should have spent the £850 or more that he had and a bank loan, too, on unblocking the toilet or having a whole new one installed or fixed it himself.  Instead, it was coming up to Christmas, [Child D] wanted a motorbike as his friends had, the children needed new clothes and everyone chipped in and they bought a motorbike and Christmas presents instead of prioritising the children’s comfort and hygiene at home.  There was chicken with flies and maggots in the kitchen, Mr Levy was right about that, but that was intended for the dogs.  Quite how that would have affected the dogs’ digestion the Court simply does not know.  

135.	He denied that dogs were allowed upstairs, although those dog bowls and certainly one dog can be seen on the children’s beds in the photographs.   He commented about that that they simply followed the police or the social workers upstairs.  He explained that he had been badly affected by the fairly close deaths of his grandmother and grandfather to whom he was very close.  While they were old in their 70s and 80s and had had their lives, it was the sudden very unexpected death of his father not long after that that had meant “everything went, fell apart,” really knocked him back, as he put it.  It all sort of lapsed and he kept it to himself and locked it all away.  There was depression about the bereavement but he did not ask anyone for help.  He said that now things would be different and will change with proper boundaries in place.  

136.	He told the Court that his father had been a bit of a comedian and joker and he had asked his father if the terminal diagnosis was true, his father having confirmed that it was, then suddenly passed away only two weeks later.  His mother had told him to sort it out, that is the home conditions, in either the January or the March and that was in relation to what he said was the salty water smell coming from the broken fish tank and affecting the carpet and so on.  On 1 or 2 occasions [Adult D] had helped him clean the house or had offered to look after the children while he cleaned it.  The father produced the series of after photographs.  On 2nd July, the day after the children were taken out of the house, he had gone out and had bought materials.  Then in four days he and [Child B] and a friend of [Child B]’s had got most of the necessary work done apart from putting tiles down in the kitchen instead of lino and generally making the large four bedroomed house hygienic and much more presentable and habitable.  [Child B] has moved out to his girlfriend’s mother’s property and in any event was about to sign a tenancy for his own place so he is off the scene.  [Adult B] said that the dining room could be turned into a bedroom if necessary as the kitchen is really big and there was a proposal which the Court looked at of Mrs [Adult D] moving in lock, stock and barrel and giving up her own home.  In fact, having looked at it, I do not think that that is necessary beyond her absolute daily presence but this is a matter for the parties.

137.	[Adult B] explained the current daily routine during the school week.  He is at home overnight with [Child D] and [Child E], he is up at 6.30 having breakfast, he and [Child E] then leave home at 7.45, she goes to school, he goes round to the mother’s and helps [Adult A] with the children, he takes [Child F] to school, back to his mother’s to see if there is anything he can do, he takes [Child G] to school, he spends time with [Adult A] and [Child H], he picks [Child F] up at three and then [Child G].  Sometimes [Child F] goes to dance and he deals with that.  Sometimes they have a meal at his mother’s home and he also washes and irons the children’s school uniforms daily.  Sometimes he goes back to his own home, tidies up and cleans, makes the beds and cooks for [Child D] and [Child E] at home as well.  He said that [Child E] helps to wash up and the older children now sort their washing and realise that that is their responsibility.  He said that all in all he is very engaged with the daily care of his children.  While he wants to work he says he has a business plan now and is qualified in building, tiling and construction, he is very much helping the mother and grandmother with the little ones and anticipates in a way carrying on with that. 

138.	 He has done a catering course at college and likes experimenting with food.  He said that if the children return home, he and [Adult A] will take things in turn and/or work together.  He denied that Paul Levy’s conclusion was right that he cannot multitask and he did not fully understand the scoring that was used, he said, and had asked for it to be explained a bit better.  He said he had done it before with the 4 older children on his own and can do it again.  Currently, he is helping the mother and grandmother with the younger ones and then going back to do exactly what needs to be done in his own home.  [Child D] does his share of the chores and he knows that if he does not do so or is naughty he will get grounded or lose his pocket money so there are boundaries being put in place now.  That is probably quite a shock to [Child D]’s system one can imagine.  The father considers that he has now got boundaries and structures in place and that the children will abide by them and understand that if they do not do so, there will be consequences, although the Court makes it clear, of course it is the adults who are responsible for ensuring that the children are provided with food, clean clothes, bedding, a clean bathroom and so on.  

139.	Since [Child D] and [Child E] came back to live with him in February this year everything has been absolutely fine, he said.  [Child D] continues with his difficulty of not being able to tolerate a lot of people in the classroom and he has always been like that.  [Adult B] said that he is working with the school and has tried to access help from CAMHS for [Child D].  He was plainly very proud of [Child E] whom he portrayed as a Class A student with 100 per cent attendance.  She is a good girl, as he called her, and wanted her to stay on to the sixth form, her laudable goal being to go to university about which the school is very supportive.  She, too, likes to be presentable and likes her makeup, he said, just like [Child A].

140.	About removing [Child A] from Gloucester, he said that it was [Adult A] who decided to move her not him.  They had not asked [Adult F] if she was unhappy and he had made no attempts to contact the social worker or the school in Gloucester to try and find out more about [Child A].  Because he is better on the phone than [Adult A], he had phoned the Guardian and asked about any Orders that might have been in place and he knew, he said, that it was not a good thing to do to move [Child A] because of the ongoing Court proceedings.  They were going to tell her about her parentage when she was 16.  When they were told that Mr [Adult C] had been found they had wanted to tell [Child A] face to face, not in the way she had found out, but [Adult F] told them not to, he alleged, as she had said it would mess up [Child A]’s head but that suggestion was not put to [Adult F] to be fair.  He said he will abide by whatever the Court decides regarding [Child A] as they want her to be in the family not in a foster care placement.  He will not break any rules, he said.  In one respect he said that it had been wrong to take her away but she was not happy in Gloucester and she had wanted to see her siblings which her Nan had failed to let her do, so rather putting the blame on [Adult F].  [Adult A] had spoken to her every night after [Child A] had discovered the truth about her paternity and had given her comfort, he said.

141.	To his credit, he has embarked on a parenting course that runs for 12 to 13 weeks at Seashells and he had attended some 3 to 4 sessions at the time that he gave his evidence. The organiser has said that he can catch up sessions and he can obtain a certificate at the end of that.  The Court would want him to do that and he did say it was helpful to him.  He said that he is absolutely fine about [Child A] seeing [Adult C].  If there is anything on her mind, [Child A] will come and talk to him about it.  His first option was for the children to return to him but, if that cannot happen, they should live with his mother who will need a bigger property or she can go and live with them to make sure that everything goes well.  While he agreed that there had been a joint plan discussed to go to Gloucester to support his children, they will not go now and will stay where they are.  He will have no dogs or cats although he did have one to keep him company when he was on his own.  They will carry on as they have been doing and Social Services can turn up at any time any day and will soon see that nothing will lapse or fall back and they can check that there are no dogs. 

