Case No. ZW15C00106 

IN THE FAMILY COURT
(Sitting at Barnet)

St. Mary’s Court
Regents Park Road
London N3 1BQ
Thursday, 13th August 2015

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE LEVY
(In Private)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B E T W E E N :

		LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY	Applicant

-  and  -

(1)  M
(2)  F
		 (3)  E (by his Children’s Guardian)	Respondents

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

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.
(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 Chancery Lane, London EC4A 1BL
Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737
info@beverleynunnery.com

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

A P P E A R A N C E S

MR. R. LITTLEWOOD  (instructed by Haringey Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR. G. LAFAZANIDES  (Solicitor, Fahri Jacob Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.

MR. A. POWELL  (instructed by Quality Solicitors Bretherton Law, St. Albans) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent.

MISS D. LEWIS  (instructed by Osbornes Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Third Respondent.

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

J U D G M E N T
JUDGE LEVY:

INTRODUCTION

1	This morning I am giving judgment following a final hearing in care proceedings which concern one child, E, who was born on 9th November 2005, and is now 9¾ years old. The proceedings are brought by the London Borough of Haringey.  I will refer to E’s mother as “the mother”: she originates from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  I will refer to E’s father as “the father”: he originates from Angola.  E’s guardian in these proceedings is Jackie Anderson.

2	E has four older siblings, about whom I have heard in the course of these proceedings.  A is 28, B is 22, C is 20, and D is 16.  I understand that A and B attended university and C is still at university, A and B are working, and D is at school. I should also mention E’s maternal great-aunt. In this judgment I will refer to her as “the great-aunt” although E refers to her as “Gran”.  The great-aunt lives in Camberwell, and the parents live in Highgate together with D and those of the older siblings who live at home, which is relevant to arrangements which I will come to in due course.
 
3	By way of summary, in 2010, when he was four years old, E was diagnosed as being autistic and having global developmental delay.  Over the years X Primary School expressed increasing concern about E’s emotional care and his behaviour at school.  In May and July 2014 E made allegations of physical and emotional abuse by his mother, father and D.  On 3rd July 2014, he was taken into police protection and, after a short period in foster care, on 21st July he was placed with the great-aunt under s.20 of the Children Act 1989, a voluntary placement where he remains.

4	During the pre-proceedings period, on 10th August 2014, the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Department at Great Ormond Street Hospital (‘GOSH’) were instructed by the local authority to carry out a full assessment of E and his family which came to include a reassessment of E’s diagnoses.  GOSH concluded that E is not on the autistic spectrum and does not have global developmental delay.  The school and GOSH observed that E’s behaviour and his achievements at school have greatly improved over the past year. 

5	This has been a final hearing combining both fact finding and a decision with regard to E’s welfare.

The parties’ positions at this hearing

6	The local authority seeks findings set out in a schedule which is dated 23rd June 2015, and relate to physical and emotional abuse.  The parents’ position, which I take together, is that they deny all allegations of physical chastisement and emotional abuse, and they put forward alternative explanations which relate to what they believe to be E’s condition.  The guardian invites me to make the findings which the local authority seeks and to find that threshold is thereby established.  

7	If I make the findings and find that the threshold criteria have been established, the local authority seeks a special guardianship order to the great-aunt, but does not seek a supervision order.  The parents seek E’s immediate return to their care, but if I do not think that that is in his interests, they would agree to a special guardianship order to the great-aunt.  They tell me that if I return E to their care they would accept a supervision order if I thought it was appropriate, and they would co-operate with the local authority and welcome support and training.  If I make a special guardianship order, they will co-operate with it and support the great-aunt, as they have done for the past year. They would also seek more contact than is recommended by the local authority.

8	The guardian supports the local authority’s final care plan, but she has expressed concern about aspects of the special guardianship support plan.  She seeks decisions for E, but she applies for an adjournment until those aspects of the special guardianship support plan are clarified and certain.

Hearing

9	This hearing took place over six days.  I heard evidence from E’s teachers on 1st July, because they were not available after the end of the school term and the matter was then adjourned part-heard to 5th August.  In preparation I have read three bundles of documents.  I heard evidence from ten witnesses:  the head teacher at X Primary School, E’s teaching assistant at the school, Dr. Sinead Marriott, who is a consultant psychologist at GOSH, Frankie Zimmerman, who is a senior family therapist at GOSH, Grace Adeusi, who has been the allocated social worker since 5th May 2015, and Gladys Makgobe, who was the allocated social worker prior to Miss Adeusi, from 10th June 2014 until May 2015.  I have heard from Detective Constable Simone Ludlow of the Child Abuse Investigation Team, from the mother, the father, and the guardian.

10	At the hearing, the mother had the assistance of a Lingala speaking interpreter although not, unfortunately, on 1st July 2015, but I was told that she and her representative were content to proceed without an interpreter on that day.

THE LAW:

Threshold

11	In a public law case a court has no jurisdiction to make any public law order unless the criteria set out in s.31 of the Children Act 1989 are established:  namely, that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, and that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him.  The relevant date is 3rd July 2014 when E was taken into police protection and placed in foster care.

12	The local authority seeks findings of fact and it must prove its case in respect of each finding sought on the balance of probabilities.  It is not for the parents to establish that the allegations are not made out.

13	Mr. Powell reminded me of the guidance given by Sir James Munby, President, in his judgment in the case of Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11.  I have kept in mind the basic principles to which he referred in relation to fact finding and proof: that findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation.  I have noted the two practical and procedural consequences that flow from that, namely that the local authority must adduce proper evidence to establish what it seeks to prove, and must link the facts relied on with its case on threshold.  I note the President’s reminder of the words of Hedley J in the case of Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050, para.50, to the effect that: “society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent, and that children will inevitably have very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it.” and that “these are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the State to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting.”

14	In Re A, the President also referred to the judgment of  HHJ Jack in the case of North East Lincolnshire Council v G and L [2014] EWHC B77 (Fam).  Jack HHJ was referring in particular to cases involving domestic violence and excessive drinking, (and this is not such a case) and said that although he did not condone the behaviour with which he was concerned, “the courts are not in the business of social engineering.  The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes.”

15	I also keep in mind the guidance given by Baker J to the effect that I must consider each piece of evidence within the totality of the evidence.

16	Further, Mr. Powell reminded me of the guidance given in the case of R v Lucas 73 Cr App R 159 Court of Appeal, and I bear in mind the direction which is given to juries in criminal proceedings to approach lies with great care, bearing in mind that people may lie for different reasons.  Therefore, if I find that either the mother or the father has lied, it does not mean that I should disregard all that she or he says.

Welfare

17	The starting point is s.1(1) of the Children Act 1989, which provides that, “when a court determines any question with respect to … the upbringing of a child … the welfare of the child shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”  When considering what is in the interests of the child’s welfare, including when considering whether to make a special guardianship order (s.1(4)(b) of the Act) the court shall have regard in particular to the factors set out in the welfare check list in s.1(3).  In this case the particularly important factors are E’s needs, the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances, any characteristics which I consider relevant, any harm that he has suffered and is at risk of suffering, and the capacity of his parents and great-aunt to meet his needs.  I note that the importance of the welfare check list was underlined in the recent judgment of Sir James Munby in the case of Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625.

18	I have to consider the realistic options for E and whether the order the local authority seeks is necessary and proportionate to his needs and I should make the least interventionist order that I consider will meet his needs.

The European convention on human rights

19	The decision as to which placement is in the child’s best interests engages Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that everyone has a right to respect for his family life.  However while the  reunification of a child with his family is an important aim of Article 8, is not overriding.  The obligation to effect reunification is not absolute, because the interests of the child prevail and the principle of proportionality applies.  Ryder LJ said in his judgment in Re CM v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2014] EWCA 1479:

	“The whole purpose of a proportionality evaluation is to respect the rights that are engaged and cross check the welfare evaluation, i.e. the decision is not just whether A is better than B, it is also whether A can be justified as an interference with the rights of those involved.” (para.36)

Family background

20	I have noted that the father was born in Angola where I understand he worked as a journalist, and he came to the United Kingdom in 1990 because of political difficulties.  I understand that he and the mother married in 1991, and she joined him here in 1992.  More recently, the father has worked as a postman.  He is not working in that capacity now, but he told me that there is an outstanding claim before the Employment Tribunal.

21	The mother works part-time as a carer for vulnerable adults, and is also studying health and social care at a college.

The child

22	I have noted that in 2010 when he was four E was referred by his health visitor or GP and his nursery to the Child Development Centre for an assessment because of concerns about his social communication, in particular his language and behaviours. The nursery at X school were concerned that E had difficulty communicating with other children and with adults and he talked about his own interests a lot.  The paediatrician who first saw E referred him to the Autistic Assessment Clinic, where he was diagnosed as suffering from autism, severe global developmental delay and moderate speech and language impairment. He was referred for speech and language therapy but was discharged from therapy in September 2011 because it was considered that his skills were progressing, and the moderate delay, that he then still had, did not meet the criteria for speech and language therapy in school.

23	I note from the papers that on 30th December 2012 E was seen in an autism follow-up clinic.  The mother reported that his speech had improved, there were no real issues at home, although his play was repetitive, he could read, he struggled with his writing.

The parents’ response to the 2010 diagnosis

24	In 2010 the parents were offered support in various forms: they were provided with information packs about autism; they were offered a referral to the Markfield Project, where there were family support workers and also group sessions; they were provided with information about the National Autistic Society and invited to post-diagnosis support sessions and; they were provided with information about disability living allowance, which they told me they receive.

25	At the follow-up appointment in 2012, it was suggested that they should register with the National Autistic Society and attend a parenting course (an Early Bird Plus course) and that they should contact the Markfield Project and attend the post-diagnostic support sessions.  The doctor (I think it is a doctor who wrote the letter, the copy in the bundle is complete) noted that the mother had still not come to terms with the diagnosis.  The mother told me that she did not accept the diagnoses because she considered that E was a normal child, he played normally.  

26	In May and July 2014 E made the allegations which I have referred to, as a result of which he was placed in the care of the great-aunt.  The parents told me that in August 2014 a representative of the National Autistic Society visited them at home, explained how autistic children behave, and also gave some guidance about managing some of an autistic child’s behaviours, such as limited diet.  

27	Elizabeth Johnson noted, in her child and family assessment dated 9th June 2014, that the mother told her that she did not read the information pack because she was busy with her work commitments and her essays for her studies.  

