9.  P., born in 1958, is a citizen of the United States of America; C., the husband of P., was born in 1962 and is a United Kingdom citizen; S., their daughter was born in 1998 and is a United Kingdom and American citizen. They are all resident in the United Kingdom. 10.  In January 1976 P., then living in the United States of America, gave birth to a son A. shortly before her eighteenth birthday. In 1980 P. married her first husband and had a second son B. in February 1985. In 1992 she and her husband separated. Both parents contested custody of B. 11.  Between December 1990 and January 1994 B. was referred to his general practitioner for some forty-seven complaints. 12.  In March/April 1993 B. was taken for examination to hospital on numerous occasions for complaints of diarrhoea and fever, and on each occasion he was found to be in a normal condition. When on 18 April 1994 B. was admitted to hospital, a laboratory stools test indicated the presence of phenolphthalein (a laxative). The doctor was satisfied that P. had been responsible for laxative poisoning and reported the matter. 13.  On the same date the Californian authorities took B. into protective custody, alleging that P. was harming her son, then aged 9, by administering laxatives to him inappropriately. He was suspected of being a victim of induced-illness abuse, the syndrome known variously as Munchhausen syndrome by proxy (“MSBP”), fabricated or induced illness, illness-induction syndrome or paediatric falsified condition. MSBP is a label sometimes used to describe a form of psychiatric illness, mainly found in women, who seek attention by inducing illness in their children or inventing accounts of illness in their children, and by repeatedly presenting their children to the medical authorities for investigation and treatment. 14.  On 23 August 1994 a Californian court ordered that B. live with his father. Following this placement, B. did not suffer from any acute or abnormal diarrhoea. At a hearing in September 1995, the court approved supervised contact between P. and her son B. once a month for two to four hours for the following three years. P. was informed that, if she wished increased contact, it could be envisaged in a supervised, therapeutic context. 15.  P. was charged with cruelty towards B. and endangering B.'s health, a felony offence under section 273A(a) of the Californian Penal Code. A report prepared by Dr Schreier stated that P. suffered from MSBP and that she had victimised B. over several years, causing him severe diarrhoea, possibly vomiting, weight loss and multiple non-trivial procedures and hospitalisations. On 4 October 1995, after a five-week trial before a jury in the Superior Court of California, she was convicted of a misdemeanour under section 273A(b), a lesser offence, and acquitted of the felony. On 17 November 1995 she was sentenced to three years' probation and three months in custody, subsequently suspended. She was also ordered to enter and complete a “psychological and psychiatric treatment programme”. 16.  During the divorce proceedings, P. was required to have therapy as a condition for getting custody of B. and saw a therapist from 1992 until the end of 1993. From late 1992 she was prescribed an antidepressant by a psychiatrist whom she saw regularly to review the medication. She also consulted with psychiatrists during the criminal trial. From about April to December 1995, she saw a psychologist twice a month for therapy. 17.  On 2 May 1996 the Californian family court reduced contact to one supervised occasion per month. It was ordered that any additional contact visits would have to occur in a therapeutic setting with a doctor present. Her appeal against this was dismissed. 18.  During 1996 P. met her present husband, C., a qualified social worker who was studying for a doctorate in philosophy and researching into cases of women wrongly accused of MSBP. 19.  In November 1996, in breach of the probation order, P. came to visit C. in the United Kingdom. P. and C. were married in September 1997 in the United Kingdom. P. discovered shortly afterwards that she was pregnant. 20.  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (“the local authority”) became aware of the pregnancy after P. had taken steps with a view to obtaining an annulment of her previous marriage and her ex-husband had informed the district attorney in California who in turn made contact with the authorities in the United Kingdom, giving information about P.'s conviction for harming her son B. The local authority was informed of the pregnancy by P.'s doctor and commenced an investigation. 21.  Social workers were in contact with P. and C. from January 1998. A letter was sent to arrange a meeting. Prior to the proposed meeting, there were several exchanges on the telephone. C. considered that the social services should provide more detailed information before a meeting took place and made a list of requirements regarding access to files and copies of documents. Tension arose when the social worker requested that P. give her date of birth in order to confirm that she was the person concerned in the information from the United States. P. initially refused to give this information. The proposed meeting was cancelled. 22.  On 21 January 1998 the applicants' solicitors wrote to the social services requesting that they provide information to both themselves and P. directly, concerning, inter alia, the reason for the proposed meeting, details of any information in their possession, forms for applying for access to social-work files, specific details of child protection concerns in the case and a list of every person with whom P. had been discussed. 23.  On 28 January 1998 a meeting took place attended by P. and C., social workers and the police. 24.  There was further correspondence between the local authority and the applicants' solicitors concerning the appointment of an expert to assess the risk to the unborn child, pursuant to section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (“the section 47 assessment”). By letter dated 17 February 1998, the local authority's solicitors noted that the applicants were not happy with the proposed expert, Dr Bentovim, and requested further details of any objections. They pointed out that the person suggested by the applicants was not an expert in MSBP and requested details of the other proposed experts. 25.  On 18 February 1998 the local authority made contact with Dr Eminson, a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist who had been proposed by the applicants, with a view to her undertaking an assessment. 26.  By letter dated 13 March 1998, the local authority's solicitor referred to a letter of 11 March 1998 by the applicants' solicitors. It was pointed out that, as there were no care proceedings in train, there was no obligation on the local authority to agree a letter of instruction for the expert with the applicants. At that stage, all that was required was P.'s agreement to see the expert. The view was expressed that it was for the local authority to decide what documents to submit to the expert, although they would have no objection to the applicants' providing extra documentation. Although they wished to work in cooperation with P., they could not allow her to dictate the course and conduct of the section 47 assessment. 27.  On 2 March 1998 a case conference was held by the local authority attended, inter alia, by social workers, P.'s general practitioner, a health visitor, a midwife, P. and C., P.'s solicitor and the paternal grandmother of the unborn child. The minutes of the meeting state that the reason for the conference was that P. had a conviction which led to concern that her child might be at risk of induced illness/injury after it was born. It was noted that P. disputed details of the background to her conviction, claiming, inter alia, that there was evidence of her son B. having had diarrhoea as she alleged. C. was noted as accepting that the existence of a conviction could give rise for concern but not that it automatically meant his wife suffered from MSBP, alleging that there was no direct evidence of any harm having been inflicted by her. Due to the concern that P. suffered from MSBP, it was decided to place the child on the Child Protection Register at birth and to undertake a full risk assessment. 28.  On about 16 March 1998 Dr Eminson agreed to act as expert in the assessment to take place. 29.  On 18 March 1998 the applicants' solicitors wrote to the local authority, pointing out that their request for an agreed letter of instruction and the list of documents given to the expert was based on good practice and procedure and that, although there were no care proceedings, they had assumed the same principles would be applied. They stated that P. could not be expected to go into a meeting blind to the specific points the doctor had been asked to address and that they needed a list of documents in order to assess whether they wished to provide the expert with anything further. 30.  By reply of the same date, the local authority's solicitor stated that a section 47 assessment procedure was at the entire discretion of the local authority and that different principles applied than in care proceedings. However, they were prepared to disclose the list of documents sent to Dr Eminson and set out the questions which they would ask her to address. 31.  On 25 March 1998, in discussions between the applicants' solicitors and the local authority, it was indicated that the applicants were no longer happy with Dr Eminson. 32.  On 1 April 1998 the local authority held a case conference to review the situation. It was found that the parents had not cooperated with the local authority assessment, or that their cooperation was superficial. A combination of excuses and evasiveness had made it impossible to hold more than one meeting. There still appeared to be a complete denial about events in the United States. The local authority's solicitor had spoken with the district attorney involved in the case in California and reported a number of allegations, including the concern that P. suffered from MSBP as shown by her own medical history, that C. had impersonated a therapist in trying to convince P.'s probation officer that she was complying with an order and that P. had harassed Dr Shreier and the district attorney by telephone calls. It was noted that P. and C. were unwilling to see the expert proposed by the local authority. It was decided to take out an emergency protection order at the child's birth as there was
“reason to believe that the baby would be at risk of significant harm if left in the care of his/her parents; there has been no genuine cooperation from the parents and it would be impossible for the Social Services... to manage the risk without legal jurisdiction which includes removal in the first instance. An application for interim care proceedings would require notice and [there were] reasons to believe that the parents would evade the authorities”. 
The address of the foster placement was to be kept secret to avoid harassment or an attempt to remove the child. The parents were to be told about the intention to take legal action in general terms. 33.  On 7 April 1998 the applicants' solicitors confirmed that P. and C. would see Dr Eminson. They attended an appointment on 28 April 1998. 34.  On 8 April 1998 Dr Schreier wrote to the local authority, expressing grave concern and recommending the removal of the baby at birth and strict supervision of contact as there was a high level of risk of harm from P. 35.  On 30 April 1998 the local authority was approached by C.'s mother, asking whether the child could be placed with her. The local authority decided to raise the matter with Dr Eminson as part of her assessment. 36.  Notes dated 6 May 1998 of a discussion between the assistant director (social services) and Dr Eminson included the doctor's view that the basis upon which to work with the parents was extremely limited given the absence of acceptance/agreement about concerns over the unborn baby or the past history in America. She had found that the parents were not prepared to discuss the real issues with her, that C. was mainly interested in the battle with the authorities and that the couple showed little concern for or awareness of the key issue, that of the safety of the unborn baby. Although a definitive conclusion was difficult, the risk factors were not in her view sufficiently worrying to justify not telling the parents about the proposed application for an emergency protection order at birth. While the possibility of further assessment with the couple and newborn baby at a residential facility was not ruled out, this was not possible at that time due to the limited degree of cooperation and commitment of the parents. 37.  By 30 April 1998 it was becoming likely that, due to the lie of the baby, P. would have to have a Caesarean section instead of the planned delivery at home. The midwife reported that the consultant Dr Maresh wanted P. to be admitted on 6 May 1998 for an elective Caesarean, but that P. had refused and gone home. The midwife was noted in the social-work records as having become very angry with P. and C. for resisting medical advice and, later, for having claimed that they had been lucky to get a live baby. 38.  On 7 May 1998, at 4.42 a.m., S. was born by Caesarean surgery. C. had brought P. to the hospital when her waters broke at home. 39.  The local authority applied for an emergency protection order at about 10.30 a.m. They contacted the hospital concerning the possibility of staff supervising the baby at the hospital. After discussions, it was confirmed to the local authority by the hospital management that, even with security measures, they could not guarantee the baby's safety. The Government stated that the hospital was concerned by the difficult behaviour of a friend of P.'s who demanded to be present during the operation and had to be threatened with removal by security guards, and the aggressive attitude of P.'s friends and family towards staff after the birth. The applicants have stated that there is no evidence for these allegations in the records. Notes in the hospital records indicated that at 3.30 p.m. Dr Maresh had stated that he would prefer the visit of the social workers to be deferred, as the news might upset P. and cause a rise in blood pressure. 40.  At about 4 p.m. it was decided to serve the emergency protection order on the applicants with a view to removing S. to foster care. According to the Government, C.'s mother refused to allow S. to be removed and C.'s father threatened to follow the social workers and the baby. Safe departure from the hospital was only achieved with the assistance of the hospital staff. The applicants stated that there was no evidence for this in the records, although they accepted that the family were very upset when S. was removed, and C.'s mother pleaded with the social workers not to let S. go to strangers. 41.  A contact visit was arranged on 8 May 1998, attended by C. and his parents. While social services had considered taking S. back to the hospital for visits while P. was an inpatient, it was felt that it was not in the interests of S. as a newborn baby to be transported on a trip of some twenty-five to thirty miles. 42.  P. remained in the delivery unit due to concerns about her blood pressure. It was noted by her consultant that she was very clearly distraught about events. She was prescribed drugs to suppress lactation and anti-hypertensive medication. She was discharged on 10 May 1998. 43.  The local authority meanwhile applied to the court for a care order under the Children Act 1989. 44.  P. and C. were allowed supervised contact with S., initially three times a week. The first visit occurred on 11 May 1998. P. and C. applied for more access and were supported by the guardian ad litem appointed by the court to represent S. Contact increased to four times a week from 15 June 1998. S. also had contact with her maternal and paternal grandparents. 45.  P. and C. developed an excellent relationship with their baby daughter S. The notes made by the supervising officials were positive and complimentary. The paternal grandparents were also observed to have a caring and attentive relationship with her. 46.  On 13 May 1998 the local authority suspended the assessment of the paternal grandparents which had commenced after their approach to the local authority on 30 April 1998. This was to await the directions of the court, as advised by their counsel. The grandparents were advised of this on 14 May 1998. 47.  On 14 May 1998 the case was transferred from the county court to the High Court on grounds of complexity. 48.  Dr Eminson issued her report on 29 June 1998, stating that in order to assess the risk to S. it would be necessary to obtain, inter alia, a psychiatric assessment of P. and her capacity to change and a comprehensive social work assessment of each family member, including the grandparents, as regards their capacity to care for and protect S. 49.  On 31 July 1998 the timetable for the proceedings was set by a circuit judge and the hearing date fixed for February 1999. It was directed that the assessment of the grandparents should be undertaken by an expert but that the local authority should provide the factual background. 50.  In a report dated 21 September 1998, a social worker recorded the factual investigation into the paternal grandparents. 51.  In his report dated 28 September 1998 for the guardian ad litem appointed by the court to represent S., Dr Davis, a consultant paediatrician, found, inter alia, a clear and chronic pattern including unexplained symptoms suggesting that P. suffered from a severe illness; a definitive episode of poisoning; non-appearance of symptoms when the child was supervised by others and resolution of the health problems in the child after separation from the mother; extensive inaccuracies and inconsistencies by P. when repeating her history to different doctors; and exceptionally frequent medical attendance by mother and children. His opinion was that B., and to lesser extent A., had been victims of child abuse on the fabricated illness spectrum. The tendency to fabricate appeared to be ongoing (references were made to P.'s conduct during her pregnancy with S.: she had, for example, complained of ulcer symptoms but no ulcer was found, and she had referred to a stomach tumour which was presumably a besore [A condition caused by the swallowing of hair and the biting of hair and nails] removed in 1994). His view, strongly expressed, was that the risks to S. of rehabilitation with P. outweighed the advantages. 52.  On 17 and 18 November 1998, the local authority informed P. and C. of their intention to apply for a freeing for adoption order under the Adoption Act 1976. 53.  On 26 November 1998 Dr Maresh, P.'s obstetrics consultant, gave a statement indicating that it was clear to him that P. was aware that there was a strong possibility that her baby would be taken away from her at birth and that this made it difficult for her to stay at the hospital. He noted that during her pregnancy the number of assessments that P. was undergoing had sometimes interfered with the making of ante-natal appointments. 54.  On 10 December 1998 Dr Bentovim issued his psychiatric report. 
(i)  It was noted that, during his meetings with P., she had been superficially cooperative. She had considered that the test which found a laxative in B.'s stools could have been a false positive. She accepted that B. had been hospitalised too often and that she had allowed emotional harm to come to him. Her explanation was that she had been a victim of the divorce process and suffered considerable financial stress. The only statement by P. in which she appeared to take responsibility for exaggerating B.'s illness was when she said that she had exaggerated the number of loose stools that he had had. There was a sense of evasiveness and minimisation, even a degree of trivialisation of what was discussed. It was difficult to tell whether some events referred to by P. were a constructed reality or had really happened. 
(ii)  As regards C., his research attempted to show that health practitioners sometimes developed a perspective where they created the notion that the parent was inducing illness in a child, thus demonstrating the misuse and fallibility of medical authority. C. had stated that there was nothing to suggest that P. would harm S. He was prepared to look after S. alone if necessary. Together, P. and C. had stated that they would undertake any therapeutic work with a view to obtaining care of S. without, however, acknowledging that there was a problem as far as P. was concerned. 
(iii)  As regards the paternal grandparents, they tended to agree with the parents' analysis of the situation and found it hard to face up to the fact that P.'s actions had given rise to major concerns about her potential to harm. There were positive factors in their favour (such as their commitment and desire to protect S.). However, the main problem if S. were placed with them would be their age when S. reached her adolescent phase of development.
(iv)  The report found that P. had a personality disorder, including a factitious disorder, as disclosed by her gross exaggeration of having had ovarian cancer and statements about miscarriages as well as the fabrication and exaggeration of B.'s symptoms. While P. had indicated a willingness to accept therapeutic work, which would have to be prolonged and required considerable motivation to change, she had not accepted how extensive such change needed to be. As regarded a possible referral to the Cassell Hospital, it was noted that this would require considerable commitment on the part of both parents. Although the couple had indicated a willingness to enter such a therapeutic setting, P.'s level of motivation was limited. It might, however, be advantageous for P. to be admitted to a special clinic for a further detailed assessment of whether a referral to Cassell Hospital would be appropriate.
(v)  The report concluded that C. was not himself a direct risk to S. but was so indirectly. He embraced his wife's views and had a limited understanding of the local authority's concerns. Similarly, the grandparents would be protective of S. if she were placed in their care but, as they would be in their 70s when S. was 14 years old, they would have increasing difficulties in meeting her growing emotional needs. It was therefore difficult to consider them as possible long- or short-term carers because S. needed to be in a secure long-term placement by her first birthday. As regards contact, the fact that the fabrication of symptoms was not life-threatening meant that contact would need less rigorous supervision than in the case of more life-threatening abuse. 55.  On 16 December 1998 the local authority made an application to free S. for adoption. 56.  The local authority care plan dated 13 January 1999 stated that placement of S. with both parents would pose a serious risk to her. As the circumstances in which C. intended to offer to care for S. on his own were unclear, the concerns about her protection remained. Regarding the paternal grandparents, it was noted that they had not shared the concerns in respect of the risk to S. if she were placed with her parents, and that Dr Bentovim did not support placement with them, particularly because of their age. The local authority's view was that the care plan for S. should be permanent, secured by adoption, and that she needed to be placed with an adoptive family as soon as possible. 57.  At a hearing, which began on 2 February 1999 and ended on 1 March 1999, the High Court heard the local authority's application for a care order in respect of S. The local authority informed the judge that there were nine families available and wanting to adopt S. P. and C. were parties, as were S.'s paternal grandparents, while S. was represented by a professional guardian ad litem, solicitors and both senior and junior counsel. 58.  On 4 February 1999 C. applied for leave to withdraw from the proceedings, on the ground that he saw no prospect of success in obtaining custody of S. and that the stress of the proceedings was likely to lead to a breakdown in his health. On 5 February 1999 the judge granted him leave to withdraw. C.'s parents also withdrew from the proceedings. 59.  On the same date P.'s legal representatives (leading counsel and solicitors) withdrew from the case, informing the judge that her legal aid had been withdrawn. It was later stated by the judge that they had withdrawn because P. was asking them to conduct the case unreasonably. In fact, her legal aid had not withdrawn, as the judge made clear in his judgment. The legal-aid certificate could not be formally discharged until P. had been given the opportunity to show why that should not happen. 60.  P. asked for an adjournment until 9 February 1999, which was granted. On that date P. asked for a further adjournment in order to apply for the reinstatement of her legal-aid certificate. 61.  The judge refused the adjournment. As a result of this decision, P. conducted her own case, assisted by a “McKenzie friend”, Mrs H. The applicant stated that she found conducting her own case immensely difficult. At one stage, she told the judge that she simply could not continue because she was so distressed. That was after cross-examining her own husband C., which she found very painful. However, the judge said that she should carry on. The solicitor for the guardian ad litem and a social worker visited P. that evening to persuade her to carry on. 62.  In his judgment, the judge explained his refusal of an adjournment:
“In the first place I was satisfied that the mother had a very clear grasp of the voluminous documentation, at least as good and if not better a grasp than the lawyers in the case. Secondly, it was clear to me from the documents that the mother, who is an intelligent woman, was fully able to put her case in a clear and coherent way, an assessment that has been amply borne out by the hearing itself.
Thirdly, I was confident that the Bar, in the form of leading and junior counsel for the local authority and the guardian ad litem, would not only treat the mother fairly but in the tradition of the Bar would assist her in the presentation of any points she wished to advance, in so far as it would be professionally proper for them to do so. Once again that assessment has been fully justified by the conduct of counsel during the hearing. As examples, the local authority both facilitated and paid for the attendance of Dr Toseland, consultant toxicologist, to attend as part of the mother's case. Junior counsel for the local authority ... struggled manfully to ensure that the mother had a complete set of the ever growing documentation. There were other examples.
Fourthly, the outcome of the case seemed to me to hinge or be likely to hinge substantially on the mother's cross-examination, an area of the case in which the ability of lawyers to protect her was limited.
Finally, and most importantly, I was concerned about the prejudice to [S.] of what would have had to have been a very lengthy adjournment. Section 1(2) of the Children Act expresses the general principle that delay in resolving a child's future is prejudicial to that child's welfare. In this particular case intensive preparation for the hearing had been going on effectively since [S.'s] birth in May 1998 and up until the outset of the hearing before me the mother had had the benefit of advice from her lawyers, latterly of course from leading counsel. An adjournment would have involved a very substantial delay in resolving [S.'s] future.
The hearing was estimated to last, and did indeed, last something in the order of twenty working days. A fresh legal team, assuming legal aid was restored, would have needed a substantial amount of time to master the voluminous documentation and to take instructions. Twenty days of court time simply cannot be conjured out of thin air.
Furthermore the evidence of Dr ... Bentovim, the consultant child psychiatrist jointly instructed to advise me, amongst other things, on [S.'s] placement, was that a decision on her long-term future needed to be both made and if possible implemented before her first birthday. 
The consequence of the events I have described was that the mother has been obliged to conduct her case in person with the assistance of a McKenzie friend, Mrs [H.]. In their closing submissions Mr David Harris QC and Miss Roddy for the guardian ad litem paid tribute to the manner in which the mother had conducted her case. They described her as fighting bravely, resourcefully and skilfully for the return of her daughter. I would like to echo that tribute. I would also like to express my gratitude to the mother's McKenzie friend ... who was clearly a considerable support to the mother throughout the case.
If the mother had been represented by counsel her case would, I think, have been conducted differently, but I am entirely satisfied that the result would have been the same. As so often happens the mother was given a latitude which would not be given to a litigant who was legally represented. For example, I allowed her to call a witness, Professor Robinson, who had not provided a statement prior to the hearing. I was also prepared for her to call a consultant psychologist who had given evidence in the American proceedings, Dr [P.], who in the event was unable to attend. I also allowed the mother to cross-examine witnesses twice ... I have throughout the hearing endeavoured to ensure that the mother was treated fairly. ....
 I am the first to acknowledge that the courtroom is not a friendly environment and ... that those who are not used to it find it difficult. However much experience the mother may have had of the legal system in the United States of America, I accept ... that she is not a lawyer. Further, the hearing has had in [S.'s] interests to delve into matters which were highly distressing to the parents and which are normally intensely private and would have remained private.
It is my judgment that the mother's case has been fully heard and that the hearing has been fair ... I reject any suggestion that had the mother been legally represented the result would have been different.” 63.   On 8 March 1999 the judge made a care order. In reaching his decision, he did not consider himself bound by the American conviction and reached his own findings of fact on the available material, which included a substantial volume of documents from the United States and expert reports. He concluded beyond reasonable doubt that B.'s diarrhoea had been caused by laxative abuse on the part of P. on one occasion and, on a balance of probabilities, that abuse was the most likely cause of B.'s diarrhoea on two further occasions. He went on:
“I am therefore in no doubt and so find that [B.] did suffer harm in the care of his mother. In my judgment that harm was not limited to his physical health. I accept the argument of the local authority that he also suffered serious psychological harm. ...” 64.  While the judge accepted that P. had not put S. at risk during her pregnancy and that the parents' treatment of S. during contact sessions had been exemplary, he found that P. suffered from a personality disorder, and that such people were very difficult to treat and did not change easily. He considered that P. was in a state of deep denial about what had happened to her son B. and the potential risk that she posed to her daughter S. He referred to the expert evidence “that to receive help P. would need to accept that she remains a potentially dangerous person to S.” and “that is impossible even to start where the mother is in denial to the extent that this mother plainly is”. He noted that Dr Bentovim had found a small acknowledgment about her role in B.'s illness, but that P. had challenged the accuracy of his report on this point and embarked on a high-risk strategy of launching an outright attack on the American evidence.
“At the end of a very careful and thorough cross-examination by the guardian ad litem, Dr Bentovim agreed ... that given the depth and longevity of the mother's state of denial, and given that the father had embraced it fully, the time scale for any therapeutic work with the mother designed to bring her to a state of understanding of and ability to address the risk posed to S. was way outside the time scale during which S. could be kept waiting for a permanent placement. Dr Bentovim's conclusion, reached I think with some regret, was that in the circumstances there could be no question of reunification of S. with her mother.” 65.  The judge found that C. was incapable of altering his emotional perception of P. or of accepting that she was responsible for harming her son B., although with a different woman as a partner he would have been able to bring up and care for a child. The direction of the case could have been altered if C. had acknowledged that there was a serious risk to be guarded against. C. was dominated by the mother and unable to put S.'s interests and the need to protect her first. The judge concluded that S.'s moral or physical health would be endangered by leaving her with her parents. 66.  On 15 March 1999 the same High Court judge heard the application to free S. for adoption. The transcript of his previous judgment was not yet available. The final order of 15 March 1999 listed P., C. and S. as respondents. According to the applicants, C. was present throughout and was specifically asked in court if he consented to a freeing for adoption order being made, and C. indicated that he was not. 67.  At the commencement of the hearing, P. informed the court that without legal representation she was significantly disadvantaged and was being deprived of a proper opportunity to advance her case. Both P. and C. had valid legal-aid certificates. The judge declined to defer the proceedings, finding that P. was capable of representing her interests and that she would have been put on notice by her lawyers at an earlier stage that the freeing for adoption application would follow the care order. Although he noted that there might appear to be “an element of railroading”, on balancing the parents' interests against the need for S. to have her future decided at the earliest possible opportunity, he considered that S.'s interests prevailed. On the issue of the freeing for adoption application, the judge concluded that the parents were withholding their consent to adoption unreasonably as they should have accepted, in the light of the previous proceedings, that there was no realistic prospect of the rehabilitation of S. to their care. He therefore issued an order freeing S. for adoption. That permanently severed legal ties between S. and her parents. As regards contact, he stated:
“I'm assured by [the local authority] that there will be conventional letter-box contact. But it will in due course (if an adoption order is made) be essentially a matter for the adoptive parents as to precisely what contact [S.] has with her natural family.” 68.  The judge refused P. leave to appeal against the order. Her renewed application before the Court of Appeal was refused after a hearing on 5 July 1999, where she and C. appeared in person. Although the Court of Appeal noted that C. was not a party to the appeal, it referred to the fact that C. had addressed the court at some length on the issues. It noted that that the trial was of exceptional complexity, with enormous documentation, much expert evidence and lasting twenty days. It found, however, that the judge had carefully and thoroughly weighed all the issues of fact and that he had been meticulous throughout in ensuring fairness. No error of law or any failure of procedural fairness had been demonstrated. 69.  The last contact visit by P. and C. with S. was on 21 July 1999. 70.  On 2 September 1999 S. was placed for adoption with a family. On 13 October 1999 the local authority informed P. and C. that S. had been placed with adopters. 71.  S. was adopted by an order made on 27 March 2000. P. and C. were informed on 27 April 2000. 72.  The adoption order made no provision for future direct contact between S. and her parents. Any such contact was now at the discretion of the adoptive parents. By letter dated 6 July 2000, the local authority informed P. and C. that they could have limited indirect contact with S., namely, through Christmas and birthday cards, and presents. By letter dated 17 November 2000, the local authority informed them that contact was reduced at the request of the adopters to a letter from the parents once a year.