A Local Authority v Mother & Ors

This is the local authority’s application for public law orders in respect of two children A a boy aged 4 and B a girl aged one. Proceedings were issued on 19 September 2024. They are in week 45 which is significantly beyond the statutory 26 week period for proceedings to be concluded. The 26 week provision is there for good reason as delay is not in the interests of children.

For the purpose of this final hearing, the local authority is represented by Ms Harris, the mother by Mr Douglas, the father of A by Ms El Nazer, the grandmother by Mr Pinhorn and the children by Ms Hunter through their guardian (taking over from the previous guardian who took over from the initial guardian). All parties have been extremely well represented and I am grateful to them all for their assistance.

B’s paternity remains unresolved. The mother put forward two putative fathers. One undertook DNA testing which was negative. The other is in prison and has refused to engage.

By way of background, previous proceedings relating to A were issued in August 2023. During those proceedings, the mother and A went to a recovery centre whilst the mother was pregnant with B and then underwent a community-based assessment. A supervision order was made for 12 months in respect of A on 22 April 2024. The concerns related to drug use, mental health issues and domestic abuse. B was born at the end of the proceedings and was placed on a child protection plan.

Sadly, concerns re-emerged quickly after the conclusion of the earlier proceedings. The police had to exercise their powers of protection in early September 2024, the mother having called an ambulance seeking medical attention for B. Such were the concerns about her presentation, which suggested she had relapsed into ketamine use, the children were removed from her care and the mother was arrested for child neglect and possession of drugs (she received a caution). The children were placed in the care of their grandmother. This continued on the basis of the parents having given their section 20 agreement.

On 25 September 2024 interim care orders were made for both children. Whilst the children stayed with the grandmother, an application for removal was heard by District Judge Brown on 18 December 2024. The then guardian did not at that time support the application and the grandmother also wanted representation. The application was adjourned until 2 January 2025 before District Judge Webb. However, on that occasion there was not sufficient time for a contested hearing. An urgent hearing was listed on 16 April 2025 when the court approved the removal of the children from the grandmother’s care.

The final hearing was due to take place on 30 June before a Recorder. Unfortunately, there was no judge available. I rearranged my diary and with the help of the parties this hearing was listed. The case has come to me by chance and raises some important concerns as to whether local authority’s evidence is adequate for the purpose of making the orders sought.

The local authority seeks care and placement orders for both children. This is opposed by the mother and A’s father. The mother seeks to care for both children or for them to live with the grandmother. A’s father accepts that he cannot care for A at the moment but considers long-term foster care to be the best outcome. I understood his oral evidence to be that he would also support A being cared for by the mother or the grandmother until A could return to his care in about nine months’ time (by which time he expects to be abstinent from drugs). The father’s proposal of long-term foster care would see A being separated from B. The grandmother seeks to care for both children. The guardian supports the local authority’s position. The only difference between the local authority and the guardian was whether there should be direct contact with the mother in the event of care and placement orders being made. However, the position now is that the local authority will amend its care plan to reflect that there should be direct contact with both parents.

When asked to make public law orders there are two main questions. First, is the threshold criteria for making a care order under Section 31 Children Act 1989 satisfied? Secondly, if so, what order should the court make?

Section 31 (2) provides:

The determination of whether the threshold criteria are fulfilled involves considering the position at the time that protective measures were taken (when the proceedings started). By contrast, welfare issues must be based on the totality of information available to the court and, unlike threshold issues, it is necessary to conduct a present-day evaluation of what is best for the child.

The burden of proving that the threshold is met rests with the local authority. The standard of proof is the civil standard.

As to the second question, the finding that the threshold is satisfied is the gateway to the making of orders in respect of A and B.

In determining the appropriate order, the court must follow the approach set out in Section 1 Children Act 1989. I bear firmly in mind that the child’s welfare is my paramount concern (section 1(1) Children Act 1989). I remind myself of the provisions of the welfare checklist at section 1(3) and also what is known as the no delay principle set out at section 1(2).

I must be satisfied that any orders I make are lawful, necessary, proportionate and reasonable to address the children’s unfortunate predicament. The granting of a care order let alone endorsing a plan for adoption would represent a significant curtailment of the rights of the parents and A and B under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

It is of fundamental importance that there is discipline in the approach to welfare issues in care (and placement) proceedings. The court is not a court of social engineering. The court does not decide welfare issues by considering whether, on an individual judge’s analysis, a child might be ‘better off’ in care (or with adopters). As Hedley J said in the 2007 case of Re L:

In analysing the local authority’s plan for A and B to be adopted I am obliged to consider section 1 Adoption and Children Act 2002. My paramount consideration is their welfare throughout their lives (section 1(2)). Again, I take into account the fact that delay is likely to prejudice their welfare. There is again a checklist of factors to be taken into account set out in section 1(4). In addition, both sections 1(3)(g) of the 1989 Act and section 1(6) of the 2002 Act require the court to have regard to the range of orders available.

The court may only make a placement order if either the child’s parents’ consent, or the court dispenses with the parents’ consent. Section 52 provides that the court cannot dispense with a parent’s consent unless it is satisfied either that the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or that the welfare of the child requires that the parent’s consent be dispensed with.

Again, I must have regard to the child’s article 8 rights and those of their parents.

With regard to the making of a placement or adoption order there is further assistance from the Supreme Court in the case of Re: B (a child) [2013] UKSC 33 followed by decisions of the Court of Appeal particularly in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 but also Re: G (a child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965. These cases all confirm that a placement for adoption is ‘a very extreme thing’ and ‘a last resort’ to be approved only when ‘nothing else will do’.

The court must weigh up the realistic options and submit them to a thorough analysis, weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of each option. In Re R there was much discussion about what is meant by ‘realistic’. The then President described this as ‘fundamental’. Full consideration is required only with respect to those options which are ‘realistically possible’. Re B-S does not require that every stone has to be unturned, and the ground exhaustively examined before coming to a conclusion that a particular option is not realistic.

I have been referred in more detail than is often required to Re B and Re B-S and whilst I do not set them out in further detail, I have in particular reminded myself of their contents and specifically paragraphs 32, 34 and 36.

The Supreme Court case of Re H-W (Children), Re H-W (Children No 2) [2022] UKSC 17 concerned the proportionality of care orders which must be necessary to meet the needs of the child having regard to the advantages and disadvantages of each available option. Various factors were set out to assist the court in answering this question.

In Re V (Long-Term Fostering or Adoption) [2014] 1 FLR 1009, whilst there was not a sibling relationship which fell for consideration Black LJ offered a non-exhaustive list of the material differences between long-term fostering and adoption, which mean that the two forms of placement cannot be equated in terms of the security that they offer:

In Re LRP (Care Proceedings: Placement Order) [2014] 2 FLR 399, Pauffley J described long-term fostering as ‘an extraordinarily precarious legal framework for any child’. The benefits of adoption were considered in Re W (a child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793 (para 64) which include:

More recently in Re D-S (A Child: Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 948 the court referred to the precarious nature of foster care (when compared to adoption) which also lacks the sense of belonging.

In R and C (Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 1302 Baker LJ referred to the likely template for contact arrangements post adoption which should be set at the placement order stage noting that the court should have regard not only to the short-term contact arrangements required in the pre-adoption stage, but also in setting the course for the maintenance of family relations over the longer term if it is in the child’s best interests and for orders to include recitals in respect of post-adoption contact.

In Re S (Placement Order Contact) 2025 EWCA Civ 823 the mother had appealed following a contested hearing in which the judge made a placement for adoption order but declined to make an order under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 26(2)(b) for sibling contact. The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the lower court’s decision not to impose a contact order. Sir Andrew McFarlane, giving the lead judgment in the Court of Appeal, gave guidance as to the management of post placement order contact. The use of section 26 orders to signal future arrangements beyond adoption was contemplated in cases where the child’s need for contact prevailed. In some cases where adoption was a pressing need for the child, the negative impact of such an order in the search for an adopter was a relevant consideration.

The court is required to scrutinise all applications for expert evidence and will allow such when the expert opinion is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings justly. In doing so the court must have regard to the factors set out in section 13(7) Children and Families Act 2014.

It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). In Re A-B-C (Children) [2021] EWCA 451 Macur LJ provided updated guidance on the assessment of credibility.

I have considered the written evidence and heard from the parent assessor, the independent kinship assessor, the deputy team manager, the current social worker, the previous social worker, the mother, the grandmother, the father and the guardian. All the professional witnesses did their best to assist the court. The parent assessor was a quiet and somewhat hesitant witness. The mother was largely a straightforward witness who made many concessions. However, her evidence did not always demonstrate insight. This was particularly so in respect of her drug use and the importance of this in connection with the proceedings. The father was not always an easy witness to follow but did his best to answer questions asked of him. Some of his answers responding to his drug use caused me concern. The grandmother answered the questions asked of her but remained unwilling to accept most of the evidence given by the professionals. This was a concern on my part. The guardian, who has come into the case late (early June), was a thoughtful and reflective witness who has clearly given the case a lot of thought.

There can be no doubt that threshold is crossed. At the date proceedings were issued this was the case for both children. The issues related to instability, physical and emotional harm in addition to neglect. The evidence is clear. There is now an agreed document which should be attached to the final order.

I turn next to the second question and the orders I should make. In this respect the two welfare checklists require consideration.

Both children are too young to properly express their wishes and feelings. No doubt they would want to be cared for by their parents if their needs could be met and they were safe. They appear content with their existing foster carer. A has said he does not want to go back to the care of the grandmother; he says he has been smacked on the bottom by her. The children appear to enjoy family time with their parents and the grandmother. The mother has shown me some delightful pictures of her time with the children.

Both children need all of their needs to be met by their carer. They are entirely dependent upon their carer to meet their physical, emotional and educational needs. A can demonstrate challenging behaviour. His speech is delayed and he struggles to maintain attention. He has had a lack of boundaries. There is some suggestion that he may display traits of ADHD but there has not been a diagnosis. However, he is clearly a clever boy with much potential. He is a lively child with a lot of energy. He enjoys being outside and having space. The current social worker’s evidence and that of the guardian is that his behaviour has improved since he has been in foster care.

B is said by her foster carer to be an easy child to look after. She has made much progress since being in foster care. She is now starting to talk and walk. Her sleep pattern is a difficulty and this appears to be caused by a medical issue rather than from B being unsettled.

Both children are said to be thriving in foster care. The grandmother does not accept this to be the case. They have a strong sibling bond and the sibling assessment of them undertaken by the previous social worker recommends that they be placed together. No-one, quite rightly in my view, suggests that having different fathers is of any relevance in terms of how they perceive each other. However, the father seeks for A to be placed in long-term foster care and does so even if means that A and B would potentially be separated.

Both children have had a lot of change in their lives. They have lived with the mother, A has lived with his father for a short time (a matter of days), they have lived with the grandmother and have had two sets of foster carers. Their existing foster carer has given notice due to personal problems. The children will need to move to a bridging placement unless they return to the care of the mother or the grandmother. They need decisions to be made without further delay. A starts school in September and a change of school will be yet a further change for him. It appears that he will have to move school if he is placed for adoption or with long-term foster carers. This is most unfortunate.

A is of dual heritage. His identity is understandably of importance to the father. B’s paternity is unclear. The fact that her father is unknown and is not involved in these proceedings is a real concern.

I have already referred to the harm both children have suffered. This is particularly so for A as he has a greater awareness of incidents to which he has been exposed which has included a police protection order being made. There remains a real risk that they would suffer further harm if they were returned to the care of the mother or the grandmother.

Sadly, neither parent has been positively assessed to care for the children and this is also the case for the grandmother.

There are additional matters that fall for consideration under Section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Specifically, I must consider the likely effect on A and B, throughout their lives of having ceased to be a member of their original family and becoming adopted people. If they were adopted that would inevitably represent a huge change due to severing of ties with their birth family. They would need support to help them understand why they had not been able to live with their birth parents. In the event of placement orders being made careful life story work will be necessary (the guardian has referred to therapeutic work being necessary which she says ought to be accessible to adopters). If only one child is adopted (the father’s case) work would also be required to help them understand why they had been separated from each other.

I must also consider ‘the relationship which the child has with relatives … including (i) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so’. The wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives regarding the children must also be considered. I have already referred to the grandmother. The father has an extended family many of whom attended the family group conference in June 2025.

I must consider the realistic options and then undertake a balancing exercise to enable me to reach the right decision in respect of A and B. There are four realistic options in this case (i) A and B returning to the care of the mother (ii) the children being cared for by the grandmother (iii) A (or both children) being in long-term foster care and (iv) both children being the subject of care and placements orders.

The pros of A and B being returned to the care of their mother are that they would be together and remain in the family with their mother who loves them very much and who they love dearly. The children could see their father and wider family members including the grandmother. The right to family life would be preserved which is important in a case where A has a bond with his mother (this is less so with B who was removed from the mother’s care at a young age). The wishes of the mother would be met.

The cons are that the mother may not be able to meet their needs. They may suffer further harm which must also be considered in the context of her drug use. There is a risk of further proceedings being issued which would be the third set of proceedings.

The pros of the children being cared for by the grandmother are that they would live together with a family member and be able to have contact with the mother and potentially the father. Like the mother she loves the children dearly. Family life would be preserved and the wishes of the grandmother would be met.

The cons are that the children may not be protected from harm and could be exposed to further harm and generally not have their needs met. There might be additional difficulties if the mother’s time was not carefully managed. There is a risk of further proceedings being issued.

The pros of A and Bbeing in long-term foster care are that they would be able to see both parents more frequently. The legal relationship with their parents would not be severed. Their needs would be met and they would be safe. Therapeutic support would be available through the local authority. A’s cultural needs might be better met by his family with whom he would still spend time (the father seeking monthly direct contact). There is a chance that the children could return to the care of their parents or the grandmother at a later date. As for A, due to his age and knowledge of his family, his contact with his parents and family is particularly important. Long-term foster is likely to mean that he can spend more time with his birth family.

The cons are that the carers may give notice and placements could break down. The commitment by foster carers to a child is quite different to adopters. The children would have no sense of permanence and lose the opportunity of having a forever family. They would have social workers involved in their lives and have to undergo regular LAC reviews. The children might over time be placed separately whichwould be contrary to the sibling assessment, the views of all the professionals and the wishes of the mother and the grandmother. Bwould spend nearly all of her majority in foster-care and so the loss of stability and importance would be particularly acute for her.

The pros of adoption are that both children would live together and have all of their needs met by their adopters and have a forever family throughout their lives. They would be protected from suffering further significant harm. They would have life story work to help them understand why they were not living with their parents. The plan would be for both children to see their parents once a year and potentially they would see other family members too.

The cons are that they would not be brought up with their birth family and their sense of identity and belonging would be affected. Their legal ties with their birth family would be severed. A is at an age where he understands who members of his family are and settling with adopters may present a difficulty for him. Adoptions break down and there the potential for this to happen if A’s behaviour cannot be managed. A’s age suggests that he is at the upper limit of being adopted.

I have read and heard a lot of evidence over the course of this six day final hearing which I have considered but do not rehearse. Despite the draconian nature of the orders sought by the local authority, the overriding objective still applies and there is no requirement for me to address each and every point raised which is particularly so in respect of the grandmother. Rather my judgment addresses the salient points as I see them.

I have set out the local authority’s broad concerns elsewhere. This is not a single-issue case although drug use and specifically ketamine is an important issue. However, there are legitimate concerns raised by the mother, father and the maternal grandmother as to a lack of continuity particularly the number of social workers and the presentation of the case which they say means that there are gaps in the evidence.

The previous social worker started off as the social worker but unfortunately became ill. She was replaced by the parent assessor and then the previous social worker resumed her role before she secured a new position with the local authority and was replaced by the current social worker. I have already referred to there being three guardians. Sadly, there has not been judicial continuity either. This is most unfortunate. Proceedings of this nature are difficult for the parties to manage at the best of times. The changing professionals must have meant these proceedings were even more challenging for the respondents.

The consequence is that the parents do not consider the local authority has made out its case. Specifically, there are concerns about the lack of analysis of the realistic options and a fully reasoned recommendation. The mother in the first instance seeks a further assessment of her. The father was also unhappy with his parenting assessment, but he does not put himself forward to care for A at this stage. The grandmother has not made an application, but the guardian was asked whether she supported a further assessment of her (she did not). Regardless of any further assessments, I am invited to dismiss the application for the children to be placed for adoption.

Against this background, I was provided with an update on the third day of the hearing about the mother’s ketamine use. I was told by Mr Douglas that she had used ketamine on the Saturday before the hearing resumed and this was the first time in six weeks since the filing of her final statement. I shall return to the significance of this in due course.

The mother considers that she has not been fairly assessed. She seeks an assessment by an independent social worker. The application is opposed by the local authority and the guardian. It is supported by the grandmother and I think the father.

There are understandable concerns in respect of the timing of the parent assessor’s involvement. She was brought in part way through the planned sessions which had been organised by the previous social worker (who then became ill). The parent assessor had little experience of undertaking parenting assessments and did not set her own timetable. However, she says she planned to cover all the topics in the plan prepared by the previous social worker. By the time of the parent assessor’s involvement the mother had already cancelled one session with the previous social worker and the previous social worker had cancelled two sessions due to sickness. No sessions had therefore taken place.

The parent assessor accepted that she was somewhat rushed with her assessment but did not think she needed to request more time. Her evidence suggested to me that there had not been much of an attempt to build a relationship with the mother before the work began. This was something which the previous social worker considered to be important. Unlike, the previous social worker who had an established and good working relationship with the mother this was not the case for the parent assessor. But for being ill, the previous social worker would have carried out the parenting assessments for both parents. Upon her return to work in December the previous social worker did resume her role as social worker for the family and having been made aware of both parents’ concerns, offered the parents a ‘mop up’ session. She was aware that the parenting assessments had already been completed and filed but was clear in her oral evidence that had she felt there were any gaps in the parenting assessments she would have felt confident about raising the issue with her manager and legal team. I accept her evidence in that respect.

The parent assessor’s evidence was at times hard to follow and there ought really to have been an introductory meeting so that the mother knew what was happening. The mother was going to have to address difficult topics but she did of course have notice of these and so could not be said to have been taken by surprise. However, I am not persuaded that the parent assessor ought to have prepared her own plan, she was working on the basis of a thorough plan prepared by the former social worker who knew the parents well. She might have had less time than she would have liked but ultimately she was faced with a mother who would not engage with her (and was under the influence of ketamine for one of the sessions). The parent assessor even attended with a colleague in an attempt to persuade the mother to engage but to no avail. I am satisfied that the parent assessor would have covered all areas expected of her had the mother engaged.

The assessment is now seven months old. Mr Douglas seeks to persuade me that as the mother ought to have had six sessions, despite her lack of engagement, I should allow the application. This is particularly so because I am asked to make care and placement orders.

There are further matters that fall for consideration in the context of the mother’s engagement with the parent assessor. I was troubled by the mother making an allegation against the parent assessor that she had stabbed her in the eye with a pen. There was an attempt by Mr Douglas to water this down along the lines of the mother saying she was ‘nearly’ stabbed in the eye or ‘could’ have been stabbed in the eye. The grandmother said that no-one other than the parent assessor said that the mother alleged that she was stabbed in the eye and the mother said to her that she came in holding a pen at face level which the mother found scary and anxiety provoking. I prefer the evidence of the parent assessor who had a clear recollection of the incident. It is supported by the Family Support Worker whose evidence is not challenged. The mother was under the influence of ketamine at the time and cannot sensibly say she had a clear recollection of what happened. At about the same time the mother called 999 believing there to be someone outside with a bomb which is an indication of her altered state of mind. The grandmother was not there during the pen incident and I am satisfied she has aligned with the mother.

There was a further concerning incident between the mother and the parent assessor when the mother’s family time was being observed. The parent assessor said she had to intervene to stop A who was on a bike and about to run into B. She said the incident happened quickly but she grabbed the bike to stop this from happening. The mother reported it as being much greater than it was stating that it is was deliberate with A being pushed off his bike which caused him to injure his head. In her oral evidence the mother said she could see what was happening from the kitchenette. The grandmother says that the parent assessor came over to her car three times and made no mention of A having been injured. It was only when she was driving away from family time that the mother called her to ask if A was alright. She stopped the car and asked A what had happened and had a direct account from him that the parent assessor had caused him to hit his head and he was scared. I accept that the parent assessor had to react urgently to ensure B’s safety. A is a lively child and managing his behaviour can be a challenge. The mother and the grandmother’s responses to this incident are ones that concern me. There does not appear to be any basis on what A said during family time for him needing to go to hospital. It is a further example of the grandmother being aligned with the mother and not trusting professionals.

Overall, I am not satisfied that there was anything unfair about the assessment process of the mother. The mother’s engagement was plainly lacking and this is significant. It seems to me that having received a negative assessment, the mother now seeks a further opportunity to be assessed blaming the parent assessor and failing to take proper responsibility for her role in the outcome of the parenting assessment. This is not a single-issue case but the application ignores the mother’s drug use and how this impacts her ability to care for the children. Any further assessment would be on the theoretical basis of the mother’s ability to care for the children if she were abstinent – sadly she is not and even if she were there would need to be a sustained period of abstinence (the guardian suggests 12 months). Further, the mother has ongoing mental health difficulties, no doubt adversely affected when she relapses with her ketamine use. Her home conditions can be poor and the grandmother said that they had deteriorated in recent times. The home conditions ought to be better if she is without the children in the home.

Such are the problems in this case that I am not persuaded that a further assessment of the mother is necessary. In any event a further assessment is not within the timescales of the children. To allow such an assessment would itself take two to three months. Further updating evidence would be required before a further final hearing could be listed. These proceedings started on 19 September 2024. They are rapidly approaching their first anniversary. To suggest that the outcome would be any different is unlikely given the evidence of the previous social worker who saw the mother again upon her return to work and what we now know about the mother’s drug use. The application is refused.

Rightly, the mother describes herself as an addict. Her case until the third day of the hearing was that she had been abstinent from drugs for six weeks since the date of her final statement. Prior to this period the HSTs results show that her ketamine use was the highest that the laboratory could record and this has consistently been the case throughout the testing period which started when the proceedings commenced and concluded in May of this year. She told me that she was spending £50 per day on her ketamine habit and also spending money on cannabis to help her sleep. This must have had an impact on the children despite the mother’s case that she is ‘good with money’. Her habit is an expensive one and at its height was costing her at hundreds of pounds a week. It is also a risky habit as buying drugs in the way she was is likely to mean that they were cut with other substances which could be harmful to her in their own right. She also acknowledged that she could not always pay for her drugs. If she was in debt to drug dealers this is a further concern for the children’s well-being and safety. She was right to concede this part of the threshold document.

There was a significant incident involving the children which saw them removed from the mother’s care by the police. The grandmother also attended. The police were already present and saw drug paraphernalia in the kitchen as did the grandmother.

The grandmother was aware of the mother having relapsed prior to this significant event but says she did not realise it was as bad as it was. The grandmother certainly did not think it necessary to contact the social worker saying that she feared it would result in the removal of the children from the mother’s care. Although this was understandable to some extent, her actions meant that she did not act protectively towards the children. Indeed, her oral evidence was that when she knew the mother had resumed taking drugs she stepped back which is even more worrying.

We now know that the mother called the emergency services last Saturday when she was under the influence of ketamine. Her mind state was such that when the paramedics arrived she questioned who they were. Given that she had called 999, this is somewhat puzzling. Worse still, this incident reveals not only a relapse on the Saturday but the mother had also used on the Friday. Her presentation was extremely worrying to professionals. How the children would have been affected had they been present is a real concern. The mother says she would not use drugs if the children were in her care but others rightly do not share her confidence when she relapsed so soon after leaving the recovery unit. Whilst everyone would have some sympathy for the mother relapsing when the children are not in her care, this happened during the course of the final hearing. The professionals view the risks as being too great to take a chance with the children being returned to her care. The mother has known for a long time that abstinence from drugs is required of her and she has not been able to achieve such. Ongoing drug use is also likely to adversely affect her mental health which is at times precarious. This is perhaps even more so given her diagnosis of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder.

Perhaps linked to her drug use is the mother’s association with risky individuals. She told me that during the last week or so she had been in an intimate relationship with a man (Z). She said Z used drugs regularly and did so at her home. She was adamant that she had not used until the evening of Friday but had been drinking (at other times she told me that she does not drink; the ambulance records refer to having been drinking and slurring her words). Z was the reason for the mother’s call to the police as he had been waving a knife at her on a Facetime call and had also taken many things from her home over the course of what appears to have been a week or so. However, despite his concerning behaviour the mother took no steps to end her relationship with him. Sadly, it was only when she was under the influence of drugs that she felt the need to take any action by contacting the emergency services. The mother now accepts that Z is a dangerous man and this was confirmed to her by a friend although she had no further detail.

Despite these recent significant events, the mother’s case is that the children should be returned to her care albeit not at this stage. I asked her when she thought they could return. She did not feel able to give an answer. She accepted that she would need a lot of support but what this would look like I was unsure. I ask how professionals could help the mother from relapsing when the children were in her care? She has not always worked with them honestly and this has particularly been the case as to her drug use. The mother accepted that in the past she would obtain drugs when the children were in her care although she said that they would be with her mother and she would lie to the grandmother and say that she was just popping to the shop. If that is right, it offers little by way of reassurance. It is also clear that whilst the grandmother has not approved of the mother taking drugs, the relationship between the grandmother and the mother is a difficult one. Both the mother and the grandmother gave evidence about a time when the grandmother had thrown the mother’s ketamine away in front of her. That is not a scene that either of these two vulnerable children ought to be exposed to. The suggestion that they were asleep offers little comfort.

I have made some observations about the grandmother already. She was assessed by the kinship assessor to care for the children. The assessment was undertaken by an independent social worker. It is negative although the grandmother takes issue with the bulk of its contents.

The kinship assessor was an impressive witness whose evidence was unshaken under cross-examination. She told the court about the assessment she had carried out of the grandmother (it runs to 59 pages). It did not get off to a particularly good start as the grandmother sought to make the visits later and even then was late. Lateness was a theme generally and included A being late for nursery. The grandmother was asked about being late. She gave an explanation about her car needing attention at the garage and an account which contradicted that of the kinship assessor. However, she was unable to offer a good reason as to why A was very often late for nursery and typically arriving at 10.30am. The grandmother said that the nursery was okay with him arriving at 10am and how hard it was getting the children ready as A in particular was a challenge. This was so even though the grandmother told me that she was getting up at 5/6am in the morning. First, I prefer the kinship assessor’s evidence about the grandmother being late for their appointment. In any event, it is a basic task to get the children to the child minder and nursery in good time. It is preparatory work for A starting school. It is a concern and shows an inability to fully meet the children’s educational needs.

The kinship assessor described the grandmother as a private person and her somewhat isolated lifestyle was a concern and shared by other professionals. She was concerned as to how this would impact the children. The assessment puts the grandmother’s solitary lifestyle into context; the grandmother had an extremely concerning relationship with the mother’s father which saw him imprisoned for an assault on the grandmother coupled with threats to kill. The kinship assessor also noted that whilst the grandmother was in good health she has a back problem and is awaiting surgery. The grandmother also suffers from fibromyalgia, asthma, anxiety and depression. The evidence from the mother that she had a normal childhood with friends round after school does not assist given the trauma the grandmother suffered later in life at the hands of her former partner. The grandmother referred to pictures in her evidence of her bungalow and there being blinds which she said did not stop the light coming into the property (I disagree). This was not the experience of the guardian who visited the property in June and described the bungalow as being dark with the lights on. I accept her evidence and was surprised that the grandmother maintained her position which was simply not credible.