142.	Where [Adult B] did himself no favours as far as the Court was concerned was with regard to denying what the Local Authority had been concerned about back in 2016 and what the nursery had seen and reported about [Child G] having, as I have mentioned already, the dog faeces on her shoes and bag and [Child F] sometimes being seen as dirty and smelling of urine and wearing the same clothes days running.  That was back in April 2016, to be fair.  [Adult B] said that he checked the children and there was no way that he would send them to school like that.  The school had always said to him that they had no concerns.  He said that he does not accept these issues but what can he say as they are in the paper work and recorded.   He understood that there might have been teasing or bullying about smelling but he did not know about that.  It had never been mentioned to him by the school or nursery.  He said now there are no concerns at all about such issues and he washes the uniforms every day.  In relation to [Child D] he said that he tries to occupy his mind and his days and takes him fishing and he rides his motorbike with others on a dirt track.  Asked about poor judgement in buying the bike, he said that if they are dangerous why do they sell them, a rather defensive and defiant approach and he asserted that he always knows exactly now where [Child D] is.  He said he had told [Child C] off about drinking when asked about the bottle that Mr Levy had seen and he described [Child D] as not being an indoor child, hence the problems with the school attendance.  

143.	[Adult B] said that at the moment, regrettably, he and [Adult F] are not on talking terms but he knows that the mother has spoken to [Child A] about her relationship with her father, [Adult C].  [Child A] had said to him that she did not want to see [Adult C] as it was boring but he was informed that she had in fact had very enjoyable contacts with [Adult C] and he has not influenced her about those.   He had said in the Facebook message that he wanted to take [Child G] to the police as she had never had a black eye in his care and at the end of the day the children are his responsibility and he thought he might end up being accused, even though the stark reality is that he was nowhere near the children.  Of course, he was in a completely different county when she was injured by her sister.  He denied that he had a problem controlling his anger.  At the time, he had thought it was the right thing to do to ask the mother to take the photograph but now he does not think so.  

144.	[Adult B] said that 3 to 4 months ago all the family including, he said, [Adult K] and [Adult F], had discussed the parents moving to Gloucester to help and support [Adult K].  He said that [Adult A] is not a child and she has a mind of her own and he does not tell her what to do.  He simply handles the financial matters in the household because she has difficulty with the value of money.  He did not know that they had to let everybody know about these plans and discussions.  He found out that the mother was speaking to this Ms Carvell and told her to be careful about who she was speaking to.  He said he would have to give four weeks’ notice on the house anyway and get his deposit back and then find a three bedroomed property for them in Gloucester.  [Child E], who had been consulted was okay with the idea of the move but [Child D] was up in the air and had said what about his friends, just like any normal 15 year old would be.  [Adult B] denied that he was selfish and did not care about his children saying, “They’re my babies,” and he cares and washes their clothes and feeds them and is responsible for them.  

145.	 The paternal grandmother, [Adult D]’s evidence can be summarised in this way.  She has 10 grandchildren in all and moved back to [Town given] 4 years or so ago so as to be nearer to the family, she said.  She has a really good relationship with the mother and if ever the mother needs anything she only has to ask and [Adult D] would be willing to help.  While acknowledging that her small house was crowded and chaotic once the Local Authority had asked her back in July 2016 to take in the mother and the 3 youngest girls, she said that they have all managed all right and quite well really.  The children love it as they can go out in her garden, they play with all their toys and they have their Nan there.  The 3 adults take it in turns to do the cooking, the bathing and putting to bed and so on.  Usually the mother and father do that as her son [Adult B] is a daily visitor and he wants to see his children and play with them every day, but sometimes she would put the children to bed.  She does go upstairs and there is no problem with that but she has a bathroom and the toilet downstairs and she really tends to stay downstairs.  She had been aware that [Child H] at first had been waking up every 2 to 3 hours but the mother was dealing with the children at night in any event.  She would go up and help the mother if the baby was crying really badly.  The 3 of them shared the jobs well and all of them cleaned the house.

146.	Her daughter, [Adult H], with her own two children, lives only 4 doors down the road and [Child A] has been there for 3 to 4 weeks, she thought, and she sees [Adult H], her grandchildren and [Child A] every day when they come round after school and at the weekends.  [Child A] pops in and plays with the children and then sometimes goes out.  [Adult B] Brings [Child D] and [Child E] with him, too.  She said that it has always been like that in their family.  She has always been used to lots of people in her house, even before moving back on to the island and she absolutely loves it.  That is how she expects family life to be and the family love it, too.  [Child A] does at times go off with her mates.  She confirmed that [Adult I] is still ill and that [Child A] continues to sleep on a sofa at [Adult H]’s house which obviously is far from ideal.  [Adult D] commented that actually no social worker had been out to see [Child A] or even speak to her on the phone to her knowledge.

147.	She would love to have the children live with her full time but she would need a bigger house.  Otherwise, if the children returned home to live with the parents, she said she would gladly move in with them and live with them permanently if required.  She loves all the children to pieces.  She is happy to give up her own house.  She has discussed this with the parents and she will be very involved if the children go back to their home.  She commented that she has seen the mother playing with the children a lot more than she used to and doing more things than she had ever done at her own home with a lot more one to one time with the younger children.  The mother has taken [Child G] swimming, the grandmother confirmed, and has done the parenting course at Seashells and has done the bulk of the care with [Adult D] stepping back a bit.

148.	Her adult son, [D], who is aged 23 and who is registered disabled due to the effects of meningitis as a child, is still living with her.  His girlfriend stays with [D] 1 or 2 nights a week and then they go to her friend’s house.  [D] has been saving up really hard over the last 10 months or so and really wants his own place and has the deposit now.  She said that he does not need her help so much these days and copes independently but he hopes to stay on the island and has been looking in shop windows for a place to rent.  [Adult D] said that she would be on her own anyway in the near future and the mother and father have said it is a good idea if she moves in with them.  She said that previously she had had depression but now life is so busy with the family that she is very happy and fine.  She said that she knew that her son and daughter-in-law, in essence, were struggling at home.  When she first heard that [Adult A] was pregnant with [Child H] she had said, “Oh, no, not again,” as they were struggling with the children that they already had but the family do not believe in abortion and [Child H] was born.  