28	I have noted that GOSH reassessed E for autism in a report dated 29th October 2014.  They were originally asked to undertake an assessment of the family - that is the parents, D and E, but it appears their initial work indicated that E’s diagnosis should be revisited.  The procedure which was followed by GOSH was described as the usual procedure and was in four parts.  The team, made up of Miss Zimmerman, Dr. Marriott (to both of whom I have referred) and their supervising consultant psychiatrist, Dr. DeJong, used the ADOS test, described as the gold standard tool for the assessment of autism and the element of the assessment which carries the most weight.  The second part was the 3Di, which is an interview with the parents carried out by Dr. DeJong, the third was a clinical assessment and the fourth was observations, particularly in the course of a school visit.

29	Dr. Marriott carried out the ADOS test, which she described in her report as the latest version of the “semi-structured standardised assessment of communication, social interaction and creativity for children where difficulties in social communication have arisen” (E44d).  She explained that it consists of semi-structured activities and conversations which allow the examiner to observe behaviours that have been identified as important to the diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder at different developmental levels and chronological ages.  In her summary she said:

		“During the ADOS assessment, E presented as a boy with some difficulties with reciprocal social interaction and unusual eye contact.  He also demonstrated a number of strengths in his social communication and does not present with the range of difficulties associated with a child on the autistic spectrum.”

	She added that the interpretation of the results would depend on the other tests which were going to be carried out (E44f).

30	The 3Di test is, I understand, a software package developed by Professor David Skuse and his team at University College London.  It involves a detailed structured interview of the parents in this case in order to elicit a developmental history.  That interview was carried out by Dr. DeJong with both parents assisted by an interpreter.  Dr. DeJong found that the parents had some difficulty understanding some of the questions, even with the assistance of the interpreter, and at times they disagreed about their responses to the questions.  The results showed that E had a significant problem in the area of communication, but it was explained by Dr. Marriott that this was a computerised result based on the parents’ responses and did not represent Dr. DeJong’s views.

31	The school visit gave rise to no concerns.  I note that under the heading “Other Clinical Observations”, the team reported:

		“E was seen in several contexts for the purposes of undertaking a clinical assessment, including participating in a story stem assessment.  The assessor made the following comments:  E understood the task and related well and appropriately to the interviewer whom he had not met before.  His stories were imaginative and his vocabulary seemed good for his age.  There was nothing in his presentation to suggest either autistic features or global developmental delay.” (E44g)

	The conclusion was:

		“Neither the ADOS nor our own clinical observations nor feedback from school would suggest that E reaches the threshold for a diagnosis of autism.” (E44g)

	They were not able to comment on the diagnosis that had been made in 2010, because at that stage they had not seen the papers.

32	Dr. Marriott told me that in her clinical view there is no need for a further assessment of autism.  E’s case is not borderline, the result is clear cut, he does not meet the criteria for autism.

33	E’s headmaster told me that he was surprised by the 2010 diagnosis, because he has significant experience of children on the autistic spectrum over some 20 years, and he would say without hesitation that E is not on the spectrum. 

34	I note that although GOSH did not formally assess E for global developmental delay, based on their clinical judgment and reports from the school, they were able to say that he does not have global developmental delay.

35	There is, of course, a striking difference between the two assessments, and GOSH were able to provide an explanation for that once they had seen the papers relating to the 2010 assessment.  They pointed out that E was first assessed and diagnosed when he was four years and ten months old, which is very early to make a diagnosis.  Four years later he was better able to engage with the assessment process, his language had improved, he had greater confidence and he provided a significant amount of material for the assessor to consider.  GOSH also noted that the Child Development Centre did not use the ADOS tool, but the Griffiths test, which I am told is regarded as less sensitive.

36	Dr. Marriott noted that E has some traits which might suggest autism, and she referred to the fact that his eye contact is very impaired, and also that he appears withdrawn when anxious, for example, at the beginning of his session with her, but she noted that he then relaxed and established a very good rapport with her.

37	Miss Zimmerman noted that E has difficulty with his fine motor skills – such as brushing his teeth - but this is not a trait of autism and it is not a feature of global developmental delay, because if E had global developmental delay that would manifest itself across all areas of his activity.

The parents’ reaction to the Great Ormond Street reassessment 

38	In February 2015 the parents referred themselves to the Markfield Project because they wanted to have a better understanding of E’s behaviour.  There they talked to other parents and heard about autistic children whose behaviour they consider similar to E’s.  From that they concluded that he has autistic traits, which they told me persist, and they referred in particular to the fact that E likes to eat one thing - spaghetti - which causes constipation, he says something and then changes his mind, he plays with one game all day, and he has poor fine motor skills.  Again, the example was given that he has difficulty brushing his teeth.  This description of E’s traits was the parents’ position at the final hearing.

History of proceedings

39	These proceedings were issued on 18th March 2015, and were first allocated to the Justices, but were transferred to me on 24th April because of complexity and the anticipated length of the final hearing.  Shortly after that, the father made an application for further expert assessments, requesting in particular that Dr. Malcolm Bourne be instructed to carry out a further assessment of E, and advise whether he suffers from autism. The parents also requested a further parenting assessment to be carried out by an independent social worker.  

40	That matter came before me on 11th May 2015, on the father’s application supported by the mother.  The arguments put forward on the parents’ behalf were that they did not have confidence in the GOSH assessment for autism because GOSH had relied too heavily on the views of the school and had dismissed their concerns, and also GOSH had not seen the 2010 assessment, which I have noted.  GOSH did not acknowledge the positives in the notes of the parents’ contacts with E, and did not consider a report made by his former class teacher to the effect that E makes things up. 

41	I found that there was no gap in the evidence, that no further report was necessary and refused the application, but I ordered an addendum report from GOSH which is dated 6th July 2015.  Miss Zimmerman told me that when she interviewed the parents for the purposes of that addendum report they both still believed that E is autistic and wanted a third opinion.  She was able to say that she saw glimmers of change - in particular, in the mother’s interaction with E.  I will come back to that report in due course.

THRESHOLD:

The local authority’s case

42	The Local Authority relies on the school’s concerns and reports.  There are a number of sources of information about the concerns shared by the staff of the X Primary School about E. I have considered the headmaster’s statement, which includes a chronology prepared by the school, the witness statement which E’s teaching assistant made to the police on 20th August 2014, records from the school provided to the police, and further records provided to this court following the evidence which was given on 1st July by the headmaster and E’s teaching assistant.  I note that other members of staff who have not given evidence are referred to in the documents, and I mention in particular E’s class teacher in the previous year, the pastoral support officer (“PSO”), and the special educational needs co-ordinator (“SENCO”).

43	The headmaster has been the head at X Primary School for seven years.  He told me that he had received child protection training and is the deputy safeguarding officer for the school.  He knew D, who also attended this primary school, and he has known E since he started there in reception, and is aware of his diagnoses.  He told me that there has never been a great deal of concern about E’s attendance, although there have been concerns that he had been brought to school and collected late on occasions.  Although E does not have a statement of special educational needs, the school has provided a high level of support, in particular in the form of one to one time with the class teaching assistant, and work in smaller groups, and pastoral support.

44	A summary of the school’s concerns about E’s behaviour is set out at C36.  Under the heading “Behaviour”, the headmaster says:

	“E is a well liked child by staff and peers, and has developed strong and positive friendships and is rarely known to hurt or upset other children.  His behaviour has at times proved to be challenging, especially in years 2 and 3.”

He notes that there have been no serious behaviour incidents recorded since September 2014, but prior to that date the challenging behaviour included self-harm, hitting himself with his own hands or with objects, self-deprecating comments - for example, “I am stupid, I am dumb” - throwing objects such as books and chairs, refusing to engage in work, often ripping up any completed work, and volatile emotions with extreme outbursts of anger or upset.  The headmaster describes this as self-loathing, which became increasingly consistent in year 3, the year from September 2013 to June 2014, but not evidenced since September 2014.

45	He refers to his chronology, and summarises the concerns set out there as lack of emotional engagement from the parents towards E, physical chastisement of E, physical chastisement of sisters disclosed to the school, lack of understanding of previous diagnosis by the parents, early indicators of safeguarding concerns.  The headmaster has added, “In E’s CAF” - Child and Family Assessment, I assume - “it includes that he often points to his picture and says the word “sad”, often screams when collected by parents, and appears to lack experiences that other children have had”.

46	The headmaster told me that he has a strong relationship with E, they get on well and share a sense of humour.  E’s name cropped up in regular pupil progress meetings from the time he joined the nursery class, and by years 2 and 3 those problems had heightened, and there was considerable discussion of E in those meetings.  He also had meetings with E in his office when they would set behaviour targets, but none of those meetings had taken place in year 4 - that is the year from September 2014 to July 2015.

47	When E’s behaviour was at its worst, in years 2 and 3, the teaching assistant spent most of her time with him so that the class as a whole could function.  As a result of his difficulties and the behaviour which has been described, E was under-attaining in all subjects, but in particular in reading, writing and mathematics, and he was significantly below the level achieved by his peers.  From time to time he was given significant intervention to try and accelerate his progress.

48	The headmaster described E as a deeply unhappy child, who was stressed and experiencing anxiety, but he was in a class with kind and caring children who showed a high degree of empathy towards him.

The Allegations

49	Allegation 1(i) refers to an incident in December 2013 when the mother was observed at the school book fair to be leading E around by his collar, apparently not engaging with him.  The headmaster told me that this was a matter raised by E’s class teacher in year 3, but was not raised with him at the time.  The headmaster was asked whether she might not have understood cultural differences with particular reference to showing affection in public, and he told me that she is of West African descent, and would have been very well aware of any relevant cultural differences. (A38)

50	Allegation 2(i), which I have amended so that it reads as follows:

		“On 16th January 2012, E told [name provided], a member of the school staff, that the father always wanted to fight him, had punched him on the back.”

51	The chronology prepared by the school refers to a number of reports of distressed and disruptive behaviour (C39).  On 29th January 2014, E was disruptive in class and threw a chair, and appeared quite distressed.  On 5th February 2014, the pastoral support officer had a meeting with E’s father to discuss concerns about E’s behaviour in school, and agreed to start a request for statutory assessment.  I note that that links with a document which is at J173 in the chronology which the school provided for the police.  That states that the PSO had two meetings with the father in 2014, when he engaged well with a possible referral to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, and a request for a statutory assessment.  She also noted that the father asked whether E will get better with regard to his diagnosis.  The headmaster was asked why that reference, which appears in the chronology provided to the police, was not included in the chronology which forms part of his statement in these proceedings.  He accepted that it should have been in his chronology and he apologised for the omission, but said that it was not intended to create a false impression, which I accept.

52	Allegation 4(i) under the heading of “Emotional abuse and neglect”, says that on 7th February 2014 the father was “appearing detached and unable to comfort E when told of his disruptive and self-harming behaviour and negative self-esteem”. That relates to an email sent by the class teacher to colleagues, setting out her concerns and reporting that the father was always on his mobile phone when he collected E from school.

