X and Y (Children: Care and Placement), Re

Over the last four days I have considered this case and the request made by the Applicant Local Authority (“the LA”) for both care and placement orders with respect to both children, [ ] (“X”) and [ ] (“Y”). The children’s guardian (“CG”) supports this application. It is opposed by both the children’s Mother, [ ] (“the mother”) and Father, [ ] (“the father”). They each seek for the children to be placed with the mother. I also heard from an intervenor, [ ] (“Z”), although for reasons below I do not intend to spend significant time considering her position.

The father did not attend the final hearing nor provide final evidence. He is Y’s father only although he has played a significant role in X’s life. X’s father has played no role in his life or in these proceedings.

I have considered all the information placed before me whether I refer to it within this judgment or not. This includes the papers in the final hearing bundle, the live evidence of the witnesses who appeared before me, and both the documents and oral submissions provided by each advocate (not including the intervenor).

I have provided a headline summary as annex 1 to this judgment to assist the mother and at the suggestion of the intermediary assessor. To the extent that document differs from this judgment this judgment should be preferred. I intend to do my best to keep this judgment focused to assist all parties and deal only with those matters and aspects which require determination to fairly dispose of this application.

The central issue is where the children should be placed. Should this be with the mother (and likely under a supervision order in favour of the LA), into long term foster care (“LTFC”) or under a placement order with a plan of adoption?

There is no dispute that the children should not be separated. It is agreed they should enjoy a future together as this best meets their welfare needs.

Depending on the answer to the question in paragraph 5 above I am required to consider the consequential contact arrangements between the children and the important people in their life. This is whether they are placed for adoption or placed into LTFC.

The children’s welfare is my paramount consideration. It must guide my decision making throughout. This welfare is viewed individually albeit it is likely the children’s interests will interact to a significant extent given the agreement as to the importance of them staying together. Because the plan is for adoption I must have regard to the children’s welfare throughout their lives.

I am asked to make an order in favour of the LA. A public law order can only be made if I find the children have suffered significant harm as described in section 31 of the Children Act 1989. There is only modest disagreement in this regard and it is agreed this legal threshold is crossed and that I can make a public law order. To the extent there is disagreement it will be for the LA to prove an allegation and they will do so if they establish it on balance of probability.

The fact the threshold is crossed in this case does not mean I should make a public law order. Any public law order infringes on the family members (most particularly each child’s) right to respect to private family life. It can only be justified if it is reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. If a lesser intervention would address the identified concern then this lesser form of intervention should be taken. In this case the LA seek a plan of adoption. This is an intervention at the very extreme end of interference in family life and so requires a very high level of justification. This is encompassed by the language of such order being required because ‘nothing else will do.’ This focuses attention of the realistic options before the Court and the need for a holistic balancing exercise to ensure the right decision is reached. The parents would not consent to such an outcome and I would only be able to dispense with their consent if the children’s welfare required me to do so.

If I make a decision which separates the children from their family then I must also consider the appropriate contact arrangements between the children and family. In this case there is limited disagreement as to what the outcome would look like if I made a care order only with a plan for LTFC. However, I have heard argument as to the appropriate course of action should I approve the plan for adoption. I will return to this at the appropriate point in this judgment.

I intend to attempt a relatively brief account of the history in this case so as to not weigh down this judgment. I have considered all the background features and continue to bear them in mind. For the purpose of this section, I will highlight (a) The earlier history; (b) the recent history that brought the children into proceedings, and; (c) the procedural history.

I obtain a helpful background relating to the mother from the cognitive assessment, psychiatric report and global psychological assessment obtained during the proceedings. She moved to this country when aged 7 and was brought up by her father alone in what appears to have been a somewhat rigid parenting approach. The mother suffered with epilepsy and struggled in mainstream education although she ultimately proceeded to obtain a law degree. She has suffered with anxiety and depression since mid-adolescence and with physical symptoms consequent upon her poor mental health. She now also suffers with hearing issues and used a ‘hearing loop’ throughout the hearing. She suffered a significance bereavement response following the death of her father in 2022. The expert concluded she suffers with an emotionally unstable personality disorder and evidence of a disorder under which she regularly presents with physical symptoms notwithstanding the absence of any physical cause. He considered this was likely a manifestation of her personality disorder.

The evidence is of the mother being socially isolated and struggling with her various conditions and challenges. She fell pregnant with X but his father thereafter played no role in his life. The mother indicates X believes the father to be his father, a position she has not sought to correct. The mother met the father when they both attended the same special needs school. Later as adults they came across each other by coincidence and the relationship restarted. At first the mother provided support to the father with his own challenges before they started a relationship in about 2021. Y was later conceived out of this relationship. X is now aged 8 and Y aged 3.

