Case No. SA21C50004

25.After the adjourned hearing in September 2022, following Dr White’s recommendation and at the Court’s direction, Ms Tracey Carboni, a qualified Social Worker (of Praxis Child Safeguarding Consultancy which uses the Resolutions model of intervention) considered the case papers and prepared a report. Ms Carboni concluded that the case was not suitable for the Resolutions model of safeguarding intervention. Her reasons are set out in full in her report6 the salient passages of which I repeat here, but I consider that it is not surprising, given the previous findings made by this Court, that Ms Carboni concluded that “this case is not appropriate for a Resolutions Risk Assessment. It is unlikely, in my view, that a full risk assessment would conclude that it is viable to deliver a full programme of work to the family at this time.” And that there is a “constellation of risks within this family which the parents need to address.”26.Ms Carboni specifically referred to the findings of domestic abuse and said, “Thus I am also worried about the Court’s findings of coercive control. Again without work or a credible separation, a Resolutions programme would potentially be rendered simply ‘containing’ the risk with no clear ending/exit plan. There is then a clear risk of the parents reunifying further down the road in my view, and this could be months or even years ahead given the fact that they have not undertaken any work to date. I agree therefore that their motivation is primarily externally located and the risk still unchanged. Furthermore coercive control does not simply ‘walk away,’ and the function of denial in coercive control and most (not all) forms of domestic violence is linked to ongoing risk. This is due to distorted thinking, impulsiveness, lack of empathy etc and this risk requires specific work.”27.In addition, Ms Carboni referred to the findings of significant harm suffered by F’s older siblings; “Moreover whilst the parents love [F] there is evidence with the older children of a clear lack of empathy in the parenting styles (such as consistent attunement). It seems as though as the children in the family develop mother (and father) may be unable to mentalise the children’s needs especially when their own personality traits are amplified due to social stressors. My view is that without the right work, this pattern is likely to repeat itself and that both parents’ respective positions of denial may be part of a broader pattern, although some of their denial is likely to be shame based and this can reduce motivation to change. The latter is familiar territory in Resolutions – it is the broader pattern that worries me.” I can find no fault with Ms Carboni’s analysis.28.In her assessment Ms Carboni referred to the external motivation of MX and FZ in respect of their expression of willingness to break off their relationship and/or undertake therapeutic work and went on to say, “Linked to this … the parents are currently externally motivated and work would need to be undertaken with them to help them move towards contemplating change, and this is likely to take several months with no guarantee of the work being successful and would need ongoing risk assessment.” In plain terms, even if there had been a willingness on the part of Praxis to undertake work with MX, there would have to be preparatory work done with MX and FZ which would take months and would require continuous risk assessment and the likelihood of successfully progressing to the parenting intervention work itself was considered to be low. Ms Carboni again made specific reference to domestic abuse (something that MX still denies taking place) and although she questioned whether the work that had taken place was suitable or effective; she said, “I wondered why IFST work had not been implemented in this case previously rather than Signs of Safety given that they draw on different theories in part and given that IFST now works with domestic violence and motivation…”; she did not recommend further work take place.29.In using the words “externally motivated”7 Ms Carboni was explaining that in her opinion if MX had in fact separated from FZ she had done so not because she understood it to be necessary (internal motivation) but because she knew that professionals considered it necessary if F were to remain with her; MX herself continued to consider that FZ did not pose any risk or that there was any real or actual need for them to separate. This means that not only was it an act of expediency (rather than one based on insight) but also that the likelihood of the separation being maintained was compromised from its outset. This view that the parents’ separation was externally motivated is one shared by the guardian and the Local Authority.30.It was Ms Carboni’s view that she could not be confident that MX and FZ had separated and, as she said, she referred to both parents (as a couple) throughout “because I believe that it is still important to consider the risk systemically until there has been a credible effort from mother to separate. If she were to seriously separate from father she would likely need a safety plan around her and support. However in order for this to take place it is important to remember that mother is also a victim as well as a risky parent in this case and her motivation is unlikely to change until this duality is recognised. If [my emphasis] the parents are separated, this is too soon for me to have confidence that the separation will be enduring.”31.It is a fact that MX does not recognise or accept either that she is a risky parent or a victim of domestic abuse and she has never sought any protective orders. In taking that stance there can be no charge of hypocrisy on her part, but that fact wholly undermines the submissions made on her behalf that the court should put protective orders in place and that if it were to those orders could be considered effective. Similarly, when FZ’s counsel pursues the imposition of protective orders or injunctions preventing his client from attending MX’s home to be imposed it is not based on concessions made by FZ, still less that he has gained insight into the risk he poses. Given that both MX and FZ continue to deny domestic abuse (and in FZ’s case all the harm he caused to the older children), it is difficult to see on what evidential basis they submit that orders could or should be made, let alone enforced. At no point has such a suggestion been made by Dr White, Ms Carboni or any other professional that the substantial deficiencies in parenting which led to the older children suffering significant harm and the concomitant likelihood of real harm to F could or should be resolved simply by the imposition of injunctions and protective orders. If the solution were that simple, they would certainly have suggested it.32.Such as “solution” is of itself disproportionate, I use the term in its literal sense and not as a legal term, as not only would it be unlikely to mitigate the actual harm caused and likely to be caused but for breaches to the order even to become known would require MX to report them and on past evidence she would not do so. This can be safely inferred from her denial of past violence and abuse, and from her continuing defence of FZ and his conduct and from the fact that the limited concessions she had made in the past are now repudiated. Furthermore, there has already been one occasion that is known about in June 2022 when FZ was found at night by police in the vicinity of MX’s home after there had been a dispute between MX and one of her neighbours. MX did not inform the Local Authority about this at the time; it only emerged months later through police disclosure. Although both deny that he came to the house or that MX or F saw him it is inconceivable that she did not know about it and she certainly did not report it afterwards. Nor did FZ.