53	On 27th February 2014, there is a reference to E being removed from class as he was banging his head and pushing things and being very non-compliant.  On 6th March the PSO and the SENCO, visited the mother at home when she agreed to a statutory assessment and the referral to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, and also agreed that the PSO could speak to social care, but they noted that the mother understood and spoke little English, and had a poor understanding of E’s diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder.

54	Allegation 2(ii), I have amended to read as follows: “March 2014, E told the teaching assistant that the father had scared him by smacking and grabbing him.” (C39).

55	Finally, in this section, there is a reference to an incident which appears with two different dates, 21st April and 21st May 2014, and relates to allegation 4(ii), when E reported at school feeling sick, as he had not eaten, and said he hates his life, “My mum hates me, my mum is rude to me, my mum speaks bad to me, my mum says ‘Don’t look at me and don’t speak to me’”, and the school reported to GOSH that these types of comments were made repeatedly, that he reported being goaded by his parents and other family members and he asked, “That is bullying, isn’t it?”

The evidence of the teaching assistant

56	The teaching assistant told me that she worked with E from September 2013, which was the beginning of year 3, when he was eight years old.  His previous teacher had told her that E was autistic and prone to outbursts.  She found that E struggled to cope in the classroom.  He was anxious and agitated.  There were daily outbursts.  He cried a lot.  He would jump out of his seat, shout and turn the table over.  She said that the other children were fantastic with E.  They had become used to his outbursts.  She and the teacher tried to integrate E into small groups with other children, but he disrupted their work and, therefore, he had to work on a table by himself.  He made very little academic progress.  He would not do the tasks that were set, but wanted to write his own story, which they let him do.

57	The teaching assistant told me that E had “the lowest self-esteem I have ever seen, he rarely smiled, he would not make eye contact.  After an outburst he would cry his eyes out.  He frequently said he hated himself, and he was rubbish, he defaced all his written work because it was rubbish and tried to throw it away.  His outbursts were never directed at other children, he played well with them”.

The incident on 20TH May 2014

58	I come to the incident on 20th May 2014 referred to in the schedule of findings at 1(ii), 4(v) and 4(vi).  I have read the school incident report signed by the teaching assistant (C89) which says that E told her, “My mum accidentally hit me and pointed to both arms, legs and the back of his head (neck).  E said she hit him with a belt with the metal bit and it still hurts”.  There were no visible marks.  She asked him why, and he said he had not cleaned his teeth.  E said the skin was raised and it still hurt.  He was acting in a hyperactive manner after he had made this statement to her.

59	On 20th August 2014 the teaching assistant made a witness statement to the police, which gives an account of E’s behaviour in class and describes him as “full of loathing for himself”.  She gave the account that she had given in her report on 20th May, and also said that E had shown her a mark at the top of his left arm.  During the same conversation she said E told her that his mother had hit him with the belt before in the bedroom, and mentioned something about leaving the toilet dirty(J147).

60	The teaching assistant told me that she remembers the incident on 20th May 2014.  It occurred in the morning just before the break.  She was kneeling, talking to E and asking him why he was behaving as he was, and he told her about a ‘spider bite’.  She said, “Is that it?” and he said, “No, that’s when my mum hit me”.  His manner was very matter of fact, and she let him go out to break and reported to the PSO, the report to which I have referred.  Her conversation with E took about ten minutes.  After this, for a short period of time, she noted that there was a reduction in E’s outbursts.

61	Later in the day, at about four PM, Detective Constable Simone Ludlow and the social worker, Elizabeth Johnson, together attended X Primary School.  DC Ludlow produced her notes from the school visits, which begin at J269.  She had a discussion with the teaching assistant, and was provided with background information.  Then she spoke to E. Her brief note refers to E just waking up and not getting a chance to brush his teeth, “Mum hit with metal part of belt 15 times, had already belt in metal loops, wearing”.  There is a question about other times, and reference to a wooden spoon and the winter of the last year and the reason for that.  He said he had told his brother A, who said he said he would “go talk to…”, and the phrase is not continued.  There is reference to earlier incidents and something happening every ten weeks, “reasons, not doing stuff and burping” (J271).

62	In her witness statement dated 31st October 2014, DC Ludlow said that she spoke to the teaching assistant, and then she spoke to E in the presence of his teacher, and she again related that E said that his mother had hit him 15 times, had hit him with the belt that morning because he did not brush his teeth quickly enough.  He described the belt as being of fabric with two metal rings, and pointed to his arms, legs and neck, when she asked him where.  She noted there were no visible injuries.  She asked him about other times and he referred to being hit with a wooden spoon last year.  She asked him how he felt at home, and he said “sad”, and what made him happy at home, and he said “playing outside”.

63	I note that DC Ludlow said that she told E she would have to speak to his parents, and he said he was “okay with this and he felt that once we told them off they would stop doing it”.  He was not scared of going home (J156).

64	DC Ludlow and Miss Johnson spoke to the parents and DC Ludlow wrote the questions and answers after having had the conversation with the mother.  That page is signed by the mother as a correct record of what was said.  The mother denied hitting E.  She said that he had been playing that morning, she told him to get ready, he had said that she had pretended to kill him, and she said, “E, apologise to mummy, don’t do that again, and he said ‘sorry’”, and she also said that she did not know what “pretending to kill” means (J272).  

65	That evening DC Ludlow and Miss Johnson returned E to his parents’ care, and asked the parents to sign an agreement that they would not use physical chastisement with E.  Miss Johnson recorded in her Child and Family Assessment that when she asked the parents to sign the agreement, the mother appeared angry and stated that this was her preferred method of chastisement.  There is a reference to this in allegation 1(vi), which reads:

		“On 20th May 2014, when signing a written agreement not to physically chastise E, the mother said to the social worker and the police officer, ‘If I cannot beat him, how am I going to manage him?’”

66	That Child and Family Assessment, which related to both E and D at that stage, was completed by Miss Johnson on 9th June 2014.  Miss Johnson noted that the mother had told her that she was disciplined by her mother, sometimes with a belt or by hand, which was acceptable in their culture.  The mother told me that she did not say this, because she was a good child.  She did not say that she was beaten, she was a good child and was only slapped occasionally.  She did not say, as reported in the allegation to which I have just referred, words to the effect that she could not manage E’s behaviour if she could not beat him (F11 to 28).

67	On 10th June 2014 there was an initial child protection case conference (F46).  It was reported that professionals had noted a lack of interaction between E and his father, and a lack of engagement and attachment between E and his mother.  The conference decided that both E and D would be made subject to child protection plans, in the categories of physical abuse and emotional abuse.  Subsequently, the registration for D was changed to that of a child in need.

68	On 28th May a child protection medical was carried out by Dr. Bargiota, a specialist paediatric registrar, supervised by Dr. Constantinidou, a locum supervising consultant.  I have noted that the teaching assistant and DC Ludlow had not seen any visible marks on E, although there is a reference to E wearing a short sleeved top, and the top not being lifted in order to see whether there were any marks under it.  There is also a reference in the papers to E’s legs not being exposed, presumably because he was wearing long trousers.

69	The doctors found that there were no marks suggestive of E having been hit with a belt or a buckle, but as the incident had occurred nine days prior to the medical examination it was possible that marks could have disappeared (F6).  There were three unexplained old linear marks in unusual positions on E’s body:  one on his back between his shoulder blades, a second on his chest, and a third over his left pelvic bone.  The doctors were unable to identify a mechanism which would have given rise to those marks.  They noted that the examination was inconclusive, but because similar allegations had been made in the past, E’s vulnerability, the delayed referral for a child protection medical, the mother’s poor understanding of autism, and the absence of interaction between the mother and E, his disclosure should not be discounted.

70	On 24th June 2014 a registered intermediary, Esther Rumble, met E at school: her report dated 25th June is at J8.  Her assessment was carried out on the basis that E had a diagnosis of autism and global developmental delay.  She advised about literal thinking, the need to ask direct questions and the importance of providing context.  She advised that E finds it hard to quantify above the numbers that he can count to, so that “hundreds” may mean ‘lots’, and any large number may mean ‘lots’.  She also noted that E seemed to have hyper-acute hearing and might find loud noise painful, and might, for example, block his ears.  

71	Miss Rumble attended E’s ABE interview on 1st July, and helped with lists of days of the week and months of the year, and by drawing pictoral representations of E’s accounts, and on occasion asking supplementary questions, seemingly with the intention of helping to clarify what he had said.  

The first ABE interview

72	I have read the transcripts and watched the DVDs of both of E’s interviews.  The first interview on 1st July relates to E’s allegations made on 20th May, so it took place after a delay of almost six weeks.  It is the basis for the allegations which are set out in the schedule at A(iv), which is “hitting with a bag and slaps”, and 2(iv), “dad tries to beat him”.  The interview was conducted by DC Ludlow with the assistance of Miss Rumble, and there was, as usual, a second police officer/controller observing from another room.  It took place in an ABE suite, and took just over an hour.  DC Ludlow put the interview in the context of her conversation with E on 20th May, and reminded him in general terms of what he had told her then.  I note that early in the interview E says positive things.  He says, “I feel good about my mum” (J17), and when asked about daddy, “He’s good as well” (J18), although he did go on to say that his father sometimes lied about buying pizza.

73	Mr. Lafazanides has pointed to a number of questions which he says are leading or which have the effect of creating a particular mind-set in E, and I will deal with these in turn.  The first relates to E saying that he had been hit in March, and the question that Mr. Lafazanides is concerned with is at J29.  From a little while earlier in the interview (J24), E had been talking about times when his mother is angry, and had demonstrated her angry face.  He talked about him “messing about and being silly”.  He was asked what happens when mummy gets cross and he said, “Sometimes she like beats me, but she doesn’t do it now”.  

74	There were then a number of questions to try and establish when this last happened.  E said it happened a long time ago, and Miss Rumble tried to assist him with months of the year.  Then E said, “Somewhere around March”.  DC Ludlow said, “Around March?” and Miss Rumble suggested they draw a ring around March in the list of months of the year.  The officer then tried to establish why E had referred to March and he talked about the topics he was studying at school at the time.  They went on to consider where this incident had occurred.  E said: “In my home”, and “And then the last time, I think it was like March or April, she kind of hits me with her bag”.

75	The exchange that Mr. Lafazanides is concerned with is the point at which DC Ludlow asked E: “Can you remember when it was?” and E said, “Somewhere around March”.  DC Ludlow said, “Around March, okay”.  Esther Rumble said, “Shall we draw a ring around March?” and DC Ludlow said, “And what makes you remember it was March?”  So the issue is the move from “around March” to “March”.  DC Ludlow said that she was trying to clarify E’s evidence, which she is allowed to do, but she also accepted that she should have said, “around March”, rather than, “in March”.  I note that E did not accept DC Ludlow’s suggestion that the incident occurred in March, because he went on to refer to “March or April”, and he then went on to introduce the allegation that his mother had hit him with a bag without any prompting.

