[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> RBW&M v T&T [2016] EWFC B88 (17 November 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B88.html Cite as: [2016] EWFC B88

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT READING

		9TH NOVEMBER 2016 TO 11TH NOVEMBER 2016 & 16th To 17th November 2016

Introduction

I am dealing with the final hearing following a fact-finding hearing which I conducted in December 2015 in relation to the child, L. I adopt my judgement from that hearing which sets out the background to these proceedings and the findings made. Essentially, I found that L, then aged 14 months, suffered an unexplained skull fracture whilst in the care of her CT. Since the 2^nd December 2015 L has remained living with Mr and Mrs G and their daughter, EG, under a child arrangements order. This final hearing is to consider the welfare disposal in respect of these proceedings in light of my earlier findings and subsequent evidence obtained since that hearing about risk assessment and placement options for L.

I have read all of the evidence in this case contained in the Bundle and have heard from various witnesses over the course of this hearing.

Summary of events and evidence obtained since the Fact-Finding hearing

Following my fact-finding in December last year, I allowed an application by the Local Authority for psychological assessment by Dr Dowd of CT and for there to be an ISW assessment by Judi Lyons of both CT and NT. The case was timetabled to an IRH on 31^st March 2016. At that IRH, CT revealed that there had been extensive communications between her and NT, despite the couple saying that they had separated. As result, I agreed that it was necessary to obtain details of their communications and the case was re-timetabled with a final hearing being scheduled for 3 days commencing on 27^th July 2016. On 13^th July 2016 the Local Authority applied to bring the case back to court because EG had indicated that she wished to be assessed as a Special Guardian for L and this assessment could not be completed in time for the hearing on 27^th July 2016. In addition, further questions needed be sent to Dr Dowd and Judi Lyons in light of the information obtained as a result of the disclosure of communications records between the parents. The case was timetabled to a final hearing commencing on 9^th November 2016 for five days (ie 9^th to 11^th November and then 16^th and 17^th November 2016 due to judicial availability).

On 12^th September, I dealt with applications by NT for him to be allowed to care for L whilst EG went to work instead of a childminder and by the Local Authority for Dr Dowd to provide a psychological assessment of NT. I dismissed NT's application but granted the Local Authority Part 25 application for Dr Dowd to provide a psychological assessment of NT and made directions for that report to be provided within the timetable for this final hearing. I also listed the matter for a final IRH on 27^th October 2016. At that IRH, the witness template was provided and the final hearing was confirmed as effective.

Dr Dowd's main report of his assessment of CT is dated 21^st January 2016 and can be found at E21-E50 of the Bundle. He concluded that CT did not have a current mental illness, though she had suffered from depression in the past and was engaging with Talking Therapies and he felt that may be of benefit for her (E26). He noted that CT presented with "primarily impulsive personality traits of the histrionic type. This is associated with a high need for attention and a willingness to behave in ways to secure and sustain sources of attention…However CT's personality characteristics cannot be considered to be to the strength that would warrant a diagnosis of personality disorder. Her traits were assessed however as approaching clinical significance in terms of their strength and therefore they have the potential to influence inappropriate decision making on her part." (E27). He also noted that by sustaining a violent relationship with NT, she inevitably increased the risks that L was exposed to (E28). CT was already engaged to attend the Freedom Programme the day after she saw Dr Dowd, which he acknowledged and pointed out would have been his recommendation and her completion of that should be a requirement (E29). He also noted that she may require longer term and complex therapeutic work to address personality functioning issues if she was unable to make appropriate decisions in terms of relationships after the delivery of the Programme (E29). He noted that she told him she "fully understood that should she inappropriately have contact with NT or contemplate reconciliation that this may very well result in the Court considering her daughter should at no time be returned to her care" (E38).

Judi Lyons parenting assessment of CT and NT is dated 23^rd February 2016 and can be found at E51-E92. Her conclusions (E83-87) were that both parents were capable of meeting L's basic needs, and that the parents had separated, though she did acknowledge the difficulty of assessing CT's ability to keep L safe in light of the lack of explanation for the injury which occurred in her care.

