F (A Child) (Care and Placement Orders), Re

I have given leave for this anonymised version of the judgment to be published. Although this judgment will be available online, it is vital that it is not published or referred to by any person (including the parties) in a way that will allow the identity of the parties to be revealed or implied. That includes posting this judgment (or a link to it) online in a way that would suggest a connection to the person making the post.

The court is concerned with the welfare of a girl whom I shall call Faith. Faith was born in December 2024. I shall call her parents Sophie and Will. They are both in their mid to late 20s. Will, Sophie and Faith are not their real names but are names I have chosen to ensure that this judgment can be published while maintaining their anonymity. I have changed some other names, too.

This is a case all about a girl called Faith. Will and Sophie love Faith very much. They want to be able to look after her safely. They are keen to work with social workers to know what to do to look after her safely. They know that they could only look after Faith if they have help from others. They want what is best for Faith.

The local authority wants to place Faith in an adoptive family. They say that Sophie and Will can’t care for Faith safely. That is because Sophie lives with a number of conditions that make it hard for her to understand things like looking after a baby safely. Sophie has global development delay and a borderline learning disability. She has struggled to look after two of her previous children safely. Her first child was James. James’s father is not Will, but by the time James was born, Will was in a relationship with Sophie. James was born in 2017. In 2018 a judge decided that James should be adopted because he was not safe in the care of Sophie and Will.

In 2018, Sophie had Edward. Will is Edward’s father. Edward was going to be adopted, and he went to live with a new family. Unfortunately, that did not work. In 2020, Edward went back to live with Sophie and Will. Unfortunately, Sophie and Will could not keep Edward safe that time. A judge decided that Alicia, Sophie’s sister, could look after Edward. Edward still lives with Alicia and is happy with her.

In December 2024, Sophie and Will had Faith. The local authority say that Will and Sophie can’t keep Faith safe. They now want her to be adopted, too.

I have decided that Faith should be adopted. Sadly, Will and Sophie won’t be able to keep her safe. This will be sad for Will and Sophie, and for Faith, too. But it should give Faith a new forever family. I know that that did not work for Edward. But that is quite rare. I think that it is better for Faith to be adopted than to risk being harmed in the care of Will and Sophie. This will be best for Faith throughout her life. That is the best option for her.

I will now explain in legal terms why I have reached this conclusion.

There are two central issues in this case:

This is a case in which nobody doubts the love and devotion both parents have for Faith. Their love for her is clear. Will has overcome part of his natural dislike of other people in order to embrace his prospective care of Faith. The parents’ desire to look after her and meet her welfare needs is evident. The question is whether, even with support, they can do so adequately. It is the local authority’s case that the standard of care, the conditions of living, and the parents’ understanding of what is needed in order properly to care for Faith is insufficient. The local authority says that, even with support, the parents would be unable to keep Faith safe from the risk of significant harm that their care exposes her to.

Faith is the third child to Sophie, and the second child she has with Will. The family is known to the local authority. Sophie lives with global development delay and borderline learning difficulties. While she has been assessed as having capacity to conduct these proceedings, she struggles to engage with some aspects of daily life. She prefers to stay at home, and when she does so, she will often allow Will to take the lead in conversation with any visitors, in particular professionals. Will is her registered carer. The home she shares with Will has frequently led to concerns about its condition and tidiness, such that the conditions place young children at risk. While I should record that there have been some improvements during these proceedings, there are long-standing concerns about excessive clutter leading to a safety risk to the children, and the presence of a strong smell of animal urine and other detritus.

In 2017, Sophie gave birth to James. Will is not James’s father, but he was in a relationship with Sophie by the time he was born. In May 2018, James was made the subject of a care and placement order, on account of the conditions in the home, and concerns about the ability of Will and Sophie to look after James safely.

In late 2018, Edward was born to Will and Sophie. Will and Sophie were given extensive support and assistance from the local authority. Care proceedings were brought, and Edward was placed with his foster-to-adopt family in October 2019 under an interim care order. Unfortunately, the placement broke down. The local authority sought to rehabilitate Edward to the care of his parents, following a report from an independent social worker.

Unfortunately, that did not work. Edward frequently encountered accidental injuries while in the care of his parents, and the concerns about the home conditions and the understanding of his parents continued. Care proceedings were commenced, culminating in a special guardianship order being made in favour of Sophie’s sister, Alicia, with whom Edward continues to live.

Against that background, Faith was born in late 2024, and care proceedings have once again been commenced. She is currently placed under a section 20 agreement with local authority foster carers. There is regular and frequent family time.

The local authority’s care plan is for placement for adoption with a phased-out schedule of family time until a forever family is found. That would be followed by annual direct contact between the parents and Faith with her adoptive family, and direct contact with Edward annually, to maintain the sibling relationship.

A feature of these proceedings is that a pre-birth assessment of Will and Sophie when Sophie was pregnant with Faith concluded that they may be able to care for her safely, with sufficient support. See the report dated 16 September 2024 by Ms Becher. Subsequently, there was a change of social worker. By a report dated 11 November 2024, the newly allocated social worker, Katrina Arthurs, reached the same conclusion.

However, by a report dated 26 November 2024 “requested via the care and legal gateway panel”, Ms Arthurs recorded that the Independent Reviewing Officer did not agree with the care plan for Faith. The report concluded that some who knew the couple well, such as their health visitor, felt strongly that they would be able to care for Faith. Ms Arthurs concluded that a post-birth Parent Assess assessment should be conducted to examine Will and Sophie’s ability to care for Faith further.

A Parent Assess assessment was completed by Sarah McCall Doyle. By her report dated 8 May 2025, Ms McCall Doyle surveyed the extensive child protection history involving James and Edward. She outlined the parents’ views that Edward’s challenging behaviour was attributable to ADHD (a condition with which Edward has not been diagnosed), rather than their own care. The overall assessment was negative, in relation to both parents together, and each individually.

Section 31(1) of the 1989 Act empowers a court to make a care or supervision order when the criteria in subsection (2) are met. Section 31(2) provides:

“(2)

A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied—

(a)

that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b)

that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—

(i)

the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or

(ii)

the child's being beyond parental control.”

As with any statutory power, the fact that a power is, in principle, engaged does not mean that it should, in fact, be invoked. Put another way, just because a care or supervision order could be made does not mean that it should be made.

Whether to make a care order, and if so under what conditions, are questions to be determined by reference to the welfare of the children involved. The welfare of any child in relation to whom a section 31 order could be made is the court’s paramount consideration. To that end, section 1 of the 1989 Act establishes the paramountcy principle: when a court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child, the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration: see section 1(1). There are additional statutory considerations contained in section 1, in addition to the welfare checklist: see section 1(3). The provisions are well known. I need not set them out.

The 1989 Act must be applied consistently with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. Orders under the Act must be made in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Convention, in particular the proportionality requirements of Article 8 (private and family life): see Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 at para. 73, per Lord Neuberger, and at para. 194 per Lady Hale. The same principles apply in relation to placement orders under the Adoption and Children Act (“the 2002 Act”), as set out below.

Placement orders are made in accordance with section 21 of the 2002 Act. The power to do so is engaged on a number of bases. Relevant to these proceedings is the criterion in section 21(2)(b), which is engaged when section the threshold criteria in section 31(2) of the 1989 Act are met.

Section 21 provides, where relevant:

“21 Placement orders”

(1)

A placement order is an order made by the court authorising a local authority to place a child for adoption with any prospective adopters who may be chosen by the authority.

(2)

The court may not make a placement order in respect of a child unless—

(a)

the child is subject to a care order,

(b)

the court is satisfied that the conditions in section 31(2) of the 1989 Act (conditions for making a care order) are met, or

(c)

the child has no parent or guardian.

(3)

The court may only make a placement order if, in the case of each parent or guardian of the child, the court is satisfied—

(a)

that the parent or guardian has consented to the child being placed for adoption with any prospective adopters who may be chosen by the local authority and has not withdrawn the consent, or

(b)

that the parent's or guardian's consent should be dispensed with.

This subsection is subject to section 52 (parental etc. consent).”

The question of whether a parent or guardian’s consent should be dispensed with under section 21(3)(b) is to be determined by reference to what the welfare of the child “requires”: see section 52(1)(b). The term “requires” connotes a test of necessity, as set out below. Whether the child’s welfare “requires” the consent of his or her parents to be dispensed with is a question to be addressed by reference to the paramountcy principle as established by the 2002 Act, namely by reference to the child’s welfare “throughout his life” (see section 1(2)). Section 1(4) contains an adoption-specific welfare checklist.

The welfare checklist principles must be applied in accordance with the relevant caselaw. The test for severing the relationship between parent and child is thus very strict. Only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s welfare, in short where nothing else will do, may such an order be made. In Re B, Lord Wilson summarised the principles in these terms, at para. 34:

“The same thread therefore runs through both domestic law and Convention law, namely that the interests of the child must render it necessary to make an adoption order. The word ‘requires’ in section 52(1)(b) ‘was plainly chosen as best conveying...the essence of the Strasbourg jurisprudence’ (Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2 FLR 625, para 125).”

In Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 Sir James Munby, P, commented on Re B in the following terms, at para. 22:

“The language used in Re B is striking. Different words and phrases are used, but the message is clear. Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are ‘a very extreme thing, a last resort’, only to be made where ‘nothing else will do’, where ‘no other course [is] possible in [the child's] interests’, they are ‘the most extreme option’, a ‘last resort – when all else fails’, to be made ‘only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do’: see Re B paras 74, 76, 77, 82, 104, 130, 135, 145, 198, 215.”

Re B-S goes on to emphasise the importance of proper evidence and analysis from the local authority and the guardian. Such evidence must address all the options which are realistically possible and must contain analysis of the arguments for and against each option (paras 33 to 40). The court emphasised that judgments must be adequately reasoned (paras 41 to 46), looking at all realistic options in the round, without conducting a linear analysis. There must be a global, holistic evaluation: para. 44. The need for such rigorous analysis reflects the importance of exercising this most draconian and permanent power of the state in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality and the domestic and Strasbourg case law.

The burden of proof is on the local authority to establish its case to the balance of probabilities standard.

I will summarise the main themes of the evidence. It is not my intention to repeat back to the parties everything they heard in court and included in the bundle. I will recite further aspects of the evidence to the extent necessary to reach and give reasons for my findings, below.

I heard from Sarah McCall Doyle, the social worker who conducted a Parent Assess assessment of both parents. Under cross-examination, Ms McCall Doyle accepted that there were some positive features of the parents’ conduct; they worked closely with professionals and were open to receiving help. Ms McCall Doyle’s report expressed concerns about the power imbalance in the relationship between the parents, and opined that there may be traits of domestic abuse. Ms McCall Doyle maintained those concerns under cross examination. She emphasised, however, that she meant that the relationship was “unbalanced”, rather than “controlling” on the part of Will. One example of the imbalance, she said, was the extent to which Will took the lead in speaking on behalf of Sophie in certain situations. That revealed concerns about their relationship dynamic. Under cross-examination from Ms Dodd, Ms McCall Doyle said that the mother has to ask the father about doing everything, including leaving the house.

Ms McCall Doyle also had concerns about the family finances, in that the parents were always short of money, whereas an examination of their income (which includes carers’ allowance for Will on account of his care for Sophie) suggests that they should not have financial difficulties of that sort. There is enough money coming in to cater for the family’s needs, yet they spend it unwisely and are often short.

Ms McCall Doyle stressed that the family had a history of concerns and worries, such that two of their previous children had been removed, and that those underlying concerns had not been addressed.

Ms Arthurs, the allocated social worker, gave evidence. She adopted her statements. The gist of her evidence was that there are positive aspects to Will and Sophie’s parenting skills. They love Faith. While with support at the contact centre family time with Faith had been positive, Will and Sophie would not enjoy that level of support at home. The amount of support the parents had received previously was not enough for them to be able to care for Edward safely. It would be the same with Faith. Ms Arthurs said there are also concerns that Faith would not enjoy the emotional warmth and support from her parents that she needs and deserves. The parents’ ongoing relationship with Edward demonstrates a lack of commitment. They expect Alicia, the special guardian, to pay for everything. They do not buy him anything, and only recently have started to give gifts of £5 when they see him, despite theoretically having £400 of monthly disposable income once all other expenses are addressed.

I heard from Sophie. She adopted her statements. She was asked about what had changed since she had previously been assessed as unable to care for Edward. She said that, in response to the earlier findings, she and Will would now reduce the number of toys that Edward is allowed to have. They have decluttered the house. If they needed help, they would ask for it. Faith should be returned to the family gradually. Previously they lacked motivation to change. Now they are motivated to change.

Will gave evidence. He addressed the relationship dynamic with Sophie. It is not unhealthy; she needs his support. They both want Faith returned to their care. Adoption would traumatise Faith and be unfair. They may need some limited help from the local authority, but not much. Things went wrong with Edward because his, Will’s, father died. They always supervised Edward properly. It was because of Edward’s behavioural challenges that he sustained injuries.

Finally, I heard from the Guardian. Ms Muldowney accepted that there were positive features of the parents’ parenting skills. However, there are many aspects of the parents’ “behind the scenes” parenting skills that are lacking. She supported the local authority’s care and placement plan.

In submissions, the local authority relied on the revised threshold and welfare analysis and invited me to make care and placement orders.

For Sophie, Ms Leach submitted that the “nothing else will do” test is not satisfied for a placement order to be made. The current threshold allegations are not established, and the parents are able to care for Faith safely. They have addressed the concerns which led to their older two children being removed. Faith should be returned to their care. They are loving parents and are motivated to change. Ms McCall Doyle’s assessment was unbalanced and failed to reflect the skills both parents now have.

For Will, Ms Scourfield submitted that the assessment by Ms McCall Doyle was unnecessarily unfair and negative. The parents have taken significant steps to prepare for the rehabilitation of Faith to their care. The court should not look to a “gold standard”, but should look to a sufficient standard of parenting, taking into account the broad latitude the parents enjoy to be able to bring up their own children without intervention from the state.

For the Guardian, Ms Dodd submitted that the assessment by Ms McCall Doyle was fair. While the parents were not to be criticised for seeking to care for Faith safely, the risk to her was too great. Care and placement orders with the only option that would “do”.

At the end of the hearing, there was not enough time to deliver judgment, which I accordingly reserved.

I have assessed the entirety of the evidence in this case, in the round, to the balance of probabilities standard. I have taken Sophie’s global development delay into consideration when assessing her responses to the various and extensive assessments to which she has been subject, and also in relation to her oral evidence in the witness box. I have made appropriate adjustments in order to calibrate my scrutiny of her evidence such that she will not be unduly disadvantaged by the conditions she lives with.

As set out above, everybody agrees that Will and Sophie love Faith. They can meet her basic needs, such as feeding, dressing and changing. There are also no concerns about drugs or alcohol within the family, there is no suggestion of criminal behaviour, and Will and Sophie have a track record of working well with professionals. They are open to receiving assistance. The report of the Guardian summarises their strengths: see page 240. They have attended all contact sessions. They are committed to Faith.

However, it is necessary for more than just a child’s basic needs to be met; the overall care needs to be safe, appropriate and sustainable. I find that both parents do not have the parenting skills and abilities needed to keep Faith safe from significant harm, even when taking account of the support available to Will and Sophie from their family support network, and from professionals. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons, which I set out in no particular order.

It could be said that this is a finely balanced decision in light of the changing view of some professionals involved with the assessment of the family. Some of those who know the parents well have concluded that, in principle, they may be able to care for Faith, with the right level of support. That was the preliminary conclusion of Ms Arthurs. But that was not the conclusion of the independent reviewing officer, or Ms McCall Doyle, nor, having reflected, Ms Arthurs, or the Guardian. All professionals involved in this case now consider that the parents cannot care for Faith safely and support a plan of adoption. Properly understood, there has been no U-turn on the part of the local authority. Mr Arthurs’ position was always nuanced, favouring further assessment. Such further assessment took place, leading the local authority (and in turn the Guardian) to a different conclusion. The fact that the considered view of the local authority differs from its preliminary view does not undermine the cogency and force of the considered, settled view it has now reached following extensive assessment of the parents throughout the course of these proceedings.

I consider Ms McCall Doyle’s report to be fair and accurate. It was compiled over a lengthy period, following extensive assessment of the parents. Ms McCall Doyle’s evidence was tested under cross-examination. She was able to deal with all concerns put to her under cross-examination thoughtfully and with insight. I reject Will’s criticisms that it was an unfairly negative report. It is a balanced report.

The findings of fact I reach in these proceedings sit against a background of the findings reached previously in relation to James and Edward. That is not to say that a parent could never recover from such findings being made, or that earlier findings of fact in different proceedings irredeemably taint a parent. But it is nevertheless a relevant contextual consideration to the findings I reach in this case, even commencing my analysis from first principles, coming to this case afresh. The extensive materials available to me illuminate the parents’ parenting skills vividly: they have been assessed 14 times across six sets of proceedings. That wealth of material, when viewed alongside the additional evidence adduced in these proceedings, very sadly shows that the concerns have a cyclical quality to them.

Edward suffered extensive bruising over his body due to a lack of supervision from his parents. He presented as a pale, tired boy who was always hungry. His speech was poor following his time under the care of his parents, he was unable to regulate his behaviour, and was not toilet trained until a late age. Sophie and Will were unable to meet his needs and failed to seek sufficient external support. This was despite extensive and intensive support from professionals at the time. Significantly, I find that Will does not take responsibility for the harm Edward experienced while in his care previously. Will blamed any number of other factors – Edward’s toys, his perceived ADHD, his behavioural problems, his reaction to certain foods – rather than engaging with the underlying concerns which led to Edward being removed from the family’s care twice. Will does not accept that the family would need much assistance from the local authority if Faith were to be returned to them. Sophie accepts that the family may need some advice but considers that there are fewer toys in the family home, and that Faith would be safe, primary on that account. The present attitudes of Will and Sophie reveal a lack of understanding about the skills and abilities needed to bring Faith up safely, on the one hand, and their lack of insight in to what went seriously wrong with Edward, on the other.

Will has been described as blaming Edward for many of the family’s problems (see page 10 of Ms Becher’s final statement). In turn, this appears to have resulted in Edward presenting attachment difficulties, displaying avoidance and disassociation, particularly towards Will during family time (see Ms Becher at page 9; Ms McCall Doyle at para. 52). I find that he continued that approach under cross-examination before me, giving answers to questions which continued to point the finger at Edward, rather than taking responsibility for how Edward’s care and early life experiences (for which Will was primarily responsible) have shaped the way Edward presents. This demonstrates the continuing relevance of this aspect of the earlier findings in relation to Will and Sophie. I agree with the risk factor outlined at page 8 Ms Becher’s final statement (page 172) in which she stated that there are concerns that Faith’s experience could mirror that of Edward were she to return to her parents’ care.

Against that background, Will and Sophie have a limited understanding of what would be needed to keep Faith safe. Under cross-examination on behalf of the local authority, Will accepted that Faith needed a stable home environment that would meet her emotional and educational needs, with consistent and good quality care. However, he did not accept that there would need to be any significant degree of external support to help the family to achieve those objectives. When pressed, he said that the family would not need any support from the local authority in order to care for Faith safely. That is an answer that reveals his lack of appreciation as to the challenges that have faced the family previously, and the skills gap between their parenting abilities and what Faith needs and deserves. As to when Faith could return home, Will said that there should be a transition period that would take “anything from three months”. I was struck by how unprepared Will and Sophie were for the prospect of Faith returning.

When Edward was in the care of the parents, he was bitten by one of the several dogs the family had at the time. He required hospital care. Will was pressed under cross-examination about how he and Sophie had responded to what took place. He was asked if they had ever had a discussion about the steps needed. Will did not address that direct question in his answer, focussing instead on how the couple were, in general terms “alive to the risk”, and stated that the problem was a risk with all dogs. Bearing in mind what others have said about the extremely limited nature of discussion between Will and Sophie, and in light of his answers to these questions which did not expressly engage with the question about the extent of their discussion, I find that the couple have not discussed the steps needed to keep Faith safe from their dogs. They no longer have the dog in question, but they still have three dogs. It is concerning that Will and Sophie have not discussed the steps needed to keep a young child safe from a dog, especially against a background of the previous attack. It is also concerning that Will minimised the risk as simply being inherent to owning a dog. This, again, reveals the limits to Will’s understanding of what is needed to keep a child safe.

Similarly, Will was asked under cross-examination about an incident when Edward received a burn necessitating medical treatment. His answers blamed Edward for not waiting to allow food that had been put in front of him to cool down before touching it, rather than engaging with the risk that the parents exposed Edward to by providing scaldingly hot food in the first place. In this incident, the parents failed to establish a protective framework around Edward and have demonstrated their continued inability to understand the risk that they were responsible for creating. Neither parent understands or appreciates their role in the harm experienced by Edward in that incident. This means the risk would continue for Faith, even if it would ultimately manifest itself in a different way. Will went so far as to say, in terms, that he did not accept responsibility for another incident in which Edward fell down the stairs. The risks faced by Edward would map across to Faith.

While Sophie and Will have been able to demonstrate some low-level change following extensive intervention from professionals (such as conditions in the home and clutter), they have not demonstrated that they would be able to do so when faced with the additional challenge and distraction of caring for Faith: see page 9 of Ms Becher’s statement. I appreciate that this may be appear to be something of an impossible standard: the parents have not had Faith in their care, and so have not had the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to care for her. But it is not an unfair assessment bearing in mind the established difficulties encountered by the parents when seeking to care for Edward, in the context of intensive and lengthy support, and their continued inability to engage in the risks that were faced by Edward. The parents have not used their time when not charged with the care of one of their children to take steps to improve their ability to care for Faith in the future.

Will told Ms Becher that he hates everybody, but that, at a push, he does like Faith. This manifests itself, I find, as a form of neglect. Will’s focus is on himself. Sophie requires extensive support from others, principally Will, such are her needs. This means that the bulk of the day-to-day responsibility for running the household, and when Edward was in the family’s care, caring for Edward, was Will’s. Yet because of Will’s dislike of others, and prioritisation of his own needs, the family home has encountered conditions that are challenging for a young child to be brought up, in and undermine the extent to which Will is able properly to care for his children. It is undoubtedly one of the contributing factors to the earlier neglect of Edward. Those are factors that continue at the present time.

I accept that aspects of Will’s life are challenging because he is Sophie’s full-time carer. I make allowances for that. However, the continued clutter around the home reveals a lack of prioritisation: Will would rather do other things than keep the home safe and tidy. It also reveals his inability to understand the steps required to keep a safe home suitable for a baby. Even when the home did seem to be less cluttered, much of the clutter had been transferred to the couple’s bedroom. Will spends time (and money) on gaming, devoting evenings when he is at home to the X-Box. He overlooks the family finances, which should be amply sufficient to meet the family’s needs, and is often required to borrow money from family members to meet essential needs, such as energy. Will spends large amounts of time at the gym, attending up to six times weekly, and has taken up line dancing. These are all activities he undertakes without Sophie, who remains isolated at home, despite theoretically enjoying the benefit of a full-time state-funded carer in the form of Will. An isolated mother would, in many respects, lead to an isolated daughter.

Ms McCall Doyle observed that the couple rarely do anything together, and hardly even speak or have discussions. She had concerns that the relationship featured traits of domestic abuse, although under cross-examination clarified that her main concern was that it was “unbalanced”. I share those concerns about the unbalanced nature of where the power lies in the relationship, which, in turn, give rise to concerns about the framework of care and support that would be available to Faith if she were returned to her parents’ care.

Will frequently speaks on Sophie’s behalf when others seek to engage her in conversation, even when a question is directed at her specifically. This displays impatience on Will’s part, since Sophie’s global development delay means that she takes time to reflect on the answer to a question put to her before expressing a view, something for which Will does not want to wait. Sophie revealed to Ms McCall Doyle in the Parent Assess assessment that she did not like the way Will speaks on her behalf and interjects for her, since it makes her feel as though she has no voice: see para. 112 of the Parent Assess report. Will appeared to have no appreciation of those issues.

Sophie has a range of complex needs. She is a vulnerable woman who lives with global development delay. She meets the criteria for borderline learning disability. She has experienced significant trauma in the past as a victim of familial sexual abuse. She has, on any view, had a very difficult life. Very sadly, the trauma Sophie has experienced in the past has been assessed as impacting her ability to care for her children. Her past trauma may be responsible for her current vulnerability, including her unwillingness to leave the home, and the dynamics which have led to the “imbalance” in their relationship.

In turn, these contemporary concerns underline some of the previous concerns about the parents’ ability to care for Edward and demonstrate the continuing relevance of those findings to these proceedings. Will said that the care arrangements for Faith would be roughly the same as they were for Edward, with the family enjoying some external support from their wider family group.

The parents’ support network is minimal, especially as far as care for Faith is concerned. Will previously looked to his father for support, but his father sadly died in 2022. He looks to his brother for emotional support, his aunt for some practical support including lifts, for overnight stays, and to his nan for financial support when considered in the context of the significant and proven needs that the parents will require. The Parent Assess report states that Will looks to the health visitor for support with his children. In my judgment, that is a minimal support network. A health visitor can provide direction and advice, but not the sort of support needed by parents with high needs safely to look after their children. While the aunt has offered to stay overnight to assist with Faith, she was part of the wider family group during Edward’s proceedings. The support network that was unable to protect Edward is essentially the support network that would be available in the event that Faith is returned to her parents’ care. Given the parents’ inability to address the underlying concerns which led to the removal of Edward, and their continued denial of full responsibility for him, regrettably the family’s support network does not alleviate the concerns about the risks that would face Faith.

Drawing the above findings of fact together, in the round, to the balance of probabilities standard, I find that the local authority’s threshold allegations are established.

Specifically, Will and Sophie are unable safely to care for Faith and meet her emotional, health and development needs consistently. The emotional detachment that Edward displays is more likely than not to be displayed by Faith also.

Will and Sophie’s home has been cluttered. Consequently, when considered alongside my remaining findings, the family home would not be a sustainably safe environment for a young child such as Faith.

Both parents have been unable to maintain safe and appropriate care for their older children, despite extensive involvement from professionals.

The mother and father have been unable to learn or adapt their parenting skills and would not be able to do so as Faith grows and develops.

The parents do not have the ability or motivation to make the necessary positive changes to their lifestyle to provide Faith with safe, nurturing or consistent parenting.

If Faith was returned to the care of Will and Sophie she would be at risk of being subjected to the same neglectful and harmful parenting as her siblings have experienced.

Sophie lives with developmental delay and relies heavily on Will for many of her daily activities due to her mental health and mobility issues. If Faith was returned to their care, she would be at risk of her basic care needs not being met and prioritised.

Will and Sophie struggle to maintain their finances and manage their money appropriately.

For these reasons, I find that the section 31(2) criteria in the 1989 Act are met.

There are two realistic options before the court: rehabilitation of Faith to her parents, or placement for adoption. There are no other family or connected carers who are willing or able to care for Faith, and no party has invited me to depart from the assessment of the local authority and the guardian in that respect.

I will consider each on its own merits in turn, in light of the welfare checklists in the 1989 and 2002 Acts, and the paramountcy principle concerning Faith’s welfare (throughout her life, in the case of the 2002 Act). Having considered the relative strengths and weaknesses of each option, I will then conduct an overall, holistic assessment of each option considered side by side, in the round.

Returning Faith to her parents would give her the opportunity to grow and develop within her birth family and develop relations with both of her parents. She would be able to spend time with the wider family group, and with Edward, and Sophie’s sister, Alicia, his special guardian. There has already been a failed attempt at placing one of the siblings for adoption, namely Edward, and placing Faith with her parents would avoid the risk of a second placement breakdown running in the family.

Faith would be with her parents. One would expect that, at least initially, there would be emotional warmth (bearing in mind that Will has accepted that, “at a push”, he does like Faith), and the love and devotion of Sophie for Faith has never been qualified in that way.

Faith is too young for her wishes and feelings to be ascertained. If she could manifest them, she would undoubtedly want to spend time with her parents, and be part of their family, provided it would be safe to do so.

Faith’s emotional needs are to be provided with a secure family, where her voice is heard and her needs are understood and met by those around her. Will and Sophie have demonstrated some significant difficulties in relation to Edward and his emotional attachment. Pursuant to the findings of fact I have set out above, I have concerns that Faith’s emotional needs would not adequately be met if she were returned to the care of her parents. Her parents have demonstrated a minimal ability to engage with the emotional needs of their previous children, in particular Edward. I regret to say that Will manifests a degree of hostility towards Edward, as demonstrated by the blame he places on him for some of what went wrong, and his inability to accept responsibility for his and Sophie’s past parenting failings. Sophie lives with global development delay and is herself highly vulnerable. She spends a minimal amount of time outside the home and is wholly reliant on Will for most aspects of her daily functioning. Yet within those parameters, Will prioritises his own needs over those of the family, and, in the past, his other children. I therefore have concerns about the ability of both parents to cater for Faith’s emotional needs.

I also have concerns about the parents’ ability to cater for Faith’s physical needs. Despite a relatively healthy income from a number of social assistance benefits, the family finances are routinely stretched. There should be a sizeable disposable income available to provide a monthly buffer, yet the parents regularly have to resort to other family members to assist with cash flow challenges for essential costs such as utility bills. While there may be some increase in the benefits available to the parents in the event Faith is restored to their care, the challenges of bringing up a young baby will include financial challenges. Given the difficulties experienced by the parents without the financial burden of bringing up a baby, I have concerns that the family would regularly, and unnecessarily, be short of money. In turn, that would affect Faith’s physical needs.

There is a history of the family home being cluttered. While some improvements have been made, the parents’ bedroom continues to be over-cluttered. It appears to be a repository for unorganised clutter from the rest of their home. It is concerning that, despite a lengthy period of time with no child under the direct care, Will and Sophie have not, according to Ms McCall Doyle and Ms Arthurs, addressed this issue to any significant extent.

The parents’ awareness of the steps that would be needed to ensure the home is safe is limited. Sophie told me that she thought there would have to be fewer toys in the home, which in my judgment unfortunately fails to grasp the magnitude of the task that the couple face in order to provide Faith with a safe environment. Para. 136 of Ms McCall Doyle’s assessment summarises some of these concerns, in which Sophie is said to have accepted that she is a hoarder. Some of the items in the bedroom included a ladder, goldfish tank stones in a box, diamond art pictures, and a used toilet seat which had been discarded in there after a new seat had been installed. Faith’s physical needs would not be met fully on account of the cluttered conditions around the home.

Returning Faith to her parents’ care would entail a degree of disruption from the comfort and safety of the local authority foster carers’ home where she currently resides. A move in and of itself would be disruptive, although such disruption would be relatively short lived. What would be more disruptive would be the move from the comfort and safety of her current foster carers’ home to the uncertainty, clutter and emotional challenges that would feature in Will and Sophie’s house.

There would be a risk of significant harm to Faith if she were returned to her parents’ care. See my findings set out above. The harm that manifested itself in relation to Edward is at significant risk of being repeated, since the parents have not addressed the underlying causes of the risks that he faced, and their attitude, particularly that of Will, degree of responsibility to Edward himself, rather than taking responsibility for him as his father, and carer upon whom Sophie relies extensively in many aspects of her life.

I must also consider how capable each parent is of meeting the care that Faith needs and deserves. In this respect, I rely on the full spectrum of findings of fact I have reached above. Despite there being some caveats in relation to Will’s ability to “like” Faith (“…at a push…”), overall the professionals agree that the basic care provided by the parents for Faith is adequate. There are signs of love and affection. The parents have engaged well with professionals and with family time. There are no concerns with alcohol, drugs or crime. There are aspects of the parents’ ability to care for Faith that are positive.

Set against the above positivity, however, is the extent to which the parents’ lack of parenting abilities in relation to insight, understanding of risk of harm, taking responsibility for past harm suffered by Edward, emotional attachment, financial concerns, and Sophie’s particular needs impact on their capability to meet the needs of Faith. Regrettably, the parents’ ability to address her broader, yet essential, needs are limited. In turn, that will affect her throughout her childhood, but also throughout the entirety of her life. The foundation to Faith’s childhood and adult years would lack much of the emotional and physical security that Faith needs and deserves.

I recall that many of the professionals who know Will and Sophie well have, at least in some respects, formed a far more positive view of their ability to provide Faith with the standard of care that she needs and deserves. I will return to this issue.

Adoption for Faith would provide her with a permanent, lifelong forever family. It would provide her with stability, security and the prospect of long-term and secure relationships with parents who would be matched through a careful and rigorous selection process. A successful adoption would provide Faith with the foundation for life-long support network, and would ensure that her emotional, physical and other needs would be met throughout her childhood and into her adult life.

I accept that Edward’s foster-to-adopt placement broke down, and his placement family relinquished him from their care. I take Will’s views in relation to that issue into account; he expressed his concerns powerfully and forcefully. Adoption does not always work and did not work in the case of Edward. It may not work for Faith.

Adoption is a most draconian interference in the lives of not only Will and Sophie, but also the wider family group, Edward, and Faith herself. This would have a further and profound impact on Will and Sophie. Faith is at an age where, with appropriate life story work, she would be able to adapt and come to terms of her history in due course, but as she gets older and is able to understand matters for herself, her history will come to form part of her identity, and will itself entail a degree of loss and grief for her birth family and that aspect of her identity. This is especially so since the local authority propose annual, direct contact with Will and Sophie, and annual sibling contact with Edward. While there will be life story work, that cannot mask the full impact of loss occasioned by adoption, as I address further below.

I turn now to the factors in the 2002 Act welfare checklist.

Faith is too young to have ascertainable wishes and feelings. She does not have particular needs that have been identified in these proceedings which tell one way or another in favour of adoption or another option.

The likely effect upon Faith of being adopted, throughout her life, would be profound. There would come a time when she would understand with greater clarity than at present that she had been removed from her birth family forcibly, and that there had been concerns about her parents’ ability safely to care for her. That would entail a degree of loss and possibly delayed grief on Faith’s part. Despite the legal reality of adoption, the emotional and biological realities are quite different. Those Faith would know as her parents would not be her birth parents. Faith would likely stand out from those in her class at school, and her contemporaries when growing up and into adulthood, as an adopted person, in contrast to the child who remained with his or her birth family.

Yet an adoptive placement for Faith would provide her with a far greater chance of growing up in a safe and secure environment, free from the risk of harm that I have found she would face if she were returned to the care of Will and Sophie. Her adoptive family would be selected and matched to her pursuant to a robust and rigorous selection process. She would not have a home which would be characterised by the clutter and safety risks which have previously been found to have existed in the Tindale family home. Her adoptive parents would, it is safe to assume, not experience the attachment difficulties which I have summarised above in relation to Will and Edward. It is very unlikely that there would be an “imbalance” of the sort which Ms McCall Doyle described existed in the relationship between Will and Sophie. It is also highly unlikely that one of Faith’s new forever family would live in the isolated conditions in which Sophie unfortunately presently lives.

Insofar as Faith’s age, sex, background or other characteristics which are relevant are concerned, her age is particularly significant at this juncture. Faith is aged less than one. She is at an age where forming bonds with an adoptive family would be far easier than would be the case for an older child. There is thus a window of opportunity for an adoptive placement to succeed in a way that may be less likely for an older child, as was the case when Edward’s prospective placement breakdown.

In relation to the harm within the meaning of the 1989 Act that Faith would be at risk of suffering, my working assumption is that she would not be at such risk in the home of an adoptive family. By contrast, in the care of Will and Sophie, she would face risks as set out in my findings, above.

In relation to Faith’s relationship with relatives, she currently enjoys a high level of family time with Will and Sophie, and with Edward. Family time is positive (despite challenges with Edward’s behaviour under the care of his parents), and Faith will undoubtedly be beginning to form relationships with her birth parents, and with Edward. That would be undermined to a significant extent, although not extinguished, by an adoptive placement: given the proposals for annual, direct, parent and sibling contact with Edward, and his special guardian, Aunty Alicia.

Considering the two realistic options in the round, on their own merits, I have concluded that the welfare of Faith requires this court to place her for adoption and dispense with her parents’ consent.

I have reached this view on the basis that Faith’s welfare, throughout her life, is the paramount consideration.

While there would be some welfare benefits to her being rehabilitated to her birth family, that would come at a risk of serious harm for the purposes of section 31(2) of the 1989 Act. Her parents have had the benefit of intensive and extensive parenting support and assessment by the local authority yet have failed adequately to address many of the underlying concerns which resulted in them being unable to care for Edward. Their understanding of the steps needed to care for Faith on an emotional or longer-term level, and to keep her safe, is minimal. Sophie has complex requirements in her own capacity, and although Will is her carer his role and presence does not alleviate those concerns to any significant extent. Sophie is isolated and vulnerable and has a minimal understanding of the skills and abilities, and the help required, in order safely and adequately to bring Faith up. I appreciate that some professionals have assessed the couple more positively. I take that into account, but ultimately the fact that others have reached those provisional conclusions without the benefit that I have enjoyed of reviewing the who sea of evidence does not detract from the harm that would face Faith in her parents’ care, when contrasted with the positive, life-long potential for her welfare to be supported in an adoptive placement.

Adoption would provide Faith with a new forever family. It would avoid repeats of the neglect and unsafe parenting that characterised much of Edward’s early life, and that of James (although James was removed at an earlier stage). Adoption would allow Faith to form new bonds with a forever family selected and matched for their ability to keep her safe. While this would entail a degree of loss for Faith, especially as she gains her own ability to understand her identity and her history, appropriate life story work and sensitive post-adoption contact (as planned by the local authority) would address those factors to a significant extent.

Adoption would be a grave interference with the Article 8 rights of Will and Sophie, and the broader family, as well as those of Faith herself. It is one of the most draconian steps the State can take. But the draconian nature of adoption is also a strength; a new forever family will place Faith on the path to a life that would not be characterised by the significant harm that repeatedly faced Edward and would provide Faith with a more secure foundation for the rest of her life. In light of the parents’ proven inability to learn from, and understand, their past mistakes, any option other than adoption would at this time expose Faith to an inevitable risk of harm that could be avoided through endorsing the local authority’s care plan. Since it is proposed that Faith would enjoy annual direct contact with her parents and with Edward, making a placement order would not result in the total eradication of all family links. There will remain at least an annual opportunity for Faith to spend time with her birth parents and Edward. While that would not be without risk, with appropriate life story work, it would help Faith to understand something of her past while placing her on the best footing for the rest of her life. The loss consequential to the severing caused by adoption would, at least in part, be tempered through annual, direct contact.

Drawing this analysis together, I conclude that nothing else will do. The welfare of Faith requires that I dispense with the consent of her parents for adoption for the purposes of sections 21(3)(b) and 52 of the 2002 Act. That is the least intrusive step available to the court that would adequately and proportionately address her welfare needs throughout her life. It is step that is necessary and proportionate to the otherwise serious risk of significant harm that she faces. Adoption is the course most consistent with the welfare needs of Faith throughout her life. That is the order that I make.

Upon circulating this judgment in draft, I invited brief submissions about whether I should make an order under section 26 of the 2002 Act in relation to contact prior to any adoption order being finalised, particularly in light of In Re S (Placement Order Contact) [2025] EWCA Civ 823.

At the hearing to hand down this judgment, it was common ground that the local authority’s aspirations for post-adoption contact would most appropriately be reflected in the Recitals to the final order accompanying this judgment. All parties agreed that it would not be necessary to make an order under section 26 in light of the local authority’s care plan for Faith. Mr McDermot expressed concerns on the part of the local authority that a formal section 26 order may unduly restrict the search for a suitable placement. A phased approach would be adopted, whereby the search would start by looking for adopters open to post-adoption contact. In the event that that was not successful, the local authority may broaden the search to include a wider class of potential adopters. I am content that no order is needed to micromanage that process, and that appropriate Recitals will be sufficient.

That is the judgment of the court.