149.	In relation to the home conditions seen by the midwife, the police and social workers in July last year, she now agreed that it was a pigsty.  She does care but on the day in question had rushed in and was looking after the children, her son having called her over, while the police had gone around taking photographs and she had not seen, she said, the rubbish on the staircase that is seen in the photographs.  She did visit near enough every day but never went upstairs or into the kitchen at all.  I make it plain that the Court found it very hard to accept that and challenged [Adult D] about it, that she never went and made a cup of tea or got a glass of water for the children or for herself and would have seen the conditions in the kitchen and that she never went upstairs and played with the children in their bedrooms where plainly everything was a “right mess” as she called it.   However, she stated that it was the same at her daughter [Adult H]’s house.  She never went upstairs there or anywhere bar the front room.  She wished now that she had gone upstairs and did not know about the blocked toilet.  She had commented on the smelly and discoloured state of the carpet a couple of times for a few months although this was not mentioned in her statements but the parents did nothing about it and a couple of weeks or a couple of months had gone by before Social Services were involved.  On one occasion though her son had said that he would be going to Tesco to hire a vacuum and get it sorted as the carpet stank.  She had repeated her threat, she said, and offered to take the children while [Adult B] and [Adult A] had a chance to clear up but that had not happened.  That, therefore, never transpired and she just received the explanation that one of the family’s two fish tanks had sprung a leak and the bad smell was emanating from that.

150.	She said also that she did not know about the puppies.  They were always kept in the kitchen and she had never seen them and although [Adult B] had offered her one she did not want one.  She knew there were puppies but had never seen them and she had seen that the kittens were in a corner in the front room, and indeed the kittens are photographed in a cupboard or something like that.  

151.	I should say that the family had obviously spent money, perhaps considerable money, on the salt water fish tanks and money on that motorbike for [Child D] to which [Adult D] said they all chipped in when really he was too young but all his mates had one and he wanted one, but plainly they did not spend money on what they should have done.  Even trying a simple plunger and bleach in the toilet might have worked.  [Adult D] said that she was so sorry and ashamed and that her grandchildren should not live like that.  They were a very close family and she accepted that the children had been badly let down.  She was challenged that if she was really concerned about her grandchildren’s welfare that she should really have taken action a lot sooner and she accepted that she was partially to blame.  She had seen, she said, a couple of dog faeces on the carpet and did tell the parents and they had cleaned those up.  She too claimed not to have understood the 1 to 10 scoring and did not know that 9/10 was really bad.  Her own scoring, as Mr Levy and the social workers realised, would not have generated any need at all in fact for Social Services involvement.  The family may well have been disingenuous, I find, about not understanding the scoring.

152.	She accepted that she had been making excuses for [Adult B] at the Interim Child Protection Conference and said that that was wrong and she is now sorry that she did that.  [Adult B] is her eldest child and she was only 18 when she had him and treated him more like a friend than a son.  She said that he was the cleanest of all of her children and had not come from a family where it was acceptable to live like that.  She had not liked his wife [Adult E] and rarely visited them there but said that her son did all the cleaning while [Adult E] stayed in bed.  [Adult B] took [Child B] and [Child E] with him leaving the two boys, [Child C] and [Child D], there, but [Adult E] had not looked after them and then he had had all 4 children with him and looked after them in a clean home in Ramsgate where she did also visit regularly.  She said that she had not realised that the home conditions had deteriorated so badly at [Address given] and believed that [Adult B] was tipped over the edge by the deaths within a short space of time last year or 3 years ago I think it was of his nan and granddad and also his father.  She, too, had had depression for ten years but now that has gone as she is enjoying the children so much.  She no longer needed any tablets because she is busy with the children.

153.	She accepted that she had failed these children and had done nothing for them but it will hopefully never happen again and, if it does, she will personally phone Social Services and tell them.  She wishes she had taken the children so that the parents could clear up.  She said she could not explain it really and acknowledged that she should and could have done more.  During the Viability Assessment at her home that Ms Taylor had carried out she had not been shown the photographs of the home conditions.  One of the other social workers had told her that she had failed but no one actually took her through the report.  No one actually had been aware that she could not read.  She had asked if she could appeal against the report’s conclusion but was told not, that once it was done that was it.  That was just before Christmas she thought.

154.	She said that she will talk to anyone if they will talk to her.  Certainly Rebecca Rowatt had no trouble in doing so.  [Adult D] said that she found the social workers horrible as they just came into her home but did not talk to her or say anything beyond a quick “hello” and “goodbye” in essence, so no communication was established.  She told the Court also that about 3 or 4 months ago [Adult B] had said that if the children do not stay with her or return to them he will move up there to Gloucestershire.  The two older ones will go with them as well and the mother and father said they would get a place there as they still wanted to be near their children.  They love their children although she knew they had made wrong and many mistakes.  She added that [Adult B] had asked her if she would go, too, but she cannot leave [Adult H] and her two children and [D]and [Adult H] themselves had both said “no” to the idea.

155.	The grandmother said that [Child H] had never slept in a chair.  Her son had had to get hold of a mattress for the Moses basket and could not get hold of one and then [Adult H] was able to give him one.  She said that it was not true that [Child H] received no stimulation.  Many times she would be sitting on her lap or having a feed and her role was not very limited, she said.  She was challenged that neither she nor the mother had picked up [Child H]’s oral thrush and I have dealt with that.   The midwife had in fact advised her and the mother to make a doctor’s appointment.  The grandmother said she had noticed that the baby’s tongue was red.  She had rung up but was told that there were no appointments where the baby could be fitted in and at that stage she handed the midwife the phone who was able to insist that the baby be seen that day.  

156.	[Adult D] told the Court that having had 4 children of her own, including her second child, Tony, who was very slow to walk and talk, that she had appreciated that the children had individual difficulties.  [Child G] could not talk properly so she would sit down with her and not just let her point to things but to make her say the words.  She knows also that [Child G] cannot walk very fast because of her legs.  Indeed it was suggested by the father that she had some sort of arthritic condition.  [Adult D] said that she was a bit worried about that and the fact that she was not potty trained but it was not her job to take her to the Health Visitor and she kept saying to [Adult B] and [Adult A] to take her to the clinic.  She was aware that the back of [Child H]’s head was flat but it was coming out now.  She recognised that developmentally [Child H] was not doing the things she was supposed to be doing for her age saying “mum” and “dad” and taking a spoon but now she does that.  Rebecca Rowatt and the Guardian had discussed tummy time with her and she was watching and assisting with that.  She has realised that [Child G] and [Child H] are a bit slow for their ages but they are getting there slowly.  [Child F] is at school and she will be able to manage taking [Child G] and [Child H] with her if the girls were in her care alone.  She said that [Child F] can scream and have tantrums about a toy or something with [Child G] and she bends down to her level and puts her on the naughty step until the child is told to get up.  She has no difficulty in imposing boundaries, she said, and she agreed that [Child F] had been very boisterous and rather a bully at school, but now she has calmed down and has friends that she never had before and is having the speech and language assistance at school.  

