A local Authority v M & Ors

The court is concerned with A who is nearly 15, B who is 13, C (who is 9 and D who is 6 years old. M is their mother and is a party. F is the father of the children and is a party.

CG is the Guardian for the children. The social workers who gave evidence in this case are K and L.

The application before the court is the local authority’s application for a care order for each of the children.

Although the making of care orders was opposed by both Mother (M) and Father (F) until close to the final hearing, in fact by the time the case came before me they had both accepted that this was the right outcome for the children. The section 31 Children Act 1989 (CA 1989) threshold was also agreed between the parties at the final hearing.

In addition, the parties had considered the care plans produced by the local authority for each child. There was negotiation in relation to changes to the care plans which I will discuss below, and the mother’s position was that the care plans are unsatisfactory in particular in relation to D, C and B’s contact arrangements.

The main issue I have to decide, and the main dispute between the parties, relates to contact between mother and father and the children. In summary, M disputed the frequency of proposed contact between herself and B, C and D. She also opposes any contact between these three children and F. F seeks continuation of contact with C and D (which is currently by way of video contact), and would like to progress to face to face contact. In relation to A the parents accept that any contact is a matter for her. At present she is choosing not to have contact with her mother, but has had video contact with her father and expressed an interest in meeting him face to face.

I have to consider whether or not to make any orders in relation to contact, taking in account the provisions of s34 CA 1989, and if I do decide to make any orders what those orders should be.

The sibling group of A, B, C, and D has complex needs:-

Care proceedings in respect of all four children (case number ZC22C50415) concluded in May 2023 with the making of 12-month Supervision Orders. The children were taken into police protection only four months into that supervision period.

Observations of the children and family home between May 2023 and September 2023 highlighted concerns about the way in which M was managing the home environment and the children’s hygiene, health, and dietary needs.

On 22 September 2023 there was an incident of domestic abuse or volatility between M and her then partner. The police were called and all four children were taken into police protection as a result of the exceptionally poor conditions in which officers observed the children to be living. M was arrested.

M and F refused their consent to the children being accommodated by the local authority when police powers of protection expired. Proceedings were issued and interim care orders were made.

In these proceedings the court has received expert psychological assessments of all four children and a paediatric assessment of the younger three children as part of a multi-disciplinary analysis considered necessary by the court (which also featured Occupational Therapy, Speech and Language therapy, and Physiotherapy assessments).

The children are the subjects of interim care orders made on 26 September 2023. A is placed with her maternal great aunt Z; B and C are placed in foster care; D is placed separately in foster care.

The burden lies on the Local Authority to prove the allegations which it makes. Facts need to be proven to the civil standard, that is the simple balance of probabilities. When considering the credibility of a witness, I must have regard to the guidance in R v. Lucas to the effect that a conclusion that a person is lying or telling the truth about one thing does not mean he or she is lying or telling the truth about another thing.

Section 31(2) CA 1989 states that the court may only make a care or supervision order if it is satisfied that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to the care given to the children or likely to be given to him if the order were not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent give him.

The relevant date in this case is the date on which the proceedings were brought. If the threshold is established, the children’s welfare is my paramount consideration. I must consider the provisions of s.1 CA 1989 including the welfare checklist.

Section 1(5) CA 1989 provides that the court should not make an order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all. I remind myself of the words of Mrs Justice Hale (as she then was) in the case of Re O that:

Section 1(2) CA 1989 provides that any delay in determining questions relating to the upbringing of a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. The orders I am being asked to make in this case represent a significant curtailment of the rights of the parents and of the children to respect for family life under Art.8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the orders I make must be necessary and proportionate to the risk of harm.

In reaching its decision on whether to make a Care Order the court must consider the ‘permanence provisions’ in the care plan but is not required to consider all other elements of the care plans (s.31(3A) CA 1989; see also ‘Make Every Hearing Count’ Case Management Guidance in Public Law Children Cases: March 2022 Sir Andrew McFarlane P, paras.5-11). ‘Permanence provisions’ is defined in s.31(3B) CA 1989.

