[REDACTED]
These findings provide a very helpful starting point and an important lens through which some of this family’s lived experiences can be viewed. 79.In 2012, the mother began to notice the first signs of difficulties in A’s presentation. At this time B was very young having been born in [XXX]. In 2013, the local authority first became involved as a consequence of the deterioration in A’s behaviour. By now C was born with significant medical issues that presented the family with additional significant challenges. In the ensuing years the mother became an advocate for her children and sought to find such help and assistance as she could. It is important to note that in the first four years and against the odds, C made significant progress. As it has been attested to by the relevant witnesses, this progress was in no small part due to the care that C received from his mother.80.It is also clear that at times, the mother’s efforts were overanxious or overzealous. Undoubtedly, this has placed her in conflict with some professionals and has marred their views of the mother. This was clear in the evidence from the witnesses from the school who did not share the mother’s concerns about the children’s needs and ability. What they observed in school, in so far as any of the witnesses had directly observed the children, was very different to that which the mother described at home.81.I have no doubt that the school through its staff has remained fully committed to providing the children with the best that it thinks would meet the children’s respective needs. However, the school’s perception of the children’s needs has not always been accurate. This is perhaps best illustrated by the final decision in the tribunal proceedings that found in favour of the mother. In my judgment, this was a significant milestone and it was all the more surprising that none of the school witnesses including the head teacher who was involved in those proceedings, had any meaningful recollection of those proceedings or the decision of the Tribunal.82.Furthermore, the continuing escalation in A’s behaviour is also illustrative of this issue. A’s needs and behaviour are multifaceted and complex. She left the school within six months of the tribunal decision and the complexities of her needs and the demands of the same were immediately obvious to her new school. Cross examination of the witnesses from the school, clearly illustrated that in the main, the school’s assessments of the children were based on the school observations without any relevant knowledge of the medical investigations and advice from the treating teams. Inevitably, this has led to a greater sense of isolation and frustration by the mother. This was palpably clear as I listened to the mother’s evidence who was measured in her criticisms of the school. 83.With the mounting daily challenges and the children’s difficulties particularly A and C, the mother found an open door and greater support in the medical profession. I have no doubt that she gained greater security and certainty through the diagnosis of medical conditions and the recommended treatment plan. The evidence of the treating team whether medical or quasi medical are bound by a consistent thread that show the mother as genuinely concerned for her children, acting appropriately on medical advice and not unreasonably seeking or searching for a diagnosis. 84.However, as accepted by the mother, there are features of her conduct that have been inappropriate and harmful to the children. Most notably this included the purchase for B, use and storage of a wheelchair. As she accepted this was harmful for B, and for C to view his sister as less capable than she is. 85.The mother was evasive in her answers to questions about some of her narrative of the children’s conditions and I formed a clear view that at times these had been exaggerated or she had embellished some of the children’s issues. Her description of the children’s needs and their role within the family when applying for the ‘[XXX] Card’ or a blue badge were clearly inaccurate. There is no evidence that at any point B had assumed the role of a carer for any of her siblings. I was also concerned to hear her evidence about C suffering with Cerebral Palsy. Whilst it is clear to me that this may have been raised as a possibility, it was concerning to note that the mother who is otherwise in charge of a great deal of detail, chose not to make any enquiries about this and proceeded on what was clearly an incorrect premise. Furthermore, whilst I accept that the mother did not tell C that he has ASD, the evidence of C mentioning this in school speaks to a home atmosphere where the children are exposed to and involved in medical concerns. I found the mother to be reliable in this regard and there are many reasonable scenarios in which a child such as C my say such a thing. Although, perhaps understandable, mistaken use of medical terms such as dislocation would have added to this concern and the children’s views of themselves.86.However, whilst these issues elevate the levels of concern for the children in their home environment, the fundamental issue is whether this has caused or is likely to have caused the children significant harm. If so, whether this can be attributed to the mother’s parenting which was not reasonable to expect a parent to provide the children with. The height of the local authority’s evidence is the ‘possibility’ of the mother presenting with PP/FII as raised and attested to by Dr Rose whose views are informed by a detailed analysis of the children’s medical records and other experts including Dr Surgenor.87.Early in this hearing and with the consent of the parties, I limited the scope and the role of Dr Surgenor in this hearing. One of the relevant issues that she raises in her report concerns the integrity of the ASD assessment that was undertaken by Dr O. Having had the benefit of hearing directly with Dr O, I do not share these concerns. I am entirely satisfied that Dr O had undertaken a robust assessment of B and her diagnosis at that time was reliable. It may well be that a reassessment is justified for the purposes of any welfare determination, if indeed such a determination is required, however I do not find that the mother’s contributions to this assessment had such an influence on Dr O’s independent assessment to bring its validity into question. Whilst the majority of the issues that Dr Surgenor raises fall outside the remit of this hearing, I am confident that her report and views have made a significant contribution to the trajectory of this case.88.For entirely good reasons, Dr Rose has not met the children or examined them. His report contains a detailed analysis of the children’s records. He properly defers to and relies on Mr Crompton’s assessment as the third jointly instructed expert in this case. I found Mr Crompton’s evidence to be fair and balanced. In his evidence, I did not find any criticism of the mother. Similarly, the treating medics have made positive observations about the mother. I found Professor K a most helpful and learned witness who was very careful to give an accurate testimony and limited her evidence to that which was within her considerable expertise. Dr Z was in my judgment uniquely placed to attest to C’s circumstances and displaying a detailed knowledge of C, the medical investigations, referrals and the use of recommended adjuncts. The evidence from the Occupational Health Therapists was equally clear that the use of adjuncts was a recommendation made by them which founded in the assessments that they had undertaken.89.Whilst the local authority’s schedule of findings has a great many subparagraphs, the main thrust of it can be contained to what Mr Bickler KC and Mr Froud have come to characterise as the ‘pillars’ upon which the local authority’s case rest. In my assessment these may be categorised as falsification and exaggeration of the children’s medical and quasi medical conditions that have caused an over medicalisation and unnecessary medical or quasi medical investigations of them, the professional disagreement with the Mother’s presentation of the children which is mainly associated with the school’s observations and finally conduct within the home such as the use of adjuncts or medical terminology. Although this may be a helpful summary of the local authority’s case, it is important that closer attention is given to the elements that make up the local authority’s schedule that contains several important and relevant examples of the mother’s alleged behaviour.90.The first of the local authority’s examples is the mother’s alleged pursuit of a diagnosis for [RA] for B. The examples start in March 2014 and conclude in December 2014 during which time B was examined on three occasions. The mother appears to have accepted the conclusion of the investigations during this period without seeking any further referral. C was referred for investigation on one occasion in 2020. In my judgment, there is no evidence under this subheading that would justifiably support the local authority’s assertions in paragraphs 2 and 3 of its schedule of findings.91.The next subheading concerns B and referrals to audiology. There are inaccuracies in the first pleaded examples that start in January 2013 and conclude in August 2013. In this period there was one referral from the health visitor resulting in two examinations in April and August of the same year with the latter being a review by the audiologist. Arguably the first referral was instigated by the mother’s reports. There is no evidence before me to support a finding that the mother’s reports were inaccurate or exaggerated save that the investigations did not identify any issues. On any view, although distressing for B, the local authority’s case does not reach the required evidential threshold for such a finding to be made. 92.Mobility has been one of the more serious concerns in this case and has spanned a greater proportion of these children’s history. However, this is broken down into separate elements the first of which refers to B and referral in 2013 for investigations into Dyspraxia. This example is clearly inaccurately recorded and on the correct reading of the documents cannot be sustained. The next examples under this heading are between January 2018 to June 2018 with a missed appointment in September. Having carefully considered these referrals, it is hard to see how the local authority can show that the mother has falsified or exaggerated her accounts and even if she did, how the court can find that this has caused her significant harm where there were nonintrusive recommendations that the mother appears to have followed and indeed the mother did not pursue any further investigations thereafter. However, as accepted by the mother and detailed earlier in this judgment, the purchase of the wheelchair for B, its use and storage in sight of the children was an extremely poor decision which has in my judgment caused B and C significant emotional harm. However, I do not find that there is evidence that meets the requisite evidential threshold for a finding that this was significantly or otherwise physically harmful to B and certainly not to a degree that would come close to justifying a threshold finding. The issues concerning the bath hoist were concerning but the evidence of the mother which I accept was that this was a chair and not a hoist and was not used. Although its presence may have contributed to the overall presence and use of adjuncts, I do not find that there is evidence that would justify a finding as sought that meet the evidential requirements. 