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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION



In house solicitor on behalf of a Local Authority Mr Baker (instructed by Stephenson Solicitors) for M Mr Maddison (instructed by King St Solicitors) for F Ms Kilvington (instructed by CAFCASS) for the Child J Hearing dates: 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th & 29th July 2016 ____________________

Mr Justice Hayden :

Background

The Private Law proceedings

"At present both parents share Parental Responsibility and this does provide a sense of identity for [J] and acknowledges [F]as his birth father. However, [M] states that J has never been known under the surname of [F] including his education provision "

"I have discussed J being 'gender variant' with [F], and he states this will not be an issue for him. [F] has asked for proof that this is the case, and this could be provided by the support group "

"Protracted litigation has an adverse impact on children and adults for this reason I believe it is in the best interest of all involved for these proceedings to end as soon as possible"

The Social Services investigations

"6.5. On 01/03/13 an anonymous referral was received. The referrer advised that they were aware that [M] uses "skunk" in front of [J] and [J] may be able to access the drug. The referrer alleged that [J] shows challenging behaviour and has head butted other children. The referrer also raised concerns in relation to [J] wearing a pink headband and nail varnish as it makes [M] happy. The referrer also raised concerns in regards to [M]'s mental health, her acting irrationally and the impact of this upon [J]'s emotional welfare"

"6.8 Between October 2013 and November 2013 the Local Authority received two referrals in relation [M]'s mental health, [J]'s presentation and [M] informing school that [J] was gender non conforming. The referrals are as follows:"

"6.9. On 22/10/13 the Department received a referral from the NSPCC who had received an anonymous call; the referrer was concerned that [M] had stated twice in a week that [J] is transgender and that [M] had also alluded that she was going to disappear with [J] and 'they will never find them'. The referrer also advised that [M] suspects that [J]'s older half brother [K] is too. The referrer was concerned about [M]'s mental health at that time. The referrer also advised that [M] was due in court in November regarding residency and contact due to parents separating.

"6.11. On the 14/11/13 a referral was received from [School A]. [School A] reported concerns regarding emotional abuse of [J] and [M]'s mental health. [M] had claimed that [J] is gender variant and should be allowed to go to school dressed as a girl. [M] had made accusations that [J] was being bullied at school because of gender variance. [M] was unable to provide names of the bullies and staff at school had not observed any bullying. Staff advised that at school [J] behaved no differently than the other children but they felt that [M] was unwilling to accept this and on occasions she reduced a teacher to tears due to her 'forceful and confrontational' manner.*

*my emphasis

"6.12 [M] was also asking about sending [J] to a gender re-assignment clinic. School explained that in class, [J] doesn't display any differences to the other boys."

"6.14. Following this the Local Authority received a number of referrals between March 2014 and October 2014 which reported concerns in relation to [J]'s presentation; [J] being allowed to dress as a girl; [M] requesting that [J] is referred to the Tavistock Centre and refusing input from CAMHS; [M] informing Health that [J] had been diagnosed with a medical condition although there had been no professional diagnosis and [M]'s mental health. During August and October 2014 the Department also received information from the police in relation to incidents that had occurred in the community where [M] felt that [J] was a victim of hate crime. A referral was also received from the appointed guardian Claire Quinn in November 2014, who raised concerns around the number of professionals raising concerns in relation to [J]'s presentation and that there had been a multi agency meeting held where Claire was not represented and the guardian was not invited. Details of the referrals are as follows:"

"6.16. On 30/05/2014 a referral was received from Housing who reported that they had concerns for [J] due to [M] claiming [J] had been diagnosed as transgender. They also advised that [M] had removed [J] from school due to them having issues with [J] dressing as a girl [M] was collected by housing staff for a meeting; staff reported that [J] looked dirty, had pen marks to the legs and was dressed as a girl. They also reported concerns for [M]'s mental health. No further action was taken from the Department due to there being no safeguarding concerns.

"6.19. On 16/07/2014 a referral was received from the GP requesting that a social worker visit the family due to concerns around [J] possible having gender identity disorder. The GP advised that they had spoken to the Tavistock Centre and that they advised to contact Children's Services. No further action was taken.