Section 34 CA 1989 is entitled ‘parental contact etc. with children in care. Materially for this case it reads as follows:-

Thus, the local authority is obliged by s.34(1) CA 1989 to allow children in care reasonable contact with their parents. The starting point is that the involvement of each parent in a child’s life is beneficial to that child’s welfare (s.1(2A) CA 1989). The court’s evaluation of appropriate contact for a child will be guided by that child’s welfare (as under s.1 CA 1989).

M cannot apply under s.34 CA 1989 for an order preventing reasonable contact between the children and another parent but may seek an order relating to her own contact (see s.34(3) CA 1989). M can invite the court to exercise its own discretion to prevent the local authority from arranging for F to have contact with the children (s.34(5) CA 1989).

During the hearing, I heard evidence from L and K for the local authority and CG (Children’s Guardian).

There were reports from psychiatrist Dr Lyall, psychologist Dr Maguire, the ISW Ms Walker, and from MP the Occupational Therapist (OT).

Before the hearing began the parents had indicated that they would require the court to hear evidence from Dr Maguire and Ms Walker. The position in relation to Dr Maguire changed on day one and she was not required to attend. Similarly, and given that Ms Walker was unavailable to attend during this hearing, the parties agreed on day one that it would not be proportionate to adjourn proceedings for her to be cross-examined on the limited issue of contact.

Neither of the parents gave evidence at the hearing but submitted witness statements. I gave permission for M to attend the hearing remotely throughout. F attended the last day of the hearing. I accepted that both parents found attending in person stressful and difficult.

M agreed a final version of threshold. She did not oppose the making of final care orders for all the children, and was also satisfied that the local authority has now agreed to ‘parallel plan’ for C and B to be cared for together and apart.

However she was of the view that the current final care plans were unsatisfactory and inchoate in respect to contact and should be amended. M agreed that it is in the children’s best interests for her contact to shift to an individual 1:1 session with each child. She is also pleased that the local authority also accept that this shift makes it more feasible for the supervised contact to take place outdoors/in the community.

M agrees that contact with A should be led by A due to her age and presentation.

However, M disagreed with the plan that the contact sessions should take place at monthly frequency for D, C, and B. She did not consider this to be in the children’s best interests.

M considers that the contact sessions for D, B, and C should remain at fortnightly frequency, and that change should first be monitored and reviewed before any further change to frequency is considered. It should also be made clear in the care plan that the proper basis of reviewing any change to contact should be the specific needs and best interests/welfare of these children, with their limited capacity for other social interactions. She disputes that good reasons have been provided for the change in frequency for contact with the children.

Further, M does not consider that the current final care plans regarding F’s contact are choate, thought through, or reflective of the expert evidence/recommendations and risks. She says that that amongst other failings, there is a fundamental practical failing within the plans with respect to the supervision of contact, and the method of assessing impact on the children of the same (for the purposes of decision making and review of contact). She points to Dr Maguire’s comment that:-

M says that with respect to B and C, the court cannot be satisfied that there are any professionals (save for the teachers who no party seeks to involve in contact) who are equipped to assess their communications, presentations, and cues. On that basis she says there is no satisfactory plan for safe contact, or process of assessment as to progression of contact, bearing in mind all the circumstances.

F has agreed the threshold in this case, and also does not oppose the making of care orders for all four children. He is content with the proposed placements for D and A, but is also concerned about the prospect of B and C being separated, noting that the local authority has agreed that they will parallel plan and look for placements for them together as well as apart, and will also parallel plan for the option of the children remaining in their current placement. He also does not have any difficulties with the local authority’s proposals for contact with M.

F is keen to rebuild his relationship with all the children and would like this to progress to direct supervised contact and eventually to unsupervised contact. In relation to A, regular weekly video contact has been taking place which has been going well. She has requested direct contact at the contact centre and F would want this progressed by the local authority.

He notes that the professional witnesses are all in agreement that it is in the younger children’s best interests to rebuild their relationship with F, and has taken on board professional advice and guidance about contact sessions. The video contacts with C and D have gone well and the evidence is that they were positive. The evidence of the professionals is that any risk can be managed in the way that is proposed by the local authority. F has been polite and engaged with the professionals in this case and understands that his contact with B must be built up slowly.