93.The local authority’s schedule next tackles the more detailed allegations under Occupational Therapy and Speech and Language Therapy. For B the allegations cover the period between October 2013 and June 2017. In this regard, I have had the benefit of hearing the oral evidence of two of the allocated therapists, Miss F and Miss G. Their evidence is summarised earlier in this judgment and do not on any view support the local authority’s allegations under this heading.94.Under the same subheading, the local authority’s allegations in respect of C also extend to the Speech and Language intervention on C that started in February 2015 and include an extensive list of examples in respect of the occupational health intervention. Having had the benefit of hearing from Dr Z and Miss E together with a detailed consideration of the documents that are relied upon in this regard including those that the mother has referred to in her response, I cannot find that the local authority’s case is proved in this regard.95. The cardiological investigations of C appear to be in part due to the diagnosis of EDS and in main the mother’s reported presentation by C. They span several years and the significant part of those include reviews that were undertaken on medical advice. There can be no doubt that this could have been distressing for C especially when this involved monitoring at home. Similarly, the referrals for eye examination and dyslexia appear to have been mainly founded on the mother’s report of the children’s presentation.96.I will consider the issue of the history of joint dislocation and EDS together. I have read and heard considerable evidence about these two issues. In my judgment, Dr Rose properly deferred to Mr Crompton on the appropriate issues that were within Mr Crompton’s expertise. Similarly, albeit to a lesser extent he deferred to Professor K. Where there was a conflict in the evidence of the latter witness and Dr Rose, Professor K’s evidence was far more consistent with that of Mr Crompton’s. Furthermore, the totality of the relevant evidence when considered together with these experts causes an insurmountable evidential hurdle for the local authority’s allegations under these two main subheadings. I accept that the mother’s description of dislocations was inaccurate but given the diagnosis and the professional advice, the mother’s actions are not open to such criticisms especially the support that the expert evidence lends to the mother’s conduct.97.The issue of ASD has been raised by the mother (and father in respect of B) and this forms another subheading in which the local authority cites a number of examples of B and C having unnecessary investigations and the mother exaggerating of fabricating symptoms. Much of the local authority’s case in this regard relies on the questions that were raised by Dr Surgenor and the differences in the observations of the school and others to that which the mother has described. There is no doubt that among several diagnosis, A has been diagnosed as having ASD. It seems to me entirely reasonable for parents to have considered this as a potential diagnosis for B and C. The latter has suffered with developmental delay which may share some attributes with ASD although these are different conditions and B now has a formal diagnosis of ASD that has been found on the strength of the evidence to be reliable. In the circumstances, I cannot find that the local authority’s criticisms of the mother under this heading are justified.98.The allegations about the mother’s conduct in respect of C span a number of years, starting in 2014 when he was under the care of the neonatal services and concluding in 2018. It is noteworthy that this is the period during which C was under close observation of the medical professionals, particularly Dr Z when he made significant progress. C has been diagnosed with reflux which is another important factor to consider given Dr Z evidence about this issue. The inconsistency of the mother’s account can arguably reflect the expected and unexpected changes in a developing child who has had significant medical difficulties. In my judgment, the local authority’s allegations in this regard are not sustainable.99.The heading concerning the frequency of visits to the General Practitioner over a number of years does not by itself demonstrate on any view that the children have suffered significant harm as a consequence of such visits that on the face of it appear to fall within the norms that are expected by the parents as attested to by Dr Rose. Similarly I do not find the allegations about C’s nose bleeds to be relevant to the significant issues in this case. 100.As for C’s educational attainments, the evidence of Dr Surgenor which informs the local authority’s allegations is based on her assessment at a time when C has already made significant progress whilst in the care of his mother. The IEP and his transition from preschool to reception, were agreed by the relevant professionals at the time. The evidence does not suggest that this was insisted upon or forced by the mother. Whilst I accept that some in his school may have wished for his full-time attendance to be earlier, no one in evidence has sought to seriously criticise the mother for the agreed plan nor to provide any evidence that C has suffered as a consequence. The allegations about B’s anxiety in school is not supported by the evidence of the witnesses who gave oral testimony on behalf of the school.