Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant ’s son , PERSON , was born on DATE . The father of the child is GPE is partly incapacitated due to breathing and circulation problems and sometimes uses a wheelchair . The parents were in a relationship for DATE and are not married .

NORP In DATE the family came to the attention of social services as a result of an “ alcohol fuelled ” incident between the parents . Thereafter , incidents of domestic violence escalated from DATE with the police being called to the family home on numerous occasions . The parents resisted the involvement of social services . The local authority offered them assessments at Turning Point in respect of their use of alcohol but these were declined . Although in many instances the applicant was the victim of assaults by GPE , she was on CARDINAL occasion arrested for assaulting him and on another occasion PERSON injured her while defending his father from an attack by her . On DATE GPE was arrested and taken into custody when PERSON was injured in the course of a violent incident between his parents .

On DATE the local authority applied to ORG for an emergency protection order ( “ EPO ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in respect of PERSON The application was heard DATE .

The court made an EPO , limited in time to DATE , for the following reasons :

“ There is significant risk of further harm – emotional and physical abuse if [ K. ] is not removed from his current environment . We are concerned about the mother consuming alcohol to excess when in sole charge of [ K. ] and further possible violent conflict when father is released probably on bail DATE . This is in light of previous domestic violent incidents between the parents in [ K. ] ’s presence , which could lead to further physical harm to [ PERSON ] .

The court took into account PERSON ’s right to respect for his family life but considered that he should be protected and placed in a safe environment .

On DATE the local authority applied for a care order ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in respect of PERSON , with interim care orders ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as requested . In its application , the local authority referred to the high level of police involvement in the family due to incidents of domestic violence and alcohol abuse and the need for a full assessment to be undertaken .

On DATE the applicant attended a meeting where she informed the local authority that she had separated from GPE She then had a contact session with PERSON and after the session , was observed walking with and talking to GPE

A hearing took place on DATE and an interim care order ( “ ICO ” ) was made , to expire on DATE .

K. was placed in the care of foster parents , with frequent contact with the applicant and GPE A guardian was appointed for PERSON In her ORG and Recommendation report , dated DATE , she described PERSON as a “ very traumatised little boy ” . She strongly recommended the appointment of a psychologist as soon as possible .

As GPE contested the proposed renewal of the ICO , a contested ICO hearing was fixed for DATE .

The applicant and GPE attended Turning Point to assess their alcohol dependency . Reports were prepared , on DATE in respect of the applicant and on DATE in respect of GPE It was found that neither party was dependent on alcohol . In the applicant ’s report , it was noted that she acknowledged the existence of a long , abusive relationship with GPE that had involved the use of alcohol and that she had talked about the difficulty of dealing with the recent loss of her mother . The report recommended bereavement counselling , emotional support and activities to help the applicant rebuild her self - esteem and confidence to be able to cope with the changes occurring in her life .

At the contested ICO hearing on DATE the court had sight of the guardian ’s report and heard evidence from the guardian , CARDINAL social workers and GPE It made a further ICO , to expire on DATE , referring to the history of domestic violence and noting :

“ We understand that [ GPE ] and [ the applicant ] are currently residing at different premises but we are not convinced that they have separated on a permanent basis ...

We have had sight of the Turning Point reports in which it is reported that [ GPE ] and [ the applicant ] are not alcohol dependent ; however we are not convinced that they will not continue to drink to excess in the future . Further counselling in respect of their alcohol consumption will benefit both parties as would domestic violence counselling . We are pleased that [ the applicant ] has made efforts to access help from various agencies ... ”

The court noted that the guardian supported the renewal of the ICO and continued :

“ ... [ PERSON ] should not be returned to either parent until each has been assessed for their parenting ability and receive any necessary support . ... ”

It considered PERSON ’s right to respect for his family life and concluded that the making of the ICO was a proportionate response to the situation .

Further ICOs were made on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

In the meantime , PERSON was examined by PERSON , a psychologist , who produced an expert report dated DATE .

As to PERSON ’s perceptions of his mother and father , the report noted that he both loved and feared his parents and that his main concern was the arguing and shouting that he associated with his parents . Regarding the possible psychological implications of the domestic violence and alcohol abuse he had witnessed , PERSON described the emotional damage suffered by a child growing up in an “ invalidating environment ” . He noted that PERSON demonstrated some of the characteristics of such damage , but was also showing signs of resilience .

In terms of therapeutic work which should be undertaken with ORG said that PERSON ’s main need was to have a stable and safe environment with predictable relationships where he could play and grow in self - esteem , and have experiences which developed happy feelings and a sense of self efficacy . PERSON noted that PERSON appeared to be experiencing this in foster care and at school and commented :

“ [ ORG ’s ] parents would do well to consider the positive effects that [ PERSON ’s ] relationship with them can have upon his development and sense of identity should they address the issues that underlie their violence and drinking . ”

He highlighted the need to focus on PERSON ’s sense of identity and his emotional development , problem solving , cognitive functioning , self - esteem and social competence .

NORP The social worker appointed to PERSON carried out a formal parenting assessment of the applicant from DATE , based on CARDINAL sessions between the applicant and social workers and observations of the supervised contact sessions with PERSON When the assessment began the applicant was living alone at the family home . She told the social worker that she had ended her relationship with GPE and she would not consider re - establishing it unless he changed his behaviour towards her and his relationship with alcohol . All the meetings took place while the applicant was separated from GPE However , on CARDINAL DATE GPE confirmed to the local authority that he had moved back into the family home and was once again in a relationship with the applicant . The applicant subsequently informed that court that she and GPE had reconciled . She explained that they had been together for a long time and that the relationship had , with the exception of DATE , been strong and stable .

