A (A Child)

Mr William Dean (instructed by Legal Department, London Borough of Ealing) for the Applicant Mr Peter Horrocks (instructed by Vickers & Co) for the First Respondent Mr Malek Wan Daud (instructed by Hanne & Co) for the Second Respondent Mr Kieran Pugh (instructed by Myria Pieri & Co) for the Third Respondent Hearing dates: 11 � 19 February; 28 March & 8 April 2019 ____________________

• A's welfare is my paramount consideration. I will approach this by reference to the welfare checklist within s1(4) Adoption and Children Act 2002 and in doing so to A's welfare throughout his life.

• Disputed matters remain allegation only until proven as fact. A party making an allegation must prove it and does so by establishing it on the balance of probability. The party facing the allegation is not required to disprove it. All evidence and particularly that of the parents will be relevant in deciding the issue. In assessing the credibility of a witness who has been shown to be untruthful elsewhere in the evidence I must remind myself as to what is known by shorthand as the Lucas Direction [3] .

• Where a fact is raised with respect to establishing threshold I bear in mind (a) the need for a causative relationship between the fact if proven and the question of significant harm, and (b) the evidential requirements for an allegation to be proven [4] . Further, just because a parent has acted in a manner which is criticised does not mean that on proof of the action threshold is proven. I must be willing to accept a range of parenting styles [5] including ' the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent '.

• When considering disposal, I bear in mind my decision has the potential to amount to a very serious, indeed profound, interference in the private life of this family. Consequently, I must subject my assessment to a test of proportionality and ask whether the proposed order is reasonable, necessary and lawful: Article 8 .