Judi Lyons provided an addendum report on 30^th August 2016 addressing the supplemental question of whether her view had changed in light of the evidence about the extensive communications between the parties, the fact that NT had had an argument with his father causing him to lose his accommodation and an incident which had occurred at a Harvester restaurant on 26^th July 2016 when it was alleged that he was drunk, aggressive and abusive and subsequently banned. NT told Mrs Lyons that he did not accept that he was drunk but accepted that there had been an argument and he had been asked to leave (E116). Mrs Lyons did not at this point alter her conclusions that NT could safely parent L and that the one area of remaining concern in relation to NT (lack of accommodation) was not insurmountable (E117). She also noted that the extensive communications between the parents were not a surprise and she interpreted them as characterising the "rather bleak picture of the ending of their partnership" (E117).

Dr Dowd provided a letter dated 10^th August 2016 (E135a-b) in response to the updating documentation about the parents' extensive communication. He emphasised that reconciliation between the parents cannot be ruled out in the future and did not feel the need to alter or add to his initial opinions (E135a).

Dr Dowd's psychological assessment of NT is dated 30^th September 2016 (E136-E169). It was his conclusion that "NT's personality traits are strongly impulsive and have emerged in maladaptive ways in the recent past" (E143). Dr Dowd also expressed concern about NT's misuse of alcohol and impact of this in terms of creating behavioural difficulties for him. He re-emphasised his concerns about the potential for NT and CT to reconcile. He did not assess NT has having a personality disorder but noted that "the assessed strength of NT's impulsive personality traits do suggest that clinical intervention may be required in the future if he is unable to maintain behavioural stability" (E147). He recommended that NT should engage with further anger management work (over and above the Temper programme which he completed over 4 days in August and September this year – report of which can be found at C346-C353). He also recommended that NT seek further guidance about his misuse of alcohol and that there should be a further period of observation of him after this before a placement of L with him should be attempted (E148).

The final social work evidence from the social worker, Lianne Noble, highlighted the Local Authority concerns about the apparent lack of stability in NT's lifestyle, the absence of explanation from CT for the serious injury which L suffered and the extensive communications between the parents despite telling professionals that they had ceased to be in a relationship.

I heard evidence from the social worker, Dr Dowd and then Judi Lyons, before hearing from CT and the Guardian. The social worker and Dr Dowd reiterated the views expressed in their written evidence, however Judi Lyons revised her conclusions in light of Dr Dowd's assessment of NT and his oral evidence to me, as well as the Guardian's final report. She told me that she would now have some reservations about whether L could live with NT until NT had completed the required work and was therefore "ad idem with the Local Authority and Guardian". CT told me that does not pose any risk of harm to L and wants L to be returned to her care. The Guardian told me that in addition to the concerns surrounding the unexplained injury which L suffered whilst in the care of her mother, she is now settled and thriving with EG and the Guardian still has concerns around the relationship between CT and NT in terms of the possibility of their reconciliation and the potential for this to cause emotional harm to L.

Parties' positions

The Local Authority had prepared two welfare documents settings out the welfare findings that they seek, one with particulars and one without. These are at A43-52 in the bundle but midway through the hearing, on 10^th November 2016, NT changed his position in light of the evidence at that point. The Local Authority seeks for L to remain in the care of EG under a Special Guardianship Order. This is supported by the Guardian. NT initially began this hearing seeking for L to be placed in his care but in light of Judi Lyons' revised conclusion now accepts that she cannot be placed with him and supports her remaining with EG under a Special Guardianship Order. He does not seek any order for contact as he also accepts the proposed minimum contact proposed by the Local Authority of 6 hours per month with each parent. CT wants L to be returned to her care, but accepts that if I find that this is not in L's welfare interests then L should remain living with EG under the proposed Special Guardianship Order. In relation to contact, she queries the need for contact to be supervised as proposed in the final care plan and for it to be reduced to one 6 hour session per month. EG and Mr and Mrs G agree that there should be a SGO to EG in respect of L if I find that L cannot be returned to the care of her mother.

Relevant legal considerations

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 with regard to threshold, and the welfare checklist contained in section1 of the Children Act 1989, I have also had regard to the cases of Re B-S, Re R and Re G and Re E-R.

Findings

NT accepts that he cannot care for L in light of the work which needs to undertake to address his issues in relation to impulsivity and lack of stability before she could be safely placed with him and the likely timescale which this would involve being outside of that which is appropriate for L. A form of words has been agreed amongst the advocates to record this by way of a preamble to the order, and I will adopt that wording for the purposes of my judgement and attach that as appendix 1 to this judgement.

The key issue which remains to be determined in this case is whether or not L can safely be returned to the care of her mother. Threshold in respect of the factual basis of the injury has previously been determined by my findings in respect of this in December 2015. Revised threshold in terms of welfare findings sought by the Local Authority as far as it relates to CT are as follows:

1. L is likely to suffer harm in CT's care and CT is likely to be incapable of meeting her needs for the following reasons:

(a) L sustained a skull fracture whilst in the care of CT. The explanation put forward by CT has not been accepted by the court and the Local Authority is therefore unaware of the circumstances surrounding the injury. In the event that the injury involved any intentional act on CT's part the triggers for the same remain unknown. Similarly the circumstances surrounding any reckless, negligent act are unknown. In the absence of a cogent explanation in respect of this injury CT continues to pose a risk of harm to L.

(b) CT presents with primarily impulsive personality of the histrionic type. (E27) CT has a history of being in relationships involving violence and/or control.

(c) CT was not open and honest with professionals about the extent and nature of her contact with NT until March 2016.

There is a real risk that the parents will reconcile and thereby exposing L to a risk of harm.

As Mrs Lyons pointed out in her report and in evidence to me "these cases of unexplained injury are extremely difficult for professionals to manage as there is always a risk factor to consider – could this ever happen again?" (E86). Mrs Lyons' professional view, from her observations of CT with L was "that there are no concerns" (E86). She had said in her report at E86 "These cases of unexplained injury are extremely difficult for professionals to manage as there is always a risk factor to consider – could this ever happen again". Mrs Lyons also gave as her conclusion "From my observations of her at the centre, at the pool and then out for the morning, my professional view would be that …this mother is more than capable of caring for her daughter as per the evidence before the court" (E86). However, she went on to note and reinforced in her evidence to me that the question of whether or not CT can ensure that L is safe in her care is one for me as the Court. In her final conclusion at paragraph e on E86 she also acknowledged that there were no concerns with regard to CT's care of L prior to L's injury.

Mrs Lyons was very clear, I find, that the decision of whether or not L can safely be placed back with her mother is one for the Court and was not something that she could make a recommendation about. To this extent her parenting assessment is limited as she herself acknowledged at the outset of her first report when she said "The situation with CT is more complicated because of the finding of fact hearing and subsequent judgement. If L fell backwards in the bedroom and sustained a skull fracture as a result, which is the explanation given to me by the mother, then does this mean that she can never have care of her daughter again" (E54). I have reminded myself of the findings that I made and looked carefully at my previous judgement, in particular at lines 429 to 442 (B108s of the Bundle). I in fact made a positive finding that there was not a fall on the bed as CT described and repeated to Mrs Lyons. I made the finding that the injury was unexplained because there was no credible explanation provided by CT, but also because there was no evidence to prove that it was a deliberately inflicted injury (which I noted was the accepted position of the Local Authority – lines 507-509 of my previous judgement B108v). I find that I therefore have to approach the question of whether L can be safely returned to the care of her mother from the starting point that L suffered a serious but unexplained injury whilst in the care of her mother. Mrs Lyons evidence, both written and oral, did not actually seek to go behind this, notwithstanding her question about whether CT's version of the cause of the injury would justify continued separation of L from her mother. Her view overall that CT was capable of parenting L aside from the issue of the injury did not alter as a result of the later communications between the parents. Mrs Lyons was rather dismissive of these communications and pointed out that they were of a kind that many young people have. Of course, what differentiates this couple from many of their peers is the unexplained injury suffered by L and the volatility of their relationship when they were together. I was not assisted by Mrs Lyons' evidence in terms of whether or not CT could ensure that L would be physically safe in her care as Mrs Lyons was very clear that the matter was one for me as the Court and not for her in light of the unexplained injury. Accordingly, I have looked at the other evidence in this case.

In the letter of instruction, Dr Dowd was specifically asked to address the question "whether the mother poses any physical or emotional risk of harm to L?" in his psychological assessment of CT. His answer records that there was an increase in the risks to L by CT sustaining a reportedly violent relationship with NT (E28). He also noted that he was "concerned that the emotional connection to NT remains strong, evidenced very much by her emotional destabilisation during her assessment and when being challenged about her apparent reluctance to terminate a relationship which had featured fundamental violence and threat, and therefore may offer the potential for her to be influenced by him in the future" (E29). He did also note that he "could not suggest that CT's general psychological profile is indicative of an individual who would intentionally seek to inflict serious harm upon their child. However, every individual may at times respond inappropriately to specific circumstances in their lives or psychological destabilisation" (E29). It was very clear from Dr Dowd's initial assessment of CT that CT "fully understood that should she inappropriately have contact with NT or contemplate reconciliation that this may very well result in the court considering her daughter should at no time be returned to her care" (E38). Despite this, CT had extensive communications with NT, both calls and texts as evidenced in section K of the bundle between 2^nd December 2015 and 31^st March 2016. Those communications went both ways and are very numerous indeed. If CT had not revealed that these communications had taken place, it is quite probable that no-one would have been any the wiser about them as the Guardian told me. CT herself told me that she revealed them "partly because it needed to be said" and that she wanted to expose NT's dishonesty. I was also struck by her telling me that the communications were "messages and that was it" – evidence from the mobile phone provider seems to show calls as well as SMS exchanges, in addition to the whatsapp messages. She also told me that she sends NT pictures of L after contact.

Having been made aware of the extensive communications between the parents, Dr Dowd responded in August to further questions by saying "having read the updating documents I do not consider it necessary to alter or add to my initial opinions. I would wish to emphasise that reconciliation between the parents cannot be ruled out in the future. The text messages between them in February-March demonstrate their preparedness to interact extensively and despite the ongoing care proceedings during which they both have been able to understand professional concerns about their relationship" (E135a). He also told me that he was taken aback by the intimacy and extent of the contact and that both the frequency and the content of their messages were of concern. He pointed out that the content was significant because it was not merely an exchange of opinions or a discussion of the proceedings or about L, but was a blatant disregard for the concerns the professionals had about their relationship. He did accept that generally the messages do tend to show her as initially more reluctant to engage in intimacy, but pointed out that the concern was that she engaged with the communication in the first place. Dr Dowd disagreed with Mrs Lyons about whether or not the relationship had ended when the messages were sent. As he said, there was still a relationship in some form and the social worker also pointed out in her evidence to me that "relationship" was a vague term here. I find that this was the case and at the point of their extensive communications CT and NT did remain involved in some form of a relationship, albeit it was not necessarily one involving face to face contact. It is accepted that there is no evidence of an ongoing face to face relationship or one involving the sort of extensive communications which took place at the beginning of this year.

It is also, I find, positive that CT did eventually reveal that these communications had taken place. This was noted by the social worker, Mrs Lyons and Dr Dowd. However, as noted by the social worker and Dr Dowd, I find it is a valid concern to the issue of CT's ability to work openly and honestly with professionals and to sustain her separation from NT. This is compounded by her only doing so from motives that were more based around contradicting NT than acknowledging that she should not have been drawn into communication with NT and any risks that this may pose to her ability to maintain a separation from him if L were to be placed in her care. The Guardian also told me that it is striking that NT used L as a way of enticing CT into further communication with him. She was very clear that she was not just concerned about the unexplained injury which L had suffered in her mother's care but also the potential for the parents to reconcile if L were to be placed with her mother. I find that this is a valid concern in light of the assessment of Dr Dowd of their potential to reconcile, as well as the opinions of Mrs Lyons and the Guardian about the immaturity of the parents which the communications reveal.