76	Mr. Lafazanides’ second concern relates to the bag.  DC Ludlow continued to ask E about this incident, he talked about it happening in the street, they talked about how he and his mother walked to school.  Then DC Ludlow asked him what type of bag mummy has, and E said: “I think she’s got two bags, one of them all black, one of them, like, one’s yellow and black”.  “So one of her bags?”  “Yeah”.  “Can you remember which one?”  “One’s yellow”, and DC Ludlow said: “Orange and yellow bag, okay”.  E said, “I never call it orange and black, because I call it sometimes…”, and DC Ludlow then went on to talk about E and his mother walking.  E subsequently talked about the bag hurting him and about there being stuff in the bag.  From that exchange, and bearing in mind Mr. Lafazanides’ objections, I note that E initially rejected the suggestion that the bag was orange and black.  He said, “I never call it orange and black”, and then he went on to talk about how it felt, which was that it hurt, and that it was hard, because there was stuff in the bag, none of which was suggested to him by the detective constable.  It seems to me that the colour of the bag is less important, though DC Ludlow did accept that she had said orange when E had said yellow, and she said she did not know why she had said that.

77	The third concern was that the questions led E into a negative mind-set about his mother.  Mr. Lafazanides pointed to the exchange which continues at J36.  DC Ludlow said, “You said it makes you feel sad, do you think mummy knew that you were sad?”  “Yeah”.  “How did she know that?”  “I think she found the look on my face”.  “Okay, so you had a sad face?” and Esther Rumble said, “So maybe if this were the next bit, then this might be you feeling sad and looking sad, you think that mummy…” and E said, “Looking angry”.  DC Ludlow said that she understood E to say that “mummy was looking angry”, and indeed that is the way I read it.  I do not think it was suggested to E that his mother was looking angry.  I do not think that E was led into a negative mind-set.  These seem to me to be reasonable enquiries given the allegation which E had volunteered.

78	The fourth concern relates to the exchange when DC Ludlow suggested a reason why the mother might have hit E, and he said, “Yes”, which Mr. Lafazanides said is a leading question (J43).  DC Ludlow asked: “Why does mummy do that”, referring to E’s earlier comment about a slap, and E said: “I don’t know”.  DC Ludlow said: “You mentioned about being naughty before, is it for that reason?”  E said: “Yeah”.  “Is it sometimes for other reasons?”  E said: “No”, and he confirmed that it was because he was naughty.  I note that was in the context of E talking about his mother hitting him.

79	Finally, the reference to E’s ears hurting (J52) which occurred during a conversation about noise. Miss Rumble, the intermediary said, “And you said something about turning volume down, because I know your ears are quite sensitive”.  I have referred to that observation in her report.  E said: “Yeah, that’s when it’s too bad”, and there is further discussion about the noise. DC Ludlow said, “Does that hurt your ears when that happens?  How does it make you feel when it is too loud?” and E said, “It sometimes hurts my ears”.  When asked about this, DC Ludlow agreed that it was a leading question and said that she did not know where it came from, although it may well have come from the suggestion made by Miss Rumble.  Looking at E’s answer, it seems to me that E gave a qualified response, because he says it “sometimes hurt his ears”, so he had thought about it, and was not just repeating what the officer had said.

The incident on 3rd July 2014

80	The allegation in the schedule which refers to this is 2(iii).  I have seen the school incident report signed by the teaching assistant (C84).  She said that E had been disruptive in the morning, and she had spoken to him as he was going out for break at about 11 am.  At the end of break he was sobbing, and when she asked whether everything was okay he said no, and that his dad had punched him, from which she seems to have understood he meant the day before, on 2nd July.  She took him to the den, and E told her that his dad punched him in a shop, on the arm, and demonstrated a hard punch, and more than once.  His mother had said, “You’ll be taken away to live with another family, they are racist, and do you want me to go to jail”.  His mother had come into his room and was repeatedly hitting him.  He demonstrated an open hand, an outstretched arm and constant hitting.  E thought that this was because he had left some poo on the toilet seat.  E told her that both parents have hit him in the past few weeks, he had not told Simone (DC Ludlow) as she may be racist and his mum will hate him.  

81	The teaching assistant referred to this incident in her witness statement to the police (J149).  She had noted a deterioration in E’s behaviour:  he was shouting, he was rude, he was banging his head on the floor, smacking himself in the face and saying, “I’m rubbish”.  He said his dad punched him the night before because he wanted a sweet and asked too many times.  He punched him on the arm in a shop near Sainsbury’s in Muswell Hill.  He went home and told his mum, and his mum told his dad off.

82	At 15.45, DC Ludlow attended the school, and she produced the notes of that conversation (J279).  They include the comments which the teaching assistant said E attributed to his mother, and refer to him, “picking up a chocolate, not allowed a chocolate, punched shoulder, hurt”, and then what looks like an attempt to identify where the shop was.  There is also a reference to the toilet incident.  It was on this day, following that conversation, that DC Ludlow placed E in police protection because she considered that he would be at immediate risk of significant harm if he were to return home.

83	Miss Makgobe, who was the allocated social worker at the time, told me that she took E to foster carers, and she described him sitting on the stairs crying, and saying: “I just wanted my parents to stop hurting me”.

84	The child protection medical was carried out on 4th July by Dr. Jacqueline Le Geyt, a paediatric registrar, supervised by Dr. David Elliman, a consultant paediatrician.  Dr. Elliman reviewed the notes of the previous child protection medical, which had taken place on 28th May, and he made a statement about both medicals to the police on 23rd October (J152).  He said that on 4th July, E was asked whether he had any soreness and pointed to his right anterior shoulder, and said it had been sore but it was no longer so.  On examination, he had some tenderness over his right upper arm, and Dr. Elliman said that the finding of soreness supported his allegation.  He added: “The linear marks observed at the medical on 28th May are likely to be non-accidental, and these, in addition to E’s allegations of being hit, supported diagnosis of physical abuse”.

The second ABE interview

85	The second ABE interview took place on 4th July, and was conducted by DC Ludlow with a different colleague as controller and with Gladys Madgobe, the social worker, as the appropriate adult, because the intermediary was not available at short notice.  It took place in the same interview suite and was a shorter interview.  DC Ludlow reminded E that she had seen him the day before and he had told her something had happened with his daddy at the shops.  E talked about this incident.  He said, “That is when I said you’re not allowed chocolate in school, and he punched me”.  He talked about his feeling upset and his father being angry.  He talked about his arm hurting but said it did not leave a mark.  Later in the interview when E talked about his father wanting to “beat him down” - his expression - he demonstrated by putting both fists up to his chest (J79).  E said that his father is nice, but when he picks him up from school he always says he is in a rush, . because he wanted to use the computer.  E also demonstrated his father putting E’s head between his legs or knees and said it hurts and that his father is serious about it.

86	E talked about his mother hitting him when he had left a mess in the toilet.  He said that when he was going to sleep his mum was hitting with an open hand more than ten times on his tummy.  He was really upset and his tummy felt wobbly, his mother saw his tears, she was feeling mad, she had an angry face and she was blaming. He said that this had happened last year.

Criticisms of the ABE interviews

87	Taking the interviews together, Mr. Lafazanides submits that DC Ludlow was in breach of the ABE interview guidelines, and referred in particular under the heading, “Initial contact with victims and witnesses”, to paras.2.5 and 2.6.  Paragraph 2.5 says:

	“Any initial questioning should be intended to elicit a brief account of what is alleged to have taken place; a more detailed account should not be pursued at this stage but should be left until the formal interview takes place.  Such a brief account should include where and when the alleged incident took place and who was involved or otherwise present.”

	That was because information is required in relation to various steps that might be taken for the purpose of investigating the allegation, including arrest of alleged offenders.

88	Paragraph 2.6 provides that early discussion should, as far as possible, adhere to basic principles, which include listening to the witness, not stopping the witness, asking open-ended questions, and 2.6(e):

		“Make a comprehensive note of the discussion, taking care to record the timing, setting and people present as well as what was said by the witness and anybody else present (particularly the actual questions asked of the witness).”

89	Mr. Lafazanides also referred me to para.2.56, under the heading, “Assessment prior to the interview”, which also relates to the early stage of the discussion, and says:

		“Interviewers must have clear objectives for assessment(s) prior to interview …  The interviewer must make a full written record of any discussion, making a note of the timing and personnel present, as well as what was said and in what order.”

	The point of the reference to this paragraph is that it does not say “as far as possible”, but imposes, Mr. Lafazanides said, an absolute obligation to make a full written record.

90	The breaches which Mr. Lafazanides alleges are DC Ludlow going into detail about the allegations and failing to make a detailed note.  He suggested that because, as he submits, DC Ludlow led E during the ABE interview, it is more likely than not that she would have led E at the pre-ABE interview stage, and that therefore, E’s allegations, apart from those which were the primary statements that he made to the teaching assistant, should be disregarded.

91	DC Ludlow told me that she writes answers and not the questions because it is quicker, and she did not want to stop E when he was speaking.  When she interviewed the mother after they had had an exchange, she wrote the questions and answers, which the mother countersigned.  She could not remember all the questions that she had asked E, but she only asked open questions, in particular because she had been told that he was autistic, but it was important for her to obtain evidence to decide whether or not to arrest a suspect to safeguard the child.  She said, in particular with regard to the first ABE interview, that when one compared a 53 page interview with the short discussion she had with E, the discussion was not excessive.

92	My view is that DC Ludlow’s initial conversation with E was not excessively detailed.  Most of the information in the note was, in fact, obtained from the school staff.  The answers recorded at J271 suggest that the questions were, “What happened?  How many times did it happen?  How many other times?  Why did it happen?” which seem to me to be reasonable.  DC Ludlow accepted that she had asked one leading question, but that, in my view, does not taint a long and careful interview, and I do not find that E was led into a negative mind-set.  I have the impression that E was giving serious consideration to questions, and giving answers, sometimes qualified answers, to the best of his ability.

93	Mr. Lafazanides also pointed out that in his interviews E exaggerated, and reference was made to his using large numbers, but I bear in mind that all children can have difficulty with numbers, and often use large numbers to express “lots”, and that the intermediary had made this observation in her report.