157.	She had told the parents to go out and get a baby’s potty.  She denied calling [Child G] a naughty girl when she has an accident and she said that she will have accidents, it is not her fault and she should not be cleaning it up as she is only a baby.  She has never seen [Child G] eat from a bin as the nursery have seen and she said that she cuddles her all the time and asks her what the matter is if she is fighting with [Child F] or is upset.

158.	I found her overall not to be a woman who takes any great initiative or who is proactive.  I agree with the Local Authority’s conclusion that she was complicit to an extent in the neglect of the children.  On her daily visits to the home she should have had her eyes fully open and realised that the disgusting conditions were unsuitable for all the children living there and completely hazardous for a new baby and for a mother recovering from a C-section to come home to.  She should have been able to energise her son to clear it up and now [Adult D] acknowledges all of that.  I agree also that as the matriarch of a large family she can come across as rather idle perhaps, slow moving and slow thinking whilst saying that she loves her grandchildren to bits.  On the other hand, she attended Court every day, she stood in the witness box for some hours, she has walked to the station and so on and so forth and she has been seen to get up and play with the children.  

159.	She had not taken the initiative herself to inform the social worker or the Guardian about the plan for her to move into the family home or about the family plan to relocate to Gloucester.  On the other hand, she was somewhat semi-detached, not able to read or write, not dealing directly with the social workers for much of the time, perhaps rather unsure of her role, I felt, and of course not having the services of a solicitor and counsel until very late in the day.  I think that the early breakdown in communication between her and the visiting social workers, while unhelpful, was understandable.  She did not want to interfere and sort of put her two pennyworth in.  She felt that they did not seem to want to talk to her or engage with her and so she sat there and appeared unwilling to engage and came across as hostile.  She, though, like the parents, has had that real wake-up call and has taken on board the concerns and the need to do much better.  I am just persuaded, therefore, that in tandem with a structure of support from the Local Authority to the parents, she can be trusted to provide a good enough standard of emotional and practical care to the children.  Her small, albeit very crowded home, has not been allowed to fall into an unpleasant state and she will be, as I find, a suitable supervisor, as it were, and supporter in the family’s home.

160.	Turning then to [Adult C]’s case, the Court is not overcritical about his lack of involvement in [Child A]’s life for eleven years.  He was, as he said in his oral evidence, very young when she was born, only 19, with his head all over the place, as he put it, and he had been told in no uncertain terms by [Adult A] that [Child A] was not his child.  He explained to the Court that the mother had suddenly contacted him out of the blue he recalled when [Child A] was 18 months of age (although this was denied by the mother) and asked him if he wanted to see the baby.  He denied the mother’s assertion that he had seen [Child A] twice when she was a much younger baby.  On this, the only occasion he remembered, the mother strangely had then asked him to keep [Child A] overnight.  He did so although no nappy bag and no provisions had been left for the child at all and on benefits he then had to go out and buy nappies and milk for her.  The next day the mother was not there as planned and required him to go to Dreamland and to bring [Child A] back to her there.  She had told him in no uncertain terms that he was not the child’s father.  Thereafter he had been scared and intimidated by threats to burn his flat down and had wanted nothing to do with the mother, hence that then 10 year gap.  

161.	While, as he explained, he was apprehensive at first about being involved in these Court proceedings, once the Local Authority had contacted him out of the blue by letter on 6th October last year inviting him to be involved in the case, he has done all that he can since.  He properly issued his own application for party status seeking a Child Arrangements Order and Parental Responsibility which was granted to him on 30th January this year and he underwent an assessment wanting to offer his daughter a safe, happy stable home, a fresh start as he called it.  He is a hard-working committed family man with a further two children of his own.  He gets up at four o’clock, works from six am to 2.45 as a warehouse operative so that he is available after school to be with his children.  They are [Child M] aged 6 and 3 year old [Child N] with his partner, [Adult L].  [Child N] has global developmental delay and bangs his head against the wall and used to pick at his ears until they bled out of frustration.  He tends now to do his own thing and he did not believe that there would be any impact on [Child A] at all of living with [Child N] with those issues.  While the contact arrangements for him to meet and to get to know [Child A] took some time to set up, there have now been those 3 contact occasions to date at the soft play area, the beach and park which have all gone positively with [Child A] becoming more talkative as time went on.

162.	The Guardian in her oral evidence said that she found the [Adult L/C] family to be a very positive loving couple with [Adult L] fully supporting [Adult C], she being “definitely up for it,” meaning having [Child A] living with them.  [Adult C] would like [Child A] to live with them straight away and he feels that to be realistic.  He disliked the Local Authority’s approach that [Child A] does not know him and that it would be an experiment in essence.  He said that they could put in place a routine and boundaries for her.   With a slight note of truculence in his voice that I heard, he said that it is not his fault that he had spent a maximum of 4 hours with her to date because the Local Authority tended to turn up late to the arrangements.  He would want to supervise [Adult B]’s contact to [Child A] until the trust was there if [Child A] lived with him.  That would be for his own wellbeing and hers given that [Child A] had been taken away from Gloucester.

163.	He said he knows her to be a troubled child and was horrified and upset by what he had read in the papers about her plight at home.  He was equally concerned about the disruption she had had to endure last year when moving from her aunt’s to her grandmother’s, how she found out in a completely random and unstructured way who her birth father was and then how angry and upset she was when she was removed inappropriately by her mother and by [Adult B] in January of this year.  He said that genuinely he could not fault [Adult F] who had given [Child A] the best care she could but that had all been taken away or had got taken away from [Child A].  [Child A] had explained to him that she did not like [Adult J] and did not want to live there.  There was nothing mentioned to him about any criminal background.   She had just mentioned that she did not like [Adult J] without any reasoning being given.  She had said of course the same thing to other people and I think she said it to me also briefly when I met her.   If the child cannot live with them, with [Adult C] and [Adult L], then he fully supports her living with her grandmother once again in Gloucester.  They have that good communication between themselves and could happily discuss [Child A]’s welfare and make contact arrangements.  

