Conclusion
101.All of the above must be considered in the context of the wider canvass of the evidence. Each of the above considerations have informed my decision about whether the threshold criteria as set out in s31(2) of the Act is met. For reasons that I have set out above, I have no doubt that the mother has done all that is in her power to provide the best for her children. In many respects she has been very successful at this task and has a great deal to be proud of. In other respects, the challenges that she has faced, have been beyond her capacity and ability to meet. The difficulties that she had to address over many years have undoubtedly impacted on her health, perception and abilities as a parent. I have no doubt that she has found support and comfort in the services that the medical profession has been able to provide her family with. It is also clear to me that she has on occasions exaggerated or fabricated the children’s presentation and behaviours. A clear example of this is found in her description of the children and their role within the family when she applied for an [XXX] card and the blue badge. However, such examples do not begin to satisfy the ‘threshold test’ whether by themselves or as part of consideration of the wider canvas. There has to be a causal link between the mother’s parenting of the children and the significant harm that they are said to have suffered. 102.I have no hesitation in finding that both B and C suffered significant harm by the poor choice of the mother to purchase a wheelchair for B. The father clearly contributed to this by acting on the mother’s instructions and not challenging her. Furthermore, this clearly satisfies the ‘threshold test’. However in all other regards the evidence of substandard parenting that would satisfy the threshold criteria is less than clear. The children clearly have a number of properly diagnosed medical and behavioural difficulties. I am confident that their daily lives were occupied with consideration or management of those issues. Sadly, there were significant periods when the demands of looking after A has over-shadowed all else within the children’s home. However in my judgment, there are considerable evidential difficulties in the local authority’s allegations. In the main, there is no direct evidence that the children suffered any significant harm that can be attributed to the mother or her parenting. Secondly, where there may be arguments that there is evidence of significant harm being suffered or likely to be suffered by the children, there is little evidence to suggest that the mother’s conduct or parenting was not reasonable for a parent to provide. Therefore, I do not find that the threshold criteria pursuant to s(31)(2) of the Act is crossed save in the following respects which includes what has already been accepted by the father;a.B and C have suffered or likely to have suffered significant harm by reason of the findings in respect of A that are set out in paragraphs 1, 2 and those related to A being beyond parental control of the agreed schedule of findings.b.The mother unreasonably and unnecessarily caused the Father to purchase a wheelchair that was used by B and stored within the home causing her significant emotional harm by making her believe that she was less able than she was and caused significant emotional harm to C by making him witness and believe that his sister was less able than she was.c.In October 2019, the Father reprimanded [A] for creating a mess while the family were away on holiday, and said to her “I wish you wouldn’t be a bull in a china shop”. This comment caused [A] to lose control and to damage property and kick the Father. The Father has accepted that he lashed out at [A] in front of [B] and [C], and that the children had been traumatised by the incident._____________________________________