Case No. LV21C01426

35.Both mother and F1 have filed statements of their evidence and both have given oral evidence to the Court. In essence it is the evidence of both parents that they accept that the care they have given to all the children has been significantly compromised by their lifestyle and their use of drugs and alcohol. It is both parents’ position that they have learned lessons from their experiences and from these proceedings which have caused them to take stock and to improve their positions. They both asked the Court to accept that they are motivated to accept professional support to enable them to stop using alcohol and drugs and to maintain abstinence. It is to their credit that they identify the self-improvement of their home conditions as an indication of their willingness and ability to change.36.The mother and F1 have, throughout the proceedings, sought to be assessed as joint carers for the children and on this basis, they have been the subject of two parental assessments; a local authority assessment and an assessment by an independent social worker, Mr David Butterworth, who carried out his assessment under the PAMS model acknowledging the parents’ cognitive difficulties. The initial report of Mr Butterworth was dated 20 August 2021. Mr Butterworth filed a brief non-compliance report on 18 February 2022 and an addendum report for the purpose of the final hearing which was filed on 3 November 2022. Neither the local authority nor Mr Butterworth support the placement of any of the children in the care of the mother or F1 either alone or jointly.37.It is the conclusion of Mr Butterworth that the ability of both parents properly to care for their own children is significantly compromised by the parents own early life experiences. In the case of the mother Mr Butterworth opines that her experiences prevent her from understanding the difficulties in intimate relationships in adult life, her use of illegal substances to self medicate, her unresolved feelings and long-standing difficulties in parenting. Mr Butterworth describes the experiences of F1 which he says will have caused him anxiety and anger. It is stated that F1’s use of cannabis is described by him as the only way that he could feel normal and that is use has been ongoing for 10 years. This is described as F1 resulting to further unhealthy and unhelpful strategies to absent himself from the pressures of his life.38.Mr Butterworth recommends in his report that the mother and F1 require a long-term intervention of counselling or therapeutic sessions and confirmed that these will take place for a period of 12 months to be effective.39.The independent social worker does give credit to the parents for improving their home conditions but qualifies this by doubting that the parents would be able to maintain improvement if simultaneously they have the care of children.40.I have had the benefit of oral evidence from both the mother and F1. The mother tells me that she would do anything she could to have the children come home. My overall impression of the mother’s evidence was that she was evasive and avoidant of the main issues of the case. Whilst I’m sure that the mother’s indication that she would do whatever it takes to have the children home is sincere and well meant, I have formed the view that the mother does not understand the significance of the failure to provide a safe environment for the children. I note that the mother has recently self referred, again, to a drug support agency however she has missed her first appointment. There is no evidence of the appointed been rearranged. In any event the mother’s history is sufficient for me to find that even if the mother did initially engage voluntarily in therapeutic help this would not be sustained.41.The Court accepts Mr Butterworth’s opinion that professional intervention is required. The length of time the therapy would take to complete and the addition of an assessment period to evaluate the sustainability of the treatment would be outside of a reasonable timetable and would be contrary to the children’s welfare to postpone a decision on permanent placement for the children until such therapy has been evaluated.42.F1’s ongoing drug use is of serious concern. Recent tests prepared for the purpose of these proceedings contained in a report dated 2 November 22 confirm ongoing use of cannabis cocaine and opiates. In his evidence F1 minimises his drug use and naïvely says that it would take him a month (which he clarified to be 28 days) to “get clean”.43.The ongoing lifestyle of the parents between removal of the children from their care to the present day is of grave concern. The police have been involved on two significant occasions. On one occasion the police forced entry into the home of the mother and F1 (where the children would have been living but for their removal) and a search revealed a list of contraband including drugs, drug paraphernalia and offensive weapons including a knuckle duster. I found F1’s explanation for his possession of these items to be unconvincing. Even if F1’s explanations that he was forced to hold the drugs for a third party, that the sword was purely an ornament and that the knuckle duster was simply found in a back alley were true, the fact of these items being found in the home, where the children would have lived, demonstrates the parents’ inability to understand the importance of providing a safe home; it raises significant concern over the lifestyle to which the children could be exposed if they were to live with the mother and F1.