Re P and Q Placement Order: sibling contact order- s26 ACA 2002

I am going to give a summary of my decisions to Miss M and Mr O and some short reasons at this point before I deliver my full judgment.

Miss M did incredibly well to overcome her distress and anxiety to tell me so clearly how badly she wants her children back. I know she has found these court proceedings very difficult and the fact that she was able to talk about things that cause her so much pain in front of strangers to fight for her kids says so much about her.

Mr O also showed me how much he loves Q and how desperate he is to have him in his care. He told me that he would sacrifice almost everything for Q and I believe that he would try to do that. He was strong and dignified in incredibly difficult circumstances.

I’m very sorry but I am going to make the orders that the local authority is asking me to make. That means that P will be remain in foster care and Q will be placed for adoption, but an adoption that aims to promote his relationship with P and his other siblings.

It is obvious that Miss M loves P and Q and that they love her, but I am not confident that at this time she is able to provide a safe and consistent future for them.

Mr O is not in a place where he is able to provide the care that Q needs. There are too many uncertainties as to whether he will ever reach that point and Q has been in proceedings for all of his life. He needs security and permanence. A child’s first two years are when the majority of their abilities to form attachments are learned and these proceedings have gone on for almost four times the length of time that they are supposed to last for.

This is not the end of the road for these parents. The landscape for adoption is changing. Adoption social workers and adoptive parents are becoming more open to relationships with birth families continuing. For that to have a chance of happening, however, the parents will have to show that they have made progress and have maintained that progress. For Miss M that means that she will have to find a way to work with agencies to address her substance use and her poor mental health. For Mr O that will mean that he follows through with his detox journey and perhaps does some healthy relationships work so that he is not normalising abuse in relationships and in front of children.

They need to make sure that when the Local Authority next calls at their door to assess them they are ready and able to demonstrate that they are safe to spend time with their children.

Miss M’s progress is important not just for her prospects of seeing Q, but also for her chances of being positively assessed to have P returned to her care in the future. It happens; I have already dealt with two cases this year where mothers in her situation have had their children returned after embarking on a journey of change.

I’m very sorry. I don’t like delivering this sort of news to any parent.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Local Authority’) applies for Care Orders in respect of P, a girl born in 2018 and Q, a boy born in 2023. In addition, the Local Authority applies for a Placement Order in respect of Q.

The Local Authority has been represented in this hearing by counsel, Miss N. Oakes.

The mother of both children is LM. I will call her ‘Miss M’ in this judgment. She has been represented by counsel, Ms Gal.

P’s father, TU, sadly passed away recently during these proceedings.

Q’s father is NO. I will refer to him as ‘Mr O’. He was represented by his barrister, Ms McIvor. It had been thought during the final hearing that he had been granted parental responsibility for Q during these proceedings, however it transpired after judgment was initially handed down that the order relied upon in that respect had never been made or approved. Worryingly it had been uploaded to the portal as a draft order with a court seal already attached. When this issue became apparent after the final hearing the parties agreed that a PR order could be approved by the Court and I have amended the pdf version of the judgment to reflect that.

P and Q have been represented by their solicitor, Ms Lane, and have appeared through their Guardian, Katie Parker-Henry.

It is the Local Authority’s plan that P is to be placed in long-term foster care under a care order. The plan for Q is that he must be permanently separated from his birth family and placed for adoption. Miss M opposes the plans for both children and seeks their return to her care. Mr O opposes the plan for Q. He supports Q’s return to his mother’s care and, if that is not successful, he would seek to care for Q, although he accepts that this is not feasible immediately and seeks a 4 – 6 month extension to proceedings to achieve that. He wants me to find that he is a realistic prospect to care for Q within Q’s timescales and seeks an adjournment to complete his recovery and outstanding work, following which he would be assessed. The Guardian supports the Local Authority’s plans for both children.

In advance of the final hearing a final threshold for the making of a public law order was agreed by the parents and can be found at A42 of the bundle. That will be amended to reflect the two different issue dates of the respective proceedings.

These proceedings are a consolidation of two separate sets of proceedings. P was a party to an application by the Local Authority under case number MA23C50393 which concluded on 05 March 2024 with P’s two older siblings, R and S being placed with their father under a child arrangements order. The index proceedings had been issued on 13 July 2023, and when the other proceedings concluded P was brought into these proceedings, as there was no agreement in respect of her plan. These proceedings are now in week 94 and P has been in proceedings for around 101 weeks.

P and Q had remained with Miss M throughout proceedings until they were removed at an interim removal hearing on 02 October 2024. Since that date they have been placed together in foster care. The Local Authority plans have changed throughout proceedings. The initial applications were for interim supervision orders and the Local Authority’s final evidence in June 2024 had supported a plan for a final supervision order with the children remaining in Miss M’s care. That plan was put on hold in September 2024 when the Local Authority obtained up-to-date drug and alcohol test results of Miss M following which the children were removed and its current plan was formalised after further assessments which concluded this year.

The Local Authority brings applications for care orders pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act 1989 together with an application for a placement order (and ultimately adoption) in Q’s case under sections 21 and 46 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The Local Authority must satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that it is entitled to the orders sought. Where I am to make findings, those findings are to be made on the balance of probabilities, which really means that an event is more likely than not to have occurred in a certain way. The burden is on the Local Authority to prove any allegation made.