164.	The Guardian confirmed that [Adult C] certainly has an important role to play in contributing to [Child A]’s life but that it is nascent, it is a developing relationship and it is too soon now to move her there to live with them.  The Guardian felt also that although they had a lot to offer her, they had underestimated a little the impact on their own children of suddenly having [Child A] to live with them full time.  She did not think that [Child M] would find it easy to share a room with [Child A].  The girls had been excited and caught up in finding that they each had a half-sister and had drawn each other pictures but it was all really early days as yet.  Ms Lobb gave [Adult C] proper credit, which the Court entirely echoes, for being prepared to step up to the plate and to offer a home to [Child A], sure that his partner, from whom the Court did not hear, was willing to take on the role.

165.	However, the Court is clear that this relationship of father and daughter is simply too new and too soon for it to move to full time permanent care.  It does need to be promoted and [Child A] needs to be given time and space to process what this relationship will mean for her in the future, having of course believed until December last year that [Adult B] was her father, so we are only 7 months in to her new revelation being digested.  The Guardian’s conclusion was that any placement with [Adult C] would be highly likely to disrupt as [Adult A] and [Adult B] would not support [Child A] remaining with her father and [Child A] has not yet had time to develop a meaningful relationship with her father to help her work through all the challenges there will be.  I entirely agree with that.  

166.	[Adult C] said that he would like to see [Child A] once every 2 months to start off with if she had gone back to live in Gloucester.  As by the Court’s decision all parties will be living in Kent, I would have thought that [Child A] should see her father certainly once a month and hopefully grow that to longer periods, staying for a night or several in the school holidays and half-terms eventually.  Overall, while [Adult C] was a well-meaning man, I think that he rather glossed over [Child A]’s needs and the harm she has suffered to date and had limited insight into the reality of suddenly living in their family.  The Court, therefore, rejected that placement option for [Child A].

167.	Finally, the Guardian, Ms Jenny Lobb, was appointed to the case in December 2016 and spoke to her one report.  She made it clear in her oral evidence that she had not been privy at all to the family’s discussions about moving to Gloucester if that was the Court’s decision in relation to the four youngest children.  She felt that that would undermine the placements for the 3 younger girls in particular and would give [Child A] very little chance of settling with her grandmother.  Moreover, it would uproot [Child E] who is doing very well at school and [Child D], too, who has an established network of friends he goes out with regularly.  She said that it feels again like a really unplanned and not thought through scheme with no thought of the children’s various needs, much like when [Child A] was removed from Gloucester in that disgraceful and unplanned way as she rightly called it.  She was not comforted by the father’s evidence that the plan had changed saying “Sadly, I do not think I can take the father’s word for that,” about mum not going up to Gloucester if the Court’s decision was that the children should go there.  

168.	The Guardian said that the children would need to understand that the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt were their main carers who made all the decisions about them if the Court had approved the Local Authority’s Care Plans.  For that reason, she considered that the 6 times a year contact as set out in the Local Authority’s care plans was the right frequency whether the parents remained in Kent or relocated to Gloucester.  She would want very clear parameters set out in a Prohibited Steps Order about the parents not going to the relatives’ houses in Gloucester and not approaching the children at school or nursery or anything like that.  She said that it was hard to understand how the conditions had got so bad for the children in [Address given] when the father was able to clean it up so remarkably quickly and provide the much improved home conditions for [Child E] and [Child D].  She essentially accepted that the mother’s learning disability and the extent of that had rather been overlooked by the Local Authority.  She believes that once the scrutiny of these Court proceedings had gone that the conditions would deteriorate very rapidly once more and that the improvements for the 3 younger children in [Adult D]’s albeit cramped home simply would not be maintained.  The high level of support anticipated by Paul Levy as being necessary would be unworkable in her judgement and [Adult B] would find that very intrusive.  

169.	The Guardian commented that [Adult D] was more of a friend to her son than his mother.  She does not have the authority that she considered necessary to ensure that things in the parents’ home were good enough for her grandchildren.  [Adult D] said that she had not gone anywhere else in the house and did not see what was going on, despite her daily visits and what must have been very unpleasant smells and that going on for a long time and the house not being good enough for the children.  The Guardian said that overall she did not have that confidence now in the grandmother.  

170.	The Guardian did keep repeating her mantra, entirely understandably, as follows, “I keep returning to how bad the house was.”  She does though accept the positives in her report.  [Adult B] has worked hard and the home conditions are acceptable now and have greatly improved.  In recognition of this, of course [Child D] and [Child E] have returned to their home.  School and nursery attendance has improved as she recognised and the parents are keeping health appointments.  While she thought that [Adult B] anxiously was trying to keep all the appointments, he may not always understand why the children are going to these appointments but at least he now makes sure that they are kept.  He is very animated with the children in his behaviour towards them.  He reads to [Child F] and he plays tickling games with [Child G].  The children have seen by the Guardian to be well dressed and sufficiently well cared for and there is warmth and affection.  She wholly accepted that the parents’ care of the 3 younger children has improved since [Adult A] moved into [Adult D]’s home with [Adult B] being there for most of the day and then going back to the family home once the younger children are in bed.  

171.	The Guardian queried how much support [Adult D] is providing because she is very keen always to say that these are good parents doing everything for their children.  The Guardian thinks that [Adult B] believes he is a good parent who has had a little blip and who will disengage once he thinks the pressure from Social Services is diminishing.  I think that it is only fair in fact to test that.  The Guardian views the high level of Local Authority support required to be unrealistic, intrusive and not compatible with family life considering that [Adult B] would find it very difficult, echoing Mr Levy, while [Adult A] would be more compliant but not able to challenge him, she felt, if he refused support.  

172.	I have considered that very carefully and believe that the mother is a stronger character than people have given her credit for and that all 3 adults now are highly motivated to cooperate and have demonstrated that they can provide safe and consistent care to the 3 younger girls with little or no concerns being raised over the past 11 months.  It is the risk of relapse of the house of cards collapsing and things returning back to the previous atrocious conditions that completely bedevils the Guardian’s approach and her opinion, despite the nearly 12 months that has passed and nothing going wrong and the daily reality on the ground of the mother and grandmother doing the cleaning and cooking in rotation, the older children pitching in with the younger ones and the father doing the shopping and school runs.  It has worked without rancour or argument, it would seem.  The question, therefore, is will the paternal family be able to maintain acceptable and expected standards of care and the Guardian’s answer to herself, as it were, to that rhetorical question was “No”?

