LV22C50093 - [2025] EWHC 1474 (Fam)

Mr O’s final evidence is contained within his statement dated 14th February 2025. He was subject to very lengthy cross examination by counsel on behalf of the local authority. However, despite the challenges of giving such lengthy evidence through an interpreter, Mr O generally impressed the Court as genuine, balanced and child-focused. In reaching that view, the Court has been very mindful of, and carefully reflected upon, the contrary findings of HHJ Coppel at the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing that Mr O is manipulative, deceitful and dishonest. In assessing his credibility, the Court has reminded itself that a parent who finds himself in the position of Mr O will often have conflicting and complex views and feelings about professionals and foster carers. That does not make them untruthful. The Court also notes the local authority’s closing submissions that Mr O has attempted to ‘play the game’ and manipulate the Court in the reassurances he has provided about such things as promoting N’s sibling relationships. It is, the local authority say, disguised compliance. In the Court’s view, that submission is undermined by Mr O’s ongoing refusal to accept the domestic abuse findings against him; something he knows provides a very significant obstacle to persuading professionals and ultimately the Court that N can return to his care and which it would therefore be very much in his interests to ‘strategically accept’. On matters of N’s welfare, this Court therefore found him to be an honest and open witness.

There were a number of aspects of Mr O’s evidence that the Court found impressive:

It should also be recognised at this point that Mr O has demonstrated an extraordinary level of commitment to N and to this process. He has maintained consistency in flying over from Italy for contact since direct contact was first facilitated in autumn 2022. He has attended all meetings, engaged positively in all assessments and interventions, and worked with all professionals despite the tensions that have existed. His commitment to this process has been unwavering and has not been without sacrifice for Mr O. It is clear that his life is currently on hold whilst he remains focused on N and securing his return to his care.

Stepping back and considering Mr O's evidence, it is important not to hold him and his parenting to unrealistic standards of perfection. It is clear he presents with vulnerabilities and risks, but also with considerable strengths. In my judgment his evidence was measured and balanced, and demonstrated good insight into the needs of N.

OD's final analysis is dated 21st February 2025. Her final position, confirmed in her oral evidence and closing submissions, is that she has been persuaded to support the local authority’s care plan because of the stability and security foster care will continue to offer to N and the ability of his current placement to maintain all of his important family relationships. She did not believe that would be achieved for N if he was placed in his father’s care. She emphasised that it was not a question of which relationship should have priority, but trying to ensure stability so that all important relationships can be maintained. In her closing submissions she recommends that: “N’s best interests would be best met at this stage by the drawing up of a robust care plan which works towards the father and N developing their relationship, to include extended periods of contact in Liverpool, the opportunity for N to develop his Italian to a level where he would be able to communicate effectively with his father and grandmother in Italian and N being able to spend extended holiday periods in Italy, so that the father’s home becomes an environment which is comfortable and familiar to him.”

Unfortunately, in assessing OD’s evidence, many of the same criticisms that were made of AY can also be made of the guardian. Her oral evidence was particularly weak.

In the Court’s judgment, whilst a number of the issues were more thoroughly assessed in OD’s final written analysis, there remained important gaps and omissions. Most notably, as with the social worker, many of the risks and disadvantages of foster care were not fairly considered, including:

On the other side of the balance, and as with the social worker, the Court is satisfied the guardian has not fairly considered how the risks of placing N in his father’s care can be managed or mitigated:

There were other concerns about OD’s oral evidence. At times OD came across as inappropriately defensive and overly deferential to the local authority. She had a rather passive approach to the unacceptable way in which father has been treated by the local authority. Similarly, she appeared somewhat complacent as regards the failings of the local authority to promote contact between N and his father, and ensuring N’s linguistic and cultural rights were properly protected. She was similarly highly defensive of the foster carer, being reluctant to criticise her for any behaviours that may have undermined N’s relationship with his father. The guardian should be deeply concerned about those issues on N’s behalf, not just in terms of past failings, but perhaps most importantly what it may signify for N’s future if he remains in local authority care. The Court did not gain any clear sense that the guardian had these important issues very firmly at the forefront of her mind.

