Case No. ZE21P00991

44.The primary issue in the 2017 proceedings was M’s ability to provide for T’s needs, including his basic care needs, and to keep him safe. As the final orders were unopposed there is no written or transcribed judgment. The agreed threshold document and the assessments carried out within those proceedings together establish a ‘baseline’ for my evaluation of M’s case that she has achieved significant change. 45.M’s case as to her change of circumstances is set out in her witness statement. She accepts that in the 2017 proceedings she was not in a position to care for T. She says that since 2017 she has achieved change as follows:a.She has sought therapeutic support; in 2021 she was diagnosed with complex PTSD and prescribed medication to improve her mood and sleep.b.Her living arrangements are stable: she lives in rented accommodation and has applied for housing through the local authority. She is able to care for herself and manage a household budget.c. She has qualified as an Eyelash Technician and has registered as a sole trader with HMRC. She intends to start a business selling eyelash extension courses online and to that end has completed a course in International Business and the Prince’s Trust Enterprise Programme. d.She has undertaken several parenting courses, including the Parents Together Online Parenting Course, a Knowledge Door course in child psychology, and a Safeguarding Children course.e.She has ended her relationship with T’s father and now has no communication with him. f.She has consistently attended contact and the notes filed by the local authority indicate that she has a warm and affectionate relationship with T and that he enjoys his time with her. 46.M concludes: “In previous proceedings, the main concern of professionals was neglectful parenting. However, I do genuinely feel that I have grown as a person and matured significantly. I feel that I am now in a position to offer [T] the love and care he deserves, and I feel that the contact reports are a good reflection of the care that I would be able to offer to T.”47.The evidence filed by the local authority on this issue is primarily contained in a statement from the Team Manager of the Leaving Care Team which continues to provide support to M. There is also relevant information in the police records as to events since the 2017 proceedings. The local authority relies on the following evidence: a.In 2018 there were two incidents when the police were called to MGM’s home because M had removed T without MGM’s agreement. On both occasions T was returned after the police intervened. b.There is a police record in June 2019 of a ‘possible altercation’ at M’s residence during which she sustained a laceration to her hand which she said was caused by a knife.c.In January 2020 M was banned from BARTS sexual health clinic for aggressive behaviour and assaulting a patient. d.In October 2020 M made an application for a non-molestation order against MGM. At some point, I am not sure when, the application was dismissed.e.Prior to these proceedings being issued, the Leaving Care team had expressed concern about M’s mental health. A referral was made to Prevent in 2020 or 2021 raising a concern that M was at risk of becoming radicalised. f.M’s engagement with the Leaving Care Team has been poor. She has not permitted her Personal Advisor to visit her at home for the past 8 months and her engagement with support is intermittent and only on her own terms. g.Two of M’s placements have broken down because of disputes with other residents. h.M’s accommodation, and all bills and charges, is still fully funded by the Leaving Care Service. The local authority has asked her (along with its policy in respect of care leavers) to apply for Housing Benefit in order to take on responsibility for the tenancy herself but M delayed in doing so for many months and the application has still not gone through; as a result M is one of only a few young adults in the service for whom the local authority still pays full rent and charges on their accommodation. MGM says that she herself continued to support M financially until M broke off contact with her in August 2020. i.The landlord and neighbours have raised complaints about the condition of M’s property (particularly management of waste and loud noise at night); these issues have continued since this application was issued. j.Contact between M and MGM broke down after the local authority ceased funding it in December 2021. The local authority has attempted to assist M and MGM in setting up contact arrangements outside the contact centre, but this has not been possible because M is ‘not speaking’ to MGM at present and has effectively refused to engage with this process.48.The local authority’s (and MGM’s) case therefore is that while M has taken some limited steps in recent months to improve her circumstances (and in particular to move towards finding employment), she is still a long way from being able to manage to live independently and care for herself, let alone for T. 49.I appreciate that M may dispute some of what is contained in the local authority and police records, and there is a possibility that not all of the reports are accurate. My task at this stage is to undertake a fair and realistic assessment of the evidence, recognising that it is as yet untested. 50.The fact that M has ended her relationship with T’s father, assuming as I do for present purposes that this is the case, is undoubtedly a change in her circumstances. The risk posed by T’s father was highlighted in the parenting assessment (with which he did not engage), although it was far from being the sole issue of concern and he does not feature at all in the agreed final threshold document. 51.The steps that M has taken to obtain therapeutic support for herself are an indication that she has developed some insight into her difficulties. Her efforts to improve her parenting, albeit all quite recent, indicate that she is motivated to achieve change. MGM raises a concern that M’s engagement with mental health services may indicate a level of vulnerability and that may be right, although the evidence on this issue is limited. If the application were to proceed it is likely that a psychological report would be necessary. 52.However overall the evidence strongly suggests that M has not yet achieved stability in terms of her own accommodation, finances or self-care. She continues to be substantially dependent on the local authority for practical and financial support. The reports of aggressive and volatile behaviour and disputes with neighbours and other residents in her accommodation are recent. M’s immaturity and the difficulties she experienced in providing safe and stable care for T were the primary reason why the proceedings concluded with a special guardianship order in favour of MGM. 53.In the local authority’s account of M’s response to its recent attempts to work with the family to set up contact, there are echoes of the parenting assessment in 2017 in which it is recorded that M and F were ‘ignoring’ each other. The independent social worker commented then that M’s attitude to relationships appeared naïve and immature. 54.I conclude that M is still quite a long way from being able to demonstrate a significant change in her own circumstances since the special guardianship order was made.