173.	It was said in closing submissions by the younger children’s counsel that the precipitating event was so serious that the mother, fortified by the father and supported by the grandmother, cannot come back from it.  Squalid conditions had been allowed to endure for a long time, affecting the children’s emotional and educational needs and [Adult B] was simply not able to energise and motivate himself enough or to be bothered enough to prepare for his baby daughter and partner coming home.  The wilful failure of the parents to meet [Child A]’s emotional needs in bringing her back to Kent and the other vignette, as Mr Braithwaite fairly called it, the taking of the photograph of [Child G]’s face and reporting to the police consideration, as well as involving [Child D] and [Child E] in adult discussions about moving to Gloucester, all illuminated the parents’ misunderstanding of the emotional needs of their children, he submitted on behalf of the Guardian.  That is true but does it mean that 12 months on that that extinguishes the Article 8 rights of the children to be cared for by their parents?  I am less than sanguine overall about that.

CONCLUSION AND DECISION

174.	I have considered this case and its particular variety of permutations of placements most anxiously over several weeks now; especially I have put in the forefront of my mind what there is and what there is not, looking at the evidence overall through the prism of proportionality.  There is no proven domestic violence or domestic abuse and I stress that word “violence” although there have been some concerns about issues of control.  There is no proven drug taking or of alcohol misuse, as the Court often deals with, sadly, in these sorts of cases.  There is no physical or overt or sexual abuse of any of the children, happily.  There are 3 young children all with various developmental delays of one sort or another, whether that be organic, genetic or inherited or due to a lack of stimulation or apathy operating or a combination of all of that in an ever-growing household, I know not.  I do not minimise in any way the emotional damage of living in such a busy and squalid environment with no clear space free of dogs and cats’ faeces and those 3 blocked lavatories.  The parents have let their children down very badly.  The Court has not been assisted, I should say, with any expert paediatric or child development evidence at all and, therefore, cannot pinpoint how that has arisen.  

175.	The possible divergent options are for [Child A] to go to her birth father of whom she knows very little at the moment; [Child A] to go to her maternal grandmother under a Special Guardianship Order, having that important lifelong bond and to continue to get to know her father better; [Child A] to return to her parents’ home with either just the older children or the younger sisters being there, too.  There has been no suggestion that she should continue to live at her Aunt [Adult H]’s home or with [Adult D].  For [Child F], [Child G] and [Child H], too, there are various possibilities; to go to their maternal aunt in Gloucester, while [Child A] stays at home with her mother and [Adult B] or [Child A], too, nearby in Cinderford with her grandmother and the new Local Authority inheriting the difficult family dynamics and putting in place support.  They could stay at home with their parents and [Child A] and the paternal grandmother could be a daily or live-in presence with the structure of social work input, or she could live with the paternal grandmother as she recently has proposed.  

176.	An obvious query is whether the mother would feel able to stay in Kent with just [Adult B] and [Child A] and the older children not being hers if [Child F], [Child G] and [Child H] are in Gloucester with those proposed 6 contact visits per year.  It could be envisaged that the mother, who has made it plain that she does not wish to separate from [Adult B], and who relies on him for practical and financial help, might quickly feel the need to move to be nearer the little ones and that would cause [Child A] thereby even more upheaval and a lack of stability.  It is all a huge quandary and [Child A] already has been pushed from pillar to post, feeling her whole life has been a lie as she has said.  I bear in mind that Special Guardianship Orders involve a significant curtailment of the parents’ parental responsibility and hence a full welfare analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of other competing options must be undertaken.  

177.	Regrettably, the Court has not been assisted with any more creative thinking from or by the Local Authority and has been left in somewhat of a dilemma.  There was no thought, for example, of the prospect of the 2 older girls, [Child A] and [Child F], living with [Adult K] with [Child G] and [Child H] remaining in the care of their parents.  One could go on and on with all sorts of various permutations.   In essence, any decision made will be subject to disappointment from, or challenge by, one or other faction and the Court takes that on the chin.  
 
178.	On a Re B-S balancing exercise, I have put the options side by side.  The only plans actually before the Court are for the splitting of the 4 sisters with Special Guardianship Orders to the maternal grandmother and the aunt and them being raised in separate, albeit geographically close, households away from Kent and away from the rest of the family, their schools and their friendship groups established already.  In relation to [Child A], now 12 of course, the plan is to remove her once more from Kent to Gloucester, where she has said repeatedly she does not want to be.  She is articulate and competent as the Guardian found and as I echo and has said consistently that she wants to return and to be with her mother and stepfather.

179.	The Local Authority plan involves her leaving her 3 half-siblings to whom she is very close, namely, [Child C], [Child D] and [Child E], whom she still sees more or less daily of course at the paternal grandmother’s home but perhaps not quite so frequently in the case of [Child C], but all of them now have had that new situation operating for some months.  Seeing her mother only 6 times a year during school holidays and half-terms I consider would be very unsettling and potentially devastating for her emotional welfare.  Her grandmother recognised just how much daily telephone and other contact there was between [Child A] and her mother during the months that [Child A] did live with her in Gloucester.  It is highly unlikely that that will discontinue.  It could be disruptive though and [Child A] may have fresh criticisms of her grandmother and the grandmother’s partner prompted by the parents.

180.	Moreover, [Child A] at school during the week would no longer have daily contact with her 3 younger sisters, although the Court accepts that [Adult F] and [Adult K] are fully committed to working in tandem about sibling contact.  [Adult K] has her own 3 children with their individual special needs to factor into her daily and weekly life.  Mr Thornton characterised the aunt’s task as “epic” with which really I concur.  Neither of the women, [Adult F] or [Adult K], drives, they will be reliant on [Adult J], if he is available (and I am not quite clear about his availability) to take them anywhere as required.  

181.	It is for me to determine in light of the matters as they now stand what should be the     outcome.  After a very careful analysis and evaluation of the totality of the evidence, the Court has come to the conclusion on balance that the progress undoubtedly made by the family should be given an important last chance to continue and to be sustained.  If the 3 adults cannot sustain it, as they have for virtually a year now, then that is an end to it.  They will have failed and the Local Authority will be fully entitled to activate the alternative Care Plan, whether it then be placement with other family members, which may or may not by then be highly unlikely, I know not, or of course the potentiality of long-term fostering or indeed of adoption.  Accordingly, the stakes are very high for [Adult A] and [Adult B] and [Adult D] and I think they now realise that.