"6.20. On 21/08/14 there was a contact from the police who were requesting agency checks in relation to [J] as it had been reported that [J] was possibly transgender and a victim of hate crime from neighbours. Information was provided and no further action was taken by the Department.

"6.22. On 24/09/14 a referral was received from The Health Centre requesting agency checks. Health advised that [M] had informed professionals" that [J] had been diagnosed with a health condition, yet the referrer is aware that there has not yet been a professional diagnosis. The caller was advised that there is no current social work involvement with the family, and no further action taken.

"6.23. On 27/09/14 a referral was received from the Police. Officers have attended the home address where [M] advised that [J] was born as a male but identifies as female and dresses as such. [M] advised that this has affected her relationship with [J]'s father and family and that this has resulted in them being served with a harassment order. [M] advised that a few days ago [J] was playing out in the garden when she has seen the other children pulling at [J]'s clothes to see if [J] had a penis. [M] intervened and took [J] inside informing the children they are no longer allowed to play with [J]. [M] did not report the incident to the police, there was another incident on the street which the police attended. [M] was concerned and reported the matter for fear of any escalation; this matter is recorded as a hate incident as there are no criminal offences. [M] is in contact with [a local charity] and a [Housing Association] whom are providing her with support, and no further action was taken."

"6.25. On 22/10/14 a referral was received from [Learning Centre] enquiring as to whether [J] is subject to a Child Protection Plan. [J] moved to the setting from another setting, [J] has been finding it hard to settle in and [M] has now taken [J] out of school. [M] states she has taken [J] out of school due to [J] being bullied and the school have not resolved the issue. [J] has been attending 5 days a week and [M] is not reliable in the times that she drops [J] at school. Since summer [J] has been going into school upset which is out of character. Today [M] has become annoyed after waiting outside for 15 minutes, she then informed staff that she had no money and could not afford to send [J] anymore. Caller informed that they are concerned that [M] may not be coping. Child and Family assessment to be completed by the Department."

"6.26. A Child and Family Assessment was completed in January 2015. The assessment concluded that there were no evident concerns suggesting that [J] was at immediate risk of harm. [M] is very clear that she is supporting [J] with whatever choices [J] makes and she presents with a good understanding of [J]'s needs. There were no concerns from the social worker regarding [M]'s approach to [J]'s gender presentation, and had appropriately taken on board support from the charity Mermaids. Upon completion of the assessment, no further action was taken by Children's Services."

"6.27. It is the view of the Local Authority that despite there being a high number of referrals upon further assessment the concerns have not been substantiated and did not meet threshold for further intervention. It is also noted that despite several referrals from school and health informing of concerns they did not put any early intervention strategies in place such as a MCAF in order to further explore their concerns with [M] and to identify potential information/support services. On a number of occasions the professionals involved have not met [J] and/or [M] and were encouraged to discuss concerns with [M] directly and set up lower level meetings with her in attendance in the first instance. In the event, a meeting was arranged by services which [M] was not invited to. During the last assessment period the Local Authority were ordered by the court to file a Section 37 report in respect of [J]."

"23.5. The Local Authority have received a large number of referrals where concerns have been raised in relation to [J] presenting as a girl rather than concerns in relation [J]'s welfare and the care that is provided to [J]. It is evident that some agencies do not have a full understanding of gender non conforming children and have therefore contacted Children's Service, sometimes when they have not met [J]. This clearly frustrates [M] and leaves her feeling that she is unsupported, and has caused her to feel stressed and anxious. Therefore [M] mistrusts professionals which is often interpreted as that she is unwilling to engage with services. "

"23.7. In all my dealings with the family there has been no evidence of risk of harm to [J]. However the impact of ongoing disputes between parents is likely to cause a risk of emotional harm to [J] and it is hoped this will be resolved as a result of these court proceedings."