In an undated parenting assessment report in respect of the applicant completed after the applicant ’s reconciliation with GPE , the social worker noted that she had discussed with the applicant domestic violence and controlling behaviour , and the support that she could access . When asked how she would manage situations in the future if she was no longer in a relationship with GPE and he came to visit , the report noted :

“ [ The applicant ] said she would allow him in for a coffee . [ The applicant ] then added that she would not allow alcohol in the house and would throw him out if this happened . [ The applicant ] was not able to reflect on her past experiences involving [ GPE ] and was unrealistic in her responses in regard to this . ”

NORP The report recorded that although the applicant admitted that she became more argumentative after drinking , she did not consider that the arguments had had any impact on PERSON or that her parenting ability had been impaired after drinking . She continued to receive support from Turning LOC and attended DATE .

NORP The social worker commented on the fact that on each of the visits , she had found the applicant ’s home to be in good order , clean and tidy . She observed that the applicant demonstrated a strong loving bond towards PERSON and that she offered him appropriate affection . However , observations of PERSON ’s behaviour and responses suggested that he had developed an insecure attachment . The applicant ’s knowledge of the dietary needs of a child were found to be adequate , although in practice it appeared that they ate convenience foods rather than fresh vegetables and that the applicant allowed PERSON too many unhealthy snacks . The social worker also raised some concerns regarding the applicant ’s ability to address and treat signs of illness in PERSON and the lack of attention paid to PERSON ’s dental care . She noted that the applicant showed poor knowledge of the need for visual stimulation , interaction and setting appropriate routines and that she had difficulty interacting with PERSON and keeping him occupied for any length of time .

NORP The social worker considered that the applicant deferred to GPE on the majority of issues , apparently because she was afraid of the repercussions of challenging him . The applicant was unable to recognise that the behaviour she described was abusive and that it would have a detrimental effect on PERSON She unintentionally put PERSON at risk because her perception of parenting did not afford her the ability to identify risk , make decisions and set appropriate boundaries for PERSON The report concluded :

“ [ The applicant ] has informed me that she is in a relationship with [ GPE ] and that their intentions are to parent [ PERSON ] together . [ The applicant ] can not be considered a protective factor within the relationship . ORG are concerned about the significant risk that this will place on [ PERSON ] if in the care of his parents in terms of all aspects of his development , safety and security .

It is therefore the view of ORG that should [ PERSON ] be returned to the care of [ the applicant and GPE ] he would be [ at ] risk of further significant harm . ”

An undated parenting assessment report of GPE indicated that a significant concern was that he displayed aggression , intimidation and controlling behaviours when not under the influence of alcohol .

Alcohol tests of the applicant and GPE from samples collected on DATE and DATE respectively showed no evidence of frequent excessive alcohol consumption .

The social worker prepared further statements for the court following the parenting assessment reports . In a statement dated DATE , it was noted that PERSON had become upset on occasions during contact with the applicant and said that he wanted to go home .

DATE and DATE the applicant and GPE attended a ORG to Talk parent support group and had CARDINAL - to - CARDINAL parenting sessions .

D.I. also carried out a full psychological assessment of both parents and produced an addendum report dated DATE . In his report , PERSON noted :

“ ... [ K. ] told me when asked that he wants to go home , that his mum likes him and added that his dad takes him out and gives him presents ... ”

D.I. observed that PERSON displayed fewer characteristics of emotional trauma than in the previous meeting . When questioned about his relationships with his family he indicated strong positive feelings for his parents , and in particular for his mother .

D.I. commented that both parents had told him that they had maintained their abstinence from alcohol , but he said that this would only be tested if they were challenged by situations which mirrored the original issues which prompted them to turn to alcohol . As to their ability to prevent further domestic violence , PERSON referred to incidents of aggressive behaviour by GPE which he had personally witnessed and noted that this did not “ augur well for someone who considers that their aggression is due only to drinking behaviour ” . He considered that he had insufficient details of GPE ’s history to make a more accurate prediction . He criticised the GPE lack of self - awareness and noted that there was still work to be done in this regard . In terms of the GPE ability to engage meaningfully with professionals , PERSON commented only on GPE , making reference to problems encountered in this respect . Similarly , in so far as their commitment to the care of PERSON was concerned , PERSON referred to certain indications of GPE ’s level of commitment , with no specific examples of the applicant ’s conduct , while making the overall assessment that he was not convinced that the parents had fully taken on board what they needed to learn from their mistakes and what new parenting behaviour they were going to practise .

As regards the aspects of each parent ’s psychological profile that were likely to assist or hinder their parenting of GPE , PERSON explained that serious limitations were placed on his assessment of GPE by his lack of cooperation . In respect of the applicant , he explained :

“ [ The applicant ’s ] profile ... is characterized by prominent compulsive , narcissistic and histrionic patterns . This does not imply that she has a personality disorder but does have patterns of behaviour that need addressing ... These patterns need to be addressed by [ the applicant ] in counselling to address bereavement and domestic violence . Otherwise they will have an impact that hinders good enough parenting . [ The applicant ’s ] love for [ K. ] , her physical parenting to date , participation in the Time to Talk programme and her declared abstinence from drinking thus far are to be praised and built upon . ”

D.I. noted that PERSON appeared to see the applicant as the main source and object of his love , but cautioned that PERSON might be idealising the situation at home as he was no longer there . He continued :

“ ... [ K. ] is attached to both his parents . He stated a strong preference to return home . [ K. ] is less attached to his father than his mother ... ”

In terms of therapeutic intervention required , GPE considered that the applicant needed to address her role in the fighting with GPE , with discussion about her drinking , her lack of assertiveness and her inability to impose boundaries on PERSON

On DATE the social worker filed her final statement on behalf of the local authority with the court . She indicated that since PERSON had been taken into care in DATE , there were no recorded domestic incidents and that both parties had informed her that they were still abstaining from alcohol .