F takes issue with M’s suggestion that no professional (including their foster carer) can effectively and safely manage C and B’s contact with F and notes this view is not accepted by the professionals.

A summary of the care plans for the children was contained in the local authority opening note for this hearing and reads as follows:-

Prior to the final hearing, the parties further discussed the care plans in the light of expert reports and reports from contact visits and the local authority has agreed to amend its care plans for C and B to reflect:-

I have already set out the concerns that both parents have expressed about B and C being separated. As explained above these amendments to the care plans, mean that contact arrangements between the parents and the three younger children formed the main focus of the hearing.

As set above the oral evidence for the local authority came from L (social worker) and K (social worker).

In relation to F’s contact with the children K accepted that F had been assessed as high risk, but that it had been assessed as being in the children’s best interests to encourage appropriate contact with them, to give them a sense of belonging to a family and especially as their placements were to be out of home. It was right that only one of the video sessions with D took place, with F having forgotten about one session and there having been technical difficulties for F on the other two occasions. Alternative options were being considered. There had been two sessions with C and one had been successfully completed.

K said that she had viewed the sessions remotely while the children had been with their foster carer. Her view was that the children had responded positively, but she could not say whether C had recognised his father. The foster carer had reported no upset behaviour. There had been preparation beforehand with the children C and D being shown a picture of F, and liaison with the school to ascertain what they thought appropriate.

Both social workers accepted there was little detail about how contact with F would progress and be monitored in the care plan, in circumstances where the children were disabled with complex needs including difficulties with communication and had not seen their father for three years.

Both social workers accepted that no one with specific expertise and training in relation to the communication needs of the children were involved in the assessment of contact by video and how these were progressing. This included the foster carers and it was accepted that the lack of training was a concern to the experts. However, K said that she had seen each child 5-6 times for a period of an hour each time (as had L), and that with the help of the foster carers, who have formed strong bonds with D and C, she felt able to make an assessment that the contacts had not been upsetting for the children.

There was an email dated 26 July 2024 presented to the Court in which K had detailed the progress of video contact between the children and F. She accepted that although the foster carer had thought that C’s hand-biting during the call was not unusual, all the Part 25 experts had noted that this indicated a negative reaction for C.

The social workers said that any contact with F would only be agreed if it was in the best interests of the children and would be subject to review and ongoing assessment. There would be no rush to face to face contact with F. K accepted that as a starting point Ms Walker’s advice that there should be no direct contact with F until he had secured long-term accommodation was a sensible approach.

F more recently had been receptive and open to the local authority’s plan in relation to contact. K accepted that planning for face-to-face contact with A had not started and this needed careful planning and risk assessment. L was also positive about the contact and said that no concerns had been raised by Z about the contact.

The current care plan had been agreed by social workers, team manager and the IRO for the children to include contact with F. There had been no video contact yet between B and F. B had been shown a photograph and matters were proceeding with caution.

In relation to contact between M and the children K was of the view that a change to monthly contact would not be harmful to the children and she thought they were more capable of coping with change than had been presented.

L said it would be advantageous to have contact with one child per weekend (Saturday) for two hours as this would take some pressure out of the situation for both the children and M. The fortnightly arrangement had been for the interim when the final care plan was uncertain but a monthly contact for each child on separate Saturdays was more sustainable in the long term. L said that the local authority was open to enabling the contact to take place in the community once a routine of contact had been established.

It was accepted that it was important for the children to have a close bond with M as the experts say it is unlikely that these children will have many close long-term relationships. K repeated that monthly contact would be reviewed and she did not think that if it needed to be changed this would have had a detrimental effect on the children.

K accepted that F did not support separation of C and B, and L accepted that they were now tolerating each other in the joint placement. Possibilities for keeping them together were being explored. L accepted that foster carers for B and C would need more training.

L confirmed that there would be frequent meetings of the professionals involved in the care planning for the children.

The guardian’s position on the parents’ contact was aligned with that of the local authority throughout this final hearing and the guardian adopted the submissions made by the local authority in this regard.

In relation to M’s contact the guardian’s position was that contact once per month for B, C and D establishes a routine for the children that takes into account that B and C may move to new placements, that these could be anywhere in the country and there may be an expectation on M to travel long distance.

A day per month dedicated to each child’s contact with M allows for flexibility within the contact arrangements for each child moving forwards without any changes affecting the contact of their sibling(s). The frequency of contact once per month makes room in the children’s weekend routines to enable the local authority to work towards face-to-face contact between the children and F and also for M to have contact with A, should A seek to resume this.

The guardian noted that Dr Maguire supports contact taking place at a frequency of once per month (and this was confirmed by her by email during the hearing).

In relation to F’s contact the guardian’s position was that there should be an updated risk assessment of the father at the point that face-to-face contact between the father and B, C and D is ready to commence. The father’s contact with A should be dictated by her wishes so long as it is considered safe.

In evidence the guardian, CG, confirmed this approach, including the change in frequency in relation to M’s contact with the younger children, which would be kept under careful review to see how it affected both children and M. She also supported the continuation of contact with F with the younger children. She had no concerns about the feedback from video sessions but contact also needs to be kept under review.

CG also explained that there had been concerns about care-planning in this case especially when the guardian had first been involved, especially about the care provided by the foster carers. However, with the encouragement of the guardian the concerns had been recognised and care had improved. She was confident that D’s carer, in particular, could meet the child’s long term needs. There were still concerns as to whether B and C’s current foster carer was the right long-term option, even with further training for the carer in relation to the needs of Autistic children and these children in particular, but keeping the children with this carer was still an option given the reality that finding appropriate care placements for the children was very difficult.

At the guardian and child’s solicitor’s joint visit with B and C on 25 July 2024, the foster carer reported she had witnessed some increased bonding between the brothers and increased physical interaction.

The guardian is of the view that the possibility of B and C remaining together should of course be explored and it would be ideal if such a placement could be identified. However, it is crucial to ensure that their individual complex needs are met and this must take priority over the brothers remaining together. Their relationship can be nurtured via well supported and structured contact sessions where direct therapeutic work can be undertaken to encourage them to interact. It can also take place indirectly via life story work and virtual contact if appropriate.

The guardian was anxious to raise matters of significance and highlight (a) the urgent need for training on neurodivergence for child protection and family justice professionals; (b) and also systemic change in cases like this, while being anxious not to direct any direct criticism towards the professionals in this case.

The guardian noted that the local authority’s evidence dated 25 September 2023 in support of interim care orders and removal, did not consider the need for training of the carers and sharing of core information with them as to the children’s functioning, to ensure they understood and could meet the children’s complex needs ‘even at a basic level’.

When the children had been placed for almost a month the guardian’s detailed position statement raised significant concerns about the lack of toys and specialist communication tools and sensory equipment in B and C’s placement and also the foster carer and support workers lack of understanding of the children’s specialist needs and therefore the need for urgent training.

D had been attending a soft play provision daily with a support worker since she had entered care due to a delay in transferring her EHCP. The support worker had no understanding or training in relation to D’s complex needs.

At the request of the guardian and child’s solicitor the local authority agreed to convene an emergency professionals meeting, which took place on 30 November 2023 and this was chaired by the child’s solicitor. The meeting highlighted:-

The evidence in this case was that the local authority and the present foster carers are working with the guardian and the team of experts to ensure that the complex needs of these children are met.

Expert psychological assessments of all four children and a paediatric assessment of the younger three children took place as part of a multi-disciplinary analysis considered necessary by the court (which also featured Occupational Therapy, Speech and Language therapy, and Physiotherapy assessments). Below I have set out what I think are some of the important passages which underpin the approaches of the parties in this case. I note that the intention is to keep this expert team involved in care planning and reviews for this very difficult case. None of the experts were called to give evidence at the hearing.

Dr Maguire’s psychological report on the children dated 4 April 2024 contains the following:-

Dr Maguire noted how M spent some time giving each child attention and recognised when they were distressed. However, ‘[a]t other times, I felt that M engaged with the children in ways which confused them, did not encourage their engagement, or even made them anxious’. Dr Maguire felt that M’s ‘attention was focused on A and D, and […] she spent what seemed like long periods not interacting with either C or B […] C and B showed signs of being disengaged and anxious in response to their mother’s interactions and engagement’.

Dr Maguire considered ‘the children can be hard to manage together and that each needs a high level of engagement and therefore the children may respond better to contact if they each met with their mother individually. I think that each child needs to see their mother regularly enough that they can remember the relationships and maintain/build bonds but that this should also not impair their engagement with other activities meaning that contact once per month or bi-monthly may suit their needs, however the impact of this should be regularly reviewed’. It was clarified during the hearing with Dr Maguire that ‘bi-monthly’ in this last passage meant ‘every two months’ rather than ‘twice a month’.

The parenting assessment for M prepared by the ISW Janet Walker and dated 6 June 2024 concluded as follows:-

In Ms Walker’s addendum parenting assessment of the father dated 7 June 2024, she agrees with Dr Maguire’s recommendation “that contact between each of the younger children and their father will need to be managed and built up slowly” and “should be in an environment where the children can distance themselves or leave, should they need this and have access to strategies to calm” Ms Walker states that “[t]he children have not seen their father for three years and D in particular may not remember F at all. The boys are more likely to have conscious memories of their father, but these may not be positive ones. In my opinion, the recommendations made by Dr Maguire in terms of having familiar and trusted adults present, and the ability for each of the children to leave the contact if they need to, are appropriate for all three of the younger children”.

Ms Walker “would not recommend that any direct contact is arranged between B, C or D until they are settled in long-term placements (if they are not to return to their mother’s care)”. It is noted that the father has now commenced having video contact with D and C. Ms Walker stated she does “not consider that video-call contact would be in B, C or D’s best interests. They are unlikely to settle or to manage to engage with their father in this way. There is also a possibility that seeing their father, as it were, in their home, could cause anxiety and impact on their sense of safety”.

Ms Walker concludes that ‘[i]f it is decided that direct contact between any or all of the children could potentially experience direct contact with their father as positive, I would recommend they see him individually, for no more than 30 minutes to begin with, and with the emotional safeguards which Dr Maguire recommends in place’.

Ms Walker goes on to “recommend that contact between each of the younger children and their mother takes place roughly every six weeks, in each of the school holidays. In the observation which I completed of M with B, C and D, it seemed the children really had had enough by the end of the session. However, it may be that on an individual basis, M could engage and stimulate each child for a longer period of time. I would suggest this begins with two-hour sessions. The frequency and length of sessions would need to be reviewed regularly’.

In her assessment of B dated 28 February 2024, MP the Occupational Therapist, stated that ‘B’s needs are very different to the needs of his brother, and that makes it very challenging for any carer to attend to both boys at the same time (even with support worker in place)’. MP notes how ‘[a]t home, B does not engage with his brother’ and that ‘it is apparent that B does not want to engage with his younger brother and can hurt him’. MP comments that it is B who ‘has the highest need (compared to his siblings) with regards to attachment and trust’. MP’s final conclusion reasserts that as B’s ‘needs are very different to his younger brother’s [that] makes a dual placement difficult for him’.

At the professionals’ meeting held on 14 June 2024, L stated that C has started to ‘tolerate B a bit, of late, whereby he can actually go and lay next to B, and B would tolerate his presence. So, just parallel, spending time with each other’. MP, the occupational therapist, informed the meeting how she saw that B and C ‘can make the other anxious and irritated. Obviously, they’ve got such significant needs that they’re being aware that each other are there might be comforting, but even within the contact session, there was no interaction. They withdrew from the whole family’.

Representatives from B and C’s schools who attended the professionals’ meeting stated they do not consider it would be beneficial for contact sessions to be held at the children’s respective schools. C’s teacher said ‘school, it is very much his secure, safe place. He knows how the day works, how his routines work, and hearing how contact has gone, I don’t think it would be particularly effective for those sessions to happen at school. I think that would muddy the water for an already confused little boy with not a clear grasp on what’s happening and why’. B’s teacher echoed this stating ‘it would just muddy the waters. Then B may start to feel that this isn’t his safe place to actually be in, whereas he’s got a safe place here, and he feels secure here with us. He’s built positive relationships with us as well. So, I’d like that to carry on with B’.

The local authority, M and F have reached agreement on facts which they say are capable of satisfying s.31(2) CA 1989. The court has considered this agreement in the light of all the available evidence and is satisfied that at the relevant time, that being when the children were taken into police protection on 22 September 2023, the children were suffering and were likely to suffer significant harm and neglect attributable to the care they were given (or were likely to be given) not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

Thus, the Court found that threshold to be satisfied as a result of the following facts agreed between the parties:-

On that basis in this case, I am satisfied that the threshold criteria under s.31 CA 1989 are satisfied.

The next question is whether the court should make an order and, if so, what that order should be. I have already referred to the rights of the parents, and the children under Art.8 of the ECHR to the respect for family and private life and that the children’s welfare is my paramount consideration in the care proceedings.

Section 1(3) CA 1989 provides a checklist of factors to be taken into account when determining where the children’s welfare lies and what orders should be made.

In this case, the particularly important elements for the children are their wishes and feelings; their physical, emotional and educational needs; the likely effect on them of any change in their circumstances; their various ages, sex and background; any harm the children are at risk of suffering; and how capable M is of meeting their needs.

In relation to wishes and feelings, the guardian’s report is clear that A wants to remain with her maternal aunt and in fact does not want to see M at all for the time being at least. She has shown interest in contact with F and consideration is being given to face-to-face contact. For the other children it is much more difficult if not impossible to ascertain or gauge their wishes or feelings through a combination of age (D especially) and disability (all three of the younger children). Thus, for example, although C and B are now said to tolerate each other better in a joint placement, there is no real indication that this is what either of them would want or prefer.

In relation to physical, emotional and educational needs: in the view of the guardian and the experts, there is a very real concern that in their mother’s care these needs would not be met. As the experts say, any parent would struggle alone (even with help) to meet the needs of the three younger children together. They are all disabled but all have particular needs which need to be met.

The likely effect on the children of any change in their circumstances: A has settled in well in her current placement. The evidence is that the other children found change very difficult first away from M but have now adapted better than expected. It is accepted that these changes need to be carefully managed.

In terms of age, this is especially relevant to A who is well able to express her preferences to remain in her current placement and whether or not she wants contact with her parents. Given their disabilities, this is less of a factor for the other children. The younger children especially need long term stability wherever they are placed and an ability to develop appropriately.

In terms of harm, it has already been set out above how the children have suffered significant harm in M’s care. The parenting of M and F was not good enough to prevent the children from suffering harm

I turn now to the realistic options in this case. In the case of Re B-S, Sir James Munby identified two essential things required where a court is being asked to approve a care plan for adoption and/or to make a non-consensual placement order. First there must be proper evidence, both from the Local Authority and from the Guardian.

The evidence must address all the options which are realistic, possible and must contain an analysis of the arguments for and against each option.

The second thing identified by Sir James Munby as essential is an adequately reasoned judgment and he quoted the passage from the judgment of Lord Justice McFarlane in Re G [2013] which ended with the comment that:

“The linear approach, in my view, is not apt where the judicial task is to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child's future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child’s welfare.”

As this case has progressed the two realistic options argued for by any party are on the one hand rehabilitation of the children with M and on the other hand various long-term foster care placements,

Option 1 is a return to the mother: this was M’s wish until shortly before the hearing and I accept that she loves her children very much. However, she does not now contest the making of care orders and long-term foster care placements. Realistically this is a sensible decision (however hard it was to make) given the various assessments and expert views that it would be very difficult for anybody to care for all these children, given their needs, even with assistance.

Option 2 is for long term foster care for each of the children. The advantages and disadvantages of making care orders with care plans placing the children in long term foster care have been explored during the hearing, for each of the children, as discussed above. Both M and F now accept that this in the children’s best interests, and it is an option strongly supported by the guardian. The advantages of long term foster care are, first of all, that the children are in a home where their physical, educational, health and emotional needs should be met; they will be kept safe and protected from the risks posed by care provided by the parents. As highlighted above, there is a need for specialist training for foster carers, and the particular needs of the children mean that it would be extremely difficult for these to be met by the mother and/or if the children are kept together. A’s wishes to remain with her maternal aunt should be respected. All parties are content with the present placement for D and the local authority has undertaken to carry out parallel planning for C and B which will include considering whether the children are best kept together in a placement.

The disadvantages of long term foster care are that the children will not be living with their mother, and contact with M will be limited.

In conclusion, I remind myself as set out above that care orders and placements away from the home should only be the result of these proceedings if necessary and proportionate. Furthermore, there is of course no absolute guarantee that the long term foster placements will continue to meet the children’s needs, although that is the current proposal. As mentioned both the local authority and the guardian have reached a firm recommendation that the children’s welfare requires care orders to be granted with foster care as the only option as of today, and the parents have made the difficult decision to agree to this conclusion.

In my judgment, the evidence in this case fully complies with the requirements identified by the Court of Appeal in the case of Re B-S. The realistic options for future care, a return to M or care orders on the basis of long term foster care, have been properly analysed and the advantages and disadvantages of each carefully considered by the Local Authority and the Guardian and I accept their analyses.

In this case, having conducted the balancing exercise, I conclude that there is no realistic prospect of the children being safely returned to M’s care and that their need for stability and development and – in the case of the younger children – the need for specialist care, can only be met at the present time in long term foster care placements. In terms of the welfare checklist in s.1(3) CA 1989 and the factors set out above it is clear to me that the children’s needs, the difficulty in M meeting those needs, the history of the case and the risks to the children mean that it is in the best interests of the children to make such orders. There is no other option that would meet the children’s needs and I consider that this outcome is a proportionate interference with theirs and the parents’ Art.8 rights.

In relation to contact, this has been the main focus of the hearing before me. My view is that there is no need for the Court to make an order. There is a primary duty on the local authority already to allow reasonable contact between the children and the parents in s34(1) CA 1989. As set out above section 34(11) CA states that:-

I have considered the proposed arrangements and all parties have been able to comment on them in these proceedings.

I also bear in mind what was said in the case of Re W (Section 34(2) Orders) [2000] 1 FLR 502 at page 507 about the role of the court under s34 CA 1989:-

From what I have read and been told there is a well-considered plan for contact between the children and both parents. The main objections to the plans outlined for contact have come from M.

First of all, although she accepts that, for her, individual contact with the younger children is the right approach she does not want the frequency of contact to be reduced from fortnightly to monthly.

Whilst I understand that concern it does seem to me that the approach presented by the local authority is a sensible one at least for the time being. The experts cited above recommended regular contact at various periods, and monthly was actually the most frequent (six weekly and bimonthly also being proposed). The plan to ensure good quality contact with each child for two hours on one particular weekend each month, which would enable M, foster carers and professionals to focus on the individual child on that day seems to me to be likely to be in the children’s best interests, and not one which I should seek to interfere in. It was made clear that regularity and frequency of contact will be kept under review by the local authority and the team of experts assembled in this case.

In relation to contact with F I understand the concerns of M based on F’s past behaviour and the way that this has affected the younger children. However, I agree with the guardian and the local authority that the experience and skills of the social worker and the foster carers is sufficient to properly monitor video remote contact and I am satisfied that the local authority plan is to review very carefully progress with remote contact before considering whether there can be any move to face-to-face contact.

On the basis of those observations and taking into account the evidence from the local authority and the guardian in this case, in my view it is not appropriate or necessary for the Court to interfere with the exercise of the s34(1) CA 1989 duty currently being performed by the local authority.

For the avoidance of doubt, I make the following orders that: