Case No. SA21C50004

11.At the hearing in September 2022, the Court heard expert evidence from a consultant clinical psychologist, Dr Alison White, who had prepared a clinical assessment of MX and FZ after the fact-finding judgment was handed down. Dr White recommended that the “Resolutions” approach (where parents or caregivers do not accept the court’s findings but the subject children remain at home with professional intervention and support) could be considered for MX but not for FZ as he had not reach a stage where, in her opinion, any therapeutic intervention could be effective. In her view, FZ was not even at a point where he was “pre-contemplative”, to use the psychological term employed by Dr White, and she considered that findings in respect of FZ’s controlling and coercive behaviour did not indicate that he was a suitable subject for intervention. Dr White told me that in order to determine whether such intervention would be appropriate in this case at all there should be an assessment of MX carried out by someone experienced in and working with the “Resolutions” model. 12.In her evidence, Dr White had made it quite plain that her recommendation for further assessment was in respect of MX only as she considered that, while not pre-contemplative as such, MX was able to consider the effects of her behaviour and may be susceptible to Resolution-type intervention. Dr White suggested that an assessment of MX’s suitability for such intervention be carried out by Tracey Carboni. Unfortunately, as neither the Local Authority nor Dr White had approached Ms Carboni, there had been no initial consideration/assessment of MX’s suitability as a possible subject for a ‘Resolutions’ intervention. There were misgivings on the part of the Local Authority, and it must be said the Court, that this kind of intervention would be either appropriate or suitable given that this was case where there were findings of domestic abuse between the parents and there were also other issues over and above that of domestic abuse as the harm suffered by the children extended beyond physical harm (typically the Resolutions approach is used when there are findings of inflicted injury which are not accepted by the parents or carers) to include significant emotional, educational and developmental harm; in short, in my fact-finding judgment I had identified a multiplicity of risk factors of likely significant harm to any child in the care of MX and FZ, which would, of course, include F.13.As those representing the child rightly describe it, the parents’ decision to separate entirely and break off their relationship at the hearing in September 2022 was one that occurred at the 11th hour, nonetheless when counsel for MX and FZ told me that they had decided to terminate their relationship and had done so with a view to the assessment being carried out for MX to care for F on her own, it presented an opportunity for MX to be assessed for further intervention which might allow F to remain living with her mother as a sole parent. It was neither practicable nor possible for such an assessment to be carried out during the week of the hearing of the case so in fairness to F, who may be able to remain with her mother if the assessment was positive, the case was adjourned part-heard to allow Ms Carboni to assess MX as a suitable candidate for intervention and support based on Resolutions model.