"23.8. In addition, the manner in which [J]'s gender identity is responded to by professionals could also cause emotional difficulties, as had been evidenced in research around gender non conforming children cited earlier. It appears that [M] is genuinely attempting to protect [J] from the impact of this. While there is clear evidence that [M] has on occasion declined support and challenged professionals, she is able to explain these decisions and as a parent does have a right to select the services she feels are best for her child. She has accessed support from services such as Housing Support, [Local Charity] and the Tavistock Centre, and advises that she is seeking out education provision for [J] at the present time."

"I do have concerns that M has chosen not to engage with CAMHS. Whilst CAMHS may not have any specific experience of dealing with a child who may have gender dysphoria, they have considerable expertise in dealing with children who present with difficulties or present in a way is different. Importantly they can offer support locally to [J] and [M] and other professionals if resourced. They will always take advice from a more specialist clinic and I am concerned that [M] did not follow the advice of the Tavistock Centre in this respect and indeed disengaged from Health Visiting and that J does not currently have a GP. I am confused by her comment that she did not wish for [J] to be labelled (Sect 37 par 6.18) as [J] is very clearly labelled by her to those that she comes into contact with."

"It is clear that [M] has strong opinions. Her response to Court intervention and requested assessments has been highly oppositional. This is not only in respect of any assessment of [J] but also of herself. She would appear to need to be in control and indeed choose those professional with whom she interacts."

I found this assessment to be entirely confirmed when evaluating M's evidence in the witness box.

"unfortunately they are not uncommon responses from some members of the general public which is why [specialists] may advise 'stealth' as a way forward. "

J's increasing isolation

i) In its inept section 37 investigation the Local Authority had failed to respond to the raft of professional concern;

ii) The mother had consistently manipulated the Court's investigation, cooperating only on her terms. I note that in addition to Ms Sambrooks' observations (above) that between the 10th June 2015 and the 28th October the Guardian had telephoned M on four occasions, sent four emails to her, two text messages and one letter. M responded by sending two text messages to the previous Guardian and three emails to the present Guardian complaining that she could not open the emails. The matter could so obviously have been resolved by e.g. a telephone call or response to the Guardian's text. The consequence was that the newly appointed Guardian had no constructive liaison with M or J at all;

iii) Between 22nd June and 28th October the children's solicitor sent a confidential address form to M both by email and by post to M's last known address. M had advised, by email, that her mail was being redirected. Attempts were made on no fewer than five separate occasions with no response;

iv) M's conduct within the litigation had also become increasingly bizarre. She sought the re-appointment of the previous Guardian and a direction that F's counsel recuse himself, having allegedly 'breached confidence'. There was a request that the child's solicitor be replaced due to her 'knowledge deficits', the fact that she 'does not understand J's condition' and generic criticisms of her general competence.

'I am therefore confused as to why M feels that F would not be able to accept J's presentation'

Transfer to the High Court

"b. The Court confirmed that there had been no indication from the mother as to the whereabouts of the child. The Court is not aware of the current schooling arrangements of the child or whether there has been any school registration."

d. Combined with the issues raised in Jean Sambrooks' report, the lack of information about the whereabouts of the child, the schooling arrangement for the child and the Mother's lack of engagement with the Guardian the Court expressed its increasing concerns for the welfare of the child.

e. The Court has provided within this Order direction for disclosure of the Mother's address from the DWP and Inland Revenue. The /court permitted the solicitor for the child not to disclose this order to the Mother as it found that there is a significant risk of the Mother choosing to move again if her location is made known to those involved within these proceedings.

f. The Mothers superficial engagement in the Court Process, the concerns for the welfare of the child the lack of information as to the whereabouts of the child has lead the Court to consider that it may be appropriate for the Court to use its inherent jurisdiction to protect his welfare."

J 'living in stealth'

J's life with his Father

"When [J] first arrived he was a bit subdued but settled down the next day. He has not been upset particularly about anything since he has arrived. He was upset initially when he first saw his mother [M]; I understand that she sent him home with female things, lots of sweets and chocolate and a box of vitamins."

"Initially [J] simply wanted to go home but then he changed and did not want to go and see his mother because he did not like saying goodbye again. He was encouraged to go to contact and since then has not displayed any reluctance to go."