I remind myself that when assessing evidence and credibility, if someone lies about one matter it does not mean that they have lied about others. There can be compelling reasons why people lie about a particular matter, and I must consider why they have lied. People can lie through shame or to improve their case. There needs to be a refined analysis to consider whether dishonesty about aspects of a person’s life is relevant to the evidence they give about the central facts in issue in a case.

Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 says that a court may make a care order if satisfied that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to them if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them.

If that threshold for making a public law order is crossed, I must then consider what, if any, order I should make. Here interests of the child are paramount. I should not make any order in respect of a child unless making an order would be better for the child, and I am to look at each child individually, before also considering the potential effects of the plans on them as a family.

This family have rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Interference with those rights is permitted only if it is necessary to keep the child safe and is proportionate to the identified risks.

The court cannot make a placement order unless either the parents have consented, or the welfare of the child "requires" the consent to be dispensed with.

In deciding whether or not to make a care or placement order the paramount consideration of the court must be the child's welfare. The court must have regard to the 'welfare checklists' found at section 1(3) of the 1989 Act and the slightly different checklist at section 1(4) of the 2002 Act where a placement order is sought. The main difference between the 2002 Act checklist and the checklist in the 1989 Act is that the paramount consideration must be the child’s welfare throughout their life including consideration of their having ceased to be a member of the original family to become an adopted person.

Given the similarity in the checklists I do not intend to read them both into this judgment. Section 1 of the 2002 Act checklist reads as follows:

The Supreme Court has considered the approach to proportionality when all options, including an adoption or placement order, are being considered. The following principles from Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] UKSC 13 [2013] 2 FLR 1075 can be extracted:

Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 reminds me that everything must be done where possible to rebuild a family. The Court stressed that it is incumbent on (a) the local authority that applies for care and placement orders, (b) the children’s guardian entrusted with representing the child in the proceedings, and (c) the court, to carry out a robust and rigorous analysis of the advantages and the disadvantages of all realistic options for the child and, in the case of the court, set out that analysis and its ultimate decisions in a reasoned judgment.

In summary, when considering the statutes and the authorities, the Court is to apply a holistic, rather than a linear, approach to all of the available options. I need to look at things in the round.

I have been provided with a large bundle of 811 pages. In addition, the social worker prepared a statement concerning post-adoption contact and a contact reduction plan on day one of the hearing which I admitted into evidence. I also received position statements from Miss M and Mr O on day one. On day two it became clear that one of Miss M’s statements from March 2024 had not been included in the bundle and so I ensured that it was provided to all of the advocates. I have considered all of that evidence, together with the oral evidence and submissions I heard during the hearing. I heard oral evidence from the following people:

I do not intend to repeat the evidence or submissions that I have read and heard, however I will summarise what I consider to have been the most important features of the evidence now and will make relevant assessments of the witnesses.

Mrs Weston was an impressive witness. I found her to be pleasant, committed and capable and she demonstrated a substantial knowledge of the family. She made concessions where appropriate and was able to list multiple positives of both parents.

She has been the social worker for P and Q since August 2024. She described P as being a ball of sunshine, saying that she was thriving in foster care. She has only had one day off school since being in foster care and her overall health has been good. She is showing improvement in her learning development, and she loves playing teachers.

She said that Q is full of energy. He loves playing football and throwing and catching. He is tactile and loving. Since they have moved to foster care P has moved away from the overly caring role she was playing towards Q and is now engaging more with her peers, however she and Q remain close.

P and Q’s contact with their older siblings, R and S, was going well however there was an incident with S on 27 March 2025 which has led to S’s father saying that the contact should not continue.

Mrs Weston said that should Q be adopted the plan for contact with R and S would be for one face to face contact a year and two letterbox contacts.

She said that the contact records she has been provided with are usually reliable and she believes that Miss M has missed a number of family time sessions since the children moved into foster care.

When asked about Miss M’s work with New Beginnings, Mrs Weston explained that New Beginnings is a dedicated provision available in Stockport which tackles embedded childhood trauma. The system works with a combination of one-to-one sessions and group work. When it was suggested that Miss M was struggling with the group work Mrs Weston approached the service leaders to see if the provision could be amended to take account of Miss M’s difficulties however the providers explained to her that the mix of one to one and groupwork was essential for the provision to work. That was their model, and although they adjusted it to try to make it more user-friendly for Miss M, she was unable to continue with it.

Mrs Weston does not believe that Miss M is currently able to meet the needs of the children. Her childhood difficulties cast a pall over her ability to engage with services and maintain change. There is a definite pattern. She engages at the start, that engagement then tails off and she becomes overwhelmed.

She was able to list a number of positive factors about Miss M including:

Mrs Weston denied that Mr O was not offered appropriate support. She says that the bundle shows that there were a wealth of offers not taken up by him. She said that he spoke to her in October 2024 and he was referred to START which is a substance recovery service in Stockport. She explained that START referrals are automatic for parents with substance issues because START accept all referrals from the Local Authority. When it was put to her that Mr O had not wanted to be referred to START and had instead requested a MOSAIC referral Mrs Weston explained that MOSAIC is a more tailored service and it will often take time for a determination as to whether or not a parent is accepted by MOSAIC. He had previously self-referred to START in 2023 but was discharged for lack of engagement.

Mr O has now been referred to MOSAIC and the reports have been positive. She described his progress as commendable. She understands that he has applied for a rehabilitation facility in Kent and that application needs to be put before panel to see whether it can be accepted. If it is accepted, he would need to wait for a bed and would then need to undertake a 12-week programme. He would then need to demonstrate a sustained period of compliance. This will be difficult, she said, as Mr O has ingrained issues with substances and has not managed to demonstrate sustained change in the two years that these proceedings have been on foot.