94	Therefore, I do not make findings about the ABE interviews which would lead me to consider that the initial discussions were also carried out using leading questions.  I find that the ABE interviews are not tainted and unreliable.  Indeed, I noted that the interviews, particularly the first interview, were very carefully prepared, and I have referred to the intermediary’s report and her assistance. The pace of both interviews is slow, E takes the interviews very seriously, and there is nothing in his presentation or in anything he said to suggest that he was playing or joking.  On occasion he corrected DC Ludlow when she had made a mistake - for example, about the number of people living in his home, and he was correct.  He volunteered information about his mother hitting him with the bag (J29) and slapping him (J37), and slapping him on the cheek (J42).  He was able to say when he was not sure - for example, whether his mother had hit with the bag and slapped him at the same time.  He was able to differentiate between “beating” and “slapping” (J55).  He responded carefully to open questions.  He had said that he had been beaten but it had stopped, and when he was asked, “Who does the slapping or beating?” he said, “Well, my dad tries beating”, which it seems to me is a considered answer and does not indicate exaggeration.  In response to what the officer described as her “magic wand” question (If I had a magic wand, what would you like me to change?) E said, “Everything that he did to me”, but he also said that he likes home and feels safe there.

95	E gave very detailed accounts in parts of his interview, particularly when he was talking about the conversation with his father and the incident with his father in the shop.  He said that he told his mother what had happened and his mother told his father to apologise, and his father apologised, which it seemed to me was fair and did not indicate either fantasy or exaggeration.  Similarly, when DC Ludlow asked whether apologising was something daddy would normally do or whether it would be unusual, he said, “Daddy would do”, so. I think that E was being fair to his parents.

96	In conclusion, I have considered the evidence of the pre-ABE discussions and the interviews in the context of the evidence of the headmaster and the teaching assistant, to whom E first made the allegations, and I find there is no pattern of E repeating what DC Ludlow says.  He can correct her, he gives considered answers, he does not exaggerate, he says things without prompting and he is fair to his mother and father.  I find him to be a reliable witness.

97	I note from the CRIS report that on 5th February 2015 the Crown Prosecution Service decided to take no further action against the mother and father.  The report also shows that Detective Sergeant Sharpe and Detective Inspector Webb did not agree with that decision, have challenged it at two levels and, apparently, are still awaiting the outcome of the review which they requested.

98	Around the middle of July DC Ludlow made enquiries about the CCTV evidence which the father said should have been available from Sainsbury’s (J158).  She went to Sainsbury’s in Muswell Hill and requested a CCTV download.  She left her details but she heard nothing further.  She also looked for a small shop nearby and found one, and left her details, but there was no response, and she was not sure that she had identified the right shop, because E had talked about Oreos and the shop did not sell Oreos.

The “taxi referral”:

99	I turn then to what has been referred to as the “taxi referral”  and is the subject of allegation 1(v).  The local authority says that on 24th October 2014 E told the escort who took him to school that his father made him drink alcohol by force.  It seems that was not reported at the time, but on 13th November, E told the escort that he had a meeting later with his mother, that she lies to people and he is worried about what she will say because she punches him so hard and comes to his room and beats him for no reason; also his sisters call him “stupid”.  After that incident, both the allegations were reported to the local authority, and on 14th November DC Ludlow and Gladys Makgobe, the social worker, met E.  DC Ludlow told me she remembered going to school, and there are some notes, but she could not remember what this was about.  Having seen the notes, it appears that E mostly talked about the incident involving the toilet and about finding it boring going to church.  Miss Makgobe told me that E denied the allegations that he had made, and also said the incident with his mother about the toilet was something he had already talked about and was historical.  It appears that these allegations were not pursued by the police.  I have not seen a CRIS report nor the escort’s report.

E’s siblings

100	This relates to allegations 3(i) and (ii). A is the eldest of the siblings and   Miss Zimmerman met him in the course of the GOSH assessment when he referred to what she described as ‘huge difficulties’ in his relationship with his father, which had caused him much distress in his early childhood.  He was not very forthcoming, but he said he had been hit more than once, and he talked about a lack of emotional warmth and affection.  Miss Zimmerman noted that A described his father as dictatorial and a person who demanded obedience.  He recalled being unhappy and lonely in his home for much of his childhood, and described how he spent significant periods of time, including most of the school holidays with his aunt and uncle and their family, whom he felt were much more supportive.  He recalled that he stammered, suffered from enuresis and was frightened of the dark.  He said that he is dyslexic and lacking in confidence.  He said that he craved affection and his parents were unable to provide this.  He felt that as the eldest he was often blamed by his parents and was at times hit by them, but he said that it was their lack of emotional support and nurturing that he was upset about.  He thought that E, like him, was treated less well than their sisters. (E69, para.5.73)

101	I have said that the first GOSH report included an assessment of D. The headmaster’s chronology begins with a reference to the time around 2005, which reads:

		“Soon after members of the family started attending X Primary, D disclosed that she had been repeatedly kicked by her mother.  She described how she had been on the floor, curled up and trying to protect herself.  The previous head teacher and head of inclusion held a meeting with D’s mother.  There are no records of this, but it is understood that her mother was told that if it happened again a formal referral would be made to social care.”

	It appears that no referral was made at the time.

102	In the GOSH report, Miss Zimmerman noted:

		“D acknowledged that she had been subjected to excessive physical chastisement by her mother in the past, but said that the time she reported to the school was probably the last time it had happened and she was now too big to be hit.” (E65, para.5.58)

	And: 

		“D acknowledged hitting E and pushing him as she gets angry quick, and said that her parents told her off for hurting E.” (E70, para.5.76)

	There was a reference to contact records which did not suggest that she visits E regularly at the great-aunt’s.

103	Miss Zimmerman told me that D’s presentation was not that of a normal teenager - in other words, the fact that she liked to spend time in her room listening to music did not mean that she presented as a normal teenager, and they had taken into account her “age and stage”.  D struggled to think about the emotional qualities of her relationship with her parents.  She made one or two references to music which she and her mother liked, but there was no reference to time shared, and she was downcast when she spoke about her parents.  She seemed not to know that E was autistic.  This was confirmed by Miss Johnson in her child and family assessment of 9th June 2014.

The expert evidence

104	I turn to the GOSH main report, dated 5th January 2015, which was written by Maria Ruegger, a consultant guardian, and Miss Zimmerman, who attended court and gave evidence.  I note the executive summary (E46, para.1.2), which refers to the reassessment of E and says:

		“It is our view that his emotional and behavioural difficulties reflect the standard of emotional care provided by his parents, and there is no basis for believing that the parents will be able to improve their parenting.  Neither the father nor the mother acknowledge any need to make changes.”

	The authors of the report were not recommending that D be removed from home because she is older and has found ways of avoiding conflict and alternative means of emotional support.

105	The report refers to attachment, and I have noted the story stem work which was done on 5th November and uses play as a natural way in which children represent and explore their thoughts and feelings (E59, para.5.35).  E understood the tasks and related well to the interviewer, who observed that, overall, E’s narrative suggested his attachments are insecure and disorganised (E59, para.5.37).  Miss Zimmerman explained that attachment is triggered at times of stress, and said that if E is not in a secure, stable environment he may be mistrustful, which could impact on his sense of self and his future relationships.

106	When the GOSH team assessed parent/child interaction they observed little warmth between E and his parents, except for a few tussles to his head by his mother, and little eye contact between family members.  On a home visit on 25th September 2014 the parents continued to watch television and answered questions monosyllabically and in an irritated tone.  Neither parent greeted E when he arrived - I note that this was probably his first visit home since he had been placed with his great-aunt on 3rd July - they did not ask him any questions nor make any comments. There was no joy in their meeting, and E was left to wander round the house alone (E68, para5.70).

107	The GOSH assessors found that the parents were sometimes hostile: it was difficult to make arrangements with them, they were evasive and inconsistent.  They dismissed and disregarded all the children’s allegations.  The mother said things had never happened and the father said: “It is just children who disclose things that are not true” (E73).  Both parents said E lies, and attributed his lying to autism.  The mother explained that she had threatened to beat E but had not actually done so, but because he is autistic he had come to believe that she had beaten him.

108	The GOSH team formed the impression that the parents had not made allowances for E, and had conveyed to him their disappointment and sense of frustration.  They said in summary:

		“It was our opinion that the parents were not able to engage with this assessment in such a way as to gain a better understanding of their children’s needs and to reflect upon their parenting practices.  They did not acknowledge that there are any aspects of their parenting that need to change, and, as such, there is no intervention that we can recommend to assist them in this regard.”  (E78, para.5.94)

109	The GOSH team described E in this way:

		“E is a child who thinks deeply about things, and who has a strongly developed sense of right and wrong and fairness.  He is aware that adults should not hit children and has expressed confusion, both about his own culpability and his parents’ behaviours.  He has expressed guilt and worry about the prospect that his parents, or perhaps himself, may end up in prison, and at other times he complains about the abusive treatment he has sustained” ( E79, para 6.3).

	And:
		“It is our view that E’s difficult behaviours are likely to have reflected his emotional distress and frustration stemming from his perception of himself as ‘useless’ and ‘incompetent’, rather than any callous or defiant personality traits.  His attachment profile shows that he has an insecure and disorganised attachment pattern and does not have an expectation that parent figures will afford him care, protection and emotional containment.” (E80, para 6.4)

The parents’ case on threshold

110	I have read the mother’s response to the schedule of findings sought by the local authority, and I note that she denies all the allegations made except with regard to 1(vii), she admitted threatening to beat or hit E to stop him misbehaving.  With regard to allegations 2(i) and (ii), she said that she had seen D hit E once.  With regard to allegation 4(iii), she says that E may say “I am useless” if he is losing a game because he is frustrated, and she adds that she never had difficulties with her older children.

111	In his response to the local authority’s schedule, the father denies all the allegations except that, with regard to 4(i), he agrees that E has low self-esteem, and says that he has sought to support E by engaging with autism specialists and support groups.  

112	By 9th July 2015, the father remained concerned about the GOSH assessment of E and the conclusion that he does not have autism.  He refers to the academic success of his older children, and he is clear in his belief that E has an underlying condition which contributes to his behaviour.  With regard to allegation 2(iii), which is the allegation that E makes that he asked for chocolate and his father punched him, the father said that E asked for chocolate, he did not have enough money to buy that but offered to buy him crisps instead, E became upset and angry and he put his hand on E’s back to calm him.  He relies on CCTV footage, which unfortunately, as I have explained, is not available.

113	The parents’ view is that that E has lied.  They attribute this to the autistic traits which I have referred to. I have noted the evidence of Dr. Marriott to the effect that if E were autistic, which she found he is not, rigid thinking typical of autistic children would make it more difficult for him to lie.

114	The parents say that E is a child who likes to please adults.  Gladys Makgobe, his first allocated social worker, told me that E enjoys adult attention, but he is not a child who wants to please adults.

115	In her final evidence dated 28th July 2015, the mother says she cannot understand why E has not told professionals the truth (C160, para.20), and she complains that she and her husband have been treated like criminals and they have not been helped to understand why E said what he said (C162, para.29).  

