The recommendation made to me by the Official Solicitor in his written report dated 11th January 1994 was that he concurred with and adopted Doctor Cameron's assessment and recommendations and therefore:-
"Subject to the hearing of oral evidence, the Official Solicitor submits that S should remain living with the mother, the wardship continue, and the matter be reviewed after one year. With regard to contact with the grandmother, both Doctor Cameron and the Official Solicitor support this continuing and the Official Solicitor will make his submissions on the extent and nature of the contact through Counsel at the conclusion of the hearing." (I have added the emphasis)
Doctor Cameron's report was dated 17th October 1993 and I have already cited from it.
It is a pity that The Family appear to have misunderstood the Official Solicitor's role. He, through his representatives in his office, through Counsel whom he instructs, have a duty to act in the best interests of the child they represent. They must approach that task at all times with an open mind but also with an inquisitive one. His duty is to probe and to explore the evidence. The Family know perfectly well, if they are true to themselves, that there are vast areas of their past which scream out for thorough but dispassionate investigation and they could hardly expect otherwise. It is, therefore, a pity that Mr Barton was instructed to make his closing submissions on the basis that: "It became apparent from the outset of the oral evidence that the Official Solicitor took a more hostile attitude than that reflected in the report." He would have failed in his duty had he not, through Counsel, thoroughly investigated the areas of concern raised in this case.
Doctor Cameron reported again on 13th May. He had, by then, been informed of the nature of the evidence which had been led and he expressed the opinion that it was best for S to adopt a "wait and see policy" provided certain safeguards could be written into the Order for S's protection. He envisaged, for example, supervisory visits by the Official Solicitor's appointee with periodic progress reports, the appointment of a peripatetic christian nursery school teacher and substantial contact including staying contact. That wait and see policy was however dependent on certain preconditions being satisfied partly by The Family and partly by the mother. The following day he wrote the very important letter setting out the three hurdles for NT to surmount as I have already described.
When he gave evidence he explained that her failure at any hurdle would cause him concern as to putting S first. He felt that the changes effected were small steps in the right direction and he had weak confidence in The Family's ability to go as far he required of them. At the conclusion of his evidence, his message seemed clear enough to me: he wished for some movement on NT's part to be able to give effect to what he felt was best for S, namely that the Court adopt the wait and see policy. As I have already indicated, NT's evidence fell far short of satisfying his conditions.
There was then an unfortunate development. Doctor Cameron attended a consultation with Counsel in preparation of the Official Solicitor's final submissions. Having reviewed the case, Doctor Cameron reported that in his opinion the least detrimental alternative appeared to be "strongly to leave well enough alone." The Official Solicitor took another view. He was minded to submit that S should be removed from his mother's care and placed with grandmother. He recognised, however, that it was his duty to give full and frank disclosure of all material facts and matters and that would include the opinion of his expert which did not support his conclusion. When all of these matters were drawn to Doctor Cameron's attention he gave further thought to the best course to be adopted for S and having thought again, he changed his mind. He concluded that S would almost inevitably suffer educational neglect, that there was a real danger that S would be emotionally pressurised; there was a real danger that S could become the victim of sexual abuse and there was a probability of his being physically punished. He concluded:
"Regrettably the attitude of (mother) and The Family is typified by secrecy and aloofness rather than by willingness to cooperate voluntarily."
Now rather than wait and see:
"a strong recommendation is made that S's welfare would be best promoted by his being transferred to live in the care and control of his maternal grandmother."
He was recalled. He was embarrassed by his volte face. I cannot be harshly critical of his changing his mind. This is a difficult case and I make no secret of the fact that I have had some difficulty in finally deciding what is best for this young boy. Although Doctor Cameron's opinions are always most useful, the important point of his evidence is that this child would ordinarily be better off with his mother to whom he has made his attachments and that I should not remove him unless there are good and compelling reasons to do so. It is at the end of the day for me to assess whether or not those compelling reasons exist. Before deciding whether they do or not, I must remind myself of the law.
