London Borough of Tower Hamlets v UV & Anor

Plain language summary

Today I am concerned with AB, born on [redacted]. His mother is UV, and this is an application for a care order made on 22 March 2024, and an application for a placement order dated 16 September 2024. W, a maternal family member, also applied for a special guardianship order.

AB, by way of background, was protected under police powers on 21 March 2024, and he is in foster care under an interim care order that was made on 22 March 2024. I heard this matter on the 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, and 6June, and 10^th and 11 June, the day on which I give judgment. Mr O’Brien represents the Local Authority, and Mr Baylis represents UV, Ms Youll represents AB through his Guardian, and Ms Round represents W.

The opening positions were that the Local Authority seek care and placement orders, which were supported by the Guardian. The mother has been represented throughout these proceedings but has not played an active role insofar as she has not come to court and has not given specific instructions. W no longer seeks to care for AB, and her position changed during the course of the hearing. This case has been heard alongside [redacted case number], which involves ST. ST is UV’s youngest brother.

In connected proceedings, by way of background, I found that the father, UV’s father, had sexually abused her. The background leading to AB’s conception is set out in that fact-finding judgment. In these proceedings, the mother said that AB’s father was Mr N. However, she then said that Mr N had died of cancer and attempts to locate him came to nothing. DNA testing of AB and UV’s brother QR, OP, and ST show they all share a common male relative.

In the linked case, I gave a judgment that the Y chromosome profiles were consistent with these children having the same father or a common male ancestor. The inference I drew from this, on the balance of probabilities, and in the light of the evidence as a whole, was that the father of AB was also the father of UV.

UV was excluded as a realistic option for caring for AB at an earlier hearing, and full reasons were given at that time. However, in short, she has not been able to engage in these proceedings in any meaningful way. Except, I think, for attending the first early hearing on a video link, she has felt unable to come to court, despite offers of taxis and remote links. She has not seen AB in contact since June 2024, and she is a highly vulnerable young lady. The evidence suggests that she is in a very difficult place, and that she could benefit from therapeutic and loving support for herself.

The Local Authority applied for a placement order, but at a late stage in these proceedings, W put herself forward to care for both AB and ST. She has been negatively assessed, but I joined her as a party to both sets of proceedings, and she is represented. During her evidence, she conceded it was not in AB’s best interest to be placed with her, given his high level of needs. During an adjournment, Ms Round set out her client’s position that she had reflected on the questions asked about AB, and concedes she cannot care for both boys, and having carefully considered with sadness, she accepts there are issues for AB, his health needs, that make it too difficult for her to care for him on top of the family dynamic.

That was a realistic concession, and entirely in keeping with the thrust of the evidence I had heard about AB, and what I know of his family. I nevertheless need to set out why I now think it is right for AB to be placed for adoption as there is no realistic option within his family.

By way of procedural background, the father has been served with notice of these proceedings on form C6A formally. He has also been present when this case, and the linked case, were heard side by side. He is represented in the linked case. He has been fully aware, therefore, of AB’s existence, and the issues raised in this case. He has made no application to be a party in these proceedings.

Although UV has not come to court, she has remained represented throughout, and her representative has done their utmost to communicate with her. Mr Baylis said that AB’s grandmother was really helpful in facilitating this. However, sadly, despite the best efforts of all concerned, UV has not been able to play any meaningful role by giving evidence to the Court. However, on her behalf, the evidence has been challenged and tested. UV has moved back in with her mother, who told us that UV was attacked the night before these proceedings started.

I am satisfied that the Article 6 and Article 8 rights of UV and the father have been respected, and that they have both been given a fair opportunity to participate in these proceedings.

In submissions, the Local Authority say that a care and placement order are the only realistic options, and they set out a proposed schedule of contact, namely letterbox contact for his mother, and potentially contact with W and AB. Mr Baylis does not have specific instructions from UV, but as I said, he has been in touch with her throughout this difficult week. She loves AB, and the fact that she cannot participate in these proceedings is no doubt unbearable for her.

W wants to make it clear that she has not chosen one child over the other. The reason she has always said her first position was to care for both ST and AB is exactly because she believed they both deserved to be special and loved by their family. However, having heard the evidence about AB’s particular needs, she was honest enough to conclude that she was not the best person to meet them. She would love to build a relationship with him post-adoption and provide a bridge to his birth family.

The Guardian submits it was child-focused and selfless for W to accept that she is not in the best position to meet AB’s needs. She submits that all contact needs to be subject to therapeutic oversight and will be subject to where AB is placed, where ST is placed, and the active input of a specially trained therapeutic team will need to underpin AB’s placement and decisions about contact.

The Local Authority bring this case, and it is for them to prove on the balance of probabilities. Much of the evidence in the bundle has not been tested in cross-examination and is hearsay. I remind myself of the weaknesses of this type of evidence and that the weight attached to it is for me to determine. I have read and reread the bundle, but I will refer specifically to the evidence that is been most material to my decision.

Dr Maguire was a thoughtful witness and highly sensitive to the needs of AB given his parentage. She has met all members of AB’s family several times in 2022, 2024, and commented specifically on ST and AB in 2025. She was given the job of performing an addendum assessment of UV, AB’s mother, but UV did not take part in it. However, Dr Maguire knows AB’s family from a time that predates his conception and had an understanding of the dynamic into which he was born.

She was clear and in command of all the difficult and different factors that the Court had to weigh up. She was able to say when she could not assist with a point and did not stray outside her area of expertise. She was clear that there were many uncertainties for both children but took us back to what we do know from the evidence and research about what is best for AB: A stable placement, no breakdown of that placement and his needs being adequately met. She was clear that both boys needed the most stable placement for meeting their needs throughout their childhood.

She was asked by me on her view of AB only being cared for by W without ST. She said:

“If he was the only child that would reduce the risk of overload and breakdown, but I’d be really worried about the family narrative, and it is not possible to keep something from AB until he’s ready for that. Should he have contact with his grandmother and UV, and how does he respond to people who have not protected him and his mother?”

The special guardianship assessor came across as somewhat defensive in her responses, which may be understandable given she changed her view as the assessments progressed as to whether W could meet the needs of all the children in her care. However, her clear and settled conclusion, from which she did not depart, was that she did not think that AB’s needs would be met in W’s care.

The family finding social worker has not had the role of placing a child born in AB’s particular situation before, she told us, but had identified the challenges that this might lead to. She was clear she would wish the Local Authority to fund any work he needed around his parentage, given the uncertainty about post-adoption funding at present. She was clear that any adoptive family would need support over and above the six online sessions which they would ordinarily be offered. Her evidence was it would take two to three months to find an adoptive family for AB.

AB’s social worker was clear that she had not discounted W, who was put forward at a late stage, and the Local Authority did not oppose a further assessment of W, which delayed matters for both children. However, AB’s social worker was clear that whoever AB is with would need help with his life story, and that the Local Authority would need to help find the right professional support. She highlighted the emotional complexities of the information to be shared with AB about his parentage, and she was adamant that the Local Authority had not concluded he should be removed from his birth family just because his life story was so difficult to manage.

She stressed that a holistic assessment had been undertaken, and she was clear that the circumstances around AB’s parentage would be difficult for anyone to navigate.

In the light of this evidence, it was entirely understandable that W was concerned that she may not be able to meet AB’s high level of needs. However, she has come to court every time for him. She was able to concede that she could not care for him only after robust cross-examination and careful reflection. She has clearly sent a message by doing this that AB is a child who is loved, who has not been rejected, and to whom she would have liked to offer a forever home. Therefore, the message must go to AB that W is a family member who cared so much for him that she did all that she could to keep him in the family.

The threshold is made out and annexed to my order of 5 February 2025.

I go on to look at AB’s welfare, which is of paramount consideration. I remind myself of the no delay principle.

I look at AB’s ascertainable wishes and feelings in the light of his age and understanding. I am sure that AB would want to be with his family if it was safe to be so. I am sure that like any child, he would want to grow up being treated with dignity, without stigma, and with compassion towards his life story. He would also want to be cared for by people who could put his needs above their own.

I look at his physical, emotional, and educational needs. In terms of his physical development, AB has had difficulty with reflux leading to choking or vomiting during meals. He has been tested for allergies, namely dairy intolerance, and he has eczema, which is overseen by the dermatology specialists. He has delayed speech and an appointment with the speech and language team in late June 2025. He has mild developmental delay in his visual abilities. He has a large head circumference, which may need to be monitored, and he uses inhalers at certain times of the day.

There are also some sensory traits. For example, the foster carer has noticed some repetitive behaviours such as walking around in circles. She tells the Guardian he does not seek out other children at groups and will not watch cartoons or children’s programmes, apart from Something Special or Talking Toddlers, which are designed for children with learning difficulties. His solitary play and interest in sensory items is also noted in his most recent looked after child conference in February 2025.

His social worker gave evidence that AB puts small things in his mouth, walks backwards and goes around in circles and she pointed out that his physical needs lead to a large number of appointments and told us there was one occasion he had to be rushed to hospital because he was choking. These physical needs will need careful monitoring, and the Local Authority LAC medical concludes that an autism assessment will be required if these traits continue.

Dr Maguire notes it is possible that AB will make progress, for example, learn to communicate well and function much like other children. However, it is also possible that features of autism mean he is experiencing ongoing delays and challenges throughout his childhood. There is a family history [genetic condition] which increases the risk of [redacted form of] cancer. The maternal grandmother and one of AB’s half-brothers or uncles have that gene. AB will need regular testing when he reaches the age of 10.

He was still not walking at 17 months old, so as of 15 January 2025, that was an area of concern that was noted by the foster carer.

I look at his emotional needs and like every child, AB needs to feel loved and valued and accepted. The circumstances of his conception may pose additional challenges in this respect. However, he is observed to be a happy, contented and friendly child who is an absolute delight to care for.

Dr Maguire says that AB’s family situation is troubling:

“I think that whenever he learns about his history and parentage, under whatever circumstances, it is likely to have a significant emotional impact on AB. He may experience feelings of shame, anger, disgust and loss. AB might assume or fear negative ideas about himself, his inherited personality and worry he’s also capable of the same behaviours as his father. AB may feel anger and resentment towards his family or social workers for not being told sooner or alternatively because he has been told. He may believe he can’t trust people he thought cared about him, despite them working to give information when and in a way they feel suits his needs. I think that telling AB about his parentage has the potential to disrupt his family and personal relationships and have a significant emotional impact on AB. Should AB have autism and continue to experience delays, this may mean that he finds understanding and coping with the impact of his family history even more challenging. For example, his neurology may mean that he finds it harder to think flexibly about information, so views this within the confines of his own beliefs, finds it harder to think about other people’s feelings and opinions and why this has led them to certain decisions, and may make it harder for him to manage feelings in response to the information given”.

The expert goes on to say that a stable supportive environment would help him manage the emotional impact of his history better.

I look at the likely effect on AB of any change of circumstance. He was in his mother’s care until he was seven months old and then removed to foster care and sadly has not seen his mother regularly since. He has not seen her since June 2024. He has seen ST and W in contact twice and I believe the grandmother too on occasion.

Dr Maguire notes that AB is showing behaviours which reflect he has developed an attachment to his carers. She takes the view that his early life experiences and further move might mean that AB is more susceptible to developing difficulties with his attachments and subsequently emotional and behavioural difficulties. She was clear that a breakdown of his placement would be very detrimental to him in the long run.

I look at his age, sex and background. AB’s family are [redacted religion]. His grandmother is [heritage redacted] and the father is of [redacted] heritage. UV, his mother is therefore dual heritage. He has sadly no established relationship with XY, OP, QR or ST.

The circumstances of his conception are highly relevant to his background. His mother’s last position in these proceedings is that the father is not AB’s father and he has never responded to the DNA evidence or to my findings formally. They can therefore not be said to accept the findings of the Court or the DNA evidence. OP and QR refer to themselves as AB’s uncle and he as their nephew and that is partly true but does not reflect the entire complexity of his family background. The evidence suggests that, with the exception of W, his family struggled to comprehend and deal with the impact of the findings made. W is not naïve and says she does not trust the grandmother to tell the truth.

I look at any harm which he suffered or is at risk of suffering. The threshold has been made out in clear terms. Since the commencement of these proceedings, UV has not been able sadly to accept support from the social work team or to attend any meetings to see them. The police were called to where she was living in September 2024 following concerns about her being a vulnerable adult. The police officer stated at the time of their visit UV answered the door and was under the influence of substances. She told the police during the visit she has taken crack cocaine. The police report states her clothes were dirty, she had self-harm marks on her arms that looked recent, and she had not slept for six days because she was binging on crack cocaine following her family time being cancelled.

UV has a history of drug use and appears to be living a somewhat chaotic lifestyle. The evidence before the Court around AB’s police protection and the subsequent social work evidence suggests that UV spends time with a group of people who may well pose a risk to children through criminality, drug use and a chaotic lifestyle. For example, when AB was police protected, one of the adults at the house was in breach of their licence. I note that when UV took AB to A&E in February 2024, the clinician was sufficiently worried about her to ensure that they saw her in the absence of the man who attended with her to make sure that she was okay.

Dr Maguire saw UV in pre-proceedings for her brothers and part of the assessment of her brothers in summer 2022. UV did not engage with an updating psychological assessment, so the expert took the view that UV engages in reckless and dangerous behaviours as a way of managing her symptoms. She reacts emotionally without thinking, including self-harm and possibly using illicit substances and alcohol. It is very clear, therefore, that AB would be at risk of harm and neglect in her care.

The father has a well-established criminal history. He is in prison on remand arising out of his sexual relationship with UV. He has little or no respect for authority, having left the jurisdiction on receipt of a witness summons in the linked proceedings. He has shown little overt care for AB, not taken responsibility for his actions or participated in these proceedings. He is in a vulnerable state himself at present, the risk assessment suggests.

Dr Maguire notes that when she assessed him:

“He presented as lacking in empathy and understanding of his children’s needs. I felt that he presented with features of antisocial personality, which means he placed his own needs above those of his family and took little responsibility for his actions”.

She was concerned that the dynamic of his control in the family may well continue. She concludes that he is a significant risk of being emotionally or physically abusive to both male and female children in his care.

Recent evidence in the risk assessment gained from conversation with the prison authorities suggests that the father told them that he uses heroin and crack cocaine daily and has done so for the last four or five years as a coping mechanism, using around £150 to £200 worth daily. The social worker gave evidence she does not know where the father got the money for this, and she saw his drug use as a significant risk factor. He has also not been honest about it, telling a parenting assessor that he stopped using cannabis over a year ago. that his hair strand test showing that he continued to use cannabis and cocaine. Therefore, AB’s parents pose an ongoing risk of harm to him.

There is also a risk of harm to AB arising out of contact with his family. AB sense of being different and feeling rejected in the light of this poses a real risk of emotional harm to AB. the father and UV do not accept the fact-finding judgment or the DNA evidence. The boys, QR and OP, call AB their nephew, and are highly immature in their response to the facts found that he is also their half-brother. AB’s grandmother has not sought out a relationship with AB, and the family as a whole are unable to accept the reality of his conception, either individually or collectively.

It would be harmful for AB to find out about his parentage in an unplanned or unkind way. The risk of this information being given to him by someone blurting it out or making an ill-thought-out comment is high if placed within the family and could cause him real and lasting harm. If this most sensitive information is not given to AB in a way that he can understand, and at an age and at a time when he may best process it, it runs the risk of stigmatising him and placing him at the risk of emotional harm and bullying.

There is also a risk of harm to AB if, placed with family members, he may feel shame or disgust that they may project their response to the situation onto him. The risk of AB becoming a scapegoat for the wider family is already apparent in the way that the family have responded to these proceedings with denial and with a lack of acceptance. This poses a risk of significant emotional harm to AB going forward.

I look at how capable the parents and W are of meeting his needs. Neither UV nor the father have engaged in these proceedings to allow us to assess their ability to care for him, but W has wanted to open her home to AB. She is warm and loving with him in contact. She has done everything that has been asked of her. She has been open to advice and guidance and has been committed to meeting the needs of AB and her own children, and has sought out and taken appropriate support for their needs. She wants that to offer the same support to AB.

She has attended a workshop called Preparing for Sensitive Conversations with Kinship Children. She has shown a willingness to learn. However, there is an additional complexity over and above the issues that that workshop usually deals with, I suspect, due to the circumstances of AB’s conception.

W’s own children have their particular needs. W’s daughter’s school attendance was 43.9% as of January 2025, rising to 47% in May 2025. The feedback from her school is that her attendance is impacting her ability to reach her full potential. She also has some behavioural difficulties. They say that she will often refuse to complete sanctions put in place due to her behaviour, which results in her being suspended. She has on a couple of occasions gone into a different class, not her own class, when there is a cover teacher and impersonated another pupil, which causes disruption to the whole lesson. She often uses her mobile phone in school and then refuses to hand this to staff.

Emotionally, the evidence suggests that W’s daughter struggles with anxiety and isolates herself from others when at home and finds social situations difficult. She can be irritable with her brother, and she is waiting for individual psychotherapeutic help from CAHMs. She has an ADHD diagnosis, which has come with sleeping difficulties over a number of years. The coming year, 2025 into 2026, is GCSE year, and so it is a critical time for a young person and particularly one who experiences additional challenges and anxiety.

Her brother, is a year older. He is sitting his GCSEs at present and is to be commended for doing so. He too has had challenges with school attendance, 66.9% in January 2025 and 63.9% as of March 2025. The school report says of him:

“He chooses to truant every day, despite numerous timetable changes, meeting with his year team and senior leadership change. He’s been suspended numerous times for defiance. He’s underachieving in most, if not all, his subjects due to the amount he misses during truancy”.

He is under CAHMS but does not have a diagnosis, but they talk about his impulsiveness and difficulties in concentration. W, to her credit, has been proactive in trying to get him support, including a maths tutor and working with the school. He is open to the possibility of AB and ST coming to live with them. W’s daughter was slightly reserved and had a lot of questions, says W. I do not doubt that W’s evidence is right that her son would make AB welcome, but the reality of a young boy with particular needs, living in a house with teenagers who have their own particular needs, is somewhat different.

I make it clear that the enhanced needs of W’s children are not due to poor parenting. I accept Dr Maguire’s evidence that some children with additional needs it does not matter how loving or skilled the parents are, those difficulties still arise. The school are clear that W wants the children to achieve. She contacts the school to share concerns. There are no concerns in the home, the school write, and she has good listening skills and is on hand to share any thoughts and feelings.

However, Dr Maguire’s report suggests that as a breed teenagers can be even more challenging than younger children and W’s evidence that her son was impacted by Covid, I think he would have been year 6 going into year 7 at that time of lockdown. The professionals in the witness box were slow to criticise W who is clearly doing her best for all her children but would be thinly spread if she were caring for an additional child.

The Guardian’s view is that there are so many uncertainties for AB’s future, possible developmental issues that now might be starting to emerge, the extent of his allergies and other health difficulties are being investigated, and this will have an impact on his long-term health and how he will come to understand his parentage and history. AB will need better than good enough parenting for the duration of his childhood and a carer who can give him lots of one-to-one attention.

My view is that W will not have the availability to do this because of her other commitments. In my view, W will neither be able to provide AB with the one-to-one attention nor able to engage with the professional support to the degree necessary to be able to manage the complexities of the care AB will require. I am also concerned that the dynamics of the wider family, including her support network, will complicate matters further.

The social worker who knows AB well pointed out that he is a placid child who is quiet and has speech delay. He does not demand attention. This is in contrast with ST, who does demand attention, and she was worried that it was possible for his needs to be overlooked in a busy household. She says:

“He too needs undivided attention, not least because, in my view, he puts more things in his mouth and his tendency to choke”.

The social work view is his needs are not compatible with meeting both of W’s children’s needs too. Dr Maguire thought that AB would respond well to be the only child in a placement. Therefore, although W has many positive qualities and is a good parent doing the best for her own children with their particular needs, she accepts, and I think it is realistic, that it is not in AB’s best interest for him to be in her care.

I look at the range of powers that the Court has, and I must consider whether making an order for AB would be better than making no order at all. In looking at the range of powers available, I remind myself that when I make a decision about the adoption of a child, the paramount consideration is the child’s welfare throughout his lifetime. If I conclude that a placement order accords with AB’s welfare, I will then have to determine whether his welfare requires me to dispense with the consent of his parents in making such an order. In addressing this issue, I remind myself of the guidance in Re P (Placement orders: Parental Consent) [2008] STWCAB Civ 535. I look at section 1(4) of the 2002 Act, and I am content that I have dealt with paragraphs (a), (d) and (e) in the context of the Welfare Checklists, so I turn now to paragraphs (b), (c) and (f).

I look at AB’s particular needs. Dr Maguire says that:

“The evidence base suggests that because he shows features of autism and has experienced adversity, AB is likely to need a higher level of care and support than other children. His carers may need to engage with assessments and interventions, implement strategies to support his development at home, and face more challenges in terms of AB needing to engage with his education and regulate his emotions and behaviour. He may need this increased support throughout his childhood”.

This was consistent with the social work evidence that I have already cited about his physical health needs. He has a high level of needs which are still emerging. Dr Maguire, in the witness box, stressed that AB needs a higher level of attention and care than other children his age. He will be more sensitive to the impact of adversity in his home life or moves of placement.

Dr Maguire, when looking at his particular needs, addresses the circumstances of his birth:

“AB also faces challenges involving the possible physical, social and emotional impact of his parentage. While there is not a strong evidence base surrounding the possible psychological impact of being born out of incest, largely because incest often remains unreported, and where children are born out of incest are studied, this usually follows them living in dysfunctional families of origin for longer than AB, every psychological theory around the development of psychological wellbeing postulates that our childhood experiences and relationships impact on our emotional behaviour and social wellbeing and even our physical health and neurological development. The evidence base suggests that AB will be better placed to cope with the challenges involved with learning about and living with his parentage if he has good emotional, social and behavioural wellbeing, because the parenting he receives will impact on his wellbeing, it will therefore impact on how well he copes with these challenges”.

The Guardian takes the view that there should be additional therapeutic and professional input to support AB with his life story and to come to terms with his parentage and develop a positive sense of his identity. She says:

“In my view, there would be more chance of this being successful outside his birth family, where he can be supported by his carers with his needs at the centre and from a neutral perspective, rather than within the complex dynamics of the wider family”.

In the witness box, Dr Maguire agreed with the Guardian and was clear that whoever had care of AB would need specific therapeutic support around attachments. She was also clear that AB would need to have bespoke support available to him when he was of an age to be told about his parentage. That, for example, needed to be available in his teenage years, should he want it. Dr Maguire gave evidence that AB’s situation is exceptional. None of the professionals asked questions in this case regularly encountered situations such as this in terms of AB’s parentage.

It became clear in evidence how complex it would be for AB to have his particular identity needs met within the wider family. Although there is a distance between AB’s birth family and W, the impact of the birth family will remain if he stays within the broader family network. The household into which AB was born are ill-equipped to help him manage the knowledge of his parentage. AB’s grandmother and UV have both been recommended specific therapeutic input, which they have not been able to access. Dr Smith, who has worked with his grandmother, points out that she is not very psychologically minded.

QR and OP view AB as their nephew as opposed to also being their half-brother. As I have said, UV has not accepted the facts found or the DNA test results. The father has not made any effort to become a party to these proceedings and AB’s grandmother through her counsel, framed her questions on the instructions, no doubt, that should I only be able to keep one child within the family, it should be ST. Therefore, the cumulative effect of this is a family who is uniquely ill-equipped to help AB understand his heritage or even address the reality of it at all.

Whoever AB is with bears an important role in meeting his particular identity needs in the light of the manifest inability of his family to address it in any constructive way. W’s family are not enmeshed with C’s, but in my view, it would be a very difficult task for any kinship carer to manage the complexities of AB’s immediate family within the broader family setting. In fairness to W, in the three days of evidence we heard before she went into the witness box, this became increasingly apparent, and I give her credit for being able to recognise that.

I look at the effect of the child having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person. That means the severance of legal ties with his birth family, which is lifelong and fundamental. Any contact with them would be very carefully risk assessed. This is a lifelong decision which affects AB’s identity as he grows up and into the future. It would extinguish parental responsibility for his mother. He would be treated in law as a child of the adopted family.

However, it would also provide a parent who would be capable of meeting his needs and exercising parental responsibility, which his birth mother has been unable to do. His original family has a distorted dynamic, which means that placement within that family would be deeply complex. The advantages of becoming an adopted person means he has a new family within whom he will find his own identity and relationships.

I look at the relationship he has with his relatives and the likelihood of it continuing and the value of it doing so. There is a value of AB knowing his birth family, but at the moment AB has no meaningful ongoing relationship with his maternal family. He has not seen his mother since June 2024 and has had only very recently two contacts with W and ST.

There are benefits had it been possible for AB and ST to be placed together. They may have been able to develop a close sibling relationship that could have carried into adulthood. However, it also comes with a level of risk, because should the relationship not work well, either because ST needs a high level of individual adult attention, or can display challenging behaviours which AB might copy, then it might mean that each child faces a greater risk of developing behavioural and emotional difficulties.

In reality, only W put herself forward to care for AB, but she accepted hearing the evidence it was not possible for her to care for both him and ST. None of the family want him to be adopted, but they have not been able to provide a realistic alternative. I know that his mother would wish for him to be cared within the family and W was willing to do so and his grandmother supported this, but on reflection this was not the best option for AB.

I have to look at all the realistic options, including the pros and cons of each option and undertake a multifaceted evaluation of his welfare. I remind myself of the guidance given to me in HW (Children) [2022] UKSC 17, that a decision leading to adoption requires rigorous evaluation and comparison of all the realistic possibilities for a child. Although W accepts that she cannot be the best person to care for AB, in fairness to them both, I want to highlight the positives of this possibility and then the matters that weigh against it.

W’s support of AB could be underpinned by a supervision order or a care order. She has a broad supportive family network. She could have support from the Local Authority. She is an experienced mother with a supportive family. Her home is clean and tidy. She can meet basic care needs. She has a high level of motivation and commitment to AB and the Guardian says she has a high level of compassion and insight.

She has been a strong advocate for the needs of her children and would no doubt speak up for AB too. She has experience of children with special needs. She is warm and loving and should it have been possible to place AB with her, he would have remained in his family.

However, against this, AB has a high level of particular needs and has to be the focus of any carer’s attention. W’s children have their own needs and juggling the needs of toddlers and teenagers at different ends of the developmental journey is very challenging for anyone to manage. AB’s health and developmental needs are evolving. AB needs strong role models. For example he needs to be able to watch older children who reliably go to school.

It would be challenging for W to share his birth story with him. His life story is more complex in terms of how it is shared and when, if he remains in his birth family. At the moment the father is in prison and UV is not showing an ability to be able to turn up and see AB. However, if she or indeed both of them remain under the influence of drugs, this places AB in a very vulnerable position. How UV might behave if the future is difficult to predict in future and this poses a risk to any placement that she is aware of. Her associates, according to the evidence of the first social worker, are not a group of reliable or suitable people to be around children and if she or the father seeks AB out, this could be an incredibly high-risk situation to manage.

W has some practical situations that she needs to address. She has a small house with three bedrooms and five pets, and she would need to move. Although that is not a reason in and of itself to dismiss her as a carer, there is another layer of change built into that arrangement for her and the children she cares for. She has a history of anxiety and depression as a single carer. That may be a factor outside her control, as is her carrying the [redacted] gene but that may impact on the stability of the placement if it is placed under stress.

I look at the option of adoption. In favour of this it would provide stability and permanence. It would provide a family chosen to meet AB’s needs and give him a stable and predictable home. He would be safe from any intergenerational difficulties arising from his birth. He would not be at risk from his mother’s or the father’s drug taking and vulnerability as he would be placed outside the family network. The identity of the adopters and their location could be kept confidential, and any information put about him on social media very carefully curated.

The Guardian is of the view that managing the complexities of AB’s life story work and giving him a positive sense of self is best managed from the neutral perspective of an adopted family rather than embedded in the complex family network. The family finder was clear that his parentage was a complexity in placing him but maintained it would be possible to find an adoptive family. The Guardian submits that AB’s parentage and life story work could be best digested without the emotional influence of the wider family dynamic and underpinned by therapeutic support.

Against this, AB has emerging developmental needs and his parentage may be a barrier to placing him compared to maybe other children without these complexities. Adoption has lifelong implications and restricts the role of the birth family significantly. It may pose identity in later life challenges. Adoption is not a panacea, they can and do break down, and as the Guardian says the complexity of his life story and the inconsistent care he has received in early life will increase the risk that an adoptive placement may not be successful.

He loses or at least his relationship with his siblings is restricted and so is his relationship with his mother. There would need to be particular support around AB’s life story, and it means that any adoptive placement will need to be carefully framed around his particular needs.

I need to consider whether making an order is proportionate and necessary in accordance with Article 8 because I should only intervene in the life of this family to the extent it is necessary and proportionate to the risks to AB. However, I am satisfied that both a care order and a placement order are necessary and proportionate orders. Sadly, I agree with W that she will not be in a position to provide the care which comes close to meeting AB’s needs within this context. I am satisfied that the adoption offers the best way of meeting his needs for permanence and security. I accept the Local Authority’s and the Guardian’s evidence that this is genuinely a case where nothing else will do for AB short of adoption. I am satisfied the position is now really so clear that I must dispense with his parents’ consent.

In relation to contact, the Guardian’s view with which the social worker agreed is that any contact needed therapeutic underpinning and support. First, whoever cares for AB needed support and help to consider what contact was right for him. In my view, the priority for AB needs to be finding an adoptive family who can promote stability. W has been a strong advocate for AB and wants him to know that he was not rejected by her and that she wanted to bring him up. However, contact with her and UV needs to be very carefully risk assessed and needs to be looked at in the light of how AB settles, the views of his adoptive parents and the broader family reaction to this judgment and that in the linked case. All of the decisions for AB need to be underpinned by a therapeutic and attachment intervention and guided by the wisdom of those providing such expert support.

Meeting ST might provide him with a link to his birth family, but this is a complex relationship. Although they are close in age, they are both half-brothers and uncle and nephew, a fact that both of them are far too young to understand. Therefore, although the Local Authority plan for contact includes ST, again this needs to be underpinned for both boys by therapeutic support and by how they settle in placement and the views of their carers.

The Local Authority are committed in principle to maintaining a link through contact with the birth family. That view of the importance of contact with the birth family was clearly evident in the Local Authority witnesses. However, the most important thing is AB’s needs. He needs a stable and loving family and so all future contact needs to be carefully calibrated around his own identity and welfare needs.

Subject to any further submissions, I make the following orders. I have already found that the threshold criteria are met. I would ask that the Local Authority amend their care plan to make it clear that they will seek to commission specialist therapeutic support and advice for AB and his carers in making decisions about direct and indirect contact. I know that they cannot commit to paying for particular support in AB’s teenage years when we do not know the landscape about post-adoption support then and what AB might need.

However, I think it should be clearly recorded in his care plan that the expert advice given by Dr Maguire with which the Court agrees is that he may need support particularly in the teenage years coming to terms with his life story. I would ask that the Local Authority also amend their care plan in line with the observations made by the Guardian in writing which I endorse. I make the care order. I dismiss the special guardianship application. I dispense with the consent of UV. I make a placement order for AB, and I direct a transcript of this judgment to be provided.

I give leave for relevant documentation to be disclosed to prospective adopters, including the transcripts of judgments, court order, particularly that annexing the threshold, the updated CPR, the adoption medical, the reports of Dr Maguire, the DNA testing results and the Guardian’s analysis. I make the usual order in relation to costs.

I do very much hope that UV and W might be able to contribute something to the life story work for AB and if it is best for him to have some contact with him going forward. If in later life AB is to read this judgment, I hope he will appreciate that W loved him and wished to bring him up and I hope he will understand that his mother loves him too but through no fault of her own was not able to bring him up.

I wish to thank the social worker for her particular care for AB. What came through very clearly is how well she knows this little boy and how much she wants the very best for him. Although the Guardian did not give evidence as it became unnecessary, her care for AB is clear in her written work and in the way through counsel she tested the evidence and was a powerful advocate for AB within these proceedings.

I hope that Ms Youll will ask her instructing solicitors to send Dr Maguire a copy of the judgment for her own learning and understanding and I would wish thanks to be conveyed to the foster carers who have done an excellent job of caring for AB. I wish to thank counsel for their assistance over the past few days. This has been a very difficult and sensitive and sad case. It would have been immeasurably harder without the expertise of counsel.

At various points I had members of the lay bench sitting in and learning from these proceedings and I said to them on occasion that what they were observing is a masterclass in effective advocacy and the representation in this case has been of the highest standard. I thank in particular Mr O’Brien for being consistent in his representation on both this and the linked case for his meticulous preparation, equanimity and expertise representing the Local Authority throughout both sets of proceedings.

Lastly, I hope that AB, this smiley happy child who responds to the world with delight, will be treated by the world with kindness. I hope the world will greet him with the joy that he currently takes in the world around him, because he deserves every happiness and to be greatly loved throughout his life.