As far as adoptive placement searches for Q are concerned Mrs Weston explained that no time frame would be put on the searches. If no placement was found in six months there would be a review and the matter would be returned to the ADM.

Mrs Weston explained that there was a change of plan in June 2024 for the children to remain with Miss M under a supervision order but that the summertime drop off in engagement with P’s summer activities and the positive drug tests for Miss M caused the Local Authority to reassess their view that the children remaining with Miss M remained safe. There was an intensive package in place as directed by the Court which Miss M was unable to maintain. Ensuring that P took part in the identified support packages was crucial in helping her catch up on the significant amount of education that she had missed whilst in Miss M’s care.

Mrs Weston accepted that there were no up to date hair strand tests of Miss M but noted that she had accepted that there had been recent relapses. The absence of engagement with professional services means that Miss M’s ability to accurately describe the nature of her relapses must be questioned and her ability to recover from relapses is likely to be less without support.

When cross-examined by Ms McIvor, Mrs Weston accepted that Mr O was committed, on time (in fact he was often early) for contact visits and that he engaged well. He appeared motivated. There were lovely interactions with Q and there had not been any need for professionals to intervene. He had some practical assistance in early sessions, but he would accept advice. There were no concerns about his behaviour during contact sessions.

His commitment to rehabilitation from alcohol and drugs is commendable and he has explained that he is prepared to suffer substantial financial loss by setting aside his employment to undertake the 12-week residential detox and he would also sacrifice his precious time with Q to go on the course.

Mrs Weston agreed that the main concerns about Mr O centred around his substance use, domestic abuse, and his engagement with professionals. She accepted that he had belatedly engaged with the professionals and had appeared to develop much more awareness of the importance of engagement once the children were removed from Miss M.

Mrs Weston agreed that he was open and honest about his drug use and said that the real question was whether or not he could demonstrate and maintain change, not whether or not he was honest about his use. She is prepared to accept that there have been no positive drug tests since January 2025 but described Mr O as being in the infancy of his journey towards sobriety.

When asked about the concerns around domestic abuse Mrs Weston was clear that no previous partner of Mr O had suggested that he was violent towards them, however there were reports that he was verbally abusive and would shout at them.

For post-adoption contact the Adoption Now team are used to give effect to the President’s guidance on post-adoption contact. There is scope for re-assessment at any time and an organic assessment as to whether the risks that are obvious and present currently remain at the time of any future assessment. Q’s needs will be at the forefront of any decision on post-adoption contact.

On day two Mrs Weston confirmed in response to questions from Miss Lane the support that had been offered to Miss M. It included the following:

She said that notwithstanding all the support provided Miss M had not made progress through proceedings.

When asked how the children’s emotional responses upon separation would be managed should the Local Authority’s plan be approved she explained that the Authority have an emotional and wellbeing team with access to therapeutic psychologists and social workers. They would undertake direct work alongside detailed life story work.

She noted that the Local Authority documentation was suggestive of real difficulties engaging Mr O during these proceedings and in the pre-proceedings period. She understood that he worked and that he had suffered some difficult bereavements recently and more historically but her view was that he was taking a backseat.

She was pressed on the Local Authority’s attitude to drugs given that there was evidence that R and S’s father was known to use drugs and yet those children had been placed in his care with the Local Authority’s approval. She explained that the Local Authority did not condone any parent taking drugs whilst looking after children, however there was a clear difference between recreational use and chronic dependency. The key is how drug use affects parenting and what risks are inherent in a particular parent’s use of drugs.

Mrs Weston was of the view that the concerns about Mr O and domestic abuse are relevant. She referred to concerns held over controlling and coercive behaviours and that P had reported that she had been woken up one morning by Mr O shouting at Miss M. Maternity staff had reported abuse from him towards Miss M at hospital when Q was born and there were reports of abuse in the street from Miss M after Q was born. At C293 Miss M had said that she had to walk on eggshells with Mr O and that he would shout at the children. P had reported that she was scared of him.

Overall, she did not view Mr O as a protective factor. He had not raised concerns with anybody over what was happening in Miss M’s home, despite knowledge that she was drinking and using cocaine whilst pregnant. She was of the view that when staying over at her house he should have been aware of the behaviours that were negatively impacting on the children, particularly P, and even though she was not his child he should have acted on what he witnessed.

In answering my questions over whether or not this was a case where the Court should make an order for contact between Q and P under section 26 of the Adoption And Children Act 2002 should a placement order be made, Mrs Weston confirmed her view that in her view the need for Q to achieve permanence through adoption outweighed the potential for losing an adoptive placement by prescribing contact between Q and P at the matching stage.

Miss M had not brought her glasses with her. As a result, her statements had to be read out to her. She has a history of anxiety at taking part in group work and did not want everyone in the courtroom looking at her whilst she was talking about her past. In order to allow her to participate more freely I rearranged the courtroom so that she could give evidence from behind a screen with her counsel close by at the clerk’s desk. Miss M managed to complete her evidence. She obviously found it an upsetting and difficult experience.

My impression of her as a witness was that she lacked insight into her behaviours, and she had not reached a position where she was able to take responsibility for a lot of her actions. Perhaps understandably, her first instinct was to blame others, and in particular the Local Authority, when the evidence suggested that the social workers were faced with someone who found it difficult to engage despite high levels of support and intervention.

