Case No. SA21C50004

77.As I have set out above from her own evidence and in the view of the consultant psychologist who assessed her, MX, despite her apparent acceptance in her written evidence of parts of the judgement, has in reality demonstrated a very limited acceptance and acknowledgement of findings. MX has only a superficial level of insight and is determined to hang on to her version of events as is evinced by her expressed view that she could only base her thinking on what she had directly experienced herself. MX has consistently maintained this position in her oral evidence and is unwilling or unable to accept anything different to her own ‘truth’. The position she has chosen is one which means she effectively accuses her own children of being liars; she does not or cannot listen to them, and is unwilling or unable to show any empathy with them as children who have been physically, emotionally and psychologically harmed, and have been separated from their family and siblings.78.In plain terms and so that there can be no doubt that this Court has considered the benefits and disadvantages and weighed them in the balance and in addition to the welfare analysis and discussion above I will set them out here in brief. Should F be returned to live with MX she would benefit from being raised by her biological mother and primary carer; but the evidence is she would not be living with MX alone for long, if at all. Having already been moved, if F were to be returned to her mother’s care, she would avoid the longer-term distress of having to permanently settle in her new placement and be brought up away from her parents. 79.As it is likely that returning to MX would mean returning to living with FX it greatly increases the likelihood of F suffering the same significant harm as her siblings, particularly in respect of domestic abuse. While living with MX, and in all likelihood FZ, may allow F to more readily maintain her relationship with her extended maternal family there are attendant risks with such contact and the move to her paternal uncle and aunt will allow greater contact with her extended paternal family. 80.In reality I am not considering a return to MX’s care but the care of MX and FZ who have been found to have caused significant harm to four children already. It also wholly negates any possible mitigation in the form of protective orders. Living with MX and FZ undoubtedly means that F would be at even greater risk of suffering the significant harm identified above. MX’s inability to accept the findings and risks posed by FZ is an established fact, while it is a fact that FZ poses a real risk to any child in his care. As it is more likely than not MX and FZ will remain in a relationship and continue to live together in future the Court cannot approve any placement with them given the risks they pose together. In addition, F will be brought up in a household where what the Local Authority correctly describes as the “false narrative” of MX and FZ is instilled in her about her siblings, these proceedings and the Local Authority, giving her a false and a skewed view of her own history and early life. Based on all the available evidence outlined above and set out in the fact-finding judgment, there is no reasonable hope, expectation or likelihood that F would fare any better than her older siblings in the long term care of MX and FZ.81.Should the Local Authority’s care plan be implemented F will remain in the care of her paternal uncle and aunt living with them and their children who are F’s cousins. They have been positively assessed and are panel approved as carers for F. F’s uncle and aunt have a positive background of caring for their own children; this placement will give F the opportunity to remain within her extended birth family in an environment where she will not be exposed to the risk of significant harm associated with her parents’ abusive behaviour and repeated poor decision making in terms of child-care and their own relationships, both familial and in the wider social context. Of the two placements and on the evidence, this Court can more reasonably anticipate that F’s welfare needs would be consistently met and prioritised should she remain with her uncle and aunt and their children. This placement is more likely to provide F with the best chance of developing into a well-adjusted young person who is able and has been enabled to reach her full potential. 82.In addition, remaining with her uncle and aunt is more likely to enable F to develop her own positive and meaningful relationship with her older siblings without the emotional manipulation and misleading narrative espoused by MX, the maternal family and FZ. Sibling relationships are the closest and longest lasting of any family relationship in a person’s life and it is in the best interests of F that she can develop those relationships freely and without encumbrance.83.There will be a geographical disadvantage as F will be further away from her siblings and that too will have an impact on her contact with MX and FZ as well as other members of the extended maternal family. There will be regular contact as set out in the care plan. The Local Authority will retain parental responsibility under a care order and include in their care plan arrangements for F’s contact with her parents and siblings. The Care Plan provides additional support and security for F in her placement as the Local Authority retain a greater obligation to ensure that contact takes place and that her carers are fully supported. The principle disadvantage to F is that she will not be brought up by her mother and will see less of her father but the risks and disadvantages of that placement are, I find, outweighed by F being brought up within her birth family in a much safer environment and the separation from her parents will be ameliorated by contact. 84.I have considered the positives and negatives in respect of F’s welfare of both placements and consider that it is clearly necessary, in best interests of F and more likely to meet all her welfare needs that she is permanently placed with her uncle and aunt who are to be provided with support by way supervision and assistance for contact to take place regularly and safely under the auspices of the care order. This placement is proportionate and necessary to the needs of F.85.