The father has perhaps a more challenging life history than the mother as detailed in the expert reports. He has been diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder and intermittent depression. He has previously demonstrated self harming actions. He has abused both alcohol and drugs and suffered with psychosis. He has two children from a previous relationship (“C” and “K”). He was schooled at this same special needs school as the mother. He has recently experienced a marked deterioration in his presentation and mental health which has been associated with his disengagement from contact and these proceedings. This is undoubtedly also associated with his return to significant drug misuse with a recent hair strand test showing cocaine use at a very high level. Such usage has historically been associated with psychotic episodes.

I pay particular regard to the chronology attached to the social work initial statement. It is a notable feature of this case that there has been a consistent allocated social worker throughout these proceedings.

Children Services were first involved in 2017 when concerns arose over the mother’s mental health and her struggling to cope with X. She was provided with advice from the Early Help Intervention Service (“EHIS”). Further support was offered in 2019 when the mother reported low mood and concerns around X’s behaviour. Later in 2019 a hospital made a referral due to concerns around the mother’s mental health, the conflictual relationship between the parents (I note this appears to predate the accepted commencement date of the relationship proper). A range of services were offered including early help, a parenting programme and referral to domestic abuse support (this was declined).

In February 2022 police were involved with the family following a verbal argument during which the mother, who was pregnant, threatened to kill the father. In May 2022, the Medical Centre was concerned for X’s welfare and emotional needs with real concern as to whether the mother was coping. An assessment was undertaken and Early Help proposed. In December 2022, the police attended the property. The mother described being strangled (during this hearing she informed me she feared she would be killed). The father reported being hit and bitten by the mother. During the incident Y was reported to be in the father’s arms. The mother was arrested but then de-arrested. Additional cross allegations were made.

A child protection process commenced. X gave an account of witnessing the incident. The mother indicated she wanted contact to continue with the father and that this should not be supervised. In April 2023 at an unannounced visit the father was seen at the property. His presence was initially denied by the mother but later confirmed. In July 2023 X attended school and gave cause for concern to the teaching staff. He spoke of “mummy saying he couldn’t tell” when asked what was wrong. He said “mummy said he couldn’t show his body” when hit by a ball during play. In October 2023 Y was burnt when a hot cup of tea was left in her reach and she pulled it down upon her. In November 2023 X made a number of concerning points during direct work including that he was smacked a lot, that safety at home was important so that children did not get taken away, that he didn’t receive regular meals or regular bedtime at home and that he didn’t trust anyone. In the same month, the school were concerned when the mother arrived at school holding X by the hood of his coat saying, “take him, call social service, I don’t want him anymore, he’s an absolute joke.” The school and another parent intervened and X said the mother had hit him, pulled his hair, and punched him in the back. The children were placed under police protection. Within the assessment the mother describes herself as suffering a nervous breakdown at this time. I note the LA did not seek to prove all elements of the above.

The proceedings commenced thereafter and are now in around week 88. The full procedural history can be found in section B of the hearing bundle. At the initial hearing, the children were made subject to an interim care order. They have remained subject to this throughout the proceedings. Following a further case management hearing the mother underwent an assessment with the children within a Residential Assessment Unit (“the Unit”). This reached a negative conclusion and the children returned into foster care following departure from the unit. Fortunately, they have formed a good bond with dedicated foster carers since that time.

An assessment was directed of the intervenor at the request of the mother. This reached a negative conclusion and the matter proceeded to IRH in October 2024. When the intervenor challenged her negative viability assessment the proceedings were put back by agreement for a full assessment. This assessment reached a further negative conclusion and at a hearing in April 2025 a PTR and final hearing was fixed. At the same hearing, a further assessment of the mother was refused.

This final hearing was fixed for September 2025. When this was brought to my attention as Acting Designated Family Judge I brought the case forward to this final hearing and vacated the PTR. I reduced the time estimate by 1 day. This reduced time estimate has been more than sufficient with all the evidence and submissions being heard within 3 days.

Threshold is crossed in this case on the basis of the concessions made by the mother. I commend her in this regard. These are significant concessions and I accept it must have been difficult to accept the same.

The threshold is crossed on the following summarised basis:

There is no need to further or more fully consider the threshold in the light of the fundamental agreement as to its contents.

I heard from the key worker from the Unit, the intervenor’s assessor, the allocated social worker, the intervenor, the mother, and the children’s guardian.

In the course of her evidence the intervenor informed me she was not longer seeking a special guardianship order / challenging her negative assessment. Having heard her evidence, I consider this was a sensible decision to take. By that point in time, I had found her evidence at times confusing and at other times contradictory. There were real issues as to transparency and honesty with professionals. In the light of her change in position I discharged her from the proceedings. I will say no more about her evidence.

I consider each of the professionals gave balanced and helpful evidence. This was not a case in which a significant challenge was made to the professionalism or balance of any of the professional witnesses. In particular I agree the allocated social worker demonstrated a very clear understanding of the case and a clear understanding of the needs of the children. She gave balanced evidence, made appropriate concessions but was firm as to her conclusions. The children’s guardian also gave clear and comprehensive evidence. I need say little as to the special guardian assessor save to say her ultimate conclusion has been borne out by the change in position and the evidence I received prior to this change. I found the Unit key worker a sensible and straightforward witness. To the extent there were limited criticism of her I did not find these made out. In reality the mother’s case was not that this assessment was fundamentally wrong but rather there had been sufficient progress made subsequently to justify a departure from the conclusions reached.

I found the mother’s evidence more challenging. I have borne in mind her cognitive difficulties as outlined in the expert assessment. These include challenges in processing information. As a result, I have been careful not to misunderstand some of the difficulties she appeared to face in providing answers to sensible questions. There were a range of questions which sought to understand her current acceptance / acknowledgement of the things that had gone wrong in the past and to probe into the answers she gave to these questions. In each case whilst the mother fundamentally accepted the premise that things had gone wrong she struggled to articulate the basis on which she accepted this to be the case. As an example, she told me she had apologised to X for some of her behaviours towards him but when asked what she had apologised for she really struggled to identify what it was that she had apologised for. This is but one example. I have stood back to consider whether this demonstrated her being evasive in seeking to avoid a difficult, shaming, or unhelpful answer or for some other reason. On balance I have reached the conclusion that it was because the mother whilst knowing she had acted wrongly was struggling to really explain what it was that she had done wrong. In my assessment this was an issue of insight rather than evasion on her part. Having made this point, I generally found the mother to be an engaging witness who seemed to be doing her best to deal with the points raised. She came across as genuine in her motivations and well intentioned. I was left in no doubt that she deeply loves both of her children and believes their best interests lie with being placed into her care.

The key purpose of this judgment is to explain the decision I have reached and inform all parties why I have reached that decision rather than a different outcome. Bearing this in mind I intend to apply a relatively truncated approach to the evidence received, highlighting only the key points required for the judgment.

There is very extensive evidence from the Unit [see K1-391]. In its final report the Unit concluded that ‘most areas of significant concern identified at the beginning of the assessment remained areas of concerns throughout the assessment.’ Other issues became high concern issues during the placement. I was told that this assessment has both an assessment and teaching element. The report concluded that ‘despite daily teaching opportunities…many of these areas were not successfully addressed by the mother and continued to be of concern.’

The report concluded the mother’s insight into the concerns fluctuated rapidly with her mood, as would the decisions she made for herself and the children. She was unable to consistently meet the children’s needs and struggled working with the professionals or prioritising the children’s needs over her own. The unit were left with a concern as to the likely timelines for change and the same being outside the timescales of the children. These points were made in the context of an understanding of the mother’s learning needs and in the light of a tailored approach.

The Unit considered the extent of support available to the mother. They were concerned as to her consistent requests for more time and noted elements of deterioration and neglect of the children which were ongoing and to an extent escalating. They were also concerned about her ability to work positively and openly with professionals and noted her tendency to respond to guidance or challenge with hostility and aggression and by closing off from the relationship.

In live evidence the key worker accepted the challenge posed by the assessment process. She readily acknowledged the love and affection shown by the mother to the children but was clear there was inconsistency as to hygiene and personal care whilst in the unit and a lack of marked / sustained improvement generally. A particular concern was as to the mother’s difficulty in mentalisation as to the children. The tea burn was discussed and the tendency of mother to pass responsibility to Y despite her young age. She explained she had not taken the child to A&E as she was scared about what social services would do.

The key worker expressed concern as to the ongoing relationship with the father. At times the mother showed insight as to domestic abuse but then would call the father or give him money and would make excuses for him. The key worker felt the most recent statement provided by the mother continued this theme. Taken to this she felt this was not progress but a backwards step. She raised an issue of co-dependency.

I remind myself that the mother’s case largely suggests a balance of progress since this assessment and the prospects of future further progress rather than a real challenge to the position at the time of the assessment. I remind myself as this case has dragged on so this report has become more historic. The final assessment is dated July 2024.

I have an addendum psychiatric report from April 2025. That report considers the therapy accessed by the mother since leaving the Unit. The expert recognises the positives suggested by this engagement including motivation. He agrees there has been meaningful engagement and that the resource is appropriate. However, there is some caution. First, he notes the potential for the proceedings to be a motivator and the implicit potential for this motivation to end with the proceedings. I note separately the mother telling me she will not pursue MBT if the children do not return to her as there will be no point. Second, whilst recognising the purpose of this DBT he considers a range of work will often be required as part of the ‘recovery process.’ He calculates the likely timeline for the same if successfully pursued as 18-24 months with generally incremental but progressive recovery. He did concede that if only DBT can be accessed then over this timeline it has the potential to establish significant EUPD progress. Third, elsewhere he makes clear that whilst the psychiatric condition is a potential contributor to the issues in this case there are other potential non-psychiatric parenting difficulties that may be contributing that will not be alleviated by DBT. These are matters for a parenting assessment.

I also refer to the addendum global psychological assessment. This also commends the mother for the therapy she has sourced. They do though express caution that whilst self-regulation is a prerequisite of attuned parenting, there is an additional need for intervention to assist the mother to understand the children’s emotional and behavioural presentations and attachment needs. They note some indications from the papers that this remains a challenge for the mother.

Whilst I do not provide a detailed overview of the expert evidence I have considered it fully.

The social worker understandably places reliance on the assessment evidence received. I have already noted her consistent role in the case. This is important and helpful in my view.

The key concern of the social worker was that there was a lack of evidence of change during these lengthy proceedings. Whilst there have been elements of positive work such as the therapy there remain concerns as to many of the issues present at the outset of the proceedings. A significant concern is the ability of the mother to be reflective as to the children’s feelings and emotional needs. In evidence I heard from mother of X running around the supermarket which left her scared. Her response in the moment was to put him in a car, tell him she was taking him to the police station and to commence that journey. She only stopped en-route when he asked her ‘not to.’ This was plainly a significant over response in the moment and signalled a lack of understanding of how this would be appreciated by a child in the moment. This was not an idle throwaway remark – the mother left the shop and started a journey to the police station. There is also her actions in the moment that led to the start of proceedings. In her live evidence and final statement, the social worker pointed to continuing concerns of this nature. An example was the Christmas school show. As the mother could not attend she proposed to remove X from the show notwithstanding he was preparing for it and looking forward to being part of the show. Elsewhere evidence was given of her responding to a suggestion of bullying (in hindsight this is an exaggeration of the word) not by considered reflection with the child (as suggested) but by angrily calling the school. The social worker notes these behaviour patterns suggest limited progress as to insight and an ability to mentalise the children’s emotional needs.

Whilst recognising the efforts made by the mother as to therapy the social worker is concerned as to the extent to which this is reactive to the court process and the likelihood of it being sustained for its own benefit.

The social worker was very concerned when it was observed that the father was in the car with the mother when she attended contact and remained in the car until her return from contact. This was not reported by the mother and it is felt would not have been disclosed but for being seen. In the context of the historic concerns and impact of this relationship on the children there is a real worry as to the likely role the father may be permitted to play were the children to be left unsupervised in the care of the mother. Within recent times there is good evidence that the father has suffered a deterioration in his mental health and has been abusing cocaine (which is strongly negatively associated with his mental health challenges) to a high level. In such a situation he poses an obvious, if not intended, risk to the children. There is concern that the mother was unable to note the impact this was likely having on the father when she came into contact with him. The social worker considers the mother has not developed sufficient insight to protect against these risks returning.

There is a concern as to the absence of a support network around the mother. The mother was previously reliant on the father, Z and her husband. During the hearing it was very unclear as to the nature of the ongoing relationship between Z and her husband and there is evidence of conflict in the relationship between the mother and Z. In final submissions it was conceded they could not co-parent the children. The father has his own obvious challenges.

These concerns were thoroughly outlined and balanced against the identified positive in the September 2024 statement. The position was reflected upon in an updating final statement in February 2025. Sadly, the social worker felt there had still not been anything like the change required and noted continuing examples of problematic behaviour and an absence of marked change.

In live evidence the social worker accepted the mother had made significant concessions and appeared genuinely remorseful. However, she did not have the confidence to conclude issues would not be repeated. She accepted the progress with therapy but noted this of itself did not establish a basis for concluding the mother could meet the emotional and other needs of the children. She repeated examples of problematic decision making cited above. She was asked to consider work that could be offered to the mother but noted there had been very extensive work both pre-proceedings and within proceedings. The Unit’s assessment has been intended to be both an opportunity for instruction and assessment. Currently, there is no assessment before the Court which supports the notion that the children would receive consistent good enough parenting were they returned to the mother at this time.

A concern would be as to whether any plan based on support and return would work given issues as the mother’s ability to work in an open and honest manner with the professionals. There had been an agreement not to have the father around the children following which he was seen in the home. She had been told not to raise certain points with the children and had then gone on to do so.

Asked about the care plan she confirmed the current foster carers cannot offer a long-term option for the children. She agreed a failed adoption would be devastating for the children. She did consider adoption was a realistic option. X has shown an ability to transition in difficult circumstances and there had been a marked change in his behaviour in a stable and sustained setting. There would be therapy available to support him through such a process and his relationship with his sister which has changed significantly and positively in foster care. The foster carers would be available to assist with any transition and would likely remain a part of the children’s lives. It was accepted given his age that X would maintain a strong and close understanding of his family and identity and this had the potential to be unsettling. However, the social worker considered the benefits of successful permanency through adoption should not be removed from consideration simply because there were real challenges.

As to contact were a placement order made she recognised the importance of direct contact and supported it in principle. But consideration had to be given to the potential for the placement to be undermined and the challenges the mother might face in supporting such a placement. This was not a case of significant destabilising behaviour patterns but there were still incidents which had a tendency to destabilise. She was separately questioned as to the potential role for the father’s older children in having contact. She recognised there were positives but was less clear as to whether this should be part of any plan.

The mother gave evidence and told me about her plans to hopefully relocate if she could clear her housing arrears. She was clear she would be more open with professionals and report matters if concerns arose. She would accept a supervision order. She felt she was ready to have the children back immediately but would accept a planned transition. She traced her challenges in life to her early years and a lack of self-esteem arising out of the parenting she received.

She was questioned as to her understanding of the LA worries in the case and what she accepted as part of her actions. She really did struggle to elaborate in a meaningful manner until I questioned her when she gave some examples of conduct. Up to that point she appeared unable to identify the actual behaviour which amounted to the concerns of the LA. She did outline some of the issues in the relationship with the father and was clear the relationship was at an end. She linked these events to her own trauma. Whilst she was able to articulate some impact of the same on the children (it appears X would have seen his ‘half-sibling’ nearly thrown down the stairs, and his mother and the father fighting and her being strangled) she struggled to give a deeper impression of her understanding of the impact this would have had upon the children.

She gave evidence which reinforced the evidence relating to poor mentalisation. I have given the example of the tea and the trip to the police station. But she also was asked about X’s teeth issue and tooth brushing and told me that if he wouldn’t brush his teeth it was his teeth and so effectively his problem.

Questioned about the father and domestic violence she struggled to explain why it was she agreed he posed a risk to her and the children. As above she had to be consistently brought back to the question but on a number of occasions failed to provide a clear response. She agreed there had been emotional abuse but got confused believing this was only relevant if she had intended the actions under scrutiny.

She was confident things had changed and that she put matters in place. She would continue with counselling and pursue the additional work suggested – albeit only if the children were returned. She explained the benefits she had received from the therapy and the underlying process. It was clear the mother is an intelligent person despite her challenges and she was articulate in explaining the theory behind the therapy support.

During her evidence there was discussion as to how Z might be part of the package of support. However, this remained unclear and by the end of the hearing had to be understood in the light of the withdrawal by Z and by the mother’s acceptance they could not co-parent.

The substance of the mother’s evidence was to highlight her obvious love for her children, a level of recognition of the negative assessments to date but a focus on the grounds for optimism suggested by her current engagement in therapy and willingness to engage in further works. She was clear as to her ordering of outcomes and favoured LTFC over adoption given it would best preserve her relationship with the children.

The guardian has produced a thorough report in this case and gave clear and cogent evidence.

She was clear with respect to the father that he now needed to come forward if he wanted to start contact again. He has not been attending for some time and submissions prioritised the potential for his older children to have contact over his own likely contact with the children.

She was concerned about the mother’s plan for rehabilitation of the children into her care. To the extent there was remaining reliance on Z this needed to be seen in the context of an at times conflictual relationship between the two. Evidence of this could be found in contact notes from January 2025.

She had listened to the evidence and was struck by the difficulty the mother had in articulating what had gone wrong. She was concerned that this suggested a lack of real insight and the potential therefore for repetition were the children returned to the mother. She considered the risks at the start of the case remained present and that the mother remained somewhat defensive and there remained a need for a greater acknowledgement of what had happened to give confidence it would not be repeated.

In her view the children needed stability through permanence. The children have a strong bond and should be kept together.

She recognised the positives of the relationship between the mother and the children including her commitment to contact and the affection shown in contact. She also agreed the self funded therapy was a positive. On balance whilst other things could have been done she did not believe the LA could be criticised given what they had done over a number of years.

She considered there was a continuing lack of insight on the mother’s behalf as evidenced by the examples given. She addressed what might be in a supervision support plan were the children to return to the mother but made clear she did not feel this would be in the children’s welfare interests. She considered adoption was a realistic option notwithstanding X’s age and the implications this brings. She felt there was evidence on which the Court could rely which suggested X had the potential to cope with such a change.

She supported direct post adoption contact so long as there was acceptance of the outcome and on the basis the contact would not be destabilising. She addressed the other issues relating to contact.

I have regard to her detailed and comprehensive final analysis. Ultimately whilst commending the mother for her efforts she considers there remain identified vulnerabilities that continue and would mean the needs of the children were not met were the children to be returned to the mother.

It is sensible to start by reference to the welfare checklist. In this and in most cases this engages a mix of generic and specific points.