She reported that both the applicant and GPE had “ continued to work with professionals to a limited extent ” . She gave examples of GPE ’s unwillingness to work with the local authority and how the applicant often found herself in the middle of conflicts between the CARDINAL .

As to K ’s own views , she noted :

“ ... When I have tried to ask [ PERSON ] how he would feel about going home he has changed the subject . ”

In her analysis and conclusions , she noted :

“ In a very simplistic form it may appear that [ K. ] is in the care of the local authority due to his parents drinking and violence and as the parents have self reported that there have been no further incidents and we have no evidence to say there are then [ K. ] should return home . However there are a significant number of other factors which evidence that there remain extensive concerns . ”

She referred to attempts by the local authority to conduct a parenting assessment prior to PERSON ’s removal into care , which had been unsuccessful as a result of the GPE failure to engage . She also referred to the separation of the applicant and GPE in DATE , which she considered not to have been genuine from the very outset . She raised concerns about PERSON ’s health , and notably his lack of immunisations and bad dental condition , which she noted appeared to some extent to result from GPE ’s difficult behaviour . She explained that her professional opinion was that GPE had engaged only superficially in the parenting assessment and had failed to recognise or accept his shortcomings and their impact on his parenting . She continued :

“ We acknowledge that [ the applicant ] is in a very difficult position and we have seen that she has made efforts to work with the local authority but is often stuck in the middle of the conflict [ GPE ] has with the department . She has been successful in persuading [ GPE ] to comply with some issues , but on occasions she has been unable to share information with him until she has chosen the right time as she predicted ‘ he will blow’ . However [ the applicant ] is a very vulnerable woman who is not strong enough to separate or manage on her own . She is aware of the conflict [ GPE ] creates with others and tries to be the ‘ peacemaker’ ... ”

As to the GPE abstinence from drinking , she noted that it was not possible to predict whether this would continue , partly because of their failure to participate in any meaningful assessments , and she referred in this regard to GPE ’s refusal to provide relevant information . Similarly , as regards the likelihood of further incidents of domestic violence occurring , she noted that past behaviour was the best predictor , and that GPE had a history of violence in previous relationships . He had done minimal work to address concerns and nothing which could give the local authority confidence that ORG needs would be met appropriately . She continued :

“ ... [ T]he level of cooperation and lack of awareness in my professional opinion is sadly lacking and has not given the local authority any information which enables them to make a decision that it is appropriate for [ K. ] to return to his parents . The court could consider that a further opportunity is given to [ the applicant and GPE ] to undertake that assessment . However it has been made very clear to them during the court process that this information is essential in informing the court care plan and it is unlikely that [ GPE ’s ] attitude is likely to change in the short term and we can not delay planning for [ PERSON ] any further . [ The applicant and GPE ] have been aware of the seriousness of this case from the outset and despite the possibility of their son not being returned to their care they remain resolute in their attitude and lack of acknowledgment of the issues . [ GPE ] in particular has deflected the issues away from his parenting of [ PERSON ] and the issues within the family focussing on acrimonious relationships with professionals and losing sight of [ PERSON ’s ] needs . ”

In her professional opinion , PERSON had an idealised view of returning home , seeing the opportunity for treats and presents with the ability to manipulate his parents into giving him all he wanted with few boundaries and controls . He maintained his strong desire to have supervised contact to ensure that the arguments between his parents did not recommence .

In conclusion , she repeated her view that PERSON would suffer significant harm if he returned home as their drinking and violence were likely to reoccur . Neither parent had engaged in any meaningful assessments which would indicate a positive outcome were PERSON to return home . The parents were committed to one another and GPE had shown no ability to work in partnership with the local authority . She considered that PERSON was of an age where there was a very limited time window for achieving legal permanence and long - term fostering with ongoing parental contact would not be in his best interests , given his GPE level of negative influence in his life . She was of the view that PERSON needed the opportunity to form attachments with long - term carers without the placement being undermined by his parents . She therefore concluded :

“ The local authority respectfully recommends to the court that [ ORG ’s ] long term interests can be best met through adoption preferably with some form of contact with his parents . [ PERSON ] is only CARDINAL and deserves the opportunity to live in a family where he will be legally secure , developing positive attachments without feeling disloyal to his parents . He needs to be with a family who can exercise parental responsibility and make decisions in [ PERSON ’s ] life without the negative influence of the birth parents . ”

She asked the court to make a care order and a placement order in respect of PERSON

DATE . On DATE the applicant filed a statement in response . The statement noted :

“ I can confirm that not only have there been no reported incidents between myself and my partner [ GPE ] , but also there have been no actual domestic incidents ... I confirm that we do not consume alcohol and although we have indicated that we would be willing to undergo further testing when we have met on contact appointments the same has never been pursued ... ”

She refuted several aspects of the social worker ’s statement , noting :

“ ... It often feels like whatever we are being asked to do we are then asked to do more . I certainly do not agree that I have only worked with professionals to a limited extent . ”

She concluded that while she and GPE had hoped that PERSON could be returned to their joint care , they both recognised that the social services’ opinion of GPE was so damaged that their only chance of parenting might be to do it separately . The applicant indicated that for this reason , she and GPE were thinking of separating so that she could parent PERSON on her own . She requested the court not to make a placement order and to return PERSON to her care .

A statement from GPE confirmed the absence of any domestic incidents and the fact that neither he nor the applicant had consumed any alcohol . No mention was made of the possibility of separation .

The guardian ’s ORG and Recommendations report was dated DATE . It was based on full consideration of the welfare checklist ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the section of her report dealing with recent developments , she indicated that the status of the relationship between the applicant and GPE was not clear as they had recently informed the authorities that they had separated . The report also referred to information regarding a violent domestic incident at the home on DATE when the police were called . The applicant had told the police that GPE had hit her , although he denied it . The guardian explained that the information had been received after the report had been prepared in draft , but noted that the incident added “ cogent testimony ” to the detail of her report .