116	She told me that E always exaggerates, and she gave examples: he would fall on the floor by himself and start crying; he said he had been beaten when he had not been beaten; he used to say that he was sad at home and pretend that he felt that he had been abandoned.  The mother told me E always says that he is useless, especially if he is playing a game, but she also said that reading that E said this made her feel sad.  She believes that low self-esteem is a feature of autism.

117	The parents have queried E’s ability to distinguish between fact and fiction.  They refer to the assessment completed on 24th September 2014 by E’s previous year form teacher, for the purposes of the GOSH work, in which, in response to a question about whether it is hard to tell whether E is talking about something real or make-believe, the teacher indicated that she had that experience several times a day.  I note that she was completing a form, no examples are given, and she did not give evidence.

118	The parents rely on an observation by the consultant paediatrician, Dr. Constantinidou, at the initial child protection case conference, when he said that E used words inappropriately.  I note that Dr. Constantinidou did not carry out an assessment, he observed an examination and he was working on the basis of the diagnosis of autism which was then current.

119	The parents referred to the headmaster’s evidence, to the effect that E talks to him about an imaginary friend, a monkey, whom he feeds.  The headmaster told me that this was a running joke and a source of amusement between them.  The parents referred to E telling the teaching assistant about a holiday in India, which had not taken place.

120	Many professionals have told me that they do not have experience of E lying or exaggerating or being unable to tell the difference between fact and fiction.  Dr. Marriott told me that E showed no confusion between fantasy and reality when she was conducting the ADOS test.  In response to the suggestion that E thinks that wrestling and the moves which are carried out in the course of a wrestling are real, and that this supports the parents’ views that he cannot tell reality from fiction, Dr. Marriott commented that wrestling can be confusing because the moves are presented as though they are real.  She said the important thing is to assess how a child communicates, and the question is: can the child make it clear what is a joke and what is made up?  When she was carrying out the ADOS test E understood that he was required to play a game and he made up a story appropriately.

121	Miss Zimmerman said she had no experience of E fictionalising and the headmaster was sure that the running joke he has with E about the pet monkey is an example of their shared sense of humour. The headmaster told me that E has developed strong relationships with his staff, absolutely trusts the teaching assistant and shares information with her, and he did not consider that E would have invented the allegations. Miss Makgobe had no experience of E making things up or exaggerating.

122	The father also told me that E is, as he put it, “a bit obsessive”, and can be stuck on a word such as “beat”, and talks about Arsenal beating Tottenham Hotspur, which is the football team that the father supports.  He described E as “just a boy saying stuff”.

123	With regard to emotional abuse Mr. Lafazanides suggested that there has been a real, although recent, shift in the parents’ thinking, in that they now consider that E has traits of autism rather than autism, and this is supported by, for example, his difficulties with fine motor skills.

124	Mr. Lafazanides suggested that the local authority and professionals have believed E.  They formed a protective wall around him, as a result of which they have rejected everything that the parents have said and ignored the positives in the relationship, as demonstrated in contact notes where there are examples of the parents showing warmth and affection towards E, and that, as a result, in these proceedings these parents have been vilified.  Further, the local authority has not provided to these parents with the support which they have provided for the great aunt. 

125	Mr. Powell described E as “a young boy who makes things up”.

126	As regards A and D, the mother told me that she was shocked when she heard what A had said.  She had not read, or had not had read to her, that part of the GOSH report which set out his views, and she could not understand why he did not tell her if he felt lonely as a child.  The father said that when A was a teenager he stopped him mixing with bad boys who were involved in a gang, and he is glad that he intervened because A benefited and was able to go on and complete his education.  With regard to D, the mother told me that she shouted at D but never hit her, and D only hit E once.  The father told me that D had never hit E.

Impressions of the parents

127	It is quite clear that the mother and father love E.  I am sure they love all their children, and nobody in these proceedings doubts that.  I take into account that they are mature parents, by which I mean they have had five children in an age range now from nine to 28.  They are rightly proud of their older children’s academic success: A, B and C have been to university, and A and B are now working.  The parents say they had no problems with their older children, but that rather disregards the information given by A and D to the staff at GOSH.

128	I have noted that the parents’ views about E and autism have gone through a number of changes, and those changes do not seem to marry up with the assessments with which they have been presented.  In 2010 the parents did not accept the diagnosis of autism.  The mother told me that E was a normal boy, and as a result they did not take up any of the offers of support, in part because the mother was too busy to do so.  In July 2014, E was placed in foster care, and it seems to be only then, or after that, that the parents became interested in autism, and in August were visited at home by a representative of the National Autistic Society who gave them advice about E’s behaviour, including implementing changes to his diet. By September 2014, E’s behaviour and presentation at school were improving, as reported by the school, and in January 2015 the GOSH report was available, including the reassessment as not being autistic and not having global developmental delay.  However, it was then, in February 2015, that the parents referred themselves to the Markham Project, and there they have attended courses for and with parents who, for the most part, have children with autism. In July 2015 the GOSH addendum confirmed their diagnosis and opinion that E’s behavioural difficulties were caused by their parenting.  The parents’ view is that the problems were caused by a lack of communication, and that that was because of E’s condition - that was the mother’s evidence to me - and they formed the view that he has traits of autism which the mother told me include low self-esteem.  

129	Reviewing this history of the assessments on the one side and the parents’ responses on the other, it is difficult to resist Mr. Littlewood’s suggestion that the mother and father need to believe or assert that E is autistic or has traits of autism in order to explain his allegations, for which otherwise they have no explanation. 

130	I accept that the parents have shown commitment to contact.  The quality of that contact is mixed.  I do not accept, as was submitted on their behalf, that contact is only poor when observed by the guardian or staff from GOSH or a new contact supervisor.  There is no obvious link between poor contact and any of those people being present, and all contact for which I have notes was supervised by professional contact supervisors.

131	The father denied knowing that the school was concerned about E’s behaviour.  He told me he received no letters, but as I have noted Mr Powell pointed to the part of the chronology which the school provided to the police (J173), which referred to the two meetings he had with the PSO in 2014, and said that that information should have been included in the school’s chronology which formed part of the headmaster’s evidence in these proceedings.  The father did not deny that those meetings took place.

132	Mr. Littlewood pointed out what he described as an “irony” in the father’s evidence, that he sees no connection between his parenting and E’s distressing behaviour, all of which is attributed to E’s condition, but he claims most of the credit for E’s recent improvement and progress.

Discussion

133	I accept the GOSH assessment of E and the parents.  The work has been carried out carefully, it is thorough and Dr. Marriott used gold standard tools for the assessment of autism.  The observations which the GOSH assessors made are supported by the contact notes and the observations of the guardian.  It is, therefore, clear to me that E is not autistic and does not have global development delay.

134	 I have referred to the parents’ criticisms of DC Ludlow’s conduct of the pre-ABE interview discussion with E and the interviews, and I have noted what I consider to be strengths in E’s evidence which make him a reliable witness, and therefore I do not disregard the evidence which E gave in his ABE interviews.

135	I have considered the evidence of the headmaster and the teaching assistant and the GOSH assessment of E and his relationship with his family, and the conclusion that E’s troubling behaviour in the past was caused by the parenting, and I accept that conclusion.  I have taken into account the medical evidence, which provides some support for E’s allegations, and the interviews which GOSH reported on with A and D, which I note have not been retracted by either of them, and which support E’s credibility.  E has not retracted any of the allegations he has made, even though he has told me and many others that he wants to go home.  I have considered all the arguments put forward by the parents and their evidence, and I find that I prefer the evidence of E to that of the parents, where they conflict.

Findings

136	A copy of the schedule with my findings can be attached to my judgment.   

1(i)	This is a matter which the mother contests.  The teacher did not give evidence.  I do not make this finding.

(ii)	The parents do not dispute that E said what is reported.  I have considered all the evidence and make the finding as sought.

(iii)	I have considered all the evidence and I make the finding as sought.

(iv)	I have considered all the evidence and make the finding as sought.

(v)	This refers to the two allegations reported by the school escort, made in October and November 2014.  I have not seen full information about them.  I have noted that I have not seen the escort’s report, and I have noted the evidence of Miss Makgobe that when she saw E he retracted the allegation.  I do not make this finding.

(vi)	The mother denies that she made this comment to Miss Johnson, who did not give evidence, and the police officer did not deal with it in her evidence.  I do not make this finding.

(vii)	The mother agrees that she threatened E with beating and hitting him to get him to stop misbehaving, and I make this finding.

137	Section 2(i) is amended, so that it reads: on 16th January 2012, E told a member of the school staff that the father always wanted to fight him and punched him on the back.  The father accepts that E said what is reported, though he does not accept the truth of the report.  The finding reports what E said, and I make the finding as sought.

(ii)	This was a comment made to the teaching assistant, who gave evidence.  I make the finding as sought.

(iii)	This relates to the allegations made on 3rd July.  I have considered the evidence in detail.  I make the finding as sought.

(iv)	I have considered all the evidence, and I make the finding as sought.

138	 3(i)	I make this finding as amended.  In the same incident as 2(ii) above, E said D had ‘kneed’ him in the stomach, admitted by the mother in interview that she saw D hit E once, and I make the finding at 3(ii) as sought.

139	4(i) This report was made by a teacher who did not give evidence.  The father disputes this allegation.  I do not make the finding.

(ii)	This refers to the report on either 21st April or 21st May 2014.  The parents accept that E made statements.  I have considered all the evidence.  I make the finding as sought.

(iii)	I have considered all the evidence and make the finding as sought.

(iv)	The incident reported to the Initial Child Protection Conference.  There is no direct evidence in support of this allegation which the father denies.  I do not make this finding.

(v)	The parents accept that E has low self-esteem and makes comments of this sort.  I make the finding as sought.

(vi)	The parents accept what E is reported to have said as having been said. I make the finding as sought on this basis.

(vii)	This is based on the GOSH report.  I make the finding as sought.

(viii)	This is again based on the GOSH report, and in particular the story stem work, which is set out in detail in the report.  I make the finding as sought.

(ix)	This is based on the GOSH report, which I accept, and I make the finding as sought.
 
140	On the basis of all the findings I have made, I find that E suffered significant physical and emotional harm as a result of his parents’ care of him not being what it was reasonable to expect, and that threshold is established.

WELFARE:

Expert evidence

141	By July 2015, E has made significant improvement as reported by the headmaster, who told me that E’s level of achievement was then slightly below average, which, compared with where he had been a year earlier, was a huge improvement.  His work and his writing look different, his writing does not look angry and his work looks other children’s work.  His manner has softened, he converses better, he is very warm, and his sense of humour is coming out.  His interactions with other children have dramatically improved.  He engages emotionally.