"[J] came with or has gathered seven pairs of boots or shoes during the three months he has been at his father's. They go with his feminine clothes. When they went shopping [F] took [J] to the girls section for underwear but he eventually chose boys shorts with a picture on them. [J] constantly rearranges his private parts and seems uncomfortable. He does not try to wear several pairs of knickers however as reported in the past. When he started wearing underpants [J] liked fancy underpants with Power Rangers or similar on them. Initially every two minutes he would say he did not like his floppy bits flopping around. He has also said 'my mother does not like her floppy bits flopping around' and that 'she has got a big fat sandwich'. This somewhat took [F] and [P] aback. [J] will talk about his mother but does not get upset."

"From day one [J] would put his hand up. He was mistaken for a girl once by a visiting teacher and asserted in front of everyone 'no, I am a boy'. [J]'s teacher has said that [J] is very articulate. [F] expressed concern about his writing and his teacher said he did not push him too much initially. [J] initially sat at the teacher's desk then at a table of his choosing and then has been move to a table that is more appropriate. He is beginning to conform to rules and his writing has shown a major change over two weeks. Initially his hand was shaking when he was writing as he did not seem used to writing. He has no phonics and very basic maths. However his reading is good. [P] is working on phonics with him, I saw evidence of this in the flat and they have now been asked to help with basic maths. There have been no reported references from school about any problems in the playground. There have been no gender issues reported and he has settled in quickly. He enjoys playing superheroes with the other children."

"[J] also asked for football stickers recently but [F] is not 'into' football so had to locate these. [J] is enjoying sticking them in his book. [J] often goes to the park after school and in hot weather there are a couple of boys there with their tops off. [J] pulled a face at this, expressed displeasure at that and asked why they were doing it. At gymnastics there were similarly a lot of people with their tops off which may have been an issue but [J] did seem to adjust to this."

"However I do feel that [J]'s inappropriate touching of others is of considerable concern. When considered alongside his comments and his behaviour towards his mother in contact (eg. April 22/4) then it would seem that [J] is very used to touching [M]'s breasts and that she has afforded him considerable knowledge or discussion of genital anatomy. Whilst this may reflect [M]'s view of [J]'s gender issues it is not in my view appropriate knowledge nor would a child of [J]'s age, transgendered or not, generally have such discussions. At most they are likely to have a rudimentary awareness of male/female differences especially if brought up with a different sex sibling."

"I can not offer a view as to why [M] would encourage such behaviour except that potentially it may feed into her perception of [J] as a transgendered child in some way and the attributes he might hope to acquire."

[J] can be very closed about things but has recently begun to open up a little. He may simply say he does not want to talk about things if they try to explore issues. On the bus recently he observed a man talking to himself who clearly had problems and [J] asked what was wrong with him. [P] tried to explain and subsequently over lunch he talked about his mother telling him that [K] had been born with an 'upside down flower' and this has been made into a 'right way round flower' whereas other people are born sometimes with a 'right way round flower' like his which can be made into an 'upside down flower'. He was clearly aware of the surgery that would take place for the transgendered male. [P] explained that his mother's account on [K]'s problem was inaccurate, this was not the case and [K] had been born with hypospadias which had been corrected by a small operation. She explained what this was and said it had been corrected when [K] was four which [K] may not even recall.

"[J] is doing really well in school and his maths and his handwriting have improved dramatically. He has asked to go into school early so he can run around the playground with his friends. When it is time to go into class he then runs up to [F] to give him a cuddle and goes off into class. He is delighted that he now has friends in school. I was told there had been a multi-agency meeting recently. [J] has not displayed any inappropriate touching in school. The Tavistock worker did come to the meeting and apparently indicated that [J] no longer came under their criterion."

"[J] has been offered a choice since he has been with his father and would appear in the main to choose boyish things and very clearly identifies himself as a boy. He makes this clear whether or not his father is around and would not seem to be influenced by him. [J] chooses to present as a boy within school and in terms of his dress and would seem to be more comfortable with his male genitalia as time goes on. I remain of the view that it is very unusual for a parent to be able to influence a child to the extent [M] would appear to have been able to do but that would seem to be the case given [J]'s very rapid change of presentation once offered a choice. I cannot guess at [M]'s motivation or belief system in this respect but she is clearly a powerful figure. During the preparation of my report and the Court proceedings [M] clearly demonstrated her need to be in control and the extent to which she would thwart or misinterpret directions to serve her own ends.

She also successfully manipulated people and systems and would therefore be a powerful influence on a child who is attached to her. Whatever her reasons then the conclusion that [M] manipulated or influenced [J]'s gender orientation, for whatever reason, seems inescapable."

"In respect of school the then social worker had said that [J] should use the disabled toilet. [F] was uncomfortable with this advice feeling that [J] should be able to choose. I supported [F]'s suggestion that [J] should have the choice of using the disabled toilet or the boys' toilet. [F] felt that [J] would pick the boys toilet as when he is out he will pick the male toilet and choose to go with [F] and not with [P]."

"[M] finds herself in a dilemma. She accepts the wisdom of the court in reintroducing [J] to his father and the paternal family. She accepts and understands why the Judge has formed a negative view of her refusal to allow contact firstly and secondly her dogmatic stance in respect of gender identity. Her dilemma is that whilst she hopes she has been doing the right thing she accepts that her approach may have been wrong."

"[M] accepts that as a result of her experience of her relationship with [F] and the fraught relationship post-separation she developed an almost entirely negative view of him. She accepts that she viewed the prospect of contact between [J] and his father as exposing [J] to a risk of harm. This is a view which she now accepts is wrong. Following the decision made by Hayden J she has had time to reflect. She has also had the opportunity to reflect on the evidence in the case with the assistance of objective legal advice. Furthermore she has been able to reflect on the contents of the reports and in particular the reports of Mrs Sambrooks and Ms Van Empel. [M] has been shocked to the core by the decision of Hayden J to transfer residence of [J] to his father. She accepts that her initial reactions were disbelief, anger and a sense of injustice and unfairness; but above all a deep fear and anxiety of the impact upon [J] of moving in such circumstances. The decision has however made her re-examine her own actions and the positions she has taken in recent years. Bearing in mind that she has developed her views and beliefs over a number of years and that she admits to having become deeply entrenched in her position this has been a difficult and at times painful process. This process of re-examining her position has been made more difficult at times because for a lengthy period [M]'s position has been supported, shaped and reinforced by a series of experienced professionals. Prior to the appointment of Ms Van Empel the consistent recommendations of Cafcass were that there should be no direct contact. Ms Van Empel and Mrs Sambrooks have recommended with cogent reasoning a contrary direction. [M] has considered the views of both Mrs Sambrooks and Ms Van Empel on the issue of contact. Accepting, as she does, the descriptions of [F]'s home and family circumstances as they are now and the relationships he has with his ex partner [T], his son [K] and his partner [P], [M] readily acknowledges that [J] will benefit enormously from frequent generous contact with his father enabling him to become a full member of the paternal family.

Psychological Assessment

"6.31 I think [M] is in an enmeshed relationship with [J].

"Enmeshment refers to an extreme form of proximity and intensity in family interactions...In a highly enmeshed, over-involved family, changes within one family member or in the relationship between two family members reverberate throughout the system...On an individual level, interpersonal differentiation in an enmeshed system is poor...In enmeshed families the individual gets lost in the system. The boundaries that define individual autonomy are so weak that functioning in individually differentiated ways is radically handicapped"18 (page 30). Minuchin (1978)16 described how enmeshment varies in degree, with corresponding degrees of negative impact on child development.

6.32 The enmeshed or fused nature of the relationship between [M] and [J] is shown in the way that she does not clearly perceive [J] as a separate person with his/her own identity, wishes and volition. She sometimes confuses her own feelings with [J]'s. For example, she believes [J] to have been bullied at school, though the school did not agree. [M] herself was bullied at school and she was also in a conflictual relationship with the school, one in which she may have been both bully and felt bullied. Similarly, she said that [J] was afraid of going to the GP practice and would scream there but surgery staff had never seen this. Again, this was at a time that [M] was in conflict with the surgery. She believes [J] preferred "just mummy and me" and she apparently ended a relationship in order to focus on [J] though it was not clear to me why the relationship was in conflict with her role as mother.

"If I am correct about the fused nature of the relationship, the danger is that [J] will not be easily able to establish an identity which is at odds with [M]'s own values, beliefs and preferences. It will be harder for him/her to separate and individuate with age and especially in his or her teens. This will apply to [J]'s gender identity. The fused nature of the relationship and [M]'s belief that [J] wants to be a girl is likely to push [J] in the direction of a female gender identity. [M] cannot see that [J] may be consciously or unconsciously trying to please her by assuming a female gender identity now that [M] has formed the view that this is [J]'s preference."

"Her wish for emotional exclusivity means that [M] has removed [J] from a range of ordinary socialising experiences though she refutes this and believes that she has acted to protect [J] from bullying."

"When stressed and distressed, [M] becomes controlling, forceful and antagonistic. This reflects her underlying anxiety. She is actually very frightened and upset. She tries to sooth herself by taking control of situations but her interpersonal style is counter-productive. She does not negotiate well. She finds it difficult to compromise and situations become inflamed rather than de-escalated. In situations of interpersonal conflict, she protects herself from loss of confidence or face by unambiguously perceiving herself as correct which means that from her perspective, the other party is wrong. To acknowledge her flaws, even to herself, feels crushing and devastates her self-esteem so she avoids this possibility by locating responsibility and blame elsewhere. When she is unable to achieve the outcome that she wants, she resorts to formal processes and/or higher authorities: complaint procedures, The Protection of Human Rights in Public Law, the European Court of Human Rights, Stonewall and so on."

"On the PAI, [F] described himself as a very meek and unassertive person with difficulty in standing up for himself even when assertiveness is warranted. His scores suggested that he might have difficulty in the appropriate expression of anger and he is likely to be uncomfortable with interpersonal conflict. This too was my impression of him at interview ."

[M] is a much more forceful and assertive character than is [F]. In their relationship, he found it very difficult to express his views and maintain his position with her. Because he does not manage conflict or negotiate angry feelings well, it is likely that there were times that he lashed out verbally in the context of that relationship. He says he has not been verbally abusive in other, less quarrelsome relationships. Judge Penna found that he had been aggressive in February 2013 when he leaned into the car and in the context of aggression by [M] too. Other than this, there is no sign that he is inherently prone to aggression or violence, physical or oral except under exceptional duress, when he has felt abused and controlled for long periods of time and has eventually lashed out verbally. It has been in the relationship with [M] that this has happened; [F] says he has never resorted to such behaviour in other more straightforward relationships.

"[F] has a less strong investment in [J]'s gender identity. [M] believes that he is uncomfortable with [J] as a girl but this was not the impression that he gave me. He did seem a bit puzzled by it and it had been surprising to see [J] after three years with such a strong female gender identity. However, he had looked into it and found ways to understand it. He is a more reticent, moderate person than [M] and can countenance much more uncertainty. If [J] is, as [M] suggests, assuming a male gender identity with [F] because she believes that this is what he wants, I think [J]'s belief about this is more likely to come from [M] then from [F]."

"The key elements of threshold are: the Mother's rigid approach to gender identity; the Mother's resistance to engagement with professional advice and the Mother's failure to acknowledge [J]'s right and need to have a relationship with his Father; and the significant harm that has flown and was at risk of flowing from those deficiencies."

Contact

"Is it difficult not being home?" Mum asks [J]. [J] states "No" to Mum. Mum states "I think it would be better if you were home" to [J]. [J] did not respond.

Mum states to [J] "have you told [P] what you feel like?" [J] states "kind of" to Mum

"Are you allowed to do girlie stuff?" Mum states to [J]. [J] quiet at first but then states "I can if I want" when asked again by Mum.

Mum asked [J] "Do you want to be a girl?" [J] tries to distract Mum and told her to look behind for a golden fish. Mum continues to talk.

Mum said "[P] said you wanted to be a boy and said it at school?" [J] did not respond.

