Case No. CV22C50070

15.As I have set out above, the parents’ positions shifted considerably during the hearing. By the end of the hearing all parties agreed the following:a.Z should be subject to no order and have a Child in Need plan.b.X should be subject to a care order with her living with the Hs;c.X’s contact with Z should be increased in line with a document agreed with the LA, and that contact should include contact with S & T. The Hs can act as supervisors in a fairly light touch way. d.A plan is to be worked up for contact between X and her father to be started as soon as possible. e.Both parents are to engage in a Parenting Apart Programme (“PAP”) supported by the LA.f.There are to be therapeutic interventions offered to the family.16.This was in essence the LA and the Guardian’s position throughout the hearing, although the proposals for contact developed during the hearing. The Mother’s position at the start of the hearing had been that X should return to her care. The Father’s position at the start of the hearing had been for X to be returned to his care under a care order, and that Z be subject to a supervision order. 17.Z supports no order. She sought greater contact with X. Mr van Besouw said in closing that although Z would like further and speedier increase in contact, she would be pleased with the general direction of travel. 18.At the commencement of the hearing Ms Tyler sought an adjournment so that the Hs could be subject to a Connected Persons Assessment (“CPA”) and, if that application was refused, she asked for an order that Mr H should attend for cross examination. I rejected that application in a short separate judgment. In essence, I considered that the benefits of delaying the hearing for a CPA were outweighed by the disbenefit to the children, and indeed the parents, of further delay of between 4-6 months. This family has been subject to court proceedings for 3.5 years, and public law proceedings for almost a year. The strain on all concerned, and the effect of uncertainty on the children has been devastating. I am not convinced that a CPA would tell me very much that is likely to change the outcomes of the case. I understand the LA do intend to do a CPA after the hearing. 19.In respect of Mr H giving evidence, although there might be some forensic benefit, given the relatively sparse level of information about Mr and Mrs H, the impact of him being cross examined might well be highly detrimental both to any future relationship with the Father and potentially to the placement of X with the Hs. Overall, I determined that it could be highly detrimental to X to insist that Mr H gives oral evidence and is cross examined.20.It is to the credit of both of the parents that their positions moved so far during the course of the hearing. This gives some optimism that the parents are capable of listening and making decisions that are focused on the best interests of the children. I very much hope that this progress is maintained.