CT, in her final statement dated 8^th November 2016, says "I understand the significance of the injury that L sustained whilst in my care". In her third statement dated 11^th December 2015 after my findings, she said "I accept that I should have sought immediate medical help and would do this in the future. I accept that I did not inform the medical professionals of the incident when L hit her head against the wall when asked. I accept that because of the injury to L the Local Authority have concerns about my parenting and whether L would be at risk in my care" (C141). What is striking about this evidence and in fact all of the professional and expert evidence is that CT has consistently failed to provide any further details as to what led to L's injury in her care. I made a clear finding that the injury to L was unexplained. She does appear to accept my findings, but without providing further credible details I am left very much in the dark about what led to L's injury. As the social worker told me, this also leaves open the possibility that there were triggers affecting CT which somehow led to the injury and which may remain unaddressed at present, I find.

Much was made by Mr Williamson for CT of the evidence from the social worker about the impact of experiencing domestic violence upon CT's ability to safely care for L. I do agree with Ms Quinn for the Local Authority who submitted that it was important to consider the context of the evidence in question. My understanding of Ms Noble's evidence in its entirety and in context was that she was simply raising it as one of many possible causes for how L may have been hurt in her mother's care. In essence, it seems to me as if she was really making the same point that Dr Dowd made at E29 that "every individual may at times respond inappropriately to specific circumstances in their lives". She did clarify what she meant by her comment in her final statement at C283 that the injury "could not have occurred through accidental means". Her explanation was illustrative to me of just the sort of difficulties that Mrs Lyons identified where an injury is unexplained and it seems to me as if what Ms Noble was really saying when cross-examined by Mr Williamson was that "unexplained" leaves open the possibility of some sort of action or inaction on CT's part which was not deliberate but which also was not accidental. It is unfortunate in the extreme that the confusion generated by Ms Noble's evidence at C283 combined in this case with what the Guardian wrote in her final report at paragraph 9 that "L had incurred a non-accidental injury". However, Ms Douglas was very clear that this was simply and error and I do not find that her evidence and that of the social worker are flawed throughout as a result of an erroneous assumption about the nature of the injury which L suffered. Both were ultimately very clear that the key issue is the unexplained nature of L's injury and the Ms Noble in particular repeated several times in her written evidence and orally to me that the concern was the absence of adequate explanation from CT following my findings.

Mr Williamson and Mr Miller both submitted that my decision has to be evidence based. Mr Williamson relied heavily upon the positive assessment of CT by Mrs Lyons, and Mr Miller relied on the absence of evidence of NT exposing L to a risk of harm from his drinking. Again, I have to look at all the evidence before me. In relation to CT, I find that the fact that L suffered a very serious injury due to unexplained causes whilst in the care of her mother means that until there is clear identification of factors that would reduce the risk of physical harm to L, it would not be safe for her to return L to her mother's care. CT does have the capacity to parent L to a good enough standard in terms of her meeting her basic physical needs apart from this, but the question of whether she can meet her basic need for physical safety must be no whilst there is an absence of potential support and safeguarding steps which could be put in place to prevent repetition, I find. It is not disputed that the injury to L occurred whilst CT and L were living with CT's grandmother. CT proposes that the risk to L of placing her with her mother can be addressed by support from CT's mother (para 4 of her final statement). What this does not address and CT did not address in evidence to me is precisely how this would be different to the situation before L was injured and how it would address the issue of risk. I am also concerned to note that CT has, on her own admission, been dishonest with the professionals involved in this case by not telling them about the extensive communications between her and NT when they happened. This leads me to conclude that there is a significant concern that CT may fail to be open and honest with professionals in future and may again put her needs above those of L as she did before. In consequence, I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that CT would not be able to safely parent L in terms of her physical safety and this also poses a risk of physical harm to L.