Miss M told me that she had a recent relapse over a difficult situation with S which involved her drinking two cans. She had not had cocaine for a couple of months. She accepted that she used substances as a coping mechanism.

She accepted that she had missed some contact sessions recently as a result of her anxiety. She had not wanted the children to see her upset.

Miss M accepted that the Local Authority had been involved with P since October 2021 and that it had been seven moths since the children were in her care. She accepted that she had been involved with three different social workers, an intensive family support worker, probation workers and her GP although she did not feel that they gave her much assistance.

She accepted that there was shouting between her and Mr O when they were together and that the children were present and they would have been upset. She agreed that in September 2023 she had told the social workers that Mr O was drinking heavily and using crack cocaine. He had made comments to her about her weight at court and was emotionally abusive during a contact session and at hospital.

She agreed that she had used alcohol and cocaine for some time and that she was not open and honest about her substance use with the Local Authority. She denied that she breached the working agreement at E2 because she said that she only used substances when she was out, and when she was out the children were being looked after by X who the Local Authority had risk assessed.

She did not accept the evidence on C373 that she had disengaged with MOSAIC since 03 February 2025. When she was taken through the evidence around her drug use she denied that the results in September 2024 which showed cocaine, cannabis and excessive alcohol use were accurate. She accepted that she had not produced updated test results despite orders permitting further testing on 20 November 2024 and 10 March 2025. She says that she had arranged some tests in the last week or two herself, but she was waiting in and the testers never came. She denied that she had not taken the tests because she had something to hide.

As far as her mental health is concerned, she said that she battles her past trauma every day. She denied that her engagement with New Beginnings deteriorated- she was clear that it was the requirement for group session that meant that she could not continue. She accepted that there was important work with her mental health that was outstanding. Poor mental health has impacted on her relationship with her children, even recently when she had not been able to go to contact.

When asked about P’s school attendance she accepted the evidence from the school that in 2023/24 her attendance was 59.1%. With intensive assistance from the Local Authority, she had increased it to 82% but understood that the teachers were saying that it was a lack of attendance that was holding her back. She said that it was ill-health that caused P to miss school when she was at home. Since she had moved to foster care her attendance had reached 97%. She had only missed one day. Her phonics scores had progressed from 0/42 whilst with Miss M to a score of 25 in the seven months she has been in foster care. Miss M said she was proud of P’s progression and that she would be motivated to continue the improvement. She explained that the reason that the improvement had taken place was because the foster carers did not have the same problems that she had.

Having heard from Miss M I have a lot of sympathy for her. She was subjected to domestic abuse as a child and an adult. She has been a victim of sexual abuse and has internalised her trauma. In order to cope she has turned to drugs and alcohol. Notwithstanding her complaints about a lack of support the very clear impression given to me is that she is not ready or able to address her longstanding trauma, even when not addressing it has seen her relationships with her children put at risk. That says a lot about how much she has suffered.

Mrs Weston appears to have analysed Miss M accurately. She loves her children and is keen to engage when the Local Authority have become involved. She manages engagement for short periods but soon that engagement dissipates, and she becomes consumed by difficult life events. During these proceedings there was an upturn in her engagement in early 2024, to such an extent that the Local Authority changed their plan, but she became destabilised by S’s presence and her engagement fell away. That period was categorised by a failure to be open and honest about her substance use which is something that has been prevalent throughout proceedings.

She appears to be experiencing another upturn in engagement but there are no test results to evidence her substance use and she has admitted to a relapse recently. I accept the social worker’s evidence that she had previously admitted to three blips before test results demonstrated likely chronic and excessive substance use which she later admitted to. She will have been aware of the importance of up-to-date hair strand testing and if she had been largely abstinent, she was represented and should have moved heaven and earth to ensure that testing was available for the court at this hearing.

Her engagement with services mirrors her ability to meet the needs of her children. The harm caused to the children has been significant. P is a classic example of this. Miss M has been repeatedly unable to get P into school. This is no doubt due to the after-effects of her substance use or her intrusive mental health reactions. She has missed so much school that her achievement levels have been severely compromised. Her ability to form social bonds with her peers will have been affected and she will have been given the impression that school attendance is optional. Since going into foster care P has settled in school, has formed stronger friendship bonds and has started to achieve much better results in her schoolwork. Unfortunately, she has a lot to make up. Part of the reasons why these proceedings have been so protracted is because the Local Authority and I were keen to provide Miss M with support to help her get her children into school and summer provision consistently. Sadly, she was not able to manage that.

Miss M was frank with me in a number of respects. She does not feel that her engagement with services is helping. She would rather her past memories were not dragged up, particularly she said, if she is not getting her children back. She likened it to picking at a wound. She said that she did want to engage as she wanted to get well.

Miss M’s last drug and alcohol tests show significant use of alcohol and cocaine. Her alcohol worker has closed down work with her due to missed appointments and she has not provided updated test results. I find that this is likely because she is still using alcohol and drugs as a coping mechanism for the very difficult times that she has been going through.

Mr O was a plain speaking and straightforward witness. He was dignified and respectful in very difficult circumstances. He made a number of concessions during his evidence.

When asked about Q he described him as being bright, beautiful, intelligent and loving. He said that he plays football with him.

Mr O said that he had always worked. His is [in the building trade]. He told me that he had never lived with Miss M but had spent nights at her property. The plan was that he would move in to help once Q was born. As far as he was concerned, she was responsible for her older children, and he had not assumed any responsibility for them.