142	The teaching assistant told me that E now has no outbursts at all.  He is engaged in his learning and completes the tasks that he is asked to do.  He shows no signs of self-esteem and he is happy.  That impression of E as enormously changed in confirmed by GOSH, by Miss Adeusi and by the guardian.  Indeed, I noted that the school told GOSH that E has grown both in confidence and in happiness.

143	In their report in January 2015 GOSH recommended that E should not return to his parents’ care.  They said: 

		“There is no basis upon which to believe that the parents are able or prepared to change their parenting practices, and as such E is likely to be at risk of further physical and emotional harm if he was returned.” (E82, para.6.11)

	They noted that E has a strong sense of what is and is not fair, that he is articulate, and he does not avoid conflict by withdrawing emotionally and physically, as compared with D, who does.  

		“Therefore, E is likely to interact with his parents in ways that they experience as challenging, and, given their limited repertoire of skills, leaving them feeling frustrated and negatively towards him.  In this way they are more likely to resort to harmful, rejecting, physically and emotionally abusive parenting practices.” (E82, para.6.11)

	They said that since the diagnosis neither parent had sought appropriate input and assistance. 

144	In the addendum report of 6th July, the GOSH team repeated their recommendation that E should not return to the care of his parents, but whereas in the first report they had had some concern about the great-aunt and had recommended that E be placed in long term foster care, by the time they reported in July 2015 they acknowledged that E had made dramatic progress in the great-aunt’s care and recommended that he remain in her care under a special guardianship order.

145	In that addendum report GOSH noted that the parents continued to say that E has autism.  By then the parents had begun to attend the Markfield Project, and they acknowledged that E had changed, but they attributed his change to his being older.  Miss Zimmerman told me that maturation could not account for such a presentation, and that in any event they had assessed E on an age and stage basis.

146	GOSH noted the great-aunt’s report of the changes in E.  She had told them that she was proud of her achievements in meeting his needs, he no longer refers to himself as “stupid”, he does not wish that he were dead, he is more likely to express his happiness, he is more sociable, he spends more time out of his room playing with his cousins, who are neighbours.  He does as he is asked and there is no longer a battle over everything.  He had a greater repertoire of things that he would eat, and therefore no longer suffers from constipation and no longer requires medication.  He no longer has outbursts and he can be reasoned with, which makes parenting him rewarding.  They concluded, the level of changes observed in E are such that they supported their own initial assessment, namely that his emotional and behavioural difficulties reflected the standard of emotional care provided by his parents (E177, para.6.8).

147	They considered the risks to E of returning to the care of his parents.  They found that the father was critical and undermining and the mother was passive and minimised the difficulties.  They considered that if E were to return home all of the progress he had made would be endangered.  They witnessed his confidence fall away during a two hour contact on 18th June. Miss Zimmerman told me that if E were to go home, “it would be grim, E would be very compromised, he would not be able to reach his potential”.  She described the risks as “very high”.

Contact

148	I have referred to the contact which took place on 18th June at GOSH. Miss Zimmerman observed E and his parents engaged in a game of table football and a game of Jenga.  She described the father in particular as making repeated comments which were of an educative, negative and/or discouraging nature, and she observed that neither parent praised E, although his mother was able to relate to him in a warmer and gentler way.  The result was that over the course of the two hour contact, E’s self-loathing increased and he was left with a sense of his own stupidity, saying, “I am stupid”.  Miss Zimmerman referred to the “glimmers of understanding” that she observed in the mother, who seemed to understand the need to listen and be patient, but did not support E sufficiently or at all in the contact.

149	The guardian observed another contact two days later, and gave a detailed account in her final analysis (E193, para.28.  She noted little verbal interaction between the mother and E, and little display of affection between them.  There was some play interaction between the father and E, which E seemed to enjoy, and she wondered whether that was partly because it was a rare experience, and did not gain the impression that that sort of play interaction was usual.  She noted that the father insisted on showing off his football skills.  Overall, the father’s focus during contact was likely to be assisting E with his homework rather than play and social interaction, although the guardian acknowledged that assisting with homework is helpful, but she thought that there should be a better balance in this family.  She considered that the mother’s interaction with E was minimal during the time that she spent with the family.

150	Miss Zimmerman and the guardian have considered the contact notes provided for the period when E had contact with his parents supervised by professional supervisors.  Miss Zimmerman noted that many of the concerns are repeatedly identified, in particular the parents struggle to know how to play with E.  They spent a lot of time watching television, the father was often on his phone, or otherwise engaged in conversation with an adult, and he tried to engage E in homework, which led to frustration on both sides and resulted in E saying he was stupid.

151	Miss Zimmerman told me that there are positives reported in the contact notes. She was taken to contact notes which indicated warmth and affection, but she did not agree that the quality of contact was uniformly good when supervised by contact supervisors.  The positives were not consistent, and a significant number of the contact notes were negative, indicating no warmth, interest or affection. Having considered the contact notes, I agree with her.

The local authority’s plan

152	The local authority’s final care plan is to continue E’s placement with the great-aunt under a special guardianship order.  I have read the special guardianship assessment dated 8th June 2015 prepared by Emma Barton, an independent social worker.  She noted an improvement since the connected person’s assessment was carried out in October, both in E and in his relationship with the great-aunt.  I note that the great-aunt has had one week’s training as a foster carer provided by the London Borough of Haringey, and I understand that she has enrolled on an English language course because she does not speak English fluently.

153	I have referred to the local authority’s amended support plan, about which the guardian still has concerns.  Miss Zimmerman advised that E should have an opportunity of taking part in homework clubs, and that may be easier if E moves to a school closer to the great-aunt’s home.  The support plan notes that to ensure that E has a smooth transition into his new school, X Primary School have said that they will allocate a therapeutic worker known to E from the primary school to his new school for two terms to ease the transition.  I noted the headmaster’s evidence to me that E would need to have a good transition if he were to move to a new school.

154	The guardian is concerned that today we do not know which school E would go to if he remained in the care of the great-aunt.  She has identified Y Primary School, but the request for a place there has been made during the school holidays, and I am told that the procedure is for the social worker, Miss Adeusi, to speak to the education department in Haringey and for that department to speak to their opposite numbers in Southwark, and that nothing can be done until after the beginning of the school term.  However, Miss Stephens has told me this morning that although it may not be the proper practice, the social worker will speak directly to the school and see whether they can confirm a place for E earlier than the beginning of term.  If there a place in not available for E before the beginning of the term, he will remain on the register at X Primary School, he will continue to go there, and this local authority will continue to pay for his transport to and from school.

155	The guardian is also concerned that there is not sufficient commitment by this local authority to obtaining a cognitive assessment of E.  This was a recommendation which came out of Miss Zimmerman’s oral evidence, but I note it was also a decision of the initial child protection conference as long ago as 10th June 2014.  

156	The local authority’s final care plan also proposes that if E remains in the care of the great-aunt his contact with his parents should be reduced.  At present it takes place once a week, supervised by the great-aunt at her home or in the community for about two hours.  The local authority’s proposal is that it should reduce to a minimum of six times a year, plus special occasions, to ensure that the placement with the great-aunt is stable, that E knows that his home is with her, so that he has space and time to settle there, knowing that a decision has been made and he is not going home, and so that they have time to do things together.

The parents’ case

157	The parents oppose the local authority’s care plan.  It is their case that E should return to their care and should grow up as part of their family with his siblings.  They say that they have not harmed him.  Although they say that their parenting did not cause E’s distressing behaviour, they nevertheless propose to make some changes.  The mother told me that they would change their communication with E, they would try to deal with his behaviour, they would try to appreciate what he can do, and they would try to encourage him.  She also told me that they would not talk to E about the lies that he has told because it is all in the past and he did not understand what he was doing.

158	The parents say that E should come home because he wants to come home, and his wishes and feelings should be given considerable weight because they have been consistently and clearly expressed.

159	They are concerned about the effect on E if his wishes and feelings are not taken into account and he does not return to their care,  They are concerned that he will feel rejected, particularly because all his other siblings have been brought up within the family and he would not be.  

160	They have told me that they have made efforts to understand the effects of autism or traits of autism on E’s behaviour, and they have taken courses in behaviour management.  I have seen letters from the Markfield Project which confirm that the parents have been attending a drop-in group for parents of disabled children for informal advice and mutual support since February 2015. The writer of the letter notes that the vast majority of the parents attending have children with autism.

161	They have attended courses and there are references to a course on communication and developmental movement play, which took place on 19th May, and another course “Understanding Behaviour”, which was held on 16th June with a second part which was due to be held on 14th July.  There is also reference to evening events hosted by the Haringey autism team.

162	The family support manager at the Markfield Project, Sonny Howard, told GOSH that the parents referred themselves to the project and they were keen to present as wanting to learn. They explained their current situation, namely E being cared for by a member of the family, as a consequence of misunderstanding and because E tells lies (E178, para.6.13). Miss Zimmerman told me that the parents struggled to say what the difference the courses had made to them.  The father told me in particular that he bought a book called “Understanding Myself”, which is about behaviour and is written for children and gave it to E to read and they discussed it and it was very helpful.

163	The parents acknowledge that E has made great progress over the past year and claim much of the credit for that progress.  In addition to contact once a week for two hours, they have also had telephone contact, but it seems that sometimes they have had more contact because the father told me that if E calls and asks them to come and see him - for example, during a holiday or something like a school inset day - then they do so.  Even on the father’s evidence, the parents have not been seeing E anything like as much as the six hours a week which the father suggested in his final evidence.  The parents have supported E’s placement with the great-aunt and they told me that they have developed a better relationship with her, which the great-aunt confirmed when she spoke to GOSH.  They have also supported the placement by encouraging E, when he did not want to do what the great-aunt wanted him to do, such as go to school or have his hair cut.  They have supported E’s education by helping him with homework and buying him books.  They have taken advice from the National Autism Society - for example, in order to encourage E to have a more varied diet - and they have worked on this together with the great-aunt.  They say that E’s improvements are the result of this family team effort and also because E is older and more mature.

164	If E is not returned to their care they support a special guardianship order to the great-aunt.  They certainly would not want E to be placed outside the family, and they have both told me that they would continue to support the placement, but they do not accept the drastic reduction in contact advised by the local authority from once a week to six times a year.

The guardian’s views

165	I have considered the guardian’s two reports.  She was concerned in her first report dated 1st April 2015 with the parents’ failure to acknowledge the risks that their parenting posed and the changes that were required.  She was even then of the view that E could be at risk of harm if he were returned to their care.

166	In her final analysis and in her evidence, the guardian told me that she has also witnessed a tremendous change in E.  Her view is that his parents have not been honest about how they parented E in the past, and without an acknowledgement of the past and an honest base to work from, the prospect of the success of any work that might be done with the parents to eliminate risk is very small.  Therefore, she cannot support E’s return to his parents’ care because he would be at risk of further physical and emotional harm. She therefore supports the making of a special guardianship order to the great-aunt and the local authority’s proposals with regard to contact.

The welfare checklist

167	E has told almost everybody who has been involved with him and who has given evidence in these proceedings that he wants to go home.  Sometimes he has given reasons which seem to relate more to things he would have at home.  The headmaster told me that E told his class teacher that he could choose to go home, and then he would have his laptop.  Miss Adeusi told me that E is articulate and told her that he wants to go home because his laptop is broken and he needs his PS4 games, which are at home.  Miss Barton, who carried out the special guardianship assessment, reported that E said, “I want to go home because my gran’s house is so small, it’s an irregular shape, I’m an only child here and I’m lonely, and at home it is more fun, I wouldn’t be lonely, I could play more games and I have two laptops”.  The guardian told me that on both occasions when she has seen E at school on his own, he told her that he wants to go home.  Most recently he told her, “It’s boring living with gran”, he has fun at home and he wants to see his sister.  

168	The guardian reported that E was very determined to meet the judge so that he could tell me that he wants to go home.  He told her he was “brave enough” to see the judge, which gave her cause to wonder whether he had been prompted, and whether promises had been made about what he might receive if he were to go home.

169	I met E on 7th July in the presence of Miss Anderson and her counsel, Miss Lewis (E201).  I was very pleased to meet E, but I was surprised that, having been most insistent that he meet the judge and tell me he wanted to go home, he did not tell me he wanted to go home, or indeed say anything about his wishes and feelings for a very long time, not until I asked him directly.  I gave him several opportunities, reminding him why he had come to see me, and he remained silent.  Fairly early on in the interview he said to me: “I’ll skip my mum and dad, you already know them”, and I said: “I know what other people say and what they say, but you can have your say”. E said: “They always come every week, it kind of irritates because they just come every week, every Saturday”.  I asked: “Why does it irritate you?” and he replied: “It’s too long”.  I asked: “What you like to happen?” and he replied: “My mind has gone blank.”  

170	When I gave E another opportunity to tell me his wishes and feelings he said his brain was “dull”.  So, eventually I asked him outright what he would like me to decide, and he said, “Either going or staying…It’s either that, because this is what it’s all about”, and I agreed with him, and he remained silent, and then said he was speechless.

171	As I was drawing the meeting to a close, saying that I thought E had said everything he wants to tell me, he said: “It says that I need to go home”.  I asked, “Where do you mean?” and he said: “My mum and dad’s house, I’ve had enough time at gran’s home, I keep playing games”, and he told me was talking about Console games.  A little while later he said: “I want to go home to my mum and dad’s house, I’ve had enough time here at my gran’s home, I’m missing my parents, and all that, do you know what I mean?  I’m missing my sisters a lot, not really my parents because I see them every Saturday, that’s all I have to say.”  

172	Then the guardian asked him directly: “You said earlier you find it irritating seeing mum and dad every week, would you like them to come more often, less often, the same?” and he said after, in my view, some hesitation: “More often, I think”.  “What about the time, is that too long?” the guardian asked and E said: “No, I want it the same.”

173	Having referred to that note of the meeting, I agree with the guardian’s view that the way in which E spoke and the delay before he spoke, conveyed some ambivalence, but nonetheless he stated his wishes and feelings.

174	Considering the welfare check list, I also have to take into account the harm which I have found that E has suffered, and his need, which I accept, and his need for stable, consistent and nurturing care.

Analysis of realistic options

175	Miss Adeusi provided a very helpful analysis of the two realistic options in this case (C147): returning E to the care of his mother and father and making a special guardianship order to the great-aunt.  Nobody advocates a care order, with a plan for long term foster care and I do not consider that any further.

176	Looking at the first option, E’s return to the care of his parents, the strengths are that rehabilitation is always the first choice if it is in the child’s best interests. It is what E wants and it is what his parents and no doubt his siblings want, and the family would be together.  However, there are a number of significant weaknesses.  I have found that the parents have caused E significant physical and emotional harm which they do not acknowledge.  They do not accept the effect of their past parenting on E.  They have done some work with the Markfield Project, but all of that work is based on their belief that E has a condition or autistic traits which are the cause of his past behaviour.  The parents’ focus is on managing E’s behaviour, even though the school and the great-aunt report that those distressing behaviours are no longer seen and E has changed almost beyond recognition.  At the same time, the parents claim most of the credit for the positive changes E has made.  This is a contradiction which runs like a fault line through the parents’ case and which I find results from their dishonesty about their past parenting of E and its effects on him.  I note, in reaching this conclusion, that I agree with the local authority, GOSH and the guardian, but my conclusion is based on my review of all the evidence.

177	Consequently, if E were to return to live with his mother and father, there is a risk that physical and emotional harm will recur and that E’s self-confidence will crumble, as it did at the contact observed by GOSH on 18th June.  If that happens, all his gains in confidence, his educational gains, and his gains in relationships will be lost and he will once again be the sad, self-loathing, miserable child that I read about in the reports up to July 2014, and he will not reach the potential which he clearly has.

178	The prospect of working successfully with the parents while they maintain their current positions is very small.  GOSH said they cannot not work with them and the guardian agrees.  The work that they are doing at the Markfield Project is based on the wrong premise.  It is all about E’s behaviour, including the book that the father bought him, and little of it is about understanding their own behaviour.

179	Turning to the second option of a special guardianship order, the strengths are that the great-aunt has proven to be a good carer for E and he is happy and settled in her care.  She has had the support of the parents, and I have no doubt that they would continue to support her, but most of the credit for the improvements in E must go to the great-aunt because he lives with her, she provides security and stability and the consistency which has allowed him to grow in confidence and happiness.

180	I note that she does not seek an adoption order.  She is not trying to exclude the parents from E’s life nor E from the parents’ lives.  She has made a better relationship with them, and I am sure this is to the credit of all the adults. 

181	The weaknesses of making such an order are that this is not what E wants, because although I have referred to some ambivalence, I have accepted his wishes and feelings. The wishes and feelings of a child, even a child of nearly ten, are important, but they are not determinative because what I have to consider first and foremost is what is in the interests of his welfare.  I acknowledge that he would not be brought up by his parents in their home with his siblings, though I have also noted that his siblings, perhaps with the exception of A, do not visit him a great deal.

182	The decision I have come to is that E’s welfare requires the safety, security and stability of his placement with the great-aunt continuing under a special guardianship order.

The special guardianship support package

183	The guardian would like me to make the decisions which I have indicated, but adjourn making the orders so that the proceedings can continue, in effect to provide a framework for work to be done to ensure that E has a smooth transition to a school closer to the great-aunt’s home, and that he provides that he needs.  I have referred to the efforts that the local authority has made and the further efforts that Miss Stephens has told me that they will make to try to obtain confirmation of a place for E at Y Primary School before the beginning of term. But if that cannot be achieved, E will continue at X Primary School, where he is loved, and the local authority have confirmed that they will continue to provide an escort.  Also I note that X Primary School wanted to have a good-bye party for E which would give him an opportunity to say good-bye to all his friends at X Primary School.

184	As to the cognitive assessment, I have noted that this was identified first by the local authority in its initial child protection case conference on 10th June 2014 (F63) and was later suggested by Miss Zimmerman in her evidence.

185	The local authority’s position is that it will not pay for a cognitive assessment, though presumably it would have done so had it been carried out shortly after the case conference took place, and it will liaise with education and health departments in Southwark, and presumably with the local authority in Southwark, to arrange for that.

186	I have had a letter from Miss Stephens which confirms that the team manager and deputy head of service for the court team have authorised her to say that the current social worker, Miss Adeusi, will continue to be involved for a short but sufficient period to continue to progress E’s transfer to a local school in Southwark and to make a referral for a cognitive assessment of E.  I assume that means that she will first obtain the consent of funding parties to fund it, because she would not be able to make a referral if the funding were not in place.

187	The third matter is that Miss Adeusi will write a supporting letter to the Southwark Housing Department supporting the great-aunt’s application for a transfer to a two bedroom property, because at the moment she and E are living in a one bedroom property.

188	Turning to the question of contact, I asked for a plan for the reduction in contact, which I have not been given, so I have attempted one myself.  It seems to me that if contact were to move from once a week to one a fortnight and then once a month in the gradual way in which it has been agreed this should happen, we would be looking at a period of some three or four months during which contact would be happening once a month.  My suggestion is that there should then be a review.  The local authority has said that contact should take a place of minimum of six times a year, and that there could be additional contact for celebrations.  Given that this is a large family, there could be a lot of celebrations, for example, it seems to me that there could be seven celebrations for the birthdays of the parents and the siblings, and Christmas and Easter, and perhaps extra contact in the summer.  If one took all of those into account there could be many more contacts than six times a year.

189	My view is that the final care plan should be amended to set out a pattern for the reduction of contact along the lines I have suggested, and there should be a commitment to a review.  I say that because it was suggested, I think in the guardian’s evidence, that if when contact reached the level of once a month, E was settled and the great-aunt was happy about it, it might remain at the level of frequency.  There should be a review at that stage which should be reflected in an amended care plan.  If it is not, and I cannot make the local authority amend its care plan, then I will include in the preamble to my order a statement that there should be a gradual reduction in contact over a period of some three or four months followed by a review, and noting that, in any event, contact will take place at least six times a year with other special occasions. I do not think it is appropriate to make a contact order, because that would be too prescriptive, but I am prepared to set out my views in a preamble, if appropriate.

190	Mr. Littlewood suggested that it would not be appropriate to adjourn the final orders to see whether a place can be found for E at school, or whether the cognitive assessment is going to take place quickly.  I accept that argument noting that there have been occasions in the past when I  have perhaps found that care plans were inchoate because these sorts of issues were not finalised.  I cannot say that this is an inchoate care plan.  It is quite clearly a care plan that E remains where he is and where he is settled.  I cannot make the local authority pay for a cognitive assessment, although I will note in my preamble that not only was it the advice of Miss Zimmerman, but it was a decision of the initial child protection case conference in June 2014.

191	There should be disclosure of documents.  Certainly documents can be disclosed to the London Borough of Southwark.  I do not know whether the local authority is seeking disclosure of documents to the great-aunt.  I think that she will want a transcript of this judgment.  It seems to me that this is a judgment which will need to be published on BAILII in anonymised form because of the findings I have made.

192	I will make a special guardianship order in respect of E to the great-aunt.  I do not make a supervision order.  I am not asked to.  I do not make a contact order for the reasons I have explained.