In addition, whilst there is still a very real potential for reconciliation between the parents as identified by Dr Dowd, I find that it also remains the case that L is at risk of emotional harm if her parents were to reconcile and expose her again to domestic abuse as they accept happened in the past. As the Guardian put in her final report, returning L to the care of her mother also risks returning her to a potentially unstable situation as a result (para 32). It is positive that CT has completed the Freedom Programme, as Dr Dowd, the social worker and Guardian all acknowledged. However, I do find that it is a valid concern that despite undergoing the Freedom Programme she did not reveal the communications because of a realisation that this may have been an attempt by NT to manipulate her into seeing him through inviting her to visit L but rather she revealed them as a way of countering what she saw as NT's falsehoods. She also remains in a form of communication with NT by sending him pictures of L after contact and despite the fact that in the past he has managed to draw her into more extensive communication despite her initial best intentions. On balance, I find that she still has a way to go to show that she is able to sustain her separation from NT in the long term.

Finally, I also have to have regard to the effect upon L of any change of circumstances. As was noted by both the social worker and Guardian in evidence to me, L has spent a considerable period of time in the care of EG. The length of this time is solely due to the fact of the late disclosure of the extensive communications which took place between the parents earlier this year and the need to consider the ramifications of this, I find. L has been with EG for over a year. That is a very significant period of time for a very young child. The Guardian told me that L has formed a health attachment to EG and submitted through Mr Robertson that to break that attachment would cause L harm. I find that this would be the case and that harm would be compounded by the risk of physical and emotional harm if she were to be placed in the care of her mother.

I am, of course, aware that the continued removal of L from her mother's care has to be necessary and proportionate. L suffered an extremely serious injury whilst in the care of her mother. CT has provided no adequate explanation for that injury so it remains unexplained. Mr Williamson submitted that CT poses no greater risk of harm to L than many other parents in light of the "glowing" parenting assessment of her. However, this overlooks the starting point that I must have of L having suffered the injury that she did. Mrs Lyons acknowledged this in her evidence to me and she was therefore unable to assist me with regard to this aspect of the risk of harm to L. The evidence from both Dr Dowd and Mrs Lyons was also clear that, in their professional opinions CT was not likely to be the sort of parent to deliberately hurt L. Deliberate infliction of the injury was not put forward as a possibility by the Local Authority at the fact-finding hearing because they accepted that the evidence did not support this. This therefore left open the possibility that it occurred by some other means than deliberately or in the circumstances put forward by CT. I do find that it was open to CT to provide further and better details of what led to L's injury and that the ideal times to have done so would have been when she was speaking to Judi Lyons and Dr Dowd. This would have enabled a more informed risk assessment to have taken place by them to enable me to assess whether the risk of physical injury to L in her mother's care had either diminished to a safe level, or could be ameliorated and reduced to a safe level by forms of support. Unfortunately, CT has not provided that further and better detail and therefore I have to conclude that she does continue to pose a risk of harm to L given the fact of the serious injury in her care.

Having considered all of the relevant welfare checklist headings therefore, I find that L's welfare requires that she is not returned to the care of her mother and that I grant a special guardianship order to EG for L.

In relation to NT and Mr Miller's submissions about an indication in relation to contact, whilst it is true that there is no evidence of NT drinking whilst L was in his care, I am very mindful of the assessment by Dr Dowd of his strongly impulsive personality traits. I am also concerned about his refusal to acknowledge earlier that his use of alcohol may be evidence of his impulsivity emerging in maladaptive ways. As Dr Dowd noted "although NT is able to understand how his behaviours have been inappropriate, and he has the ability to understand the consequences of his behaviours should they be repeated in the future, the strong influence of personality functioning upon behavioural decision-making will always have the potential of reducing his ability to prevent problematic behaviours emerging in the future" (E143). I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that NT may well engage in maladaptive behaviours in the future and this may include misuse of alcohol. As a result, it is premature and inappropriate for me to give an indication about future overnight staying contact which Mr Miller asked for on NT's behalf. I find that it is in L's best interests for this to be a matter for her primary carer who will be EG and who will be able to assess the situation with NT as it develops in the future. I am confident that EG will be able to make an appropriate decision in the then circumstances.