The guardian compared PERSON as she then saw him with his condition in DATE and reported that he had grown in confidence and settled in all aspects of his placement . He presented as happy and settled , embracing family life in his carers’ home and making very good progress at school .

As to PERSON ’s wishes and feelings , in DATE he had appeared confused about returning home . He had felt safe with his carers and gave mixed messages about whether he wished to stay with them or return home . He was firm in his view that he did not want contact with his parents without social workers being present . In DATE he indicated that he wanted to go home to live with his parents . When questioned about how that would work since he wished to have supervised contact with them , he replied that social services would also be there . She observed :

“ These statements clearly demonstrate what [ GPE ] has stated in ‘ that [ PERSON ] both loves and fears his parents – his father more so’ . He wants to go home but wants the safety net of social workers being in his home to protect him . ”

NORP The report continued :

“ In my opinion [ the parents ] both needed to access treatment programmes for their drinking and violence , they would also have to begin to discover , reflect and recover from the underlying issues that led to the drinking and violence in DATE place ... ”

The report went on to consider in more detail GPE ’s behaviour and history .

The guardian also commented on the parenting assessments conducted , noting in respect of the applicant that she appeared to lack understanding of the impact of arguments on PERSON and of alcohol on her parenting ability , and that she failed to see that GPE ’s behaviour towards her was abusive and controlling . The guardian considered the crux of the issue for reunification to be that the parents had not engaged in or completed treatment programmes for alcohol or domestic abuse , noting that GPE refused to accept that he was a perpetrator . She concluded :

“ There can be no delay for PERSON His parents have sadly not even begun to do the work that is needed to support and assist them with their fundamental problems / difficulties and the underlying issues that predispose their drinking and violence . Without the input they need I would expect their behaviour to revert to type , especially in the case of [ GPE ] , which would fundamentally seriously impact on PERSON causing him further significant harm if he was returned to their care . ”

She recommended that the court endorse the local authority plan for a care order with a plan for adoption .

A DATE hearing took place before ORG DATE . It had before it applications by the local authority for a care order and for a placement order .

At the start of the hearing , the court was presented with a new case on behalf of the applicant . In a position statement dated DATE , she said that on DATE she had discovered that GPE had been to a pub and had drunk QUANTITY of beer . She had remonstrated with him for drinking when they were so close to having PERSON returned to them and he had pushed her into a chair and slapped her . She had called the police . She said that the relationship with GPE was over , and that from the guardian ’s report she had learned new information about domestic violence in GPE ’s past relationships . She was planning , with the help of a recent inheritance , to rent a property near her sister , with the support of her sister and GPE ’s adult son , ORG The applicant asked to be given a chance to prove that she could safely parent PERSON on her own , away from parental conflict , and requested a section CARDINAL ) assessment of her as a sole carer ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She proposed that PERSON be assessed with her by an independent social worker who would address PERSON ’s relationship with the applicant , the applicant ’s parenting abilities and the management of any risks to PERSON In the interim , she sought a further ORG .

In a brief written statement dated DATE , ORG said that he intended to sign a joint lease shortly , move in with the applicant and support her as much as he could .

The court heard oral evidence . Notes were taken by the clerk and a transcribed note of evidence has been provided to the ORG by the respondent Government . However , it is in note form , with no clear distinction drawn between questions asked by counsel and responses made by witnesses . The notes are therefore of limited assistance in identifying the exact nature of the oral evidence given and any conclusions drawn from them should be treated with caution .

It appears from the notes that , in his oral evidence , PERSON expressed concern regarding the lack of evidence of a change in parenting skills by the applicant . Some discussion of adoption took place with him . He appeared to agree that if PERSON could be rehabilitated to the applicant ’s care , in circumstances in which his needs were properly met by her , then that would be a better solution than adoption . The notes suggest that he referred to PERSON ’s age and the greater difficulties encountered in seeking to place an older child for adoption . However , he seems to have expressed pessimism about the prospects for change in the applicant ’s behaviour , and indicated that his preference was for PERSON to stay with his foster placement on a long - term basis , although he appeared to recognise that this was not an option . He commented that the applicant had been entirely cooperative with him . His views on the value of a further assessment of the applicant are not clear .

The notes suggest that the social worker did not believe that the applicant ’s separation from GPE was genuine . She expressed the view that the applicant was so entrenched in domestic violence and her self - esteem was so eroded that she would be unable to separate properly from GPE She added that in any event the local authority had already carried out a parenting assessment ; a further assessment would unsettle PERSON , disrupt his placement and delay the matching process .

The notes confirm that the applicant gave an account of the incident of DATE . She explained that she had subsequently asked her social worker for help in separating from GPE She accepted that her statement of CARDINAL DATE , in which she had said that there had been no further violent incidents , was untruthful . She said she was too scared to tell anyone . She indicated that she had not drunk alcohol since DATE , nor had she been violent towards GPE She reiterated that she had decided to move to a new house close to her sister and that FAC was going to move in with her to assist . She had a fund of GBP CARDINAL which she would use for the benefit of PERSON She would apply for an injunction to prevent GPE from visiting her , and his contact with PERSON would have to be supervised . She said that she would undergo any programmes or assessments by a social worker , and that she was willing to see the guardian and PERSON again . She concluded that she had no intention of resuming a relationship with GPE if PERSON were returned to her . She had discovered from the guardian ’s report how he had treated his older children . She asked for the opportunity to be assessed as a sole parent for PERSON and accepted that PERSON would have to remain in care while the assessment took place .