The children’s wishes and feelings: These carry weight and must be understood in the light of each child’s age and understanding. It is clear the children enjoy a warm and positive relationship with their mother. X is old enough to express a view and he wants to be with his mother. This is not intended to diminish Y’s bond to her mother. This factor deserves appropriate consideration. I accept that X is an older child but may not have the maturity and understanding to give a reasoned and worked through view on what such a placement would mean for him. But he does have instinctive feelings and wishes which cannot simply be ignored. Of course, as with all children wishes and feelings these have to be considered in the light of any risks that may flow from actioning those wishes. I also have to have regard (and will return to this later) as to the potential for this settled relationship to impact on the sustainability of options put before the Court. If I make an order which has a significant and impactful outcome contrary to these wishes then is there a potential for there to be a negative response to this decision which may fundamentally undermine the likely stability of that plan?

The children’s needs: The children have generic needs shared with all children for consistent, stable, predictable, and attuned parenting. They share a need with all children for a safe home environment free of inappropriate conduct, impactful unmanaged poor mental health, drug use and domestic abuse. In this case the children have experienced a range of these factors in their early years. There are good grounds for concluding X has in fact experienced a childhood in which these concerns have been significant if not ever present. It is very easy and appropriate to associate his identified behavioural issues with the care he has received and the instability in the care he has received. That matters have progressed positively and been sustained following removal into foster care is evidence for this proposition. There can be little doubt that witnessing aspects of the agreed background facts will have been both physically and perhaps more important, emotionally significantly damaging. For all children, these early years are crucial in building a firm and successful foundation to carry the child through childhood, adolescence into adulthood. Unpredictable and inconsistent care has the tendency to leave the child damaged and vulnerable. Sadly, there is good evidence of repeated cycles under which parents, who have experienced poor parenting themselves, model the same on their own children with the cycle continuing. This is relevant to both these children and it is very important for each child that efforts are taken to break this cycle. Having had this early life experience there is additional importance in the children now having the opportunity for settled and consistent attuned parenting. If this can be provided by the mother then this would of course be the ideal. However, if it cannot then it would be very damaging for the children were they to return to their mother having enjoyed a period of settled care and the opportunity to rebuild, only for them to find themselves back in the position they left. In my assessment there is a very weighty relevance to a need for confidence that the children will henceforth receive settled, consistent and predictable care from whoever it is that cares for them. The very good work undertaken by the dedicated foster carers needs to be continued and reinforced not undermined. I would worry that without this each child might in due course find themselves adults in a not dissimilar position to that currently faced by the mother.

The children’s characteristics: Key considerations here include the relationship between the children. At one point in these proceedings the LA were of the view there would be no benefit to the children of being placed together. However, whilst in care the relationship between the children has significantly improved to the point where the LA are clear they must stay together. The guardian agrees and I endorse that position. I agree the children would lose more than they could gain from being separated. I also have had regard to X’s age in my consideration and the potential impact this may have on care planning. It is understood that placement of older children for adoption is made more challenging as a result of the established and settled relationships the child has with birth parents. In such cases it can be very hard to establish a new permanent home in opposition to the existing strong ties to biological family. This increases the prospects of breakdown. But I also have regard to Y’s age and the complications for her of LTFC and particularly given the fact she would remain in this setting for a much longer period than her brother. The reality is that a balance exists but I judge the strong relationship which exist between the children has the potential to militate some of the concerns expressed above. It may be X’s ability to accept a placement is enhanced by the fact it is a shared placement with his sister.

Impact of being an adopted child: This is a consideration to be approached throughout the life of the child. This is undoubtedly in all cases an, at best neutral and mostly a negative factor. Adoption brings with it likely reduction or cessation of relationship with biological family. That will often, as here, mean the termination or loss of a meaningful relationship with real positives, notwithstanding any negatives. Children passing through this process have to attempt to make sense of why this is happening and may ask whether they have contributed to this or are to blame. The loss of the relationship will often leave the child with unresolved worries and questions. This aggregates to a potential level of significant emotional baggage / damage and there is always the potential that this situation will unpredictably lead to future emotional deterioration or mental health challenges for the child. I recognise that trained adopters are likely to have both the skills and likely preparedness to address this issue. But it should not be understated. Quite aside from the above is the simple emotional loss of a relationship as addressed elsewhere within this section of the judgment.

Harm suffered: As to harm suffered this is found within the threshold. I have accepted (as is accepted by the mother) that this harm was significant and included issues of physical and emotional harm. I have accepted this would have been damaging for the children and I consider I should not be approving an option unless it is free of this being repeated. I have already made clear how damaging for the children it would be were their next placement to be undermined by just the same behaviour that brought them into these proceedings. In such a context nothing would have changed and they will have been failed. A significant part of my decision must be my conclusions as to future risk of the behaviour returning or being repeated. This hearing has focused on that question with the balance between the concerns of the professionals and the confidence expressed on behalf of the mother. I will return to this question below.

Relationships which exist, the potential for the relationship to continue, the value of the same and the ability of the individual to provide an environment in which the child can grow and develop successfully: Sadly, for reasons given the father has rather opted out of the children’s lives. It is far from clear when he will actively return to their lives whatever order I made. It is clear he has a wish for the children to remain within the family and I accept his relationship with the children has value. But it is clear he is not placed to provide the children with a home in which they can receive good enough parenting.

I have noted the position of the foster carers. They deserve real thanks for the care they have given these children. The mother shares in that thought. I understand the reasons why they cannot offer LTFC in the light of their ages. It may be they have a future role in the children’s future lives whatever decision I make. I am sure the children will benefit from having them in their lives.

I have heard about the relationship the children might have with Z, and C and K. I accept there is value in these relationships but there are no placement options to be found within these relationships.

I have made clear the mother’s views and wishes and the value that exists for the children in their relationship with her. I am in no doubt, unlike the father, that this will continue given the opportunity. The mother has shown commitment to contact despite the obvious emotional challenges. The question (as with the previous section) is as to my conclusions as to her potential to provide a stable home environment for each child within their timescales and to a good enough level.

In this case I have three realistic option put before me. These are for the children to be with the mother under a Supervision Order, to be in LTFC under a care order or to be placed for adoption.

A key disadvantage of LTFC relates to the lack of permanency it provides for children who demand a settled and permanent home life. In this case the children have received good care in foster care but it is inevitably insecure in form and the children would risk multiple moves and potential breakdown. I would naturally worry as to whether future instability may at some point call into question the continued benefit of the children being together. So compared to either the mother or adoption LTFC has a significant downside. This is militated by the potential it brings for ongoing contact at a heightened level and this is why the mother supports it in default. It does of course also offer a potential for return to family life following a successful discharge application.

The balance between adoption and the mother relates to the disadvantage of adoption in reduction or cessation of family life against the risks of harm to the children were they to return to the mother. I am satisfied adoption is likely to provide a safe environment for the children away from the worries that underly this case. However, there must be a worry, at least, as to its sustainability in the light of X’s age. If I am satisfied by the mother’s case then I would plainly favour return to her as adoption could not be justified. If I am not satisfied as to her case then I will need to grapple with the balance between adoption and LTFC in the context of the characteristics of these children.

I remind myself that these proceedings are not far from their 2^nd anniversary. This of itself amounts to a failure of the Court to resolve the case within the proscribed 26-week period. As a result, I fear the children will have suffered additional harm caused by the delay. That being said it does mean there is no room for an argument made on a lack of chance or opportunity to make the changes needed. In this case it is clear the near 2 years of litigation were preceded by an at least equivalent period of pre-proceedings support and work.

The time has come to make a decision on the information available and future outcomes which can be confidently predicted. The Court should not at this late stage be expected to base conclusions on speculation as to what might happen given the opportunity within the proceedings to make the event actually happen.

In this case the key is as to whether the mother has made change, has made sufficient change, or has a basis for showing she will make the changes within the near future and within the children’s timescales to the point where the Court can rely on this to make a final order. I am not asked to adjourn this case for changes to be made.

I have listened to and weighed up the competing views. On one side I have the weight of professional evidence which is clear that limited changes have been made and that the case is not significantly forward of the position at the start of the proceedings. On the other side I have the mother’s case based on a relatively late engagement with work and optimism that this evidences the changes now in place or likely to occur.

I have the expert evidence which welcomes the work but is cautious as to drawing conclusions from this.

I of course have my own assessment and the evidence I have received.

Sadly, I am not persuaded the mother is at a point where she can resume the care of the children. As with the professionals I commend her for her efforts but it appears to me this work is at an early stage. Further, I am not persuaded that it of itself addresses or will likely address the concerns in the case. The evidence is of more profound challenges which may fall outside of a psychiatric diagnosis. This is based around insight and understanding of the children’s emotional needs and a consistent ability to reflect on this, keep the same in mind and act accordingly. The evidence from the professionals and the facts on the ground indicate this remains unresolved. As such there is a strong likelihood that were the children returned the behaviours would reoccur and significant harm would be suffered. I very much fear the children would be back into proceedings within a short timeframe.

The evidence tells me that there is at least 12-18 months ahead of the mother with regards to work before one can evaluate whether change has been made. Even then the position may be negative.

I have reached this decision with regret as it is clear to me how much the mother both loves her children and wants them with her. The photographs I received and the evidence I heard is clear in this regard.

I am therefore clear the right answer is that I should make a care order.

In such circumstances is the right answer LTFC or a plan of adoption? I have real concerns as to each. There are very obvious reasons why I would worry about Y living nearly all her life in care. She deserves the opportunity of a permanent placement at the centre of family life. If it were her alone I would have no doubt placement would be the right outcome. This is impacted by the differential considerations for X given his age as set out within this judgment. It is obviously impacted by my acceptance that they should be together. Yet even for X I would want a permanent home in which he can feel secure and develop to the maximum of his potential. I do not consider LTFC is of itself the best option of choice for him.

As outlined above adoption may bring challenges for a child of X’s age. I recognise one issue may be as to finding a placement at all. Of course, in such circumstances the default would be LTFC. I accept delay in seeking a LTFC placement whilst adoption is pursued would be harmful if there was no prospects of finding a placement. However, I am not persuaded there is no potential in such regard. In any event I should first reach a principled conclusion. But standing back there are at least grounds for believing that the combination of the children together may provide a stability that might not otherwise be present were it to be X alone.

I have reflected on the range of factors set out in my welfare analysis above. For me, the standout feature having regard to the experience of these children is of their need for permanence and home life in which they can feel the centre of a family which is their permanent family. In my assessment LTFC for the children together is very much secondary to the point where it is not something else ‘that will do.’ The fact it may end up being the default outcome does not rule out the search for an adoptive placement.

I have reached the conclusion the right outcome for these children is the making of a placement order as per the care planning proposals. Under this the LA would search for 9-12 months after which they would give consideration to a revocation application and a future in LTFC. I would suggest that there might be a transition in the last 3 of the 12 months during which time parallel planning commences. Whilst it would be foolish to consider the prospects of adoption are strong I do not think they are fanciful and the children’s welfare justifies this opportunity be taken.

I will dispense with the parents consent to adoption under section 52 as the children’s welfare requires me to do so.

I am conscious of the perceived shift in approach to direct post-adoption contact. I was taken to the recent case of Re S (Placement Order: Contact) [2025] EWCA Civ 823. I make the following points.

I agree there is obvious benefit for the children in there being post adoption direct contact. I appreciate this may likely amount to contact at perhaps 1-3 times per year. The quality of the relationship the children have supports this view.

I accept the mother is not a fundamental challenge to a placement and has been supportive of the foster carers. Still an adoptive placement and a decision of this sort may be one which is challenging and she has struggled on occasion to keep her mood regulated when her emotions are heightened. I would like to think she would be able to accept such a placement and work with it. I cannot be sure but I have some optimism.

As per my analysis it seems to me the likely candidates for two children of these respective ages will be very alive to the potential benefits of contact and the pitfalls of a cessation of contact. Any adopters will want X to settle both for himself and for the benefit of Y. Contact has the real potential to support a placement. If this were the case then for X this may emotionally feel less different to LTFC (which he has managed). I therefore suspect the pool of candidates will be significantly smaller but may likely include a greater number of individuals more open to contact than for a younger child. It is also relevant that the findings in this case are not ones which strongly argue against the mother being involved on an ongoing basis in the children’s lives or which suggest she would obviously be a risk to any placement.

Yet I am clear placement is best for the children and I would not want to impose conditions which might stifle the finding of a placement. I am satisfied the professionals in this case recognise that the benefits of adoption may be best achieved through an open approach. My assessment of the social worker was that she was honest and genuinely motivated in this regard.

An issue turned on the manner in which the LA approached the question. They and the guardian favoured an approach based on promoting the benefits of open adoption and encouraging within the search candidates who might be open to the same. For the mother it was said there should be conditionality in that only candidates open to contact should be considered.

I heard about how others might fit into this scenario. For the father I was asked to consider placing a similar expectation with respect to C and K and indeed to an extent to himself.

I have reflected on these arguments. I have of course been guided by the children’s welfare throughout their lives which is my guiding principle. I do not agree it is sensible to add into this mix a role for C and K. This is to push expectations too far and to endanger the prospect of adoption altogether. Whilst I respect the points made I consider the role of these half-siblings is outside of the boundaries of appropriate consideration re section 26 at this point in time on the facts of this case.

I am mindful as to the father’s rather limited submission in this regard and the fact that his circumstances raise rather more challenging issues for any prospective adopters than posed by the mother.

I have drawn the conclusion that I favour the approach taken by the professionals and I favour the current care planning of promoting contact rather than making placement conditional on the same. Reflecting on Re S I consider there should be a recital (I would of course expect this judgment to be shared with adopters) setting out my views which are:

This completes my judgment. I wish the children the very best as I do the parents and the mother in particular. She has bravely taken part in this final hearing with courtesy to the Court and other participants notwithstanding how hard that must have been for her. I hope she can continue on her journey of mental health recovery regardless of this decision. The future of course remains uncertain as does her role in the children’s lives. She will want to be the best person she can be for them on any future occasion.

I have had to decide whether the children return to the mother, are placed into foster care or whether adoption is pursued.

I have listed to all the evidence and read the papers.

All the professionals believe there has not been enough change since the start of proceedings to safely return the children to the mother. The mother believes she is now making progress with therapy and is able to have the children back.

I have decided: