[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) >> D and E Children, Re[2014] EWFC B85 (13 May 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B85.html Cite as: [2014] EWFC B85

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

IN THE BARNET COUNTY COURT

		Courtroom No.1 St Marys Court Regents Park Road London N3 1BQ
		13th May 2014

HHJ VENABLES:

1. I give this extempore judgment at the conclusion of the Local Authority's application for care orders in respect of two small children, D and E, a set of twins, who were born on the 2^nd April 2006, and so just eight years of age. The Local Authority care plan is to place the two children together in a long-term foster placement. The children's father is B. He does not share parental responsibility. He has been given notice of these proceedings and, although he initially participated in the court process, decided to withdraw from the assessments on the basis that he would be unable to sustain involvement because of mental health issues.
2. The children's mother is A, and she strongly opposes the Local Authority's application. Mother's partner, C, is present in court and indeed has attended throughout the course of this final hearing. She is not here as a party to the proceedings but as mother's support.
3. The children's guardian is MS. She supports the Local Authority's application.
4. I have read the three court bundles. All parties have been represented by counsel, and I have had the benefit of hearing live evidence from Persis Callaghan the social worker, from Cathy Peart, from the children's two teachers, from Miss Dooley the independent social worker, from Mother and from the guardian.
5. This is a very sad case with a long and tragic history. Mother makes clear that she loves the children very much. She has herself experienced a long history of child abuse. This has created a disconnect between her stated love for the children and her behaviour towards them. I know she is trying to sort herself out and is keen to resume care. This judgment may seem harsh but it is important to set out the evidence and the court's analysis to enable there to be effective and appropriate planning for the children's futures.
6. There has been a long history of involvement by the Local Authority in mother's life. She has two older children: S, who I calculate is 23, and T, 22. They have both been the subject of child protection plans. They have moved between members of the family. They are both very troubled young adults.
7. The Local Authority chronology sets out the history which gives some context to these proceedings. The older children were the subject of child protection plans from 1992 to 1996, and then periodically from 1996 to 2002. They were registered under the category of physical abuse and neglect and there were concerns about inappropriate sexualised behaviour and emotional abuse, as well as neglect.
8. In January 2007 when T was approximately 14 he alleged that he had been hit by his mum in the face. He further disclosed that his 10-month-old sister (D) would not sleep, and he had witnessed his mum shake her and then drop her on the floor. He said that he had been hit before and that his mum hit his siblings.
9. In July 2009, the chronology records that the twins were found tied to the side of the cot with straps across their chest. Mother said that the maternal grandmother did this but it would appear that the children had been found tied to their cots at a time when Mother was responsible for their care.
10. The Local Authority continued to be concerned about Mother's parenting, her acknowledged use of cannabis, her inability to keep her temper, and failure to supervise the children. The children's schools reported that the children were attending school looking visibly neglected; appearing tired, dirty and smelly. D made repeated allegations of being hit by her mother and of her mother shouting.
11. In October 2010, Dr Banerjee diagnosed E as being on the autism spectrum, or having autism spectrum disorder. D was noted to have developmental delay with no underlying condition attributed to that delay.
12. In June 2012, there was an acknowledged episode of domestic violence between Mother and her partner whilst the children were present in the flat. In June 2013, Mother was cautioned for an assault on her son T: punching him in the face because he had been winding her up and calling her names. Again, D and E were in the flat when the police were called.
13. The Local Authority have worked very hard to support Mother in her care of the children. It is unusual to see such a long period of Local Authority involvement before proceedings are instituted. The Local Authority endeavoured to engage and support Mother in parenting work, systemic therapy, and a full support plan, even in the months before proceedings were issued.
14. The Local Authority says , and mother acknowledges, that relations were strained and that mother's take up of support and advice was limited. Mother makes no bones about it. She does not like social workers and she does not feel that they have offered her help. She feels more positive towards Persis Callaghan, the current social worker, because she helped identify and facilitate therapeutic support for her. Mother has found the EDMR therapy with Ruth Cohen particularly helpful.
15. These proceedings began in October 2013, after repeated reports of the children attending school with unexplained bruises, the children's deteriorating presentation and Mother's failure to engage with the school. In the early stages of these proceedings Mother was the subject of a psychological assessment by Ms Beazley Richards. She found that Mother had borderline learning difficulties but not a disability such as would undermine her ability to parent the children. She found no evidence of mental illness. She found that whilst mother had potential to parent, she required therapeutic intervention to enable her to manage her anger. She noted that mother's personal experiences as a child had led to her hyper arousal so that she becomes angry very quickly, and this was particularly evident in discussions with Mother about D.
16. At page E175 Ms Beazley Richards records this:

'When asked her thoughts about her relationship with the children A told me, "(E), I love him, I have got the time of day for. My girls I don't get on too well with." A told me that (D) does listen and does what she is told but there are days when she rebels. She continued, "Some days she's got 666 on her somewhere." She said, "I love her to bits but some days I don't like her. Some days I hate her." She described (D) as being the spawn of Satan during my interview.'

17. The independent social worker, Ms Dooley, reported that Mother had gained little or nothing from the Local Authority's support and intervention. She felt that mother's insight into the children's emotional needs was minimal and in her oral evidence described how she had observed greater warmth shown to the family dogs than to the children. She was particularly concerned that Mother had no sense of empathy and minimised the impact of domestic violence.
18. Mother has acknowledged shouting and slapping the children (which she now defines as tapping). She has acknowledged a long history of cannabis use, a use that has continued for some 29 years. By her own admission, in tough times she has used as much as £140 a week, but in better times (she describes things as better now) she says that use has reduced to £20. She says she was using about £140 per week about a year ago.
19. Ms Dooley, the social worker, and the children's guardian are all concerned as to the impact of that usage. Mother continues to deny or simply not understand the potential impact such a level of usage might have on the children and there is no sense of her understanding the impact on her emotional availability for the children. Further she gives no sense that the money spent on cannabis has directly affected the resources available to the children.
20. Ms Dooley was pessimistic about mother's capacity to change and her continuing antipathy to social workers. In her own evidence, Mother was clear that she does not like social workers as they have never done anything for her. Nonetheless she did work, and has continued to work, with Cathy Peart in the parenting sessions that Miss Peart has delivered to Mother at home. However Mother has not felt able to engage with the group parenting sessions and took up only four of the 12 sessions that have been offered. There has been limited engagement with the anger management.
21. Cathy Peart is the family intervention project worker who was appointed through the Incredible Years programme. Her work has been arranged largely around the mother's convenience. That approach has worked in that there has been a level of engagement. Cathy Peart made clear that Mother is beginning to develop strategies to manage her behaviour.
22. In her short report to the court, she spoke of her visit to the family home as follows:

'I observed (A) and (D) getting on well playing games, but (A) quickly escalated a minor incident by telling her that she hated (D), had enough, and sent her to her room for five minutes as a punishment, and (D) responded with extreme distress, reducing her ability to regulate her emotions.'

23. In evidence, Ms Peart described how Mother was endeavouring to work on her ability to play games with the children. She said it was very difficult for her and she can find it very challenging. Ms Peart has been working on these areas in the hope that it will help Mother relate better to the children. Miss Peart was concerned how the incident on the 12^th February had escalated and how Mother had described hating D in D's presence.
24. Ms Peart felt that progress was being made but said it will require some five to six years of sustained work before there will be effective change .
25. It is noteworthy that Mother has been much more engaged in the sessions with Ruth Cohen for EDMR therapy. This is a unique or almost unique form of therapy. It was good to hear Mother say that she finds those sessions valuable. The Local Authority have funded 20 sessions and have written a letter to support mother in her request for ongoing EDMR therapy. So far, for a number of different reasons, Mother has only been able to attend about half of the sessions. It is long-term work and it is clear that Mother is likely to benefit from that work to continuing. In any event she is going to need ongoing psychological support.
26. The twins were removed from their mother's care at an interim hearing back in March of this year, after the children reported that mother had held D upside down from a window. The application for their removal was not opposed. The move was sudden and unplanned. I am told that the children have settled well into their new placement and were not significantly distressed on removal.
27. D is recorded as saying, 'My mummy may miss me but I won't miss my mummy.' An unusual comment for a child of her age to make and one that is bound to be very troubling to the professionals who work with her.
28. The childrens' schools report a marked improvement in the children's presentation since their removal. They present as happier, more focused, better able to engage with their peers. Their presentation is good. They are not asking for their mum, or rather they have not asked to see their mum, although D has asked how her mum is. It also appears that D's repeated visits to the medical room, which numbered 67 visits from May to October, have reduced to only two in the last six weeks. Furthermore the delay in D's learning is showing an improvement in the last six weeks.
29. There has been only one period of contact between Mother and the children since removal. I understand the police did not want contact to take place before the ABE interview on the 25^th April. I have seen the report of the single contact visit and it is clear that Mother has used her best efforts to make this a positive experience for the children.
30. This application is brought under Section 31 of the Children Act by the Local Authority. In order to intervene in this family's life, the Local Authority have to prove that the threshold of significant harm has been crossed. Section 31(2) of the Children Act provides as follows:

'A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it 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 the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him or her if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.'

31. The definitions of harm are set out at s31(9) :

'Harm' means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development, including for example impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another.

"Development" means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development.

"Health" means physical or mental health.'

Ill-treatment" includes all forms of ill-treatment, which are not necessarily physical.

32. The Local Authority's threshold relies on general and specific allegations of physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect. So far as emotional harm is concerned, they rely on the children's exposure to domestic violence, not just between Mother and her partner, but Mother against T. They also rely on the Mother's abusive conduct towards the children. Furthermore they rely on her emotional absence through her drug use. So far as neglect is concerned, they rely on the children's poor school attendance, their presentation at school attending, on occasion, smelly and dirty. The Local Authority further rely on Mother's difficulties around boundary setting in a child-focused way and her inability to meet the children's emotional needs.
33. So far as physical abuse is concerned, the Local Authority say that by reason of the bruising and marks to D and E and the repeated reports of the children that they have been hit or slapped or smacked or kicked, that they have been subjected to physical violence. The Local Authority expressly invite the court to make a finding that D was held out of a window by her legs.
34. At the outset of these proceedings Mother challenged the threshold in its entirety but more recently, and I think very sensibly through counsel, has conceded emotional harm by reason of the shouting or historic angry outbursts towards the children.
35. The Local Authority further seek specific findings. The schedule of findings is set out at A47 of my bundle and I will turn to those in a moment. Before I deal with those, I will say this: I have no doubt that mother loves the children in her own way. It is apparent that her emotional responses have been stunted by her own experiences as a child. I watched very carefully as she gave evidence. She was reasonably calm. There was no shouting. She raised her voice on a couple of occasions when agitated or irritated - when she felt that she was being pressed – when she felt that she had already given a complete answer. She is contemptuous of the Local Authority – It is clear she has no time for the way in which the local authority do their business – and she was singularly unable to demonstrate any understanding of things from the children's perspective.
36. But -there is a chink of light. I saw it when Mother described for me the work that she had been doing with Ruth Cohen. Ruth Cohen asked her to describe how she had felt as a child when she was being abused by her mother. It took her a long time to answer Miss Cohen's question but eventually said she felt 'worthless'. I am pleased that she was able to identify for herself what must have been an appalling emotional response arising from an appalling set of circumstances and may suggest a small… limited understanding of what D and E (but particularly E) have been going through.
37. I found Mother was evasive when pressed as to her acknowledgement that she had slapped the children about a year ago and redefined 'slap' as 'tap'. When asked about why it was there was no light bulb in the children's room she said did not have the money… then she said she did not have the money for the electricity. In my view there was a failure to give honest answers to questions about what had been happening to the children.
38. At the outset of this hearing the local authority sought findings against mother's partner. However, having made no application for her to be joined as a party or intervener, they have, very sensibly, not sought to pursue those findings since to do so would have denied C the opportunity to rebut them.
39. When considering the findings the local authority seek it is of course for the local authority to establish on the balance of probabilities that the allegations are made out. A binary system applies as set out in the principal authority of Re B (a child) [2009] UKSC 5 – either an event happened or it did not.
40. Rather unusually the social work statements of Miss Callaghan was written in the third person. I have not come across this before. This creates some evidential problems in identifying to whom the children were talking. Further there is no medical evidence as to the injuries noted on the children, no reference to the body maps and no efforts to link specific injuries to events, times and dates. Thus, when dealing with the majority of the local authority's schedule of specific findings I find there is insufficient evidence on which to make findings of specific injuries or marks to D and E. However, I am in no doubt that the following occurred: namely that the children, especially D, were regularly hit by Mother when she became angry. I consider that the accounts of the children, given through the social worker, through the teachers, their presentation at school, the multiplicity of marks to them, (which fell way outside the range and number of normal accidental marks that children of that age exhibit) mother's acknowledged use of force (albeit subsequently retracted) are probative of this general finding.
41. I find further support for that conclusion in Mother's inappropriate outbursts of anger towards the children in the presence of professionals. If it is hard for her to manage her temper when professionals are around it seems probable that such outbursts occurred absent a professional presence.
42. I am satisfied from the assessments that Mother has little or no internal control and her hyper arousal leads to speedy escalation of difficulties. Her attitude to her assault on T, who, whilst a young man, was still her son, demonstrated a lack of insight, a lack of control and a lack of empathy.
43. Moving on from the physical findings to the issue of emotional abuse. Mother has acknowledged a developing an awareness of the harm that can be suffered by the children through exposure to domestic violence between adults and by her shouting and hitting. It has been a chronic problem, sustained over a significant period of years.
44. The delay in D's learning is but one manifestation of the harm she has suffered. D has borne the brunt of Mother's difficulties. It may be because D is a girl. Mother has found it difficult to establish relationships with her girls but E has also suffered, albeit to a lesser extent. I hope Mother comes to learn that she can love herself and be a nicer person, which is the objective she has articulated in her discussions with Ms Cohen, and I hope she achieves that goal in time for the children to know her as a better person, but that is not the same as her being able to parent the children in the short or even in the medium-term.
45. Looking then to the wider allegation of neglect, it is clear to me that Mother has been consistently unable to meet the children's emotional needs and has further been unable to prioritise their physical needs. There is little money in Mother's household. Living with a lack of resources is a terrible thing and must make life more difficult however Mother made certain lifestyle choices that negatively impacted on the children. She chose to spend £140 a week on cannabis from a very limited family fund. Such a decision has to have an impact on the money that is then available to spend on the children, and it has to have an effect on the way in which they are able to live their lives. It had an impact on the availability of funds to buy shoes for E, for clothing that the children needed at school, for the cost of activities. I note the assertion that the children's father made no contribution to the upkeep of the children and I understand that is an aggravation but it does not explain the failure to prioritise the children.
46. The Local Authority have also asked this court to make a specific finding which I will refer to as the window incident. This incident first came to the attention of the authorities through E on the 5^th March of this year. It is recorded in the statement of E's school teacher at page C100 of my bundle where she says this:

'On 5^th March 2014, (E) was telling another child that his mum shouts and swears at him at home. When asked about this by the teacher on duty, he was reluctant to repeat himself. When asked again he said that (D) was climbing the window. "Mum was shouting at her and took (D) like that." At this point he indicated with his hands that mum had turned (D) upside down. He said (D) was crying and said, "Don't do that. I don't like it." (E) then said, "I calmed mummy down."'

47. At C73 of my bundle, the social worker records this:

'On the 5^th March, the social worker received an email from the deputy head teacher of A Primary School. The email stated that (E) was overheard telling another child that his mum shouts and swears at him at home. When asked about this by a teacher on duty he was reluctant to repeat himself. When asked again, he said that (D) was climbing the window. "Mum was shouting at her and took (D) like that."'

48. E's teacher said that she was not aware of E making a similar report before. She says that she received a written report from the teacher who overheard the discussion. I do not have a statement from the teacher who overheard that discussion.
49. The ABE interview was conducted on 25^th April, some six weeks after E was removed by the police and subsequently placed in foster care. The interview was conducted through an intermediary. He is a child who has communication difficulties, but through the intermediary he went on to say this ( from page G181- line 10):

'And then (C) said to mum (D) was trying to climb in the window.

He is trying to throw (D) in the window.

(D) was trying to climb in the window and then… and then… and then he throws in the window.

Our bedroom window he climbed in and then ( C) said, "Get down" and (D) said, "No," and then… and then he goes back in bed and then he throwed in the window.'

E tends to confuse 'he' and 'she'. E was asked to confirm who 'he' is. At first he said, 'My sister, D.' Subsequently, when asked to identify who 'throwed in the window', he confirmed it was his mum. Emma Heywood, the police officer conducting the interview, asked, 'Okay. And how did she do that?' 'By strong hands,' replied E.

50. D first spoke of the window incident on the 7^th March, when she speaking to her teacher in the presence of the social worker. At C91, the social worker records the following :

'On the 7^th March, Persis Callaghan visited the school and spoke to (D) and JG. Persis asked (D) if she knew why they were going to court. (D) replied, "Because I am naughty." Persis told (D) she was not naughty and she must not think this. She told her it was to try to stop her mum shouting at her and hitting her. (D) told Persis and JG that she is naughty at home and, when she is, her mum does things like, "When she hung me outside my window upside down."

(D) seemed uncertain of when this incident had happened but thought that it was when she was five. She described the incident in detail. Earlier this week, (D) made the same disclosure at school. Persis and JG told (D) that it was important to tell the truth.'

51. On the 13^th March of this year, PC Heywood attended the WL School with the social worker and spoke to D regarding the allegation that she had been held by her feet out of the window. At page G44 there is a note of that meeting

'She disclosed that she had been hung out a window by her feet and stated that her body from her head to foot was outside, and her mother was holding her feet. She was adamant that this had happened when she was five and not recently. She said she was in year one and her teacher was Ms Pearl.'

52. The social work statement at C91 refers to the incident being described by D in detail, but regrettably the detail is not contained in that statement.
53. D's teacher told the court that she had known D for four years. She had reported concerns about D on a number of occasions. She said that on the 7^th March D was more upset than angry when explaining what had happened to her. Furthermore she had not noted D to be a child who was angry in school. She described D as cautious when telling her account. She said D had put emphasis on the fact that she had been 'naughty'. She said that D was calm and not dramatic. D described being near a window, she said half out, held by her feet, and her brother was trying to help her. It was put to D's teacher that the brothers and sister had conspired- had colluded to come up with a story. The teacher was very clear that the children, or certainly D, did not have the level of maturity that would enable her to manufacture such a story.
54. The third occasion on which D reported the window episode was the 14^th March. Page G51 of my bundle refers to an email sent by D's teacher to Persis Callaghan. I do not believe I have the original email but this is a record of its contents:

'(D)has been to see me today during lunchtime and told me that she told Sharon that you and the police had been to see her yesterday and that she told you she gets hit at home, and that she was hung out of a window. (D) said that her mum hit her and (E) and shouted at them and said, "You mustn't say any of those things." (D) then asked me if I was going to phone her mum and I said I wasn't or did she want me to? And (D) said, "Yes, I want you to tell her to stop hitting me.'

55. The children were initially removed under police protection a removal extended by an interim care order. There was then no contact before the ABE interview. The ABE interview of D starts at page G150. At page 156, from line nine onwards, she says this:

She throws. She pulls my hair and throw me in the window…and she throws me on my head, so lots of different kind of things which I don't want to say…Shall I tell the real thing about the window?...So once I was only five years old and my mum was very angry because she wanted some sleep so what happened she, she pulled me out the window, so she pulled my legs and nearly threw me out the window…so, what happened she, she said, "Do you want to have a go, (E)?" So, what happened, I don't know why she said that…'

56. She was asked by PC Heywood, 'Where was the rest of your body?' She replied,

'Outside…with my legs, and the only bit here [D rubs her thighs with both hands]…was, just this bit [D indicates the top half of her body] and not that bit [D indicates the bottom half of her body] but she hold me at the legs…with the legs. This was my fifth birthday on April…so I was getting too excited and then what happened she shouted at me and threw me out the window, so now do you understand…'

She goes on:

'She was saying, "Stop being very loud. Don't be very rude. Don't distract me from sleeping. And don't let any social workers know about this…That was on my fifth birthday.'

57. She was asked, 'What did it look like outside?'

'It looked grey… I was wearing nothing…only the pants…E was on the bed hiding…and then he got a turn to do it.

