Brief background
5.For the purposes of this judgment it is only necessary to give an overview of the background to the application. 6.M had a troubled childhood. She exhibited behavioural problems at school from a very early age and by the age of eight had been permanently excluded from two primary schools. She then attended a specialist school for children with social and behavioural needs, and subsequently a pupil referral unit from the age of 14.7.M’s parents are separated and she grew up with her mother, MGM. She has two older siblings, neither of whom experienced any similar difficulties in their childhood or adolescence. 8.During M’s childhood there was some limited involvement by the local authority. In 2006 when she was seven years old M made an allegation against MGM of physical abuse; this was investigated but not substantiated. In 2007 an initial child protection conference was convened and M was placed on a child in need plan. In 2014 when M was displaying behaviour problems as a teenager the family was referred to Families First under the Early Help framework. 9.T was born when M was 16 years old. At the time M was living at home with MGM and her older sister. A pre-birth assessment indicated that M would be able to care for T with support from MGM. 10.In December 2016 there was an incident when T, then aged 3 months, sustained serious injuries while in M’s care, in an accident due to a lack of supervision. As a result the local authority issued care proceedings and an interim care order was made. T was discharged from hospital after about three weeks and placed in foster care. 11.A number of assessments were carried out during the proceedings, including a parenting assessment of M and special guardianship assessments of MGM and M’s older sister, T’s maternal aunt. 12.The conclusions of the parenting assessment, on which the local authority’s final care plan was based, were that M was not in a position to provide long-term care for T due to her immaturity and risky behaviours: she could not meet T’s basic needs without considerable support, and was struggling to manage her own care independently. 13.Both special guardianship assessments were positive. The local authority’s final care plan was that a special guardianship order should be made in favour of MGM, on the basis that M would move out of the family home. 14.M’s position throughout the proceedings was that she wished to care for her son but if that was not possible she would support MGM as a carer. 15.In June 2017 a special guardianship order was made in favour of MGM together with a 6-month supervision order. M’s position as recorded on the order was that she ‘[does] not actively oppose’ the orders made. In accordance with the care plan, M moved out of MGM’s home and into semi-independent accommodation, supported by the Leaving Care team. 16.M’s contact with T was initially arranged directly between the family. In September 2020, after difficulties arose between M and MGM, the local authority agreed to offer a contact centre place for a time-limited period to allow the parties to reach an agreement about contact arrangements. The local authority offered to facilitate discussions between M and MGM but M refused to engage. In December 2021 the local authority ceased funding the contact centre place. 17.In December 2020 M made a report to the police alleging that she had been physically, sexually and emotionally abused by MGM during her childhood. The police carried out an investigation which was closed in June 2021. The local authority carried out an assessment and concluded that T was not at risk of harm in MGM’s care.