182.	I cannot instinctively with my hand on my heart find that things are so bad now 11 months plus down the line that it is a fair and proportionate response to remove the 3 younger children from the daily care of their parents and grandmother and [Child A] from her paternal aunt in Kent with that daily contact with her mother to send them all 4 hours away to Gloucester.  I find that that both ignores the actual impact on the children and ignores, too, the parents’ improvements.  [Child H] has lived with and has been handled by the mother for the whole of her life.  [Child F] and [Child G], too, have had that experience.  There have been no previous Care Proceedings issued, there has been no Guardian, no Independent Reviewing Officer and no residential placement.  The children have been seen to be well dressed and cared for in a clean, although admittedly very cramped, environment at [Adult D]’s home.  Medical and other appointments and commitments have been kept and contingency plans properly have been made if the parents were not able to keep appointments themselves.  There has been an open door policy for the social work visits and improvements noted particularly in relation to the children’s basic care.  There has been good emotional warmth shown as well.  

183.	There has been the clear ability of the father remarkably swiftly to galvanise himself, together with his oldest son, to transform the physical conditions in the home once they had that very real shock and were very scared when the children were removed.  As the father said in his Final Position Statement, [Child D] and [Child E] were allowed to return home in February 2017 by a different Judge and there have been no concerns noted by the Local Authority about their care since returning home.  There is [Child A]’s very clearly expressed wish is to be reunited with her parents too.

184.	As I stated in my Brief Judgment and Decision given on Day 12 of the Hearing after submissions, it would have been potentially a very different state of affairs and outcome indeed if the final hearing had been only 3 or 4 months down the line after the removal of the children and if [Child A] had been returned promptly to [Adult F]’ care in Gloucester, as should have happened, in my judgement, but we are where we are now and now indeed in July 2017 it is not a question of penalising the parents but seeing if they, working in tandem with [Adult D] and accepting full social work training and input, can maintain those improvements and provide good enough care and a satisfactory home life for the 4 younger children.  The parents’ respective IQs are never going to change but I consider that they can and deserve to have better and more emotionally supportive parenting modelled to them in line with the approach set out in Re D and those factors that I read through earlier.  [Adult B] must be prepared to cooperate and accept that.  Each child must be encouraged to have a daily bath or shower, to brush their teeth and they must have clean bedlinen, underwear and clothing.  The toilets must be kept in a functioning and hygienic state.  

185.	What Mr Paul Levy stated in October 2016 was perfectly valid then but the family are now 7 or 8 months on from there and things have not remained static.  The Court appreciates that the Local Authority is disappointed and very much dislikes the outcome of the Court’s decision but I view the peremptory move straight to Gloucestershire that it was planning to enact on Day 12, had the Court sanctioned that, fraught with challenges.  While the plan may look appealing and neat and tidy on paper, I was left with real and unnerving reservations about its actual operation.  The Court has to be brutally realistic about the pros and cons looking at all the options side by side.  It all depends on if the home conditions deteriorate again resulting in an unacceptable environment as set out in tabular form in the social worker’s Analysis of Options and I have re-read that very carefully.

186.	The Court cannot blithely accept that the 4 children with whose destiny it is charged would be better off with the grandmother and the aunt in Gloucester.  They will have a different lifestyle if it works but the Court is not in the business of providing a better family or a more beneficial environment as the leading cases reminded it.  That simply cannot be achieved for every child.  It would be practically impossible in any event.  I remind myself, too, that I am entitled to depart from the opinions of experts including the professionally trained and experienced social workers, the very experienced Guardian, too, even if as they are here, unanimous on issues of future placement and management and perhaps even on attachment, balancing risks against advantages.   Thorpe LJ recognised that in Re N-B (Children residence; expert evidence) [2002] EWCA civ 1052 as he stated:  

		“It is for the judge to evaluate the expert opinions on placement, 				management and welfare.  It is for the judge ultimately to decide the issues 		lying at the heart of the care proceedings to decide that the matter,” 

	And that is the province of the judge at the end of the day not for the experts.  

187.	I believe it is important to try and put oneself in the children’s shoes.  In relation to the younger children they have visited [Adult K]’s property only twice, on each occasion with their mother and the social worker in attendance.  They will not understand why suddenly they have been wrenched away from probably a very distraught and emotional mother and father who, understandably, may well find it impossible to control their emotions.  I understand that on one overnight trip to Gloucester the social workers had to navigate an emotional family gathering there.  The children are very bonded with their mother and their father, too, for that matter and vice versa.  Whether, as the Local Authority proposed, the mother would have been able to support the children by accompanying them in the car on the long journey up to Gloucester and then settle them and leave them there with her sister, I find actually rather doubtful.  

188.	I consider that entirely well-motivated and well-intentioned [Adult K] undoubtedly is, the actual reality and the sheer emotional, logistical, practical and physical effort of caring for 6 children under the age of 15 on her own, having to change a baby and so on, will be enormously taxing.  There will not be a honeymoon period of novelty as such because the children are likely to be very confused, possibly inconsolable and unable to understand why suddenly they are in a different place without their mother, without their father and without their grandmother, too, to whom it is acknowledged they are very close.  Contact with their parents and their older siblings would be very much reduced and the parent will have very limited parental responsibility indeed.   I have referred already to the fact that neither [Adult F] or [Adult K] can drive and that lack of mobility probably may present challenges as well.  

189.	[Child F] will not have had a chance to say goodbye to her present school, her teachers and friends but would have to move into a wholly different environment.  The pros are a well-motivated carer with a higher IQ than the mother and with a pleasant well-kept home.  [Adult K], who has been through these stages already 3 times with her own children will suddenly have a baby to change and to move around and a 3 year old, too, who may continue to have accidents particularly with the distress of the move.  Marshalling 6 children of different ages possibly at different schools and nurseries in itself would be a considerable challenge for any resourceful and resilient parent and [Child F], [Child G] and [Child H] will be sharing their aunt’s time and resources and energies with her own family of 3.  [Adult K] inevitably will put her own children’s welfare and interests first, and if her own tiredness and ability to spread herself perhaps rather too thinly over the needs of 6 children impacts on her children, perhaps particularly on [Child J], that very much concerns the Court.  That in itself would produce a real stressor, even with the well-meaning help of her mother.
  
