Case No. EWFC-82

29.P is a dual-heritage child. On his father’s side, his father is black British with family origins in Jamaica. His mother is white European emanating from Spain. Therefore, there are two languages at play here and one of the important matters I have to consider is the need, if P goes to Spain, for his English language to be fully promoted by the maternal family with an aspiration that he be bilingual so that he can speak freely and fluently with his father who does not speak Spanish, although he may have a few words. 30.A happy feature of this case in terms of P’s background is that both parents are adherent to the Rastafarian faith and they both agree to P having an Ital diet. They both agree that he should not be vaccinated against COVID and, therefore, unlike many other cases, there is happily agreement in terms of how he will be brought up in the context of his cultural and religious beliefs. This is a positive factor in this case which needs to be noted. 31.The key welfare checklist factors, in my judgment, are plainly the risk of harm and the capability of each parent to meet P’s needs and the evidence in this case is understandably focused upon those issues which are inter-related and overlapping. I have dealt with the harm suffered by P in the context of my threshold decision and I need now to consider the question of future harm. 32.It has been submitted by Mr Coutts and indeed the guardian that both parents present risks as to future harm for P and what I have to consider is where that harm can best be managed and, of course, the degree and extent of that risk of harm. I need therefore to analyse, which I did not do in my threshold judgment, the risk of harm on the mother’s side relating to her mental health issues and I propose to do that first. 33.As well as the episode in April 2021, there is in the mother’s background previous mental health difficulties. There is in the bundle a report from the hospital in Spain where the mother was admitted, I believe, for about two weeks in August 2017. On that occasion, she suffered a psychotic episode while she attended a music festival in Spain. I believe it was the same music festival as where she met the father some years later. 34.It was the view of the doctors that that psychosis may well have been drug induced or at least the use of cannabis would have played a part in it and I note that the mother told Dr McClintock and the social worker that she had smoked heavily, although that was different from the evidence that she gave me and I consider it likely that she had smoked heavily as that is what she said. She was advised not to use cannabis. She did not comply with that advice in the sense that she resumed using cannabis not as a heavy user but socially and on an ongoing basis. The report also says (E1): “The family have stated that the patient has experienced similar clinical episodes in the last months, but she has not been treated or had any outpatient follow-up as the patient and her partner have been reluctant.”35.Ms Hasan cross examined the mother on this issue. She dissented from the suggestion that there had been previous concerns. We do not know anything about the seriousness of those concerns. They obviously were not so serious that the family considered that she needed hospital treatment and/or she may have been reluctant as the note says, but there is a suggestion there that there were previous concerns in the preceding months. 36.Then of course there was the florid and acute psychotic episode which occurred in April 2021. Dr McClintock in his report emphasises the seriousness of that episode because the deterioration occurred so quickly and because P was involved in the mother’s psychotic delusions in that the mother considered that she needed to kill P in some way to release her parent or parents who were trapped within him. Dr McClintock was right, in my judgment, to emphasise the very serious concern that that episode gave him and, indeed - and Ms Hasan drew attention to this point - he saw in the hierarchy of concerns the risk presented by the mother as being more prominent than any risks arising from domestic abuse. In saying that, he obviously had no detailed knowledge of the domestic abuse and I have heard a lot of evidence about it and have made findings. 37.He made clear recommendations that the mother would need to be on antipsychotic medication for at least six months and he also took the view, given the involvement of P in the episode, that there may need to be consideration given to medication for the foreseeable future (para.10(8)(c) at E120): “My overall view is that, whilst two brief episodes of psychosis would normally necessitate treatment with antipsychotic medication for at least a six month period, in the case of the mother the implications for herself and the child of a further episode of psychosis are so great that she should consider remaining compliant with medication for the foreseeable future.”38.In fact, the mother ceased taking her antipsychotic medication by July 2021. I have three reports from her treating team in the bundle. The first one is from October 2021, and I will return to that in a moment. Before I do so, I also read and heard evidence about a relapse which took place in May 2021 when the mother was living in a recovery centre. I read a very disturbing contact note dated 25 May 2021, P’s first birthday, which plainly indicated to those involved in the contact and indeed to me reading it that the mother was mentally unwell. 39.I then also read within the police disclosure the evidence of those involved in her care at the recovery centre which described significant concerns for her mental wellbeing, strange behaviour, muttering and walking backwards. There was also a concern by one of the staff that the mother was not compliant with her medication. The guardian was also attempting to meet with the mother at that point and she was able to describe in her report and to me the mother’s very worrying behaviour which made it impossible for her to meet with her. Surprisingly, the treating team report of October 2021 which is a full report made no reference to this May 2021 relapse. They make it clear that they did not consider that the mother needed to resume antipsychotic medication when they met with her in October having been informed she had ceased it in July. Therefore, there is a difference of view between the treating team and Dr McClintock.40.Their more recent reports from February and April (F92 and F93 respectively) are short reports. They refer to the mother remaining well; to having no concerns about her mental health; that she had continued to engage well with support and contact with the team, including relapse prevention work. The second report refers to her good insight into her condition. 41.I heard detailed cross examination of the mother about these periods and it was clear to me from her answers that she did not accept, even with the benefit of hindsight, that she had relapsed in May 2021 and was clear that her behaviour on 25 May 2021 was an emotional reaction to P’s first birthday and her being apart from him. Therefore, I have formed the view that the mother’s insight is not as good as the treating team have described it as being, although I accept that there is some insight. I find that it is not as good and complete as the treating team believe and I note that that was the view of the guardian in her oral evidence. Therefore, that is a factor that the family - if I accede to the local authority’s care plan - need to have strongly in mind. 42.Finally, to bring matters up to date, although there is no medical evidence about this, the guardian in her report referred to concerning behaviour by the mother not necessarily amounting to a psychotic episode - she is not a doctor in any event - but behaviour which she described as agitated and as the mother being emotionally labile and having difficulty in focussing. The guardian said that that was when she spoke to her on the phone on 31 March and that she was fine when she saw her in contact on 8 April, on both occasions without an interpreter. She did confirm that when she actually had a formal interview with the mother subsequently with an interpreter, the mother presented perfectly well. But the picture does suggest someone who is vulnerable to further episodes of relapse. 43.She plainly would be strongly advised not to use cannabis. To her credit, there is no evidence that she has used cannabis for the period of these proceedings and she says she has not used it since her pregnancy. There is no evidence one way or the other by way of testing for that period, but there is testing during these proceedings. It is plain that she needs to avoid the use of cannabis given her vulnerability. 44.As I have said, I am not as confident as the mental health treating team. The position seems to lie somewhere between what Dr McClintock said and advised and what the treating team say and, therefore, there is plainly an ongoing risk and the mother is vulnerable in that respect. The issue is then whether and how that risk can be managed. 45.In considering this risk, the second part of the equation obviously is a consideration of the role of the wider maternal family and I have before me the benefit of a full assessment of the family in Spain and a view on their ability to protect. I am not going to go into detail in terms of their physical and financial circumstances and matters of that sort. Suffice it to say, that they are a very close knit and cohesive family. The grandparents have four children, so the mother has three siblings. They have four grandchildren other than P and they all live locally. As I have said, they are a particularly close-knit family meeting up regularly and enjoying close family relationships. The grandparents are heavily involved with the grandchildren in Spain including providing regular ongoing care and the view of the assessor is that not only did they seek medical care for the mother in August 2017, but now they obviously have significant further information and experience as a result of these proceedings and they are likely (I am paraphrasing here) to be hypervigilant to any change in the mother’s presentation. That is not just the grandparents, that is also the wider family. 46.The view of the assessor, the local authority and the guardian is that they all expressed confidence in this closely knit family to be able to recognise early signs and to step in and the guardian spoke about a low threshold for intervention. The guardian also spoke about a cohesive and integrated family support network and she took the view that the network was sufficiently robust to protect P in the event of a deterioration of the mother’s mental health. 47.Obviously, I have not heard evidence from the grandparents. No one suggested I needed to. I note they have been present each and every day listening carefully to the evidence through an interpreter and supporting their daughter. I am satisfied that the professional view of the assessor, the local authority and the guardian that this close family network of intelligent people with insight would be able to step in at an early stage and indeed they are likely to be far more insistent about stepping in than they were in August 2017. 48.I make it clear that is not to say that the mother does not have a role in this. As I have said, I found that she does have insight into her condition but her insight is not complete and she would be assisted by further psycho-education and further reflection. Thus I do take into account that the mother, having gone through this ordeal and put P through this ordeal, would herself be much more vigilant about signs of deterioration. I do not say that the grandparents are alone and the family will not have the mother’s own contribution, I am simply saying that the mother’s insight still is not complete. 49.Those are my findings on that particular risk:it exists; it is real; the mother is vulnerable, but I consider that this particular family unit can step in and protect their much loved grandson and nephew. 50.Turning to the risks on the father’s side: the primary risk on the father’s side is what the guardian described as “a risk of emotional and physical harm resulting from the father’s unaddressed difficulties in managing his angry and aggressive impulses”. Those were the guardian’s words and I endorse them. 51.I have covered this ground to some extent in my threshold judgment, so I will try not to repeat myself unduly. I note, however, very sadly, that the father had a troubled background - he was within the care system himself between the ages of twelve and seventeen - and he has a considerable number of previous convictions which I recorded in my last judgment; a number of those relating to offences against the person. His last conviction which did relate to domestic abuse, as widely defined, against a former partner goes back as long ago as 2014. However, Dr Campbell who assessed him suggested that the presence of complaints of domestic abuse by his then current partner, the mother, which I have now found to be well founded, suggest that, whilst the father has matured and is better at managing his impulses and is less likely to respond to triggers, there is still a propensity for unregulated, angry and aggressive behaviour. 52.Dr Campbell addressed a number of further questions in particular by the father’s representatives in an addendum report, but he remained clear in that view. He refers, first of all, to his earlier report and says (E286): “The issue I would draw particular attention to for this assessment is the father’s propensity to anger and aggression. This view of him is supported by his offending history along with the recent non-molestation order. It is relevant that he said his offending history is very much in the past when his last conviction was in 2015. These words come across as a somewhat unrealistic or inaccurate distancing of himself from his own not wholly historic behaviour.” At para.9 (E287), he said this: “A key word here is ‘propensity’ which from my understanding refers to a general inclination or likelihood. In his past, the father has shown what might be viewed as a propensity to anger and aggression given his offending history. In my view, anger and aggression when it persists over time is likely rather than not to amount to a propensity.”53.He then goes on to say what I have just said that there has been a process of maturation, but that he has not always been successful in addressing this dysregulated behaviour. He also said this and I highlight this: “My concern is that he comes across in his detailed statement as more or less taking no responsibility of what went on between them. In my view, given his history of showing a capacity for anger and aggression, it is implausible that he did not at some level contribute to the conflict he had with the mother by which I mean contribute to making it worse.”I have indeed now found that he was responsible for domestic abuse. He concluded at E289 that the propensity for aggression does continue. 54.The failure to acknowledge responsibility in himself together with a minimisation of the behaviour was evident to Dr Campbell, to the guardian and also to myself. That is obviously a risk factor in itself because it suggests that the father may only be at what is often described as the pre-contemplation stage of change. Even after my judgment, the thrust of the father’s case that the mother was the danger and he was not did not change at all nor did the thrust of the cross examination of the guardian and the social worker. Perhaps it is over-optimistic to expect him to respond to my judgment so quickly, but I simply note that feature of his case. 55.Evidence of his difficulties in controlling his anger and aggression also comes out in small episodes and Ms Brown cross examined him about his behaviour towards the contact supervisor when she described him as behaving in an unnecessarily hostile way towards her (I189) and, plainly, I find that if he is challenged in any way there is a risk of a hostile response. 56.The guardian saw this unaddressed risk as a serious and ongoing risk. She said that the risk has reduced because the parents are now separated, although there is still a risk of P being exposed to volatility and verbal aggression in their relationship but a lesser risk of physical aggression. But what she pointed out, correctly in my view, is that the risk of such behaviour in a future relationship remains present as does the risk in inter-personal relations generally not in the context of an intimate relationship - the small piece of evidence about the contact supervisor being an example. - The guardian says that, unless this propensity is addressed, there is a real continuing risk to P of emotional harm in terms of being exposed to such behaviour but also a risk of physical harm in being caught up in the crossfire if such behaviour occurred particularly within a domestic context. I agree with the guardian’s views, and I agree with those of Dr Campbell, and I consider that this is a real and continuing risk. 57.Obviously, the risks I have identified in the case of the mother and the father are very different in their nature and quality. But one key difference is that I have already found that I consider that the risk on the mother’s side can be managed in part by her developing insight, albeit incomplete, but also by the wider maternal family. 58.In contrast, there is no clear protective factor to manage the father’s risk. His family are intensely loyal to him; they all share the same perception of the dynamics of this case that he is the injured party, the victim, and that the mother represents the real danger and, in her oral evidence, the guardian made clear that she considered they would have difficulty in challenging his view. I agree with that but I also consider they probably would not, in the first place, challenge his view as they appear to accept it. There may be an exception with his aunt who referred to him in uncomplimentary terms in an audio tape that I listened to, but the other members of the family appear very much to share the father’s narrative of the case and the history of events. Therefore, unless he takes steps to address this risk himself - I note he has in the past in 2014 and 2015 undertaken courses, but they have not been adequate to cause a significant shift in this propensity - that risk remains and, as I have said, I do not currently see what protection there is. 59.Ms Hasan on his behalf argued that a supervision order would provide protection because he would be monitored by the local authority. I note two things about that submission: firstly, that a supervision order generally only extends for a year, although it can be extended for up to three years; and, secondly, by the nature of this sort of behaviour it occurs in a moment and the local authority would not be there 24/7 to provide protection. I do not see a supervision order as addressing this particular issue. 60.The father - and of course this is no fault of his - also suffers from physical difficulties in that he has degenerative disc disease and there are problems with his hip. The guardian referred to this in her oral evidence and saw this as an added difficulty for the father in dealing with a child who is getting increasingly bigger and more active. The father points out that this has not caused difficulties in contact and there is no evidence that it did, but I note that contact is for obviously a limited period and I also note the impact on someone’s psychological wellbeing of being subject to pain and limitation of movement. That is not to say, and I stress, that a parent with physical difficulties cannot parent a child more than adequately. It is simply to refer to the fact that there is this further difficulty, it could impact on the father psychologically in terms of his wellbeing with a consequential potential impact on P and it may also prove more of a difficulty as P gets older and bigger. I refer to it not as a central element, but as a potential super-added difficulty. 61.I note also, and again this is not a key point in the case, that, whilst the father has been passionate in his denunciation of the mother and her actions in April, he himself did not act intuitively protectively when this incident occurred. He contacted his sister first and it was his solicitor who was contacted by the family who advised him to call an ambulance. That is not a major deficit, but it causes me some concern about his intuitive ability to act protectively not least in a context when he has been so vehemently passionate about the mother’s actions. 62.The other risk, in my judgment, relates to the use of cannabis and this risk impacts on both parents. Both parents to their great credit have not tested positive for any drugs during these proceedings; that is particularly impressive in the father’s case because I found in my judgment that he was a heavy and frequent user of cannabis up until these proceedings started and the fact that he has been able to stop over a number of months is impressive. 63.Having said that, the mother has used cannabis when she has been advised not to because of her mental health vulnerabilities. She went on doing that until she was pregnant with P. She too has tested negative. But I do consider in relation to both parents that when the scrutiny of the court proceedings is over that there is a risk that both of them may resort to using cannabis again. The father describes it as a spiritual element of the Rastafarian faith, the mother may have the same view and I do have a concern that there is a risk - perhaps greater in the case of the father because the mother’s family will be astute to note if the mother is using cannabis - and perhaps greater in the case of the father because he used heavily during the early part of P’s life. I raise that and find that to be a further potential risk, perhaps slightly greater in the father’s case, for both parents. 64.The second key issue which I consider under the question of risk of future harm is, of course, the issue of the ability to promote each parent’s relationship with the child. The mother has been very clear, even in the most miserable period of the parties’ relationship when she left the father’s home and had been subjected to domestic abuse, that the relationship between the father and P is very important. 65.I note that she was against there being a non-molestation injunction because she was concerned it might impact on the father/son relationship. That could be said to be a criticism of her as being not sufficiently protective, but it also denotes how she views the father/son relationship. Also she made it clear to the police that she did not want the father to be charged or make a formal statement because she was concerned about the father/son relationship. I consider that, despite their difficulties, she has been and will continue to be fully supportive of that relationship. 66.On the father’s side, the position is somewhat different. The father and his family in the family group conference that they attended in January put forward extremely generous proposals for contact for the mother. However, the views of the father, fully supported by his family who were all largely present at that meeting, were that the contact would need to be strictly supervised because of the risk that the mother presented, potentially by them. But more importantly even was their joint attitude towards the mother which comes out both loudly and clearly in the family group conference minutes itself and, of course, also in the father’s repeated statements to the same effect to different people. 67.Some of the things that the family said during the conference were as follows: At F78, “Due to the mother’s historical mental health and the uncertainty of P’s safety, our immediate concern is that the mother has harmed P, made false allegations against the father and is so mentally unwell that she and the local authority has denied P the start in life he deserves. So until it can be proven that P is safe, the mother’s contact with him should be supervised as neither the father nor our family want to be in this position ever again.”Then later on under appendix 2 at F81: “Issues of concern for the family group conference: (1)Our social worker offered bias and raised concerns e.g. key observations of why there is reference to unproven domestic violence allegations on the father’s side listed here in issues/concerns, but nothing of the fact of grievous bodily harm/attempted murder committed on P by the mother by way of stabbing him five times not listed on the mother’s side.” Then further on: “Why has the mother though she is P’s mother and ordinarily could be given first priority to raise him if there is a separation of the parents, however, because she harmed P and could have killed him had the father not been there to intervene also with her historic mental instability, why has she been assessed positive and the father who adores and protects their son been assessed negative?”68.The father also has made clear on a number of occasions that he views the mother as an attempted murderer and he refers repeatedly, and other family members echo this, to her having kidnapped P for the period of just over a month when she was placed in accommodation by the local authority and he did not know where she was. 69.This leads the guardian to conclude that she has grave concerns that the family, if P was in the primary care of his father, would have the ability to provide what she described as a sensitive balanced narrative of the life events which have affected P to date. I have not referred to the father’s recent email to the police officer, but it was on familiar lines pressing her to ensure there was a prosecution of the mother and again referring to her admission of attempted murder. 70.I agree with the guardian’s analysis that there is a real risk that the family, despite their ostensibly generous contact proposals, being unable, firstly to promote the mother’s contact because they see her as such a risk; and, secondly, to provide the sort of balanced narrative which the guardian referred to. 71.I do not consider that to be a feature on the mother’s side. I have already referred to her attitude towards contact. Her family are understandably, at this stage, somewhat cautious about the father given my findings of domestic abuse against their daughter and also somewhat cautious because of in their eyes the potential risk the father may remove P. But I do not see that as being hostility to the father, rather an understandable and protective reaction to all that they have read and heard in these proceedings. I do not consider that they or the mother will promote a negative picture of P to his father. That has not been the mother’s stance up to date and I see no reason why she should change in that regard. 72.In terms of the capability of the parents meeting P’s needs, there is a high degree of overlap between this factor in the checklist and the risk of future harm. Under this factor, I am happy to record that there are a number of important positives. It is without question that both parents love and adore their son, that is absolutely obvious to me, and they are both wholly committed to him. Therefore, he has the benefit of their love, their commitment, their interest and a number of very positive parenting qualities that they both have. Both are able to engage him in stimulation, in interesting activities, to give him warmth and affection and to provide the sort of care that has been described in the contact notes with some limited exceptions and it gives me great pleasure that I can rehearse those positives which exist for both parents. 73.In terms of the negative factors relating to their ability to meet P’s needs, I consider that I have covered them in considering the risk of harm in this case.74.Finally, the range of orders: if P went to Spain, there would be recognition sought under the Hague Convention of the orders made here which would include contact orders. I am quite satisfied there is a need for a contact order if a child is going abroad in this way and therefore there would be a degree of protection for the father. In this country, the local authority supports a supervision order for the father. I have already made the point that I do not consider that that can protect P from the father’s difficulties with his self-regulation. It provides a degree of protection in relation to his cannabis use because he can be tested regularly, but I observe as I already have done that a supervision order does not continue indefinitely and usually only continues for a period of a year. I do not see a supervision order as, as I have said, providing the necessary protection here. 75.Pulling the threads together in the context of my analysis of the welfare checklist, I have in my view identified the key pros and cons of each option but I will attempt in a very brief way to draw together the threads. 76.Before I do that, I need to set out the mother’s proposals for contact which align with the local authority’s proposals as finessed by the guardian in her evidence. The guardian proposes, and this is supported by the local authority and the mother, that the father should have as a minimum four contacts a year with P with one of those at least to be in England; that the contact should last between three to five days with the father seeing P on most if not all of those days (probably all of those days if it is five days, if it was longer perhaps not but principally for all of those days); that that contact should initially be supported in a contact centre because the family need to rebuild trust in the father - they got on perfectly well with him when he was first introduced, but obviously a lot of water has flown under the bridge since then - and because of their concern about P possibly being removed. 77.The guardian suggests that that supervision or support should take place for the first year, namely the first four contacts; and that thereafter or before, if relations can be mended, the family should support that contact. There would obviously be a large number of details to be filled in and the transition plan, which I have not referred to, provides for mediation between the two sides of the family and further discussion of practical issues such as accommodation for the father, who would bear the cost of travel, etc.78.The father says that those proposals are wholly inadequate to promote and preserve his relationship with his son. The guardian accepts that in any relocation case there will be a significant diminution of the relationship between the child and the left behind parent. That is an inevitable consequence of such a scenario and that is why decisions in relocation cases are referred to as being binary in that there is no halfway house. Equally, whilst the mother says that she would stay here if P stayed with the father, I have already referred to the realism of that in terms of the impact on her mental health. Part of the reason for her breakdown, I am satisfied, was her isolation here. She has no one here, a very recent and limited friendship group, and that is why I did not consider the prospect of her living here with P as being a realistic option also not on the issue of protection in terms of her mental health. So that is the position so far as the proposals for contact. 79.I have already dealt with the father’s proposals as per the family group conference, but I have some concerns about the viability and reality of those proposals in terms of what is said about strict supervision and the family attitude towards the mother and her culpability in causing harm to P.