Mum promptly states "I know you are a girl and you feel like a girl and want to be a girl" to [J]. "I know you do, grown ups don't understand you need to tell them". Mum said this all at once."

i) Dr Hellin's evidence that the Mother cannot be assisted through any therapeutic intervention to alter her view about [J] wanting to be a girl;

ii) The risk of this rigidity extending to other misconceptions  eg the recent emergence of the obsession with [J]'s weight and him being starved, earlier concerning notions about hearing tests and immunisations.

iii) The need for a period of "decompression" or respite for [J], following him being told of the plan to remain with the Father.

iv) The need to minimize the ill-effects of some of the contact; the most recent leading to defiance, lashing out and being argumentative and even wetting himself twice.

v) Ms Sambrooks noted that the most concerning aspect of the Mother's intervention was "grown ups don't understand you need to tell them" (G209) (in fact this is a far from isolated event  cf G158) and that if this happened again, it should be challenged by the contact worker and direct contact might well need to be brought to an end.

vi) The emphasis on [J] being assisted to "self-protect" in relation to the Mother through life-story work and therapy, and the need for this to not become too burdensome for [J].

vii) The professionals' but also the Father's views in that regard.

viii) The pleasure that [J] can derive from activities with the Mother.

ix) The Guardian would invite the Local Authority to attempt to clarify that [J]'s Maternal Grandfather does not want to see him currently, not feeing able to repose trust in the Mother's account in that regard.

The Legal Framework

"For [J] to be secured in his father's care, there are a variety of orders which could be considered realistic. A Full Care Order could be requested. This would enable the Local Authority to continue to share Parental Responsibility for [J] and thus to stipulate where [J] would live. This would allow the Local Authority to remain significantly involved in the care that [J] receives and take any necessary steps to ensure [J]'s needs were met. For a Care Order to be proportionate, it would need to be demonstrated that it was necessary for the Local Authority to share Parental Responsibility to safeguard [J] from significant harm. In these circumstances the social work assessment has not demonstrated any areas where [F] cannot make decisions in [J]'s best interests; he is insightful of [J]'s needs and is willing to take the advice of specialist services and the Local Authority in doing so. A Care Order would therefore not provide [J] with any additional safeguard. The 'No Order' principle has been considered through the formulation of this care plan and it appears that a Care Order would provide unnecessary intervention into [J]'s life."

If Parental Responsibility is not to be held by the Local Authority, it appears clear that [F] needs to be afforded enhanced parental responsibility to enable ongoing residence and to be able to continue to safeguard [J] from risk presented by [M]. A Child Arrangement Order, specifying residence with [F] would achieve this. This would allow [J] to be cared for by his father without the stigma of being a Looked After Child with ongoing statutory intervention. The area in which potential harm to [J] has been identified relates to [M]'s parenting and emotional enmeshment with [J]. By being cared for by [F], some elements of risk are alleviated however, the impact of the emotional harm and risk are likely to be ongoing to some degree. The Local Authority therefore proposes a Supervision Order be made for one year to allow the Local Authority to continue to 'advise and befriend' [J] and his family.

The Local Authority care plan regarding [J]'s contact with his mother has been the most difficult part of this care plan to formulate. The Local Authority is mindful that there are many positives within the contact between [M] and [J], that [J] appears to enjoy contact sessions and that [J]'s verbally expressed wish is to live with his mother. [J] clearly closely identifies with his mother, worries about her and that she forms a big part of [J]'s understanding of his identity. However, as set out in Section 5, there are several concerns regarding the impact of contact on [J]. These primarily relate to the amount of influence that [M] holds over [J] and the amount to which, her views regarding [J] and [F], limit [J]'s ability to develop his own identity and relationship with [F].

Whilst I share those concerns I consider them to be of such significance that they require continuing and proactive Local Authority intervention. More generally I reject the easy assumption that a public law order is, of necessity, significantly intrusive to a child's life. It need not be, it can be understated, sensitive and light touch where the child is concerned. I am very pleased that the Local Authority has agreed that Ms Davidson may continue to be assigned to this case. I am confident that she can implement the Care Order as I intend it should be.