Finally , the guardian gave evidence . The notes indicate that she opposed any further assessment of the applicant . It appears that she did not think that the separation was genuine . In any case , whether the separation was genuine or not was immaterial because in order for the applicant to keep herself and PERSON safe , her personality had to change . It seems that the guardian gave evidence to the effect that CARDINAL of the children placed for adoption DATE were PERSON ’s age . She appears to have expressed concern that any work with the applicant to address her issues would require long - term psychological input . She recommended adoption and indirect contact with the parents until they came to terms with the adoption .

DATE . At the conclusion of the evidence and submissions on DATE the court reserved its decision . On DATE it handed down judgment . Commenting on the parenting assessments , the court indicated that in its view the contact sessions had generally gone well . It observed :

“ ... We note that [ K. ] is not distressed when he returns from contact with his parents and understand that during contact he does ask his parents when he can come home and whether they have stopped drinking . ”

The court found that the threshold criteria for the making of a final care order ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been established , in light of the parents exposing PERSON to domestic violence and alcohol misuse causing him emotional and physical harm . It considered its range of powers and the need for a care order , referring to LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and emphasising that the child ’s welfare was the paramount consideration . It continued :

“ In determining the child ’s welfare we have considered the welfare checklist . We have referred to the welfare consideration in the Children ’s ORG ’s report and consider this to be comprehensive . We accept the welfare aspects but consequent upon the late position statement by mother , dated DATE , reach a different conclusion . The ORG ’s report does not address [ the GPE ] separation . ... At this juncture we believe that this separation is genuine and this therefore leads us into considering whether [ the applicant ] is capable of meeting [ ORG ] needs , which includes protecting him from [ GPE ] . This information is not before the court and puts us in great difficulty in deciding whether a care order should be made . The only way to achieve this information would be by making a s.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) direction [ for an assessment ] , however this needs to be balanced against a further delay for [ PERSON ] .

In considering our range of powers we could make an interim care order with a s.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) direction for [ the applicant ] to undergo a parenting assessment as a sole carer for [ K. ] . We are told that the assessment would take DATE and realistically DATE , before the case can be properly considered again by the court . This delay must be weighed against [ PERSON ’s ] best interests . Any delay is considered in law to be prejudicial unless it is planned and purposeful . ”

After examining domestic case - law on the circumstances in which a parenting assessment was appropriate , the court continued :

“ ... We therefore believe in fairness to [ the applicant ] she should be given CARDINAL last opportunity to have her parenting ability assessed in respect of [ PERSON ] .

... We accept that [ K. ] needs a secure and stable environment in which to develop and have his needs met but this must be weighed up against him losing the opportunity to be brought up within his birth family , particularly his mother . He is DATE and has memories of his parents and has continuously asked when he can return to live with them . Although we are sure that he is scared of the domestic violence , through the GPE separation and an injunction against [ GPE ] this risk can be managed .

We have considered the human rights issues . We believe that making an interim care order with a s MONEY ) direction is necessary and a proportionate response given that neither parent is at present capable of caring for [ PERSON ] and that it will provide the court with further crucial information before reaching a final decision ... ”

The court recorded that this option was not recommended by the guardian , and explained why it disagreed :

“ The reasons why we have gone against the ORG ’s recommendation are that we believe that a delay of DATE is acceptable in this case provided that it is purposeful and could prove to be in [ PERSON ’s ] best interests , should the assessment be positive as this will allow him to be raised with his birth mother , with whom [ GPE ] has clearly stated [ PERSON ] has a very strong bond . This assessment will provide us with valuable information when reaching our final decision and we intend to return for the final hearing . ”

The court accordingly made a direction for a section CARDINAL ) assessment and made a further ICO in respect of PERSON

The local authority and the child ’s guardian appealed the decision of ORG , arguing that there was no sufficient basis for the proposal that the applicant would be able to parent PERSON well enough on her own ; that the proposed assessment would duplicate earlier assessments ; and that the prospects of any assessment being favourable were too poor to justify the harm to the child of disruption and delay . They argued that the court ought to have made a final care order on the evidence before it . In their notices of appeal , they specifically sought a final care order and a placement order .

On DATE the social worker lodged a further statement with the court . She confirmed that PERSON had been informed of the separation of his parents and appeared to have accepted the situation , noting that he seemed more relaxed during contact sessions with his mother and made no reference to having contact with his father . The social worker also confirmed that the applicant had moved to a new address , on the basis of a joint tenancy agreement with ORG , but indicated that ORG had not actually yet moved into the property . The applicant remained in direct and indirect contact with GPE , and the social worker noted that she appeared to be confused about his behaviour towards her .

The statement indicated that the applicant had been informed of the support she could access in order to develop her parenting skills , but observed that to date she had not accessed such support . The applicant had also spoken with a domestic violence worker , although a planned meeting had not taken place as there was some confusion over the venue and had not been rescheduled . The social worker reported that contact sessions between the applicant and PERSON had been broadly positive . However , she considered that the applicant had demonstrated that she was unable to make a clean break from GPE , which remained a concern to social services .

DATE . The case came before ORG on DATE . By that time , the applicant and ORG had signed a lease on a property and the applicant had moved there . The judge considered extensive written and oral argument from the local authority and the guardian in support of the appeal . He took into account a substantial skeleton argument submitted by the applicant , who was represented by counsel at the hearing . He also had before him the various reports prepared for the hearing before ORG and the note of oral evidence prepared by the clerk ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He reserved his decision to DATE .

In the interim , on DATE , the court issued an order allowing the appeal . In its second paragraph , the order stated :

“ The Judge is satisfied that the conditions for making a care order exist and accordingly make a placement order , dispensing with the consent of the parents under PERSON ) and CARDINAL of ORG . ”

On DATE the judge handed down his judgment on the appeal . He summarised the relevant reports and the oral evidence as recorded in the notes by the clerk , commenting :

“ CARDINAL . ... [ T]he justices [ in ORG ] heard first oral evidence from [ GPE ] , and then from [ the social worker ] in support of the local authority ’s application . Their evidence is recorded in notes kept by the ORG clerk . I should observe that these notes are quite difficult to follow and there is sometimes little distinction between questions put and answers given . It is however clear that , when questioned about the mother ’s proposal to be assessed as a sole care for [ PERSON ] , both witnesses were unsupportive . [ D.I. ] said it was necessary to consider [ PERSON ’s ] needs now , and that a promise was not the same as change . He said that the mother ’s contact had not demonstrated a change in parenting skills . He was struck by the guardian ’s report , acknowledging that although the parents loved their child and wanted to change , they could not change . He said that [ PERSON ] was insecurely attached to both parents . He said that he was not recommending returning [ PERSON ] to his parents as it would cause him emotional and developmental damage . He said that his preference would be for [ PERSON ] to stay with his foster placement on a long - term basis , but it appears that he recognised that this was not an option . [ The social worker ] expressed the view that the mother ’s self - esteem was so eroded that she would not be able to separate properly from the father . She said that it was unclear whether the proposed assessment would be residential or in the community , but that in any event the local authority had already carried out a parenting assessment . She said that a further assessment would unsettle [ PERSON ] , disrupt his placement and delay the matching process . ”

The judge summarised the evidence of the applicant and ORG before turning to the evidence of the guardian , in respect of which he noted :

“ CARDINAL . ... Again it was clear from her evidence that she opposed the further assessment of the mother . She said that she did not think that the mother could separate from the father simply by moving house , as he had a lot of power and control over her . But whether or not the separation was genuine was immaterial because in order to keep herself and [ PERSON ] safe her personality needed to change . This could only happen with long term psychological support . She agreed with [ GPE ] that everything would not be fine if the mother separated because she would return to the father . ”

The judge acknowledged that the decision of ORG was reached after hearing oral evidence from the principal witnesses over a period of DATE . He further acknowledged that the course of action selected by ORG was one that was open to it . He continued :

“ CARDINAL . The temptation for a court to give directions for further evidence , often in the form of a s.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) assessment , is often strong . The decision to do so must always be taken in the best interests of the child . The proposition that the ‘ ... court needs all the help it can get’ has an immediate attraction , but the help must always be directed at achieving the right outcome for the child . Often there is the disadvantage of delay , and it is necessary accordingly to consider the possible outcomes of an assessment . In the present case the justices justified the delay as it retained the prospect of what they regarded as the best outcome for [ K. ] – rehabilitation to his family . But that outcome depended on the assessment being able to demonstrate that the mother had the capacity to parent [ K. ] in the long term . Given that the ORG findings contain the phrase ‘ neither parent is at present capable of caring for [ K.]’ , it is necessary to give consideration as to how the proposed assessment would proceed . If it was envisaged that [ PERSON ] would remain with his foster parents and spend increasing periods of visiting contact with his mother the report , ‘ if PERSON , would merely state that the mother had given all the signs of being able to care for her son , at least in the contact situation . If it was envisaged that there would be a phased return to the mother , with increasing periods of staying contact , then the report would be able to speak with greater confidence of the mother ’s capacity to parent her son . In either case however [ PERSON ] would be exposed to a degree of disruption of his foster placement , and to the risk of emotional harm should the assessment break down . In both cases the duration of the assessment would be too short to enable the report writer to give any sufficient guarantee that the mother would not , as predicted by the local authority and the guardian , resume her relationship with the father in due course . ”

He continued :

“ CARDINAL . I have come to the conclusion that the evidence about the mother was clear . [ D.I. ] regarded the mother ’s separation from the father as a promise of change , not change itself , and it was his view that there was no change in her parenting skills . The assessment of the mother would never have been able to provide evidence that would be sufficient to justify the refusal of a care order and the decision to return [ PERSON ] to his mother , given her shortcomings and the real risk that she would be unable to maintain her separation from the father . In reality the only effect of postponing the decision to make a care order was to delay , and therefore to jeopardise , the process of finding an alternative long term placement for [ PERSON ] by way of adoption ... In these circumstances the decision of the justices must be categorised as wrong , and must be set aside ... ”

He therefore allowed the appeal , indicated that he was satisfied that the conditions for making a care order existed and accordingly made a placement order , dispensing with the consent of the parents , under sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) and CARDINAL of ORG ( “ the DATE Act ” – see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . He added :

“ I have come to the above conclusions independently of information which I was given at the outset of the hearing before me about ORG ’s failure so far to join the mother at her new accommodation , her further contact with the father at public houses , and her taking of small quantities of alcohol . Nonetheless this information tends to confirm the pessimistic view expressed about the mother ’s inability to separate from the father .

... I do not propose that the judgment be formally given at a court hearing , although if there is anything that requires my further attention in court , an appropriate hearing can be arranged . ”

On DATE PERSON informed the applicant that he was not happy with the decision of the judge and that he wanted to come home .

The applicant sought leave to appeal the judgment of ORG , arguing that as there had previously been no care order in place , the judge should not have made a placement order without having due regard to the responsibilities placed on him by section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . In particular , she contended , the judge should have considered the child ’s ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision and the relationships which he had with relatives and any other relevant person .

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers on DATE on the ground that ORG judge had been sitting in an appellate capacity , that he had reached a conclusion that was clearly open to him and that he had explained his conclusion most clearly . The applicant renewed her request for leave . An oral hearing subsequently took place on DATE .

On DATE ORG handed down its judgment on the request for leave to appeal . In relation to the applicant ’s complaint that ORG had failed to take into account relevant considerations , and in particular had failed to have regard to the welfare checklist , the judge delivering the opinion of the court noted :

“ Her proper remedy in my judgment was to take advantage of the judicial offer in the final sentence of the [ ORG ] judgment ... She could have asked the judge to clarify the order that he was making and to indicate in his judgment how he arrived at such a conclusion . She could equally have asked him for permission to appeal . None of those things were done in the county court and a notice of appeal was filed in this court ... ”

He continued :

“ ... it seems to me on fuller investigation that [ the applicant ’s case ] lacks merit . First of all , the judge was reviewing a decision from the magistrates who had , I suspect out of understandable sympathy for the mother , held off the local authority ’s application with an order under LAW ) . But it is hard to see how that application was justified on the facts and circumstances , and [ ORG ] decision to set aside an order which stood on flimsy legal foundation is hardly open to challenge . Nor do I think in the end that there is any substance [ to the complaint ] that he dealt with the outcome in too peremptory a fashion . After all , the mother ’s legal team knew from the form of the notices of appeal to the circuit judge precisely what the local authority sought to gain from the hearing . It was quite open to [ counsel for the applicant ] to submit to the judge that he should not make a placement order even if he were persuaded to make a care order , since there was insufficient material to enable him to carry out the LAW review . It seems that she did not make that submission prior to judgment and , as I have already observed , she ignored the opportunity to make it immediately on receipt of the written judgment and to ask the judge to reconsider the order of CARDINAL [ DATE ] . ”

He concluded that there was no error of law in ORG decision and dismissed the application for permission to appeal .

A final supervised contact between PERSON and the applicant took place in DATE .

K. was placed with a prospective adoptive parent on DATE .

On DATE the applicant made an application to the court for contact with PERSON pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This was refused on DATE . No court decision has been submitted to ORG but it appears that there were ongoing concerns about the level of the GPE separation . In a statement to the court the social worker said that PERSON was forming a positive attachment to his prospective adopter and that he had unhappy memories of his life with his parents . In her professional opinion direct contact would undoubtedly cause PERSON stress and anxiety which would impact on the stability of his placement . The guardian filed a report along similar lines . It is unclear whether the applicant sought leave to appeal .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) gives a court the power to make an EPO in respect of a child living with his parents if it is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if he is not removed to accommodation provided by the person applying for the order .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act empowers a court to make an order placing a child in the care of the local authority or putting him under the local authority ’s supervision . Pursuant to section GPE ) , such an order can only be made if the court is satisfied :

“ ( a ) that the child concerned is suffering , or is likely to suffer , significant harm ; and

( b ) that the harm , or likelihood of harm , is attributable to–

( i ) the care given to the child , or likely to be given to him if the order were not made , not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him ; or

( ii ) the child ’s being beyond parental control . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) allows a court considering whether to make a care order to direct the local authority to undertake an investigation of the child ’s circumstances .

Pursuant to section ORG ) , a court can make an ICO where an application for a care order is adjourned or where directions under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) have been given . Before making such an order , the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances with respect to the child are as mentioned in section GPE ) . ICOs are limited in time : the first order may last no longer than DATE and subsequent orders no longer than DATE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that where the court makes an interim care order , it may give such directions as it considers appropriate with regard to the medical or psychiatric examination or other assessment of the child .

When a court makes an order under LAW , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that the child ’s welfare shall be the court ’s paramount consideration . LAW ) establishes a general principle that any delay in determining any question with respect to the upbringing of a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child . LAW ) provides that the court should have regard in particular to ;

“ ( a ) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned ( considered in the light of his age and understanding ) ;

( b ) his physical , emotional and educational needs ;

( c ) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances ;

( d ) his age , sex , background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant ;

( e ) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering ;

( f ) how capable each of his parents , and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant , is of meeting his needs ;

( g ) the range of powers available to the court under LAW in the proceedings in question . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( “ the DATE Act ” ) provides for the making of a placement order by the court authorising a local authority to place a child for adoption with prospective adopters . Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the court may not make a placement order in respect of a child unless :

“ ( a ) the child is subject to a care order ,

( b ) the court is satisfied that the conditions in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ( conditions for making a care order ) are met , or

( c ) the child has no parent or guardian . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) permits the court to dispense with the GPE consent to the making of a placement order . Section CARDINAL provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The court can not dispense with the consent of any parent or guardian of a child to the child being placed for adoption or to the making of an adoption order in respect of the child unless the court is satisfied that–

( a ) the parent or guardian can not be found or is incapable of giving consent , or

( b ) the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that a placement order continues in force until it is revoked or an adoption order is made in respect of the child .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of the DATE Act allows a local authority to apply for a placement order in respect of a child who is subject to a care order .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) permits the parent of child to make an application for contact with a child in respect of whom a placement order has been made . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that :

“ Before making a placement order the court ORG

( a ) consider the arrangements which the adoption agency has made , or proposes to make , for allowing any person contact with the child , and

( b ) invite the parties to the proceedings to comment on those arrangements . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provides that the paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child ’s welfare , throughout his life . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) requires courts and adoption agencies to bear in mind at all times that , in general , any delay in coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child is likely to prejudice the child ’s welfare . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) sets out , in the following terms , a list of matters to which courts and adoption agencies must have regard when exercising their powers :

“ ( a ) the child ’s ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision ( considered in the light of the child ’s age and understanding ) ,

( b ) the child ’s particular needs ,

( c ) the likely effect on the child ( throughout his life ) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person ,

( d ) the child ’s age , sex , background and any of the child ’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant ,

( e ) any harm ( within the meaning of LAW DATE ... ) which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering ,

( f ) the relationship which the child has with relatives , and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant , including–

( i ) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so ,

( ii ) the ability and willingness of any of the child ’s relatives , or of any such person , to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop , and otherwise to meet the child ’s needs ,

( iii ) the wishes and feelings of any of the child ’s relatives , or of any such person , regarding the child . ”

ORG . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides :

“ The court or adoption agency must always consider the whole range of powers available to it in the child ’s case ( whether under LAW or LAW DATE ) ; and the court must not make any order under this LAW unless it considers that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so . ”

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act provides for the making of an adoption order , transferring parental responsibility for the child to the adopters . Under section CARDINAL , an adoption order can only be made in the absence of the GPE consent where the child has been placed for adoption pursuant to a placement order .