Sadly, the Court is therefore driven to the conclusion that the guardian’s analysis similarly lacked fairness and balance. Her oral evidence was disappointing for a professional witness. The Court is left in the unenviable position where the final welfare analysis of both the allocated social worker and the guardian have fallen somewhat short.

There are just two realistic options placed before the Court for consideration:

The Court begins its welfare analysis, as it always does, with N and his particular characteristics and needs.

N is still a very young child. He is 7 years old. He is, and will remain for some time, almost entirely dependent on his primary care giver(s) to meet his most basic needs. In that regard, his needs are no different from any other young child. He needs security, stability and consistency. He needs to know that all of his needs – physical, social, educational and emotional – will be consistently met to a good enough standard. He needs to feel a sense of belonging; that he is wanted and that he is loved.

N has a strong sense of family. It is essential that all of his core family relationships - with his mother, father and both siblings - are supported and maintained. He has a strong attachment to his foster carer: ER. He is also a child of dual Italian/Romanian heritage. His linguistic and cultural identity must similarly be supported and maintained to ensure he grows and develops with a confident and secure sense of self.

It is important N’s vulnerabilities are also recognised. He suffered serious physical and emotional abuse in the care of his mother. His lived experiences have caused him significant trauma. He is not yet at a point when he can begin to engage in therapeutic life story work. He will need to be supported through a process of recovery. He needs a nurturing environment and will require emotionally attuned, therapeutic parenting.

N has also suffered considerable change, instability and uncertainty throughout his life. He has experienced his parents’ separation, a move to England, and has now been in limbo in foster care for over 3 years. His need for security, stability and a real sense of permanency is acute. As father’s counsel emphasise in their closing submissions, achieving permanence for N is fundamentally important. In this regard it is helpful to remind ourselves what permanency means for young children. The statutory guidance contained in the Children Act 1989 Volume 2: Care Planning Placement and Case Review (July 2021) defines permanence as: “[2.3] Permanence is the long term plan for the child’s upbringing and provides an underpinning framework for all social work with children and their families from family support through to adoption. The objective of planning for permanence is therefore to ensure that children have a secure, stable and loving family to support them through childhood and beyond and to give them a sense of security, continuity, commitment, identity and belonging.” N deserves nothing less.

N is still only 7 years old. He clearly is of an age where he has some understanding of his situation. He is able to articulate his wishes and feelings, albeit they have at times been somewhat inconsistent and confused. In accordance with s 1(3)(a) of the CA 1989 the Court is to have regard to his ascertainable wishes and feelings, in light of his age and understanding. N’s ascertainable views need to be listened to and given careful consideration. The Court is however mindful of the limits of his understanding and that his views cannot be determinative. They are just one factor to be placed within a holistic analysis of his welfare.

N has expressed a wish both to live with his father and in Italy. It is apparent however that there are some limits to his understanding. He has at one point also expressed a wish to live in Australia and he struggles to comprehend that M won’t be with him if he moves to live with his father. He consistently expresses M’s fundamental importance to him. AY gave evidence that N’s wishes and feelings are confused, and his understanding limited. What does not appear from the evidence is that N exhibits any distress or anxiety about the prospect of a move to live with Mr O in Italy. The Court is concerned that the drawn-out nature of these proceedings is only exacerbating N’s sense of uncertainty and confusion.

N and Mr O have a strong and loving relationship. N has a secure attachment to his father. N lived with his father for at least some of the time until the parents’ separated when he was 2 years old. He maintained regular contact with his father thereafter. It is unfair to suggest Mr O has not parented N before. It is significant to note that whilst the local authority does not support N being placed in Mr O’s care, AY was absolutely clear that she had no concerns about their relationship, describing it at various times as ‘lovely’ and ‘beautiful’. AY was also clear that N always named his father as one of the people most important to him. Mr O offers to N a clear and strong sense of belonging. He is undoubtedly wholly committed to his son and will remain so throughout his life. This is a life-long enduring relationship.