In relation to CT's contact, the proposals for supervision and frequency are actually agreed as the recitals in appendix one record, but I also find that they are in L's best interests. As the social worker and Guardian both told me, contact needs to be at a frequency that allows L to understand that EG is her primary carer. The Guardian also told me that it is heavily dependent upon the nature of the parents' relationship and maturity, something which she had also emphasised in her final report (para 47). Mrs Lyons also commented on the level of immaturity which the extensive communications revealed. In light of this and the evidence of the Guardian I do find that again further contact with CT (including unsupervised contact) is something that is best left to the discretion of EG to assess what is in L's best interests at the time concerned.

The Special Guardianship Support Plan (including addendum) is accepted by all parties and I also accept that it is appropriate to meet L's needs by supporting her special guardian EG.

Conclusions

It is clear to me that both CT and NT love L very much and this has also been acknowledged by all of the professionals involved in the case. I am also in no doubt that the contact which has taken place between each of them and L has been very positive. However, given my findings above in relation to L's welfare and the risk of harm to her if she were to be returned to her mother's care, I have concluded that it is in L's best interests for her to remain in the care of EG under the auspices of a SGO. L's relationship with her parents and sense of identity will be maintained by the contact that is proposed as a minimum but this also acknowledges the fact that L's primary carer for the foreseeable future. Mr Mitchell for Mr and Mrs G and EG also asked me to consider whether to include a provision within my order reserving any future applications in relation to L to me for a period of time in light of my extensive involvement with these proceedings and to ensure judicial continuity. I do note that any application which would have the effect of varying my order would need to be allocated to the same tier of Judge under the allocation guidance but I also agree that individual judicial continuity in respect of any future applications would be very helpful in this case. It has been a very long-running case despite careful case management and it would not benefit L to have any future proceedings delayed as a result of a new Judge needing to familiarise themselves with the basic facts and details. It would not be reasonable or proportionate for this requirement to put future applications before me to be open-ended and I will therefore order that any applications concerning L shall be reserved to me for a period of 2 years from the date of this order.

APPENDIX 1

IN THE MATTER OF L

UPON the court having heard the evidence from Liann Noble (SW), Dr Dowd and Judi Lyons (ISW)

AND UPON Judi Lyons having been given an oral summary of Dr Dowd's evidence and having considered the Final Analysis of the children's guardian and no longer supporting the return of L to her Father's care

AND UPON Dr Dowd being of the view that:

(i) the Father has strongly impulsive personality traits which are an enduring and pervasive aspect of his psychological functioning;

(ii) the father's impulsive traits have emerged in maladaptive ways during the care proceedings and at a time when he was able to understand the consequences of his actions in respect of L (For eg, he engaged in extensive telephone and WhatsApp contact with the Mother until March 2016 when their relationship had purportedly ended and he was banned from the Harvester Inn as a result of his behaviour In June 2016)

(iii) the Father's enduring personality traits are likely to affect his ability to prioritise L's needs;

(iv) the Father has issues with anger management and alcohol misuse which are intertwined with his personality difficulties;

(v) anger management and engagement with alcohol services may assist in moderating his behaviour, however, they will not address his enduring personality traits.

AND UPON DR Dowd, the Local Authority and the Children's guardian being of the view that the father has not demonstrated stability in respect of his housing, employment and relationship.

AND UPON Dr Dowd, the Local Authority, and the Children's Guardian not supporting the return of L to her father's care notwithstanding:

(i) the parenting assessments by Liann Noble and Judi Lyons which concluded that Father's basic care was good enough, and

(ii) the suggestion by father that any rehabilitation could be supported and monitored by Children's Services and/or other professionals.

AND UPON the court finding that the Father has not been open and honest with professionals and the court particularly in relation to the communication up to the end of March 2016 with mother after their relationship had ended and in relation to the incident at the Harvester Inn on the 27^th June 2016; and

AND UPON the Father not seeking the return of L and supporting L remaining in the care of EG subject to a Special Guardianship order

AND UPON the father indicating that he would wish for overnight contact in due course when he has stable accommodation

AND UPON the Mother indicating that she would wish for unsupervised contact

AND UPON the parties agreeing that contact shall be in the discretion of EG