The previous social worker shared the concerns of the other professionals as to the grandmother’s ability to care for the children. She too was of the view that the grandmother was very private to the extent that she was unwilling to share her address with the local authority.

The deputy team manager told me about the grandmother being isolated. The grandmother said she was concerned about the cats getting out even though she lives in a quiet area. This sort of response she felt impacted upon the children’s ability to be able to leave the house. The grandmother’s response to this was that people looked in her house as they stopped to talk on the path. It was an unusual response and not one I felt able to accept.

Aside from the bungalow being in darkness, the kinship assessor has significant concerns about the state of the property. The grandmother lived in the bungalow before she had care of the children at which point she went to live with her brother (H). She moved to the bungalow with the children after A complained that H had assaulted him (there was more than one complaint by A). The grandmother said she was only aware of one incident and decided to move. Her evidence was that it all happened in a hurry and she did not have the time or the support to sort things out. However, the professionals told me that the timescales for sorting out the bungalow so that it would be suitable for the children kept being pushed back by the grandmother and this was a real concern. This evidence not only came from the kinship assessor but the deputy team manager and the previous social worker.

When the kinship assessor was eventually able to visit the bungalow, she explained how she was unable to get through the front door with a small bag on her back as the property was so full of belongings. A lot of time was spent by Mr Pinhorn asking the kinship assessor (and the deputy team manager and the previous social worker) about the state of the bungalow. I do not set out the detail but the deputy team manager referred to a ladder being present which would have been accessible to A who is an active child and inclined to launch himself off furniture. It was dangerous and would have been too long to be stored in the loft. The house had all sorts of broken items and the local authority expected the conditions to have improved as there had been discussions with the grandmother over a long period of time and there were times when the children were not in the property when steps could have been taken to improve matters.

The current social worker talked about some large heavy books which were dangerous and although they were moved by the grandmother this was only when she insisted on this happening. These are just some examples of many. Even though the grandmother asked for help there was no reason why she could not have made some progress when the children were at the child minder or nursery. As the guardian said some time spent sorting out the bungalow would have been better than none.

Criticisms of the kinship assessor querying the grandmother’s mental health and the reference to hoarding are also unfounded. The kinship assessor sets out in the assessment that the grandmother suffers from anxiety and depression. She was not attempting to diagnose the grandmother as being a hoarder but given the state of the bungalow she was rightly curious.

The current social worker told me that the grandmother was also offered accommodation until the bungalow was in a state that would be safe for the children but she declined this. I accept her evidence.

In short, I am more than satisfied that the bungalow was not safe and that the grandmother was resistant to sorting it out and had declined help.

It was not only the bungalow that was a cause for concern but according to the deputy team manager it was also the grandmother’s car which was messy and full of bags. Again, I accept her evidence.

I have already referred to H and the allegations made by A. The kinship assessor was concerned that the grandmother seemed somewhat dependent upon him to care for the children. The kinship assessor had concerns about this as he was not part of the assessment and when she visited and spoke to him it was apparent thatB’s nappy had not been changed for some considerable time and B had also spent a long time in her car seat.

The grandmother was not willing to accept that B spent too much time in her car seat. She referred to checking the position online and being satisfied that what she was doing was okay. The grandmother criticised the professionals (social workers, the IRO, paediatrician and health visitor) for not fairly making reference to times when B was taken out of her seat such as to be undressed and weighed. The car seat issue was a particular concern for the kinship assessor. Overall, there is a wealth of evidence which simply does not support the grandmother’s position and I am not satisfied she has been honest. This was also the case about the account she gave about the report by a neighbour being malicious. She said this was because they had a connection with her former partner. However, I was concerned to hear what seemed like quite a long-winded explanation about making a bottle for Bwhilst she was asleep before going to the shop and then the park. It was unconvincing and given that her address is said to be so confidential I was perplexed as to how she came to be living next to people who were in contact with her former partner. On any view both children were upset and agitated by the time the grandmother returned to the car. A had complained about being left in the car at other times such as when the grandmother went to feed the horses. The grandmother accepts that she did this and A has managed to get out of his car seat and car on at least one occasion. A is a child who needs to be supervised. He can present as being a risk to Band he needs to be watched.

The kinship assessor was also concerned about the grandmother’s view of the mother as she talked about there being a bed in the property for the mother to stay. The grandmother seemed to understand the negative impact of drug taking but did not consider this to impact the mother’s ability to look after the children. The kinship assessor also considered the grandmother to be aligned with the mother when she has made allegations against professionals. I have set out elsewhere that I do not accept the mother’s evidence about two specific allegations. The grandmother was too quick to accept what the mother had told her although at other times their relationship is difficult.

The deputy team manager was not concerned about the grandmother’s ability to work with professionals but this was not a view shared by the kinship assessor. However, they both felt that the children were not stimulated in the grandmother’s care and there was a lack of interaction. The car seat is an example.

The current social worker took on the role of social worker in March 2025. At that time the children were still in the care of the grandmother. She did not share the grandmother’s views as to how well the children were doing in her care reminding the court that both children have suffered injuries whilst in the care of the grandmother. It was not possible to get to the bottom as to whether the mark on B’s leg was paint or not.

The current social worker was also concerned about the grandmother’s ability to provide the children with stimulation. She worried about the children being in her care and how much interaction they would have with others.

As for working with professionals, the previous social worker said she personally worked well with the grandmother. However, she understood the grandmother to have been quite confrontational with the child minder who had the car seat in the front albeit with the airbag disabled. There were some food issues relating to B which saw the grandmother challenge the child minder.

I have stated elsewhere that most of the professional evidence is challenged by the grandmother. In addition to not being satisfied that the bungalow was safe and this ought to have been resolved sooner than it was, she has struggled to provide the children with the care they need and they have not been stimulated in order to meet their needs. She is able to work with some professionals but this is not consistently the case and does not have an open mind to changing her behaviour when concerns are raised, the car seat and issues with the child minder being examples of this. Family time has also not always run smoothly. Whilst the children have been protected from some of the risks they faced with the mother, I am not sure how protective she would be. She has also struggled to provide the children with the care they need and they have not been stimulated in order to meet their needs. Nonetheless, in respect of caring for the children, I accept that the grandmother was trying her best in a situation she did not expect to find herself in. It was not an easy time for her.

There is no application by the grandmother for a further assessment, but I reject the assertion that the assessment of her is anything other than fair and thorough. It comes no way near to meeting the test of necessity and I doubt it would produce a different result. It is also outside the timescales for the children.

The father does not put himself forward to care for A at this stage. However, he does want to see A more frequently. There have been some concerns about his time with A but the current social worker accepted that he has done a lot of work on himself to improve his parenting. This was also the case for the previous social worker. All the professionals accept that he has made much progress despite attending contact on two sessions some months ago when he was under the influence of drugs. Happily, there have been no further incidents of concern.

The current social worker accepted that ideally the family group conference should have taken place sooner (this was also the case for the previous social worker). It was a very productive conference and all the individuals who the father put forward as support were contacted. However, whilst there was not a specific meeting to review the local authority’s plan for the children she was clear that there had not been a change to indicate a need for this to happen. As for the mother, a colleague contacted the people put forward by the mother but they were not in a position to assist.

The real issue for the father, like the mother is his ongoing drug use. In his oral evidence he was critical of the social workers in the previous proceedings as he says he was told he could care for A so long as his drug use had reduced. There can be no doubt that for the duration of these proceedings he has known that he needs to be abstinent. His position is that he was abstinent from 16 October to 20 April 2025. This is not demonstrated by the HSTs. His position is that he can secure testing which would show he is abstinent and that because he was taking ketamine at such a high level for two decades it will take time for the results to show the position now. Whilst he has undoubtedly made progress, he is not yet abstinent.

There is no doubt that the parents and the grandmother love the children very much.

I have already addressed the mother’s application for there to be an assessment by an independent social worker.

The parents submit that the local authority’s case lacks a proper analysis of the realistic options to enable a fully evidenced recommendation to be made to the court. The mother criticises all the professionals who have been involved in the case. I have made my observations about the parenting assessor elsewhere.

The current social worker accepts that in her latest statement (ordered at the Issues Resolution Hearing) she did not undertake a Re B-S analysis as her statement was simply an update addressing various matter. The current social worker said that although she did not carry out a further balancing exercise she did see the parents and felt that she covered all the topics in the parenting assessment for both parents.

The current social did have further meetings with other professionals in on 15 May, 12 June and 20 June. There was also a family group conference to consider the paternal family members and what support they could offer. No details were given for such a conference to be arranged for the mother.

The mother says that although the previous social worker undertook a balancing exercise when she was the social worker, it was not to the extent that ought to have been the case – there is not a separate analysis in respect of each child relating to foster care and adoption. There is also no reference to the 2002 checklist.

The father shares the mother’s concerns and says the outcome for A given his age and heritage has not been given overt attention and consequently how this would differ under a care or placement order.

I am sympathetic to the parents who feel that things have not been done properly. However, the father does not put himself forward to care for A at this stage and there is now clear evidence that nothing has changed for the mother.

Ms Harris says that it would be beyond belief to suggest that the local authority had not considered the 2002 checklist (the checklist being set out at the foot of their statements). I am also reminded of the signed certificate which appears in the placement bundle confirming that there has been compliance with the Adoption Regulations.

I return to address the options for the children. As required by the law, I have undertaken a holistic analysis. Taking all matters into account, I am satisfied that the mother’s case for A and B to be returned to her care lacks merit. I accept that the mother’s home appears to be better than it was and she has tried her best. However, her drug use is such a significant issue which together with the mother’s lifestyle means that it would simply not be safe for the children to be returned to her care. Further, when under the influence of drugs she has made allegations which I am not satisfied are true. The mother accepts that the children cannot be returned to her care now in any event. I asked what would the timescales be for a mother who has relapsed so recently and for A who is now in his second set of proceedings at aged just five? The timescales are unknown. B is younger but she too has been involved in proceedings for most of her life as a result of these proceedings. The issues remain the same. Neither child can return to the care of the mother. It would not be safe for them and the evidence points to the mother simply not being able to meet their needs on a consistent basis. This is particularly so for A and his challenging behaviour. The children have suffered injuries in her care; indeed the trigger for these proceedings was B apparently being injured by A when the mother was under the influence of ketamine (a matter she now seeks to minimise although the grandmother was of the view that B had been injured).

The father’s case is that A should be in long-term foster care. One can understand why he feels this is the right outcome for A. The father himself has spent time in care and he does not see it as a particularly negative experience telling me that he had been with foster carers for 10 years although his cultural needs were not met. Despite his time in care, he clearly has many close family members as an adult. Long-term foster care would also mean that the father could spend more time with A and his time with his son is largely positive. I acknowledge that A would have to cope with further changes before a likely adoption placement were found but this would be the case regardless of whether he was in long-term foster care or with adopters. Whether suitable adopters would be found is somewhat of an unknown. I was not persuaded that a placement order should be ruled out as a result of the statement in the bundle which refers to searches for siblings and older children taking more than six months. It is simply a snap-shot and the position is an ever-changing one. I shall return to whether A should be placed in long-term foster care shortly.

What then of the grandmother? Regrettably she has not been able to keep the children safe. She has found it difficult at times to work with professionals and can be aligned with the mother with whom she also has an unsettled relationship. There can be no doubt that she has tried her best but her care of the children has not only compromised their safety but they have not been stimulated in her care. There are real concerns that they would lead a sheltered life and also potentially allowed to spend time with the mother in an unplanned way. I am far from satisfied that she would be able to get them to school or nursery on time which would be important in terms of ensuring that their educational needs were met. However, I accept she says she would need support for this purpose.

Where does that leave matters? Does it mean that because of some deficits in the work undertaken by the professionals this court cannot make placement orders?

It is right that it is not for the court to fill in the gaps; the local authority must prove its case. There are some legitimate criticisms of the evidence in this case. The parenting assessor’s work was not as had been hoped but this was largely down to the mother. The previous social worker’s final evidence is a detailed piece of work. However, the balance sheet ought to have been more detailed and covered options even if they were not ones the local authority endorsed. Reference should have been made to the 2002 checklist and the relevant aspects in this case.

I am not persuaded that the current social worker ought to have carried out a written assessment of the pros and cons of the realistic options available to the court given the timing of her statement and wording of the court order. The father’s family group conference ought to have taken place must sooner than it did. Likewise, criticisms that she had not made reference to the factors such as the mother’s property being improved do not detract from the real issues in this case namely the mother’s drug use and her general lifestyle.

I am satisfied that the current social worker has thought carefully about placement orders being made for both children and in particular A. She accepts that he has a large extended family and enjoys time with his father. She also accepts that he has had a lot of change to date and there will be further changes in respect of school and carer if care and placement orders are made. However, she remained of the view that care and placement orders are in A’s best interests. I am satisfied that long-term foster care has featured heavily when they have discussed the case in meetings. Permanency she said is the priority for A.

The guardian has not separately considered long-term foster care for A as the plan is for the children to be placed together. It would have been preferable for her to have done so although this was not the care plan for either child. Her analysis ought to have considered A’s heritage. She has not met the father but there was no particular need to given his stance and she had no concerns about family time. There was also no need for her to see the grandmother’s family time when this was not the issue but her ability to care for the children on a full-time basis.

The presentation of the case is not ideal. However, the case has evolved and this has been so even during the final hearing. To some extent evidence has come into existence after final decisions have been made about the appropriate orders for these children. The potential danger is that professionals do not keep an open mind but rather justify decisions that have already been made. However, I am not satisfied that is so on the facts of this case having heard the evidence of the previous social worker and the current social worker. I have already made my observations about the involvement of different professionals although it might be said that this acts as a safeguard, each coming to the case afresh.

There are perhaps reflections to be made. Parents, family members and children need to know that not only has justice been done but it has been seen to be done. The parents and the grandmother hopefully have a better understanding as to why the recommendations have been made having had the benefit of attending the court hearings. That is not so for the children who may one day want to read their files held by Children Services and understand why and how decisions were made as to their futures. It is important that they do not feel that matters have been overlooked.

I make my decision on the basis of all the evidence before me which has been extensive and comes from many different sources. Ultimately, both children have a paramount need for permanence. But for the evidential concerns, I am not persuaded that long-term foster care is an option for B. In respect of A, whilst it might arguably better meet his cultural needs, being in foster care would see extensive ongoing social worker involvement (during these proceedings alone the children have had to adjust to several different social workers) which would not in my view be in his best interests for the remainder of his minority. It would also be likely to involve the separation from B given her young age. The father’s case is put forward on the basis of this being a holding position as in due course he seeks to care for A. This is simply not realistic and to deprive A of the chance of permanence for such a speculative chance of him living with his father is not in his interests. The same points apply with even more force for B.

Taking all matters into account, in my view this is a clear case where care and placements orders are in accordance with the children’s welfare and nothing else will do. It is not the case that I have gone through the options in a linear fashion and settled upon care and placement orders having ruled out the mother, the grandmother and long-term foster care. Rather they simply provide the best opportunity of permanence for both of these children who have already had so much local authority involvement in their short lives. They need stability and decisions to be made without further delay. A’s cultural needs and heritage can still be met through indirect and direct contact with his father. I am satisfied that care and placement orders are both necessary and proportionate. I dispense with the parents’ consent in respect of A and the mother’s consent in respect of B such being in accordance with A and B’s welfare.

As for any search, this should be for a period of six months and if a suitable match has not been found by this time then the local authority should then consider looking for long-term foster carers. Whatever the outcome for these children such is the bond between them that they should be placed together which is the local authority’s care plan, the plans being ones which I endorse.

As for contact, I have given careful thought to the recent Court of Appeal decision (see above) and in particular to paragraphs 75 to 80. It is my responsibility to consider contact and section 27(4) Adoption and Children Act 2002 sets out the legal position. The welfare provisions from a lifelong perspective are relevant.

The parents did not make submissions as to whether an order should be made but the local authority and the guardian say this is not a case where an order is required. I agree. The local authority is concerned that contact with the mother may lead to the placement being disrupted. However, it is prepared to review its care plan to include the same recommendation as for the father. In my view, contact needs to be flexible. If the mother’s contact can also include the grandmother that is something I support so long as it is in the interests of the children. Accordingly, there should be a recital to the order setting out the expectation for the parents’ contact (direct for the parents separately once a year to include paternal family members to join the father and potentially this to be the case for the grandmother to join the mother’s contact).

In the meantime, family time will be as set out by the local authority with there to be a review after seven weeks.

That is my judgment.