58. Mother denies ever holding either of the children by their legs or out of a window. In interview, she described the allegations: 'bullshit'. In her evidence to this court she says that she has done nothing that would justify such a finding or would merit such a disclosure by the children. I remind myself of the Lucas direction. If a court concludes that a witness has lied about a matter, it does not follow that he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons. It is not always possible to identify why they may not tell the truth and the court must be very careful to ensure, in considering the evidence, the context and any other corroborative evidence before coming to its conclusions.
59. I am aware that Mother is currently waiting to find out from the police if she is to be charged. She is due to return to the police station on the 30^th May.
60. These twins, although now eight, have some significant learning difficulties. E has particular learning difficulties and D is delayed. They are not sophisticated children. The initial referral through to Social Services concerning the window came from E and was, at least in part, endorsed by D just a couple of days later. E's account does not explicitly refer to D being held outside the window, but makes clear reference to an event of significance involving the window. Ds account given on four separate occasions is internally consistent. Her account has not been led by the adults and she provides stage markers that support the content in her statement: that she was five - it was around her birthday. She describes it being grey outside. She can describe what she was wearing. She is clear that her teacher was Ms P and that she was in year one.
61. I have seen the ABE interview. D was attentive to the police officer who was taking her through it. She was careful and considered in her responses and she was clear and emphatic. In my view she made a real effort to ensure that she understood what she was being asked before responding.
62. I am acutely conscious that the court is required to consider this allegation on the basis of hearsay evidence and on occasion triple, and on one occasion quadruple, hearsay with caution, but I look to the context and the corroboration of her account. D has given her account on four occasions. It is in my view internally consistent. It was not led by adults. It had been suggested that D and E may have colluded and that D may have made these allegations for adult attention. It is noteworthy that the ABE interview was undertaken six weeks after she was removed from mother's care. She has not retracted any part of her disclosures since. She also added to her account of the window episode a phrase 'do you want some, (E)?' She repeated this sentence, which in adult terms is very clear. The adults might understand that a threat to E, but to D that comment made no sense, but the fact that she reported it verbatim clearly suggests to me that she has given accurate accounts of her recollection of events.
63. Mother has no explanation for D and E's disclosures. The burden of proof falls squarely on the Local Authority. They must establish on the balance of probability that this particular allegation is made out. Mother is not required to disprove an allegation, but she can provide context, and there was no other plausible account to assist the court in evaluating the children's reports.
64. Mother lives, as I accept, on the second floor. There is no evidence before the court as to: the positioning of the window, no evidence as to the size of the window, the catch or opening mechanism, but it is clear that there is a window in the children's bedroom.
65. Mother has been a cannabis user for 29 years. She was clear that she struggles to remember things even in short term, that she sees red when she is angry and she does not always remember what she has done or what she was doing.
66. Looking at the totality of the evidence concerning the window episode, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that on an occasion at or around the twins 5^th birthday mother lost her temper with D and held her upside down by her feet by a window. I cannot say how much of her body was outside of the window because neither D nor E are consistent in that particular. It is clear that her head was below her centre of gravity and that she believed she was outside the window. She was undoubtedly very frightened, as was E, and, as the window was on the second floor, there can be no doubt that Mother's actions were intended to frighten, were abusive and, at the very least, were reckless as to D's physical safety. Thus I make a finding not confined to the terms of the Local Authority's schedule, but from my construction of the evidence which I have heard and which I have considered very, very carefully.
67. Looking then to what orders I should make having made those findings, and having already confirmed that I found the threshold to be made out: the court must of course consider the children's welfare, which is paramount, and pay regard to the checklist of the children's wishes, the harm that they have suffered, and the ability of Mother to meet their needs both now and into the future.
68. It is clear to me that Mother wants to do better but even on the evidence of Ms Peart it will take a significant numbers of years before she will be able to offer any form of safe care for the children post effective therapeutic work, and that assumes she continues to engage in therapy and is motivated.
69. On the current evidence her capacity to change is very limited and is unlikely to result in necessary change within the children's timescales. This is not to say that within the context of her own adult life, and her own adult relationships, mother will not be able to make great change. I hope she does for her sake, and also for the children. However in my view the Local Authority's plan is an entirely appropriate one. They cannot return to their mother. They need to have permanence through a long-term foster placement. They are too old for the Local Authority to consider permanency in the form of adoption.
70. Because the level of abusive behaviour has been so great, and has gone on for so long, I am persuaded, unusually, that the contact should be reduced to three or four times a year. This will remain the level of contact until mother has done some meaningful work for herself and has started to gain the insight needed to be a good contact mum. The Local Authority have an ongoing duty to monitor contact. The children as looked after children will have regular reviews and it will be Mother's responsibility to make sure that she is ahead of the game; that she sorts out what she needs to address her difficulties and can say at those reviews, 'This is where I am now' . Those who are working with the children can then look at whether or not that contact can be increased. However for the moment the children's welfare which is of course paramount requires them to have a period of stability and calm so that they can start to heal from some of the very challenging episodes of their childhood.
71. Mother's Article 6 and Article 8 convention rights are of course engaged but I am satisfied that the making of care orders with a plan of limited contact is a proportionate intervention in all the circumstances.

End of judgment.