190.	Overarchingly, the Court’s concerns were that this arrangement simply has not been trialled or tested at all with all 6 children.  The Court is simply being asked to assume that it will succeed when placed against the Local Authority’s and Guardian’s fear of relapse, that things will regress and degenerate to the unacceptable levels seen before if the children are able to stay within their parents’ care.  At the end of it all, I prefer what is known – the pros there – as it were, to what is unknown, speculative and surrounded by a lot of well-meaning high hopes and expectations but which may break down.  I find that the parents and [Adult D] now have the capacity to change and engage to the benefit of the children’s welfare and are now motivated to do so.  While it is to be hoped that it all works out, it is by no means risk free and/or guaranteed of success.  It appears to me that there is a risk that the placement with [Adult K] could disrupt, however motivated she undoubtedly is, and I think that her wobble, as it was called, was an indicator of that.

191.	[Adult F] of course has [Child I] to look after, she has her own home and her own relationship with [Adult J].  [Child A] would be there, too, under the Local Authority’s plan although she has been very reluctant to return and has voiced her dislike of living with [Adult J].  Whether her view has been tainted or coloured by her parents’ comments or whatever, I know not but that is what she now says and thinks and feels.  She stated very clearly to me in front of her own solicitor that she did not wish to return to live in Gloucestershire and I can countenance Gloucestershire breaking down very quickly for [Child A].  Every night 24/7 in essence [Adult K] would be coping entirely on her own with all those children.  Inevitably [Child A] will want to be a regular visitor to see her younger sisters and she may find it difficult to live elsewhere.  It is known that she has that unshakeable loyalty to her parents.  Knowing as we do now that she has been that daily visitor to [Adult D]’s home as have [Child D] and [Child E], too, it very much underlines how entirely bonded this family is.

192.	In the social worker’s last statement, the December one, [Child A] stressed how much she has missed her family and very much needs to be with her brothers and sisters.  There is no good, if I may say so, the Local Authority criticising the 11 or 13 people who may have been in [Adult D]’s home at any one time.  That is how this closely enmeshed and embedded family have lived and what they are used to and the Court must eschew social engineering on the basis that all of us professionals do not live like that or would not want that in our own homes.  That is not the point.  There is also the chance that the parents may raise criticism at the 6 planned contact visits and again threaten to involve the police and to put some extra strain on the placement in that way, however much Prohibited Steps Orders or Supervision Orders surround the arrangements.  

193.	The Court has to be mindful and realistic about its limitations.  Of course there is no power to restrain the mother and father from actually moving to Gloucester or anywhere as the clandestine plan revealed they were likely to do if the 4 children were placed in that county, although [Adult B] has said he would abide by and respect the Court’s decision.  They are living in private rented accommodation and can relocate freely if they have the financial resources to fund a deposit and so on.  They would not be rendering themselves intentionally homeless thereby perhaps.  The fear is obvious that the parents will move close to [Adult F] and [Adult K], meaning that they, and [Child A] in particular, will never be able to relax.  Proximity will give all those opportunities of bumping into each other either accidentally or by design.  [Child A], who has experienced a great deal of instability and neglect, will find it profoundly difficult not to be in regular physical contact with her mother.  She understands, I think, that she has already overtaken her mother in intelligence but she loves her dearly and wants to be with her and no order the Court can make will change that.  She is almost bound to say destabilising things to [Child F] about seeing her mother or being in touch with her mother by phone or Facebook or whatever, all of which could be highly disruptive and will require a lot of fortitude on the part of the grandmother and aunt to keep going.

194.	When the home conditions had deteriorated [Child A] appeared to have the resilience to cope with that.  Given the support from the wider family, [Adult D] and her Aunt [Adult H], too, with whom she has lived now for many months and now that she has those better self-care skills, the chances of things deteriorating to such a degree again for [Child A] have decreased in my judgement.  I have listened to her very clearly expressed wishes and she wanted to be listened to, I was aware.  I consider that moving her right away from her parents’ care would potentially have a negative impact on her emotional well-being.  

195.	The Court could be entirely wrong and this may all have worked out resoundingly well but, given the progress over the last year, I find it wrong thinking, unfair and disproportionate to the current risks to approve that arrangement at this stage and to intervene in the family’s Article 8 rights as required by the Local Authority.   I feel the need to give the family the opportunity to go forward as a family and to do their best.  If they do their worst, that is it, they have had their chance, that is an end of the matter and there will be no more chances.  This is it.  I am clear that [Child A] should continue to spend time in the school holidays, certainly for two weeks in the summer as a minimum, with her grandmother in Gloucestershire, I am very clear about that.  She has benefited from that in the past and it would be good for her as the oldest of these 4 children to have that special time carved out for her with [Adult F].  She must also be allowed by the parents to have an ongoing and regular relationship with [Adult C] and her half-siblings in his family.  That had worked well when [Child A] was living with [Adult F] and that must be part of the support plan.  [Adult B], in particular, must appreciate the reality and the fairness of allowing [Child A] to know and to see her birth father whom she has not known for very long as she grows up and to allow her to enjoy spending separate time with him and with her half-brother and sister.

196.	I am mindful also that Special Guardianship Orders can be challenged in the future.  Even had the Court been prepared to make those Orders at this juncture there would be nothing to stop the parents in a year or 2 from making an application to discharge the Special Guardianship Orders, relying on continued cleanliness in the house, good routines being made and [Child D] and [Child E] perhaps living elsewhere by then, just as [Child B] and [Child C] have been doing.  The future is veiled in uncertainty for everybody and there are no guarantees.  I am also less than sanguine about the Special Guardianship Order immediately curtailing and depriving Mr [Adult C] of exercising his only very recently acquired status of having Parental Responsibility for [Child A].  

197.	Overall, therefore, the Court has just come down by the smallest of margins, as I have put it already in my brief Judgment, on preserving the status quo, the present status quo so far as the 3 younger sisters are concerned and moving them back to the family home to be cared for by their parents in concert with [Adult D].  [Child A] should re-join the family as soon as possible.  It is not perfect, it is never going to be perfect but we have those 12 months of good enough care.  The school holidays very soon will be upon the family and that will assist, hopefully, in having time to put the proper routines and boundaries in place but without the time strictures of the school day.  I have made it plain already that the family are totally forbidden to have a dog, puppy, cat or kittens in the house whatsoever for the next 18 months.  A Supervision Order and a written agreement will be put in place for the next 12 months, each of which can be extended for up to three years if the need arises.  That concludes this lengthy Judgment with added gratitude to all the Advocates for their skilful assistance to the Court.

---------------

Transcribed from the official recording by
AUSCRIPT LIMITED
Central Court, Suite 303, 25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL
Tel No:  0330 100 5223    Email:  uk.transcripts@auscript.com

We hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.

This transcript has been approved by the Judge