It is the established practice of family courts for the judge to invite representations as to any factual errors in the judgment . The practice was described by ORG in Re T ( Contact : Alienation : Permission to Appeal ) [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL , as follows :

“ In a complex case , it might well be prudent , and certainly not out of place , for the judge , having handed down or delivered judgment , to ask the advocates whether there are any matters which he has not covered . Even if he does not do this , an advocate ought immediately , as a matter of courtesy at least , to draw the judge ’s attention to any material omission of which he is then aware or then believes exists . It is well established that it is open to a judge to amend his judgment , if he thinks fit , at any time up to the drawing of the order . In many cases , the advocate ought to raise the matter with the judge in pursuance of his duty to assist the court to achieve the overriding objective ... ; and in some cases , it may follow from the advocate ’s duty not to mislead the court that he should raise the matter rather than allow the order to be drawn . It would be unsatisfactory to use an omission by a judge to deal with a point in a judgment as grounds for an application for appeal if the matter has not been brought to the judge ’s attention when there was a ready opportunity so to do . Unnecessary costs and delay may result . ”

This passage was cited with approval by ORG in Re M ( fact - finding hearing burden of proof ) [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL . The judge in that case added :

“ I wish to make it as clear as possible that after a judge has given judgment , counsel have a positive duty to raise with the judge not just any alleged deficiency in the judge ’s reasoning process but any genuine query or ambiguity which arises on the judgment . Judges should welcome this process , and any who resent it are likely to find themselves the subject of criticism in this court . The object , of course , is to achieve clarity and – where appropriate – to obviate the need to come to this court for a remedy .

This process applies in cases involving children in both public and private law as much as it applies in any other case . I very much hope that in the future this court will not be faced with matters which are plainly within the province of the judge , and are properly capable of being resolved at first instance , and immediately after the relevant hearing . ”

The statutory checklists are set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL LAW , in respect of care order , and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , in respect of placement and adoption orders ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In DATE v GPE of ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL , decided on DATE , ORG was asked to consider whether the judge had erred in failing to refer explicitly to the statutory checklists in DATE Acts and to LAW when making a care and placement order . PERSON , delivering the lead judgment , noted :

“ CARDINAL . The judge was making a very draconian order . As such , he was required to balance each factor within the checklist in order to justify his conclusions and determine whether the final outcome was appropriate . Accordingly , because this analysis is entirely absent , his failure to mention the provisions of LAW and deal with each part of LAW ) undermines his conclusions and his order . ”

As to Article CARDINAL , she continued :

“ CARDINAL . In a case where the care plan leads to adoption the full expression of the terms of DATE must be explicit in the judgment because , ultimately , there can be no greater interference with family life . Accordingly , any judge must show how his decision is both necessary and proportionate . In this case what the judge said was ‘ removing the children from their Mother without good reason ... would be a tragedy for them , quite apart from the mother’ . With all due respect to him , this does not demonstrate that he had LAW well in mind . Whilst he decided that the experts apparently proffered no other solution it is apparent from the manner in which this case unfolded that they did not have the opportunity to make recommendations upon the additional evidence which , I remind myself , amounted to CARDINAL sighting of the Father and Mother together in the street . Consequently , it was even more incumbent upon him to consider precisely why the family bond should be broken . ”

Baron J considered that the judge should have turned his mind to each of the provisions set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW when considering whether to make a placement order , and not truncated his considerations in CARDINAL paragraph . She continued :

“ CARDINAL . ... By so doing he specifically failed to address these children ’s particular needs and the likely effect on them ( throughout their lives ) of their ceasing to be a member of their original family . They have an established attachment to a loving mother who , with targeted assistance , might be able to provide some form of future mothering . ”

Finally , on the established practice of family courts for the judge to invite representations as to any factual errors in the judgment , and the failure of the mother in that case to do so , the judge considered that the omissions in the judgment could not have been put right following that route .

Lord Justice PERSON noted :

“ CARDINAL . ... There is no more important or draconian decision than to part parent and child permanently by means of an adoption order . It follows , in my judgment , that if this is the course which the court feels constrained to follow , the process whereby it is achieved must be both transparent and must comply with both ORG and the relevant statutory provisions .

Once again , these are not hoops imposed by ORG and the appellate judiciary designed to make the life of the hard - pressed circuit judge even more difficult than it is already . They are not boxes to be ticked so that this court can be satisfied that the judge has gone through the motions . They are important statutory provisions , bolstered by decisions of this court which require a judge fully and carefully to consider whether the welfare of the child concerned throughout his life ... requires adoption . ”

He considered that , however experienced the judge , it was wholly inadequate to deal with these crucially important issues in a sentence or CARDINAL , as the judge in that case had done , observing :

“ CARDINAL . ... The judge does not mention either LAW DATE and ORG ) nor does he make any reference to the rights enjoyed by both parents and children under ORG , nor does he mention proportionality . In my judgment , these are serious defects which vitiate the judgment and mean that this appeal must be allowed .

The answers to the criticisms I have made are , as I understood them ; ( CARDINAL ) all these matters were put to the judge so he must have had them in mind ; and ( CARDINAL ) all the professional and expert evidence was to the effect that if the mother was a liar , and had lied to the judge about her relationship with the father , adoption was inevitable – therefore the judge was entitled to take a short cut .

In my judgment , neither defence meets the criticism ... ”