It is the unchallenged but cautious conclusion of Ms Russo, the ISW, that Mr O is able to meet all of N’s needs, holistically understood, and any ongoing risks of harm can be safely managed. In terms of Mr O’s parenting capacity, she gave evidence:

The local authority and guardian continue to express concerns regarding Mr O’s capacity to promote N’s important relationships with his mother, siblings and the current foster carer if N moves to Italy. The guardian noted that in her discussions with Mr O he was particularly reluctant to promote an ongoing relationship with the foster carer. As to the siblings, whilst Mr O expressed commitment to maintaining those relationships, the guardian was worried about the longevity of those arrangements. There were concerns not just over the practical challenges but whether Mr O would continue to encourage direct contact over a significant period. The Guardian was clear that those relationships were key to N’s identity and broader welfare.

Mr O gave evidence on these issues prior to the additional work being completed with him by the ISW. Nevertheless, he presented as very open to promoting these relationships, particularly with the siblings. He was more reluctant about the relationship with ER but accepted it was important. As regards the sibling relationships with M and O, he told the Court that any issues were between the fathers, not the siblings, and he was confident solutions could be found. Mr O spoke very fondly and respectfully about M. He described him as the person who had been there for N when everyone else had let him down. He openly described the foundational nature of N’s relationship with M; describing him as the pedestal on which the statue stands. Although he was clear N should be living with him, he did not deny the importance of M’s relationship. Furthermore, having heard the social worker’s evidence about some of M’s recent behaviours in foster care, his response was entirely appropriate. He did not suggest that M needed to be separated from N, but noted that M was not a bad boy, and it was concerning that he is struggling. In the Court’s judgment, Mr O’s previous conduct towards M has been similarly child focused, initially trying to include M in his contact with N and writing to him to thank him for looking after N. In the Court’s judgment, there was nothing within Mr O’s evidence to suggest he is not genuinely committed to ensuring N’s relationship with M (and O) is maintained, particularly with support from the Italian authorities.

Clearly if N moves to his father’s care, N’s contact with his mother will need to reduce from the fortnightly contact proposed by the local authority. There is however no evidence it will not continue in Italy, albeit at a slightly reduced level. Mother is committed to it. Mr O has given no reason to believe he does not regard it as important. The relationship will change but will not be lost. There is also a potential advantage of N being in Italy if mother is deported as it is more likely direct contact can still be facilitated in Italy than in the UK. The parents will again have the support of the Italian authorities in ensuring the contact takes place.

With the additional work completed and the ongoing support of local child protection services, the ISW was satisfied Mr O would maintain N’s important family relationships. Again, her assessment was not challenged. Having heard Mr O give evidence, the Court is similarly satisfied.

A further welfare advantage for N of being placed within his father’s care is that his Italian/Romanian identity will be promoted and supported in the most natural way possible. His paternal uncle lives in Romania and there are Romanian friends and neighbours within father’s network.

Turning then to the ongoing risks of harm if N were to move to reside with Mr O, the magnetic issue is that of the potential exposure of N to domestically abusive behaviours given the findings made against father by HHJ Coppel. Mr O does not accept the finding that he physically assaulted mother, although he does accept the relationship was toxic and unhealthy and he accepts making threats against Mr U. He was firm there would be no resumption of his relationship with mother and told the court he had already enquired of his Italian lawyer what steps he could take to keep her away. He does not however believe she would risk disrupting the placement and he was clear he would not risk losing his son again.

Given Mr O continues to deny the finding he physically assaulted mother, AY regards the risks from domestic abuse as static, with any intervention unlikely be effective. Her position, contrary to that of Ms Russo, is that it would be necessary for domestic abuse work to be successfully completed with Mr O before N could move to his father’s care.

In that regard, Mr O gave evidence of the work he has completed in Italy on domestic abuse. He confirmed he had undertaken the freedom programme online as suggested by Dr Hellin. He produced evidence of his commitment to that piece of work, having taken detailed and comprehensive notes. He told the Court he had learnt things about himself and his behaviours and expressed a willingness to learn more. He was frank in his evidence that he understands professionals are saying that without acceptance of the findings the work will be of limited impact in producing the required change. However, he remains firm in his position that he did not assault mother. On an intellectual level, Mr O is able to talk clearly and articulately about the harms of domestic abuse and its impact on children. The issue for Mr O, given his ongoing denial, is being able to internalise that learning and apply it to his own situation.

Despite the impasse reached on this issue, the current and ongoing risks posed to N from domestic abuse have been the subject of a very helpful psychological assessment by Dr Hellin. That assessment is thorough, balanced and nuanced. It has not been challenged. In summary she concludes:

Building on Dr Hellin’s report, Ms Russo’s assessment is that father’s behaviours were anchored in the dysfunctional and chaotic relationship between the mother and the children’s three fathers. She notes that those relationships were toxic, complex and enmeshed. Removed from those relationships, she opines that the risk from Mr O is much reduced and the risk of domestic abuse occurring within a new relationship is very unlikely. She thus concludes that whilst there is a residual risk that will need to be managed, at present, the risk is minimal.

Within that context, Ms Russo believes that Mr O’s relationship with Ms A can be managed by professionals and will not jeopardise N’s contact with her. She notes that the risk of the relationship resuming is very low, and with professional support in place in Italy there is no need for them to come into contact with one another. She notes that the turning point for Mr O in terms of his relationship with mother was hearing the recording of mother beating N.

Ms Russo is therefore of the firm view that the identified risks from domestic abuse can be safely managed under the risk management and support plan to be implemented in Italy. She reiterated that she remained mindful throughout her assessment of the Court’s findings regarding Mr O’s honesty and that he had not told his mother of the Court’s findings. She accepted that openness and honesty by a parent is vital to effective risk management. However, in her opinion, the statutory nature of the intervention in Italy mitigates against that risk, reinforced by the fact that Mr O did engage openly with her, if not the local authority, about the mother’s attempts to contact him.

The Court again reminds itself that the detailed assessments of Mr O by Dr Hellin and Ms Russo have not been challenged. The guardian maintained that there was a risk in any move to Italy. She noted the concern that the paternal family, in particular the paternal grandmother, are not protective as they do not understand the findings against father or the professionals’ concerns. This is compounded by the fact that Mr O has not been open and honest with them about the Court’s findings. Ms Russo’s oral evidence on this issue was however robust. The Court accepts her analysis that any ongoing risk of harm from domestic abuse is minimal and can be safely managed by the professional support in place. This is now reinforced by the work the ISW has completed with the paternal grandmother in Italy, with which she engaged well.

The court is therefore satisfied on the persuasive evidence before the Court that, with the support in place, Mr O is fully able to meet all of N’s needs, including his additional therapeutic needs, to a good enough standard, and that N will be safe within his care.

Long-term foster care will clearly meet a number of N’s most fundamental needs. He will be physically well cared for and safe. With some caveat concerning the ability of the current foster carer, ER, to positively promote and support N’s relationship with Mr O, his emotional needs will be met. The current foster carer has provided both N and M with security and stability for the last three years. N has made significant progress in her care. ER is currently committed to continuing to provide that care on a long-term basis. There is no suggestion that the placement is under such strain that it is at any immediate risk of breaking down. It is tried and tested. The current foster carer is clearly very important to N. He can only ever remember living with her. He has a strong attachment to her. Although long-term foster care, which is at its core a transactional arrangement, always carries with it the risk of placement breakdowns and changes of carer, the current foster carer offers the promise of some certainty and stability in placement. The strength of that promise will be further considered below.

One of the clearest advantages to N of remaining in local authority foster care is that he will be able to continue living with his sibling M. Maintaining this important sibling relationship has been a significant factor in the final welfare assessment of both the social worker and guardian. It is clearly an important consideration. The importance of sibling relationships are well recognised in the courts. They are often expressed to be the most important and enduring relationships a child will ever have. For N, he has lived with M his entire life and struggles to comprehend living anywhere without him. AY believes N regards M as the most important person in his life. She does not believe they should be separated. It can be safely assumed that any separation from M will cause N some immediate distress.

The relationship between N and M and how it impacts on N’s welfare is not however straightforward. The realities of their relationship need to be properly understood. The professionals are all agreed that the sibling relationship is currently formed through trauma-based bonds. That makes the relationship vulnerable. Trauma bonds are intense emotional bonds that can be destructive and damaging. AY insisted in her oral evidence that those behaviours have not been seen between the boys and those potential difficulties are manageable. It has subsequently emerged that there have been ongoing concerns about M’s behaviours towards N, those ‘unkind bullying behaviours’ having been subject to an ongoing risk assessment process since March 2022, with the first recorded incident in April of that year.

There is furthermore concern that the social worker has minimised the impact of M’s trauma-based behaviours on the stability of the placement of N with his current foster carer, whether alone or with his brother.

AY accepts that M is struggling emotionally with foster care. He wants to return to his mother’s care. At the time of the re-hearing before me, the local authority had still not told him the unchallenged decision of HHJ Coppel made in February 2024 that he will not be going home. The local authority is clearly concerned as to the potentially destabilising impact of that news. It is known that over the last few months M has had thoughts of stabbing his foster carer and self-harming. He has thought about the possibility of changing foster placement. There is thus concern M is developing a high level of emotional distress at being in foster care. That is not, of course, unusual for a looked after teenager who has experienced significant trauma and adverse experiences but misses his family and wants to go home. Given his age there is a strong risk M will vote with his feet, particularly if his mother is deported to Romania. AY believes the issues are manageable. M is not absconding from placement and there is no suggestion the placement is under such stress that there is any immediate risk of breakdown. However, given the significant weight placed by both AY and the Guardian on maintaining the sibling relationship through placement together in foster care, these concerns about the stability of M in placement are significant. On the evidence, the risk of placement breakdown is real and needs to be weighed within the balance. It was indeed accepted by the social worker in her oral evidence, despite the emphasis placed by the local authority on the sibling relationship in their final evidence, that N’s care journey cannot be anchored to that of his brother given their differing ages and needs. She recognised future separation may be considered if that is what will best meet the needs of each individual child. It is perhaps notable that the first together and apart assessment completed by EA in March 2023 did not consider that the boys remaining placed together should outweigh the prospect of living with their respective fathers. It is not clear why the subsequent together and apart assessment authored by AY departed from that view.

Furthermore, it also clearly emerged during the course of AY’s evidence that any breakdown in M’s placement with the current foster carer would have significant implications for N. The current placement is a sibling placement because the boys have to share a room. If one of the children leaves, the other may also have to move given the impact on the foster carer’s income. That may be managed by the local authority if the issue arises, but it is a further risk of instability for N. The Court notes that whilst the generic risk of placement breakdown in foster care is acknowledged in AY’s final analysis, these specific vulnerabilities in the current foster placement are not identified. Moreover, the impact of a placement breakdown on N needed to be specifically addressed. It is known that when he has had to go into respite care because of the foster carer’s recent health issues it has caused him very significant distress. Any placement move would be devastating. Given the risks of placement breakdown are real, as is M just ‘aging out’ of placement in a couple of years’ time, the impact of this needs to be carefully weighed within the decision-making.

The impact of long-term foster care on N’s other family relationships also needs to be carefully weighed within the balance.

In foster care, mother’s contact arrangements, so long as she remains within this country, are stable and will not significantly change. The future arrangements for father’s contact are less clear.

At the final hearing, the local authority and guardian proposed what are highly unusual contact arrangements for a child in care: effectively that N would be spending significant overnight unsupervised time with his father both in this country and in Italy. AY told the Court the local authority is committed to supporting these arrangements. There are however a number of concerns about whether these proposals will be sustained and whether there are indeed some risks to the paternal family relationships if N remains in foster care.

It has to be recognised that the contact proposals place significant strain on Mr O who will need to continue travelling from Italy for a number of days each month to see his son. Although he made clear to the court that N is his priority and he will continue to do whatever is required of him, that has implications for his ability to work and financially maintain himself. The sustainability of such arrangements must be looked at realistically. Furthermore, the local authority’s institutional commitment to maintaining such arrangements in the future cannot be guaranteed. Within these proceedings and with the oversight of the court, contact arrangements between N and his father have been challenging. No direct contact was facilitated for the first 9 months of proceedings, necessitating the involvement of the Italian Consulate. There have continued to be issues. Contact was stopped again after the Court of Appeal decision in May 2024. There remain clear problems with the video contact, despite Knowles J dealing with the issue in October 2024. The fact the local authority now seeks to remove financial support for activities during contact increases Mr O’s anxiety they are not genuinely committed to building his relationship with N. There is also evidence the foster carer is not supportive of N’s time with his father. Despite professional observations to the contrary, she has suggested a number of times that N is reluctant to spend time with his father and does not want to attend contact. She has resisted father providing gifts to N and subjected N to the emotional strain of being placed in the middle of those difficulties. For these reasons, Mr O has no confidence his relationship with N will be maintained once proceedings have concluded and there is no longer oversight by the court. The Court agrees. Once proceedings conclude, personnel change and different priorities take over, and there is in the Court’s view a real danger the contact arrangements will dwindle and paternal family relationships become marginalised. It should be noted N’s relationship with his paternal grandmother and uncle have already been substantially diminished during his time in care.

Long-term foster care also poses challenges in meeting N’s cultural and linguistic needs. There are always steps the local authority can take to try and promote N’s Italian and Romanian heritage. Language classes, books, films and contact arrangements with parents are all means to fostering a strong and confident sense of identity. But none of that is the same as a child being able to live their culture in the home of a parent. He cannot be immersed in his language and culture in the same way. Moreover, there are again concerns about the local authority’s commitment and ability to ensuring the necessary support is in place to protect N’s cultural identity. During the 3 years N has been in care, his Italian language has been lost. It is through language that his Italian culture and heritage are accessed. It is only recently the local authority have taken steps to remedy this lamentable breach of N’s most basic rights.

Finally, the extent to which long-term foster care can meet N’s essential need for permanency is an important consideration. N is just 7 years old. He has 11 years of his minority left. His dependency needs are high. OD accepted in her oral evidence that N has significant dependency needs. She accepted he needed permanency: a clear sense of an enduring home where he knows he belongs and where he knows his needs will be met for the rest of his childhood and beyond. Whilst some children find that permanency in long-term foster care, to be the subject of corporate parenting – and all that that entails - for such a significant period of a child’s minority needs to be carefully weighed. It is significant, in the Court’s judgment, that OD accepted in her oral evidence that real permanency for N will not be achieved in foster care, and he will face ongoing insecurity and uncertainty. In that regard, N’s needs are very different from those of M given their different ages and dependencies. The court found her position in oral evidence that her final welfare analysis was not based upon N remaining with his current foster carer, which cannot be guaranteed, but on her assessment that long-term foster care per se is better able to meet his needs, somewhat surprising.

Any move from foster care to live with his father in Italy will clearly be a significant change in circumstances for N. In her final welfare analysis, the Guardian placed considerable weight on the likely impact on N of such a significant move. Although N was born in Italy and spent the first three years of his life there, he last spent time in Italy over Christmas and New Year 2021/22. He is now very well settled and integrated into the local community in Liverpool. English is his primary language. Undoubtedly, a move to Italy will bring considerable challenges for N, including linguistic given the loss of his Italian language. The guardian is concerned that N will be isolated, struggle at school, struggle to make friendships and may regress emotionally as he did when first placed in foster care. She is concerned that he won’t be able to engage readily with the support available because of the language issues. The guardian notes that it took significant time for N to find stability and to settle in foster care. She was very concerned as to the impact of disrupting that, particularly given the uncertainties of placement with father.

The impact of change on N is an important consideration. However, any rehabilitation of a child to a parent following a lengthy period in foster care can be challenging. The Court should not be unduly focused on the immediate disruption, challenges and potential distress, but look to the child’s longer-term welfare needs. In terms of N’s linguistic needs, both Mr O and Ms Russo are less pessimistic than the social worker and guardian as to the level of N’s understanding and capacity to quickly gain confidence in his Italian. Mr O believes N understands 60-70% of what is said to him in Italian but is shy in speaking it. He is confident they can manage without an interpreter and that N will understand him. If necessary, the paternal uncle speaks English and will be able to assist. He is clear this is not a reason not to return N to his care.

Ms Russo was similarly not overly worried about the linguistic barrier between N and his father. She spoke a little to him in Italian and felt he had a good understanding. She was confident the language would be unlocked once immersed. Furthermore, as part of the support plan in Italy, N would have help with his Italian to help him integrate back into the community. Ms Russo did not consider this a reason not to place N in his father’s care.

The court is similarly satisfied that N’s confidence in Italian is not a reason not to rehabilitate him to his father’s care. It was his first language. He has retained a good level of understanding with the recent assistance of a tutor and once immersed in his family and the local community his confidence should grow quickly.

AY and the Guardian also express significant concerns about N regressing in his emotional well-being and exhibiting the same challenging behaviours that were seen when he was first placed in foster care. Ms Russo also acknowledges there is a risk that if N is moved it could cause a regression and re-emergence of the very difficult challenging behaviours seen when he was first placed in foster care. However, she notes that a move to his father’s care in Italy is a very different scenario to being removed from a parent and placed with a stranger in foster care. The fact he is moving to live with a parent with whom he has an established, strong and secure attachment is an important protective factor.

The Guardian was concerned Mr O had an overly simplistic view of caring for N and that he does not fully understand the level of his therapeutic needs, both now and in the future. She emphasised N’s needs are extensive and that meeting his emotional needs will therefore be a huge challenge for any parent. Within that context, she was concerned about the challenges of placement and the risk of placement breakdown. Clearly, any breakdown in N’s placement with his father would be catastrophic. Mr O is however strongly committed to his son and to providing a home for him for the rest of his childhood. He has evidenced that determination and commitment throughout these lengthy proceedings. Whilst there will undoubtedly be challenges, when viewed within the context of Mr O’s love for and commitment to N, the risks of placement breakdown are, in the Court’s judgment, very small.

Furthermore, the Court notes that whilst Mr O was naturally optimistic that N would settle without issue in Italy and that if there were any difficulties he would be able to manage his son’s emotional needs, he was not naïve about the potential challenges ahead. He acknowledged the potential for emotional and behavioural issues. He recognised the losses N will experience and will need to come to terms with, most notably separation from his siblings and foster carer. He noted this would be traumatic for N and he would be open and welcoming of professional support to assist the transition. At no point in his evidence did he suggest support was not needed or beneficial. It is also important not to overstate the challenges. Whilst a return to Italy will result in significant changes to N’s day-to-day life and to his core family relationships, those relationships will not be lost.