He said that he was naïve and inexperienced around local authority involvement. He has never experienced local authority involvement and did not know what a social worker was prior to these proceedings. He thought everything would blow over and he accepted that he took a back seat but the removal of the children in October 2024 was a wake-up call. That is a red flag, though, as it means that the previous plan for adoption in early 2024 was not sufficient to motivate him to act as he has done recently.

He criticised the social worker for not giving him more time during the initial parenting assessment after some sessions could not take place, but at the same time he accepted that he was not really taking the local authority concerns seriously.

During his evidence it was clear that he did not really know what domestic abuse was. He admitted as much. He said that he thought that it involved hitting your partner but accepted that shouting in front of children would not be appropriate but whilst he and Miss M argued there was nothing that he recalled that would have scared the children.

He accepted that there was some inconsistency in his contact with Q when he was working away in Wolverhampton in 2024 and said that there were other occasions where Miss M did not bring him to contacts.

He blames the social workers for a delay in referring him to MOSAIC. He said that MOSAIC has been life changing and a report in the bundle suggests that he is doing very well there. He accepted that he was only in the infancy of his journey towards recovery, and he wanted another chance from the Court to demonstrate that he could complete the journey and prove himself to be an appropriate carer for Q. He seeks 4 – 6 months more to demonstrate continued abstinence from alcohol and cocaine, to move away from his continuing use of cannabis and to get a property ready for him and Q to move into. He accepted that a return of Q to his care today is not an option. He would like to do some additional parenting work as he has only seen Q for 1.5 hours a week and has never had him in his full-time care.

He agreed that he went to the initial PLO meeting for Q and that he had been to all the court hearings and has been represented throughout. He accepted that he did not put himself forward to care for Q and that he wanted him to remain with Miss M. He said that the removal hearing in October 2024 was a wake-up call and he acknowledged that he had left it too late to address the issues flagged up by the Local Authority. He understood that the removal hearing was 63 weeks into proceedings. He accepted limited engagement with START in 2023 but explained that the programme was of no assistance to him. He criticised the re-referral to START in November 2024 and said that he did not go because he knew that it would not work. He was drinking until December 2024 and accepted that he might have a problem with alcohol and agreed that he used alcohol and cocaine as coping mechanisms.

His position is that the people who he associates with at work and at home have the same approach to alcohol. They go to work then have a couple of drinks every day in the pub. They have arguments at home with their partners that involve shouting and abuse. He does not see that he behaves any differently from many other people.

Mr O accepted that his HST results in January 2025 showed excessive use of alcohol together with cannabis and cocaine use in the period up to December 2024. Since that time, he has tested negatively for cocaine and alcohol, but he admits smoking cannabis every night.

He denied ever shouting at the kids for watching TV, but he accepted having a go at Miss M in the hospital when Q was born, although he appeared to suggest that it was nothing serious and that he only really told her to ‘fuck off’. He also accepted that he confronted her in Stockport when he saw her after Q was born and that he was abusive to her in front of Q and P when he had learned about the court proceedings. He accepted that might have been frightening for the children.

Mr O again confirmed that he did not feel that he needed to do domestic abuse work as he did not view himself as a domestic abuser, however he would do whatever it took to get Q rehabilitated to his care.

Mr O has a longstanding history of serious drug use. That has led to harm and neglect and has been characterised by a lack of engagement with the professionals involved with Q. It is not an answer to say that he was playing a minor role until the children were removed in October 2024. It should have been obvious to him during pre-proceedings that there were significant concerns over Miss M’s parenting and that this could have a serious effect on his, at that time, unborn child.

When these proceedings started the documentation available to him should have made it clear that there were clear and present risks to Q’s welfare. These proceedings are now in week 94. I understand that Mr O is desperate for more time as he has only just become alive to the realities of the Local Authority’s plan, however he has attended each of the hearings in this case and has been represented throughout. At the earliest hearing in this case, I made my concerns plain and encouraged the parents to engage with the professionals. I do not accept that the Local Authority have failed to provide him with signposting to services or have failed to support him appropriately. The reality is that he has started engaging very late.

He was the subject of a negative parenting assessment in October 2023. On 09 July 2024 at C214 he stated that he was not in a position to care for Q and in September 2024 at C264 he stated that he could not offer a home for him. By his own admission he was taking a back seat in the hope that Q would be able to remain with Miss M. It is therefore not surprising that he was not the centre of the Local Authority’s efforts to find a permanent placement for Q.

I agree with Mrs Weston that his recent engagement is commendable and if he maintains it, his progress should stand him in good stead for whatever challenges lie ahead.

I have formed the view that Mr O is not a protective factor. At D6 in front of the midwife he made it clear that he knew that Miss M was doing cocaine whilst pregnant. He was abusive to her at hospital and was abusive to her in the street later when the children were present.

The Guardian was serious and professional. She listened to the questions and thought carefully about her responses. She came across as child-centred and was quick to identify the various balancing exercises required by the plans or proposals she was being asked to consider.

She said that her concerns remained about both parents after hearing their evidence. Miss M has not sustained changes and the risks she has presented with throughout proceedings remain. Mr O has made commendable progress but his plan to extend proceedings any longer is not supportable. He has not managed to make changes and demonstrate that he could sustain them within the proceedings.

She was of the view that the post-adoption plan for contact with Q for P of four times a year was a minimum and should be recorded in an order. She felt that once a year face to face contact between Q and the older siblings should also be a minimum, but she accepted that there might be problems making an order in that respect as the older siblings are not under local authority care and their father has not been heard on the question of contact.

She said that post-adoptive contact with the parents should be considered by the Local Authority but only if they had demonstrated changes and the contact was assessed as being safe.

She did not take the view that there needed to be a time limited search for an adoptive placement. The Local Authority believes that a placement should be found, and they are committed to reviewing the plan regularly should one not become available.

Miss Parker-Henry said that long term foster care was not appropriate for Q who is not yet two. It would be intrusive, would not provide him with permanence and may result in the stigma that accompanies being a looked after child with persistent social work intervention, She agreed that there could be stigma in being adopted but felt that adoptive placements are less likely to break down that foster care placements are. She accepted that adoption would mean the loss of his family and that it might be harmful to his identity needs but that was part of the reason why she supported an open adoption.

She was asked what she would need to see from Miss M to recommend that the children be returned. She said she would need to see long-term embedded change.

As far as Mr O is concerned, he would have to complete his detox programme, reduce his cannabis use, do some work around domestic abuse and then demonstrate that these changes have been maintained over an extended period of time. If there was an adjournment and these changes were not made or maintained the likelihood would be that Q would lose his chance of permanence.

She agreed that Mr O had demonstrated positive changes in these proceedings. During his oral evidence was the first time, however, that he accepted his part in the delay in his attempts to have Q rehabilitated to him. He had demonstrated much more commitment to contact after Q was removed.

The contents of the sibling assessments were put to her. She said that she understood that the assessment counselled against complete separation but explained that this was why she supported an adoption with contact with the wider family.

Miss Parker-Henry was of the view that an adoption that provided for continued relationships with Q’s siblings was crucial given the sibling bonds in this case and the risk that Q’s identity could be compromised were he to be prevented from seeing his birth family only to subsequently find out that he was the only one adopted. There needs to be careful life story work coupled with beneficial familial contact to bolster his sense of identity.

She remained of the view that the preferred option in this case for Q was adoption and that P should be placed in long term foster care.

A final threshold document was agreed in November 2024.

The agreed threshold states as follows:

I am satisfied that these facts establish that, as at the date the respective proceedings were issued, P and Q were likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care likely to be given to them, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them.

As it is agreed that threshold is met in this case the only consideration for the Court is what the appropriate welfare decision should be.

As I indicated earlier, the decision-making process for these children requires a holistic balancing exercise looking at each child separately but also considering the combined effect of the proposed welfare decisions. This discussion will consider those factors in the respective welfare checklists, and I will then go on to determine the appropriate outcome. The social worker carried out a very careful analysis in her final SWET. I do not accept that she failed to properly balance the sibling relationship. It is plain from C347 and C348 that a very detailed thought process lay behind the conclusions being reached. I reject Ms McIvor’s submission that the first thought given to the sibling relationship by the social worker was at door of court. The door of court evidence was about specific planning for arrangements between the siblings post-adoption, not the effect of adoption on Q and P. The commitment to open adoption demonstrates just how the relationship was considered during the balancing exercise.

The options presented to the Court for P are as follows:

Miss M wants P to be returned to her care.

Rehabilitation to Miss M would avoid the stigma that foster care or adoption may cause and would allow her to continue to enjoy her extended family relationships with her siblings. She would have the opportunity to build on the positive relationships she has formed with Miss M. Miss M loves her and is desperate for her to remain as part of her family. Their contact has been good, when it takes place. It would avoid the harm inherent in maintaining her separation from her birth family.

The risks that rehabilitation to Miss M would entail have been covered in some detail during this hearing. There can be no starker evidence of the harm posed by Miss M than the contrast between P’s development whilst in the care of her mother and her development following her removal into foster care.

Miss M has intrusive mental health problems which impact upon her ability to parent. They stem from her difficult past. When her mental health is poor she cannot get P to school, and the evidence suggests that P was required to perform a caring role for Q. Her coping mechanism for these times of stress is to use substances and her substance use carries with it significant immediate risks to the welfare of the children who may be exposed to substances and who would be cared for by somebody under the influence of those substances. That use has also no doubt exacerbated Miss M’s inability to parent her children. That is why appointments have been missed, engagement is inconsistent, and P was not consistently taken to school. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that there were legitimate reasons why P was not consistently taken to school and the careful summer provision provided by the Local Authority. The likely reasons are because Miss M could not cope due to overwhelm, poor mental health and substance use. That is likely why she has not been able to maintain her substance abuse work and her mental health input.

Miss M has not adequately addressed those issues which have been prevalent from the outset of local authority involvement. She would need substantial input over an extended period of time. She would need to demonstrate consistent engagement. Whilst there have been positive periods of engagement, such as the period that caused the Local Authority to change its plan in June 2024, those periods have been derailed by life events, such as S’s disruption in 2024, and they have also been accompanied by dishonesty over substance use, which means that the Local Authority will find it difficult to accept that Miss M will come to the or other professionals for help should she start to feel overwhelmed. I draw adverse inferences from her failure to provide up to date HST results and find that she is likely still drinking excessively and using cocaine. In addition, S is still around and he is a destabilising force. It is notable that her recent admitted relapse also centred around S and her inability to manage him is an additional risk to any children placed in her care.

I also hold concerns over the children being exposed to domestic abuse. She describes a history of domestically abusive relationships and as a consequence any children in her care would see them at risk as being victims of domestic abuse whilst in that household, it being the case that a child witness of domestic abuse is to be considered a direct victim themselves.

Long Term Foster Care is the Local Authority’s preferred option for P. P’s move to foster care has seen a significant upturn in her educational attendance and attainment. Her health needs are being met and she appears to be socialising with her peer group much more than she was when she was at home. A foster placement would see her safe from the risks that I have identified that a return to Miss M would involve.

Sadly, her current foster carers are not a long-term option. That would mean that this plan would see disruption for P who would have to go to live with people who she has not yet met. There are always concerns as to the stability and durability of foster placements, particularly in the current climate where available foster placements are scarcer than they have been in recent times. That means that this plan would entail the stigma of remaining a looked after child with the potential uncertainty over possible repeated placement moves and a lack of permanence for P.

In addition, P wants to return to her mother and cannot understand why she is not able to. It would therefore likely be harmful in the short term to P to deny her wishes and feelings. She may well feel abandoned, and if it were to be the case that she was to be separated from Q she would be away from her family whilst trying to process that loss.

The options presented to the Court for Q are as follows:

The positives of Q’s return to Miss M would be similar to the positives identified in respect of P’s proposed return and the negatives would be similar too.

Q is younger than P and so is even more reliant on his caregivers for his basic needs.

Mr O accepts that he is not in a position to care for Q at this time. He needs 4 – 6 months to complete his detox programme and to obtain and set up a property to live in. He would like to do parenting work so that he would feel more equipped to provide full-time long-term care to a child although there is some evidence that he performed a parenting role with his older child who has never been the subject of social work involvement.

Were his plan to work, Q would be placed with his father which would carry with it the same benefits I identified in respect of P and Q’s potential return to Miss M.

Mr O’ plan would, however, see a further extension to proceedings for a child who has been in proceedings for almost the first two years of his life. In the event that he is not returned to his mother he would spend that period in foster care. There are no guarantees that Mr O would be able to maintain his detox or eradicate his addiction to cannabis. It is entirely untested. These are deep-rooted addictions, and it is common for early progress to end in set-backs or a reversion to previous coping mechanisms when difficult life events occur. It is also the case that the period of adjournment that he seeks would not be sufficient to establish that he has been able to maintain the changes should he progress through and complete the detox. He would have to demonstrate that he maintained the changes and would then require an updated parenting assessment.

The issues around substances are not the only concern around Q being placed in his father’s care. Mr O appears to have little understanding of domestic abuse. He has accepted using terms of abuse towards Miss M in front of the children. He appears to normalise this by suggesting that Miss M was abusive to him and those he associates with behave in similar ways to their partners. There is evidence in the bundle that the children have been scared by Mr O and Miss M has stated that she felt like she was walking on eggshells around him and that he was a negative influence. He made some advances in the hearing in terms of his understanding but would then suggest that other people would call what was being termed as abuse ‘ordinary behaviour’.

Mr O does not appear to have a support network in place to help him look after Q. He would have to give up his job. At present he has not got established accommodation. There has been a history of non-engagement with the social workers and by his own admission he has taken a backseat in these proceedings. That has meant that his recent progress is entirely untested. I cannot be satisfied that he will succeed in his attempts to effect a recovery from his embedded past which has seen him using and reliant on substances for many years.

I also hold concerns over his ability to be a protective factor for Q. He would have been witness to Miss M’s dangerous and chaotic behaviours in the build up to Q’s birth. She was drinking and taking cocaine whilst heavily pregnant. He does not appear to have acted in any way to safeguard his unborn baby.

His progress has been significant and commendable, and it is a real credit to him, but he is not ready for Q to be rehabilitated to him and there are currently significant risks to Q’s safety around his history of substance use, his attitude towards domestic abuse, his lack of experience as parent and his ability to protect Q.

Long Term Foster care is an option for Q. It would be a substantial benefit to his identity needs to remain a member of his birth family and to be able to see and spend time with them. He may well have the opportunity to be placed with P which would avoid the likely trauma they would both experience on separation.

The negatives are the same as those that would present for P. In addition, were both children to be placed in foster care together there would be no guarantees that they would continue to be placed together.

The Local Authority contend for a placement order with a view to adoption. It has become clear that the Local Authority are committing to a search that only involves adopters who will commit to inter-sibling contact. They are prepared to include that in a recital to the order and will not oppose an order under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 for contact between Q and P on at least four occasions per year.

Placing Q for adoption would likely protect him from physical and emotional harm and meet all of his basic physical needs. It would also be more likely to provide him with permanence and stability, providing him with a family to belong to throughout his life.

However, adoption would separate him from his parents and his six half-siblings. He could lose emotional security throughout his life which could result in a lack of understanding of his place in the community. He may well harbour feelings of rejection by his birth family, particularly as he would be the only one in his family who was adopted, which could affect his long-term self-esteem although good quality life story work and creative ideas around contact could mitigate these issues. There is a risk of placement breakdown following adoption, however I accept the Guardian’s evidence that the risk is much lower than cases involving placements in long term foster care.

The bond between Q and P is strong. They have lived together for all of Q’s life. This case is so difficult because the plan for Q would see this bond broken. There is a strongly worded sibling assessment in the papers where the assessing social worker was very clear that there should not be complete separation of the siblings, particularly given the bond between Q and P. In my judgement, what the social worker meant by ‘complete separation’ was the prosect of a closed adoption as far as the siblings are concerned. I have read the sibling assessments carefully. I do not underestimate the importance of their bond.

It is as a result of that bond which has caused the Local Authority to seek, what is being referred to as, an open adoption. That is particularly important in the modern era where there is a greater risk of adoption placement breakdown given the availability of social media and genealogy apps. In this case the number of siblings must inevitably increase those risks.

Whilst a commitment to an open adoption carries with it no guarantees of contact, setting the template now and seeking adopters committed to that process would likely mitigate a number of the identity concerns inherent in a closed adoption.

I am required to look at all of the realistic options holistically to find the best solutions for P and Q.

A holistic approach involves a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.

In order to determine whether the potential outcomes are appropriate the Court must consider the proportionality of the orders being considered. Re H-W (Children) (No 2) [2022] EWCA Civ 1451 the Court of Appeal made it clear that the Court must apply a four-stage consideration to determine the proportionality of the outcomes being considered:

Further consideration of the test of proportionality took place in the case of Re T [2025] EWCA Civ 93, where amongst other things Peter Jackson LJ reminded the lower courts that keeping children safe does not require the elimination of all risk.

The harm arising from Miss M’s plan would be significant and instant. Intensive local authority involvement and assistance has not managed to reduce the risks over an extended period of time. It is not a realistic option for either child to be returned to her care.

The harm arising from Mr O’ proposal is the harm inherent in delay. It would see proceedings adjourned in respect of a boy who is nearly two years old, with little prospect of a final determination being reached for him for many more months, certainly more than the six months Mr O contends for. He would likely lose his chance for permanence in circumstances where Mr O is completely untested in demonstrating that he can make and maintain the necessary changes. This is the period where his attachments are being formed. Further delay would likely be catastrophic and is unsupportable.

Long term foster care is the only realistic option for P. There are no positively assessed alternative carers. She has thrived so far in foster care and will be able to maintain her family relationships, albeit at a reduced level.

Adoption is the appropriate welfare option for Q. The benefits outweigh the harms. The biggest harms to mitigate are the potential loss of Q’s familial relationships and the harm to P in separating her from her brother. It seems to me that a plan of adoption that limits the search to those adopters prepared to facilitate sibling contact is the best method of mitigating that harm. I accept that there are no guarantees, and that it may well be the case that the parents are not assessed as being appropriate for post-placement order or post-adoptive contact, but in my judgment those risks are outweighed by this little boy’s need for stability and permanence throughout his life. This decision will inevitably be harmful for P and Q who have been close and have lived together ever since Q was born, but the social work evidence demonstrates that the trauma bond is lessening, and that each child is being assisted to form their own personalities and their independence. I hope that a placement can be found for Q that nurtures and fosters this bond. The harm to these children will be lessened by the likelihood of sibling contact and the Local Authority have described a suite of services available to assist them in managing their loss.

I do not consider that there needs to be a time limited search. The benefits of adoption so far outweigh the benefits of long term foster care for Q that if an adoptive placement can be found it should be secured. In any event the Local Authority have a review system in place to return the matter to ADM should a placement not be found within an appropriate timescale.

I do intend to make a section 26 ACA order to set the template for contact between Q and P at least four times a year pending any adoption. I don’t find it appropriate to make such an order in respect of the other siblings without their carers having been given the opportunity to participate. The intention can be recorded in the recitals.

Sadly, I have reached the conclusion that the Local Authority plan for adoption best promotes Q’s welfare. It is necessary and proportionate to the risks that he faces. I agree with the Guardian that rehabilitation to the Parents is not a realistic option because of the risks that have been identified and that a further adjournment would not be within Q’s timescales. I am satisfied that long-term foster care is not an appropriate option for Q who needs an opportunity for permanence at a time when he still has the opportunity to make lifelong attachments after an extraordinarily long time in proceedings. My conclusion is that the physical, psychological and emotional needs of Q throughout his life could only be properly met by a Placement Order as particularised in the Local Authority’s care plan.

In reaching the conclusion that nothing other than adoption will do for Q I acknowledge that the Parents oppose a Placement order and will be devastated by this decision. I am satisfied that his welfare demands that their consent be dispensed with.

I am satisfied that the Local Authority’s contact reduction plan is appropriate albeit it is accepted that inter-sibling contact will be defined by the section 26 ACA order I am making. It is always difficult to strike a balance between the immediate harm that will occur to a child in losing their connection with people who are important to them and the need to allow their bonds with their new family to form once a match takes place.

The President of the Family Division has expended considerable time and attention recently on the issue of post-adoption contact. He points out that there has been significant research focussing on concerns that children who do not enjoy post-adoption direct contact can suffer significantly with their identity. He reminds the decision makers that the modern world, and in particular the prevalence of social media, and ancestry and DNA applications, means that, more than ever before, people can be identified and contacted using novel and creative methods. It follows that children who grow up with their identity needs met are less likely to cause instability in their placements through searches for the birth families or through negative attitudes towards their adopters. A way to manage that is through creative post-adoption contact.

I am satisfied that the Local Authority’s commitment to setting the template upon the making of a placement order gives effect to the President’s concerns. This is a case that carries with it real concerns over Q’s identity should he be adopted. The commitment by this local authority and the measures being put in place by Adoption Counts will hopefully go a long way towards supporting Q’s identity and improving the potential for stability in his adoptive placement should one be found.

Accordingly, I intend to make the care orders sought by the Local Authority and will approve the care plan. I will also make a placement order in respect of Q with a section 26 ACA order in respect of P. Whilst such orders are an obvious interference with the Article 8 rights of the children and their parents, they are both necessary to keep them safe and are proportionate to the identified risks. No other orders will do.

I will make the following orders: