London Borough of Redbridge v M & Ors

I am concerned with the welfare of A, aged 15, and B, aged 7. The children’s mother is M and the father is F.

The applicant Local Authority is the London Borough of Redbridge (hereafter referred to as LA) and the children’s interests are represented through their Guardian.

This has been the final hearing of these proceedings, and this judgment is being handed down on the afternoon of the final day. Somewhat unusually, this hearing has taken place as a fully remote hearing due to the TFL strikes taking place across the network in London this week. The parties were informed by the court last week that the hearing had been changed to a fully remote hearing. On day one, I did explore the possibility of the mother attending court to give her evidence in person and I am grateful to Mr Lue for discussing this with the mother and her intermediary. After those discussions, I was told that the mother would feel more comfortable giving her evidence remotely, as all the other witnesses would be doing. Given that the court had informed all parties that the hearing would be taking place fully remotely and the mother had prepared to give her evidence in this way, I agreed that the mother could give her evidence remotely. The mother has been supported by an intermediary throughout the hearing, including during her evidence. The mother was able to give her evidence successfully remotely and the intermediary provided guidance as and when required, with the mother also being provided with breaks during her evidence. I am entirely satisfied that this approach has enabled the mother to give her best evidence possible.

The father remains in prison and is likely to remain detained until at least December 2025. A production order was made for his attendance but he ultimately elected not to attend and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.

The family has been known to the LA since July 2020 when a referral was received from Redbridge Housing. During a telephone conversation regarding housing, the mother threatened to take her own life stating she would '...commit suicide and you will be the last person to hear my voice'.

In September 2020, the mother contacted Children's Services requesting support and stating that she was struggling financially. She explained that she had no money to feed her children as her benefits had been stopped. The LA subsequently made a referral to the Families Together Hub.

In October 2020, a referral was received from X Primary School reporting concerns that the mother had kept A at home because she had no money for petrol, had no money to buy food for the family and she was surviving on a bag of food which the school had given her. The mother had raised concerns about housing and said the accommodation she was residing in was rat infested, too small and inappropriate for her family. The school raised concerns about the mother’s mental health.

The parents are also believed to have separated in 2020.

On 3 May 2021, the mother called Children’s Services in a distressed state. She said that she was isolated and in conflict with her family, struggling to cope and that A had not been to school for a fortnight. The mother acknowledged during the call that she had a history of mental health difficulties.

On 6 June 2021, the mother was reported to have been distressed again; she reported having panic attacks and expressing suicidal thoughts.

On 8 September 2021, the mother called the police to request assistance due to her fear of the father as she stated that she had been the victim of domestic abuse perpetrated by him for a number of years, which had led her to be fearful of him knowing her new address.

On 12 December 2022, the Health Visitor expressed concerns about the mother’s failure to attend speech and language appointments for B. A’s school raised concerns about the mother’s mental health due to things the mother was saying, including that she believed all the children at the school were in danger of sexual abusers. The mother was reported to be distressed, and her behaviour was erratic. The school contacted the LA.

The mother was referred to IAPT/Talking Therapies but she did not want to engage with the group support offered. She indicated that she preferred to seek help from her GP independently when needed.

Due to the events and referrals in March 2022 a Strategy Discussion was held on 13 April 2022. This resulted in a Section 47 Investigation and eventually a Child Protection Conference, which led to the children being made subject to a Child Protection Plan under the category of emotional harm and neglect. The LA report that the mother did not meaningfully engage with the Child Protection Plan and did not take the initiative to ensure that the children’s health, educational and basic care needs were met consistently.

The mother had frequently mentioned that she was unable to pay for bills and groceries. The family received weekly food bank deliveries and were awarded over £3,000 in financial support from the LA.

The Health Visitor attempted to visit B at home on 17 May 2023 but the mother denied her entry. On 18 May 2023, the Health Visitor returned to the home to see B. The mother again refused the Health Visitor entry into the home but allowed her to weigh B at the doorstep. The Health Visitor expressed concern about B’s development. B was reported not to be attending nursery and was not yet potty trained. The Health Visitor was unable to see very much of the room she had been denied access to, but she saw a bit of it through the crack of the door. She later expressed concern about the physical state of the room.

On 19 May 2023, A’s school reported that her attendance had dropped to 84%, down from the previous term. An urgent joint home visit was planned and coordinated between the LA, the police and community mental health team. Upon entry to the home, it was found to be unsuitable for the children to live in. The living room was in a very poor state with bin bags on windows, a hazardous amount of clutter and an unhygienic environment. At the end of the visit, the mother agreed to the children staying with their maternal aunt, C.

The LA then issued these proceedings and sought an urgent hearing. An interim care order was made at the first hearing on 31.05.2023 and the children remained with their aunt for almost two months. Following an incident of alleged domestic abuse at the aunt’s home however, the children were placed into foster care on 28.07.2023. The children have remained together in six different foster placements since that time.

Contact between the mother and B has taken place consistently since the children were accommodated but A refused all contact for the first 18 months of these proceedings, but contact has been taking place between her and the mother since then at a frequency of roughly once a month.

In respect of the father, he has a lengthy criminal history which includes multiple convictions relating to weapons, drugs, assault and rape. He was found guilty of a firearms offence and served a custodial sentence in HMP 1 (he was previously held in HMP 2 and then HMP 3). The father was removed from HMP 1 (open prison) on 18 April 2025 after failing to comply with the conditions of his Release on Temporary Licence conditions. A domestic incident is understood to have occurred with the father’s partner, in which he is alleged to have assaulted her, made threats towards her and threatened to shoot her. He was returned to custody on 20 April 2025, initially in HMP 4 before he was then moved to HMP 5 on 28 April 2025, where he remains to date. The father’s release date is expected to be 14 December 2025.

During the proceedings, hair strand testing of M, covering February to August 2023, found active use of cannabis and codeine, consistent with her declaration.

Dr Ratnam’s psychiatric report dated 9.10.2023, and addendum dated 9.11.2023 assessed M with disordered thoughts and grandiose beliefs, consistent with first episode psychosis.

An incomplete parenting assessment of M filed by the LA on 1.5.2024 stated she was overwhelmed by her health issues and pending eviction, preventing meaningful engagement.

Dr Ratnam’s Litigation Capacity Assessment dated 6.9.2023 deemed M not to have litigation capacity. The court accepted that conclusion, leading to the appointment of an official solicitor as her litigation friend.

Between 17.4.2024 and 18.6.2024, M, underwent inpatient assessment and treatment for schizoaffective disorder under Sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and then remained a voluntary patient until 17.7.2024 when she returned to the community.

An assessment on 17.7.2024 determined M had capacity to litigate in care proceedings, thus discharging the duties of the official solicitor and that led to an updating psychiatric assessment of the mother being directed, to be undertaken by Dr McEvedy. Dr McEvedy did not find the mother to be suffering with any active symptoms of mental illness at interview but affirmed the mother’s previous diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. Dr McEvedy found a diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorder due to the use of cannabis to be appropriate. Dr McEvedy raised concerns that the mother’s insight into her mental health condition remains poor and highlighted the risk of the mother discontinuing her medication/treatment following the conclusion of these proceedings, which would greatly increase the risk of relapse into active psychosis, particularly if combined with cannabis use. Dr McEvedy recommended that continued prescription of depot antipsychotic medication will be needed into the medium term, meaning in the next period of several years at a minimum. Dr McEvedy also recommended that the mother might well benefit from engaging with a substance misuse intervention.

The parenting assessment of Julia Hughes ISW, dated 30 January 2025, recommended the children could be returned to the mother’s care. Ms Hughes concludes that:

“the mother is motivated for her children to return to her care and [I] consider that in view of the fact that she is mentally well and that her parenting of her children is of a good enough standard when she is mentally well, that a plan should be put in place for the children to return to her care, but that this should take place on a gradual basis to ensure that it will be sustained”

A consent order circulated in January 2025 directed a repeat hair strand test from M, but she declined to comply with this.

Shortly before the pre-trial review in August 2025, the mother filed and served hair strand test results, which suggested the use of cocaine within the approximate time period from the end of December 2024 to the end of June 2025; and the use of codeine within the approximate time period from the end of December 2024 to the end of February 2025. The mother disputes these results and she was therefore afforded the opportunity to ask clarification questions to AlphaBiolabs. Various questions and explanations were put forward to AlphaBiolabs on behalf of the mother relating to her prescribed medication, the hair sample being taken from the back of her head and the possibility of passive exposure, but the responses received identify “no reason to doubt the results obtained”.

The recent update from CGL dated 8 August referred to the mother’s engagement as “sporadic at times” and that she had previously been found to be unsuitable for a cannabis relapse group “as she would just stair [sic] out the window and not participate”. However, it did go on to say that the mother had been engaging well in a weekly women’s group [F131]. The mother was given permission to file and serve a further updating report from CGL by 25 August 2025, however at the time of writing this has not been received. It has since transpired that the mother’s last appointment with CGL took place in May 2025.

The court also has the benefit of a letter from the mother’s mental health team dated 21.05.2025. This letter records that:

“M was still eager to come off of depot treatment; she was reminded that depot was required for stability of mental state – as EIP want to avoid destabilisation and risk of jeopardising recovery/progress. I also noted past rates of relapse, as well as her ongoing issues remaining adherent to oral treatment. I reassured her that this formed the rationale for considering switch to alternative depot which she could tolerate better. I explained that there was a risk with further medication changes in causing instability, which would not be ideal as she continues to engage the courts regarding her children and looks to secure employment.

M reiterated her disagreement that there was a possibility of relapse in the event of abrupt discontinuation of antipsychotic treatment, asking about coming off medication as soon as possible. I reminded her that her hospital admission had been prolonged and eventful, and that there was evidence she struggled with mental illness for a couple of years prior to that admission. I repeated that treatment stability will serve her well as she pursues return to employment and regaining custody of her children, as well as added stability to tolerate unexpected stressors – as some of the stressors which existed prior to her admission were ongoing.”

The LA has filed its final evidence and seeks care orders for both children on the basis that they will remain together in foster care. They will need to move to a further, long-term placement but will remain together. The LA have produced a ‘roadmap’ setting out what work the mother would need to complete over a period of time in order for the LA to consider the reunification of the children to her care following the completion of that work.

The mother seeks the return of the children to her care. She would agree to the making of a Supervision Order and is of the view that she could complete the work under the LA’s ‘roadmap’ during the currency of that order.

The father is clearly unable to put himself forward to care for the children. He supports the mother’s position and seeks direct contact with the children when he is released from prison.

The Guardian supports the LA final care plans.

The children’s welfare is my paramount consideration and the most important thing for me to consider. In doing so, I must have regard to the welfare checklist.

I also have regard to the principle that any delay in reaching decisions for children is generally prejudicial to their welfare.

I should only make an order for the children if doing so is better for their welfare than making no order at all.

I have to consider the Article 8 rights of the children and their parents. Any interference with the right to private and family life must be a necessary interference and must be proportionate, having regard to the risks involved.

The burden of proof is on the LA to prove their case and to prove any disputed facts. The standard of proof is the usual civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities.

In order to make a public law order, I need to be satisfied that threshold is crossed. The threshold criteria test is set out in s31(2) & (9) of the Children Act 1989:

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

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

It is important to bear in mind the comments made by Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 1050:-

“…society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent, and that some children would experience disadvantage and harm, while others would flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. It was not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting; the compulsive powers of the state could only be exercised when the significant harm criteria in s31(2) of the Children Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) had been made out.”

I also have regard to what Baroness Hale said in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 at para 143:

“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse anti-social political or religious beliefs.”

In Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11, the President (as he then was) expressly approved the words of Hedley J referred to above and these words from the judgement of His Honour Judge Jack in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCC B77 (Fam) where he said:

I remind myself that just because a person has lied in one aspect of a case does not mean they have lied about everything. A finding that a person has lied about one issue does not, in and of itself, confirm the truth of any allegation(s) against them. It does not - necessarily - undermine the truth of other aspects of their evidence. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, confusion and emotional pressure and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything else.

The court must not evaluate and assess the available evidence in separate compartments. Rather, regard must be had to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward has been made out on the balance of probabilities, and so when I consider the evidence, I must take all of it into account and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence, in order to examine the overall canvass of evidence.

On the issue of proportionality, I have regard to the case of Re C and B (Care Order; Future Harm) [2001]1 FLR 611and the comments that

“Intervention in the family must be proportionate, but the aim should be to reunite the family where the circumstances enable that, and the effort should be devoted towards that end.”

I also have regard to the case of Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and the well-establish principles, which were drawn out fromRe B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33that:

When considering the available options, I also have regard to the comments of Ryder LJ in Re W (a child) [2013] EWCA 1227 that

“the LA is required to provide the evidence to enable the judge to undertake the welfare and proportionality evaluations. That includes a description of the services that are available and practicable for each placement option and each order being considered by the court”.

There is no dispute that threshold is crossed and there is an agreed threshold document, which was finalised between the parties during the course of this final hearing. The agreed threshold document will be annexed to my final order and I do not intend to repeat all of it here. The agreed document deals with all the relevant matters that led to the LA commencing these proceedings, to which I have already referred, including the mother’s difficulty in managing her finances, the children’s poor school attendance records, the mother’s refusal to allow professionals (police, health visitor and social workers) access to her home to ensure the children’s safety, poor home conditions, the mother not taking the children to health appointments, and the mother’s history of mental health difficulties.

As set out above, I have had the benefit of considering the range of assessments undertaken during these proceedings and various forms of other evidence, including the statements of the parties, the mother’s hair strand test results, a letter from CGL and a letter from the mother’s mental health team. I then had the benefit of hearing oral evidence from the ISW, Ms Hughes; the allocated social worker, Ms Adebodun; the mother and the Guardian.

Ms Hughes was the first witness. In her parenting assessment, she concluded that the mother was able to meet the children’s needs when mentally well and they should gradually be returned to her care. At the outset of her evidence however, Ms Hughes confirmed that she was no longer supporting the children being returned to their mother’s care due to the mother’s apparent cocaine use, concerns about her commitment to continuing to take her medication and because of A’s expressed wishes and feelings. Ms Hughes was further concerned about the mother’s failure to meet with the Guardian recently, her failure to undertake a hair strand test in January 2025 and despite taking her depot medication consistently, she does not appear to have taken her oral Aripiprazole medication consistently (as confirmed from the letter from the mother’s mental health team in May 2025).

Ms Hughes did however confirm that she had seen the ‘road map’ produced by the LA and was supportive of the plan for the mother to complete that work and for reunification to be considered in the future. Ms Hughes reiterated her firm view that the children need to remain placed together and should not be separated.

Ms Hughes did acknowledge the positive aspects to the mother’s parenting and the progress made during the proceedings. She accepted that the mother has successfully cared for the children for a long time prior to these proceedings and acknowledged that the mother had been taking her medication for over a year now, despite concerns about her desire to continue doing so. Ms Hughes also acknowledged that the mother’s cessation of cannabis use, her efforts to begin resolving her financial issues, her commitment to contact and her understanding of the children’s needs to remain placed together were very much positive indicators.

Ms Hughes accepted that A may have told her mother that she wanted to go home to her care but did not think that was particularly surprising and felt A was likely to be “ambivalent” about this. Ms Hughes was of the view that if the children are to remain in foster care, monthly contact would be the right level to begin with but, of course, subject to review as the ‘road map’ progresses.

I found Ms Hughes to be an impressive witness. Although she has changed her recommendation since her assessment was filed in January 2025, the reasons for this were carefully considered and explained by Ms Hughes. I gained the impression that Ms Hughes had considered the further evidence filed, reflected on her recommendations and adjusted them accordingly in line with what she considered to be in the best interests of the children’s welfare.

SW has been the social worker for more than two years and so knows the children well. She confirmed that the LA’s position remained as set out in their final evidence and confirmed that the children have recently moved to another new foster placement and are settling in well, although A had stayed out beyond her curfew time on some occasions. SW confirmed that the LA are continuing to seek for a long-term placement for the children together and where they can continue at their current schools. SW confirmed that A is currently seeing her mother every four to five weeks for about 20 minutes, which is her own choice, although she could see her mother every week if she chose to do so, which is what B does. SW highlighted that there have been some concerns more recently about B’s contact with his mother, with B spending increasing amounts of time looking at the mother’s phone during the sessions. SW did not think this was due to B being bored and in respect of A, she did not think the contact venue was the reason that she was not attending more frequently. SW also acknowledged that there had been some concerns raised recently about the mother allowing B to eat a significant amount of unhealthy/sugary snacks during contact. SW confirmed that she had discussed this with the mother, but this had not brought about a change in the mother’s approach.

SW felt that A’s wishes were quite clear in that while she would prefer not to be in foster care, she does not wish to return to her mother’s care. SW felt A had been consistently clear about this and had spoken about her lived experiences when she did live with her mother. SW did however acknowledge that A is likely to feel “torn” between her own wishes and not wanting to upset/disappoint her family. As regards the rationale for reducing contact down to once a month if Care Orders are made, SW explained that A is only attending about once a month anyway and in respect of B, she felt he needed time to settle into his new living arrangement in circumstances where it was uncertain if he would return to his mother’s care at some point but even if he did, that was unlikely to happen for at least a year as a minimum while the ‘road map’ was completed.

SW agreed with Ms Hughes that the mother had made positive progress during the proceedings in those same areas identified by Ms Hughes but SW equally agreed that there remained some significant vulnerabilities and risks, which meant she would not support the children’s return to their mother’s care at present.

SW agreed that the children would benefit from life story work and that it was important for the mother to be involved in this so that she had input into what narrative the children are given, particularly in relation to her mental health.

I found SW to be a very helpful witness. She clearly has a thorough understanding of the issues in this case and I gained the impression that she has a clear grasp on the children’s needs, both individually and as siblings. I found her evidence to be measured and well-reasoned.

The mother confirmed her position was that she seeks the return of the children to her care and would agree to a Supervision Order. She felt that the ‘road map’ could be completed under such an order with the children in her care.

As regards her mental health, the mother said that this was stable and confirmed that she was taking her medication because she felt it helped her. She denied wanting to stop taking her medication and said that she would simply prefer to take medication orally, rather than a depot. She said that if she stopped taking her medication then she might experience a relapse or a “breakdown” and that her psychosis could “possibly” return. The mother confirmed she had asked at a previous medical review about stopping her medication, but her mental health team had declined this and more recently, they told her that they would keep the position under review. The mother accepted that she does experience side effects from her medication but did not consider this would impact upon her capacity to meet the children’s needs.

In respect of substance misuse, the mother confirmed she had not used cannabis for the last 12 months. She was clear that she has never used cocaine in any form and was unable to explain why the most recent hair strand test results suggested that she had. The mother confirmed that she was unable to provide any explanation for this, other than that it must be linked to the prescribed medication that she takes. The mother denied refusing to undertake a hair strand test in January 2025 and said that she just felt that a urine test would be suitable instead, although I note that she then failed to provide one of those too.

The mother said that she was continuing to work with CGL but had been unable to attend recent appointments due to a broken ankle. The last time she attended an appointment was in May 2025. The mother denied failing to engage properly in the Cannabis group, as reported by CGL.

In respect of her financial situation, the mother confirmed that she does still have some debts but she has now set up a plan to clear her debts and is making monthly payments towards these.

As regards her failing to meet with the Guardian recently, the mother said that she was unwell when the Guardian called her, although was then unable to provide an explanation to why she had not attempted to contact the Guardian to arrange the visit for when she was feeling better.

My overall impression of the mother is that she has undoubtedly made some positive progress in these proceedings but there were some aspects of her evidence that continue to cause me concern, particularly in respect of the hair strand test results and her insight into the need to keep taking her medication.

The Guardian confirmed that, after hearing the evidence of the other witnesses, her recommendations remained as set out in her final analysis. Due to the complexity and severity of the concerns relating to the mother, she would not support the children being returned to her care under a Supervision Order. The Guardian felt it was important to consider all the concerns together and not treat them in isolation from one another. The Guardian essentially held the same concerns as Ms Hughes and SW in respect of the children being returned to the care of their mother now, including the fact that the mother appears to have “switched” from cannabis to cocaine use. The Guardian agreed that the mother had shown commitment to attending contact but was concerned about the quality of it more recently, including the mother’s decision to provide B with excessive amounts of unhealthy snacks during the sessions.

The Guardian described A as being “torn and conflicted” in respect of her wishes and feelings. She is aware that the mother would like her to return home but said “no comment” when the Guardian asked her about this last week.

The Guardian was supportive of the ‘road map’ put forward by the LA but felt that sustained progress over the course of a year would be required before reunification could be considered.

I found the Guardian’s evidence to be helpful and in line with her final analysis. Her conclusions were well-reasoned and in line with the evidence. It is clear that the Guardian does not rule out the possibility of future reunification but was equally clear that she considers it would be premature to consider that at present.

The court needs to resolve the issue of the mother’s substance misuse. As set out above, the mother’s most recent hair strand tests are positive for cocaine, but the mother maintains she has never used this and that the results must be down to either her taking of prescribed medication or passive exposure. After considering all of the written evidence and the mother’s oral evidence, I am satisfied that the mother has been using cocaine for the following reasons:

I now turn to the welfare checklist

A is a bright, intelligent and articulate 15-year-old. The Guardian identifies that she has strong feelings of loyalty towards her family but felt she was “ambivalent” about wanting to go home. It must be remembered that A refused all contact with her mother for the first 18 months of these proceedings and since then, despite being offered weekly contact, has elected to see her mother around once a month. Until earlier this year, A was clear that she did not wish to return to her mother’s care but since then, has been more ambivalent about the possibility. The Guardian is, however, clear that in her view, A does not wish to return to her mother’s care but she understandably struggles to articulate this due to her sense of loyalty. I accept the Guardian’s evidence on this point and on balance, am not satisfied that A wishes to return home, given what she has said and what she experienced prior to her being removed from her mother’s care.

B is clearly much younger than A and so has less of an understanding of the decisions that the court is making for him. When B was asked for his wishes by the Guardian, through drawing his ‘safe house’, he listed the residents as himself, A, four of his classmates, and the foster carers’ two daughters, with A being responsible for looking after him and the other children in the house. He did not indicate that he wanted to live with his mother and it is perhaps interesting that he placed A into the role of his carer, given that one of the concerns in this case is that A may have previously taken on a caring role for both B and the mother.

A is becoming more and more independent in meeting her own needs. It seems to me that what A most needs now is a final decision to be made for her, so that she has some stability in her life and knows where she will be living. She needs a carer who can consistently support her with her educational and emotional needs as she sits her GCSE exams and moves on to higher education, and who can provide her with a safe environment. A clearly has a very close and caring relationship with B and so it is important for A that she remains placed with B.

B is still dependent on his care givers to meet all of his basic, education and emotional needs, and that will remain the case for some years to come. He needs a carer that is fully attuned to his needs and can provide him with consistent and reliable care. B has presented with some challenging behaviours, both at school and in foster care, and so his carer needs to be equipped with the skills to manage these issues. Food is something that is very important to B and so it is important that B’s carer finds the right balance between supporting B with this, while ensuring that he has a healthy and balanced diet. As with A, B needs a final decision to be made for him, particularly given that these proceedings have been ongoing for well over two years now and B needs to know where he is going to be living in the longer-term. B clearly has a very important relationship with A and depends on her to some extent. It is important therefore for B that he remains placed with his older sister.

the likely effect on them of any change in his circumstances;

Whatever the outcome of these proceedings, the children will need to move placement either back to their mother’s care or to a long-term foster placement. These children have already been through a number of placement moves since being removed from the mother’s care and placed with their maternal aunt, followed then by several foster placement moves. Positively however, they have always remained together and so their sibling relationship has been consistent. Any further moves will of course need to be carefully managed and it is important that life story work is undertaken with the children, which the mother should be part of, to help the children understand their lived experiences to date.

The children are full siblings of Z heritage. They are not currently in a culturally matched placement, but it is hoped by the LA that their long-term placement might be a cultural match if they are to remain in foster care. At present, their understanding of their background is promoted through direct contact with their mother and telephone contact with the father, although it is anticipated that he will also have direct contact when released from prison. Contact with the mother will of course continue if the children do remain in foster care. If the children were returned to their mother then this, of course, would promote their understanding of their background and their heritage, both from the mother and from wider family members too.

It is clear that the children did suffer and were at risk of suffering significant harm in the care of their mother previously. I have already dealt with the issue of threshold. I am satisfied that the degree of harm posed to the children from the mother has reduced during the proceedings as her mental health is now stable; she is complying with medication and engaging with the mental health team; she is no longer using cannabis and she is addressing her financial/debt issues.

I am however still concerned about a number of matters that continue to pose a risk to the children’s safety. As set out above, I am satisfied that the mother has been using cocaine, has not been honest about this and has not accessed any support to address this. This appears to have been an issue that has arisen during the proceedings, and I am concerned about how this may impact upon her capacity to care for the children if they were placed in her care.

Although the mother’s mental health has improved, there remains concerns about her insight into the need to continue taking her medication and the likelihood of a relapse if she stopped doing so.

I am further concerned about the mother’s ability to consistently work with professionals under a Supervision Order. I note, for example, that the mother has not met with CGL since May 2025 and her engagement has been described by CGL as sporadic. She also did not respond to the Guardian when she wanted to meet with the mother for the purposes of completing her final analysis and recommendations report.

If the children remain in foster care, it is clearly likely that they will be kept safe from harm, as they have been throughout the proceedings.

(f) how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting their needs;

Ms Hughes, of course, concluded that the mother was able to meet the children’s needs, although in her evidence, she confirmed that she did not support the children returning to their mother’s care now and felt that the ‘roadmap’ put forward by the LA needed to be completed before reunification was considered. Ms Hughes was concerned about the matters referred to above and felt, at this stage, the mother may not be able to meet the children’s needs. Having considered the evidence, I accept the views of Ms Hughes, the social worker and the Guardian that as things stand, the mother would not be able to meet the children’s needs and that she has further work to do around ceasing her cocaine use, accessing support around substance misuse, gaining further insight into her mental health needs and probably further re-building her relationship with A before she could realistically care for them.

The father is clearly not in a position to meet the children’s needs given his ongoing imprisonment.

I am satisfied that an approved foster placement would be able to meet the children’s needs once a suitable placement has been identified. It is important, in my view, that the children can both remain at their current schools, where they are settled and where they have attended both prior to and throughout the proceedings.

The court has range of options available to it. Given the need for the children to have some legal certainty about their future, I am of the view that the children do require the court to make an order.

Turning then to the options for the children’s future care.

The mother seeks for the children to be returned to her care and there are clearly advantages to that for the children. It would of course mean that they remain together and would be living with a parent, which is the most natural place for a child to be. It would support their sense of identity and background and would allow them to have consistent relationships with wider family members. The mother has made significant steps forward during the course of these proceedings. Her mental health is now more stable, she is compliant with her medication, and she is engaging with her mental health team. The mother’s cannabis use has been addressed, and she has demonstrated a clear and consistent commitment to attending contact, which has broadly been positive for the children, particularly B, albeit that there have been some concerns about the quality of the sessions more recently.

There are however significant vulnerabilities with such a plan too. Although the mother’s mental health has improved, I am concerned about what she said to her mental health team about wanting to come off her medication and not acknowledging the risk of relapse if she did so. Dr McEvedy was equally concerned about the risk of non-compliance and the associated risk of relapse. While the mother now says that she will continue her depot medication and has done for over a year now, I gained the impression from her evidence that she was perhaps not entirely convinced about the actual benefits to her of this medication and the risk of relapse if she stopped her medication. She has also, in the past, not been compliant with her medication and it is clear that when she was unwell previously, she was unable to meet the children’s needs and they were placed at risk of harm.

As set out above, I am satisfied that the mother has been using cocaine. It is evident that the mother’s cannabis use was a significant issue for her previously and is likely to have adversely impacted her mental health. I am concerned about what impact the mother’s cocaine use may have upon her mental health, particularly if she was to stop her medication or disengage from mental health services. In these circumstances, it is likely that the children would again be at risk of harm if placed back in her care. For whatever reason, the mother has not engaged with CGL for around four months now and I am concerned that she is therefore not accessing the support she needs for her cocaine use as things stand.

I am also concerned about A’s wishes and how realistic it would be to essentially force her to return to her mother’s care in circumstances where she is 15 years old, previously elected not to see her mother at all for eighteen months and even now, only wishes to see her approximately once a month. As I have set out above, I am entirely satisfied that it is in the best interests of both children’s welfare for them to remain together and I find it unlikely that A would be willing to return to her mother’s care as things stand, which could lead to the children being separated. I think that would be emotionally harmful for both of them.

While the mother does have some support from family members and a friend, this seems to be largely around social and emotional support for the mother. There is limited evidence that they would be able and willing to ‘step in’ if the mother’s mental health deteriorated in order to keep the children safe.

I have considered whether a Supervision Order might be sufficient to manage the risks but have concluded that it would not be. Firstly, such an order does not allow the LA to share parental responsibility and so while they would remain involved for a defined period, they would not be able to take any welfare decisions for the children as required. Furthermore, as set out above, I do have some concerns about the mother’s capacity to work openly, honestly and consistently with professionals, which was one the of the issues at the outset of these proceedings. While the mother’s engagement has improved, there are still concerns about her ability to work with professionals and given the risks involved, I am therefore not satisfied that a Supervision Order would be sufficient to manage or contain those risks.

The only realistic alternative option for the children is that they remain together in foster care. That does mean that they will continue to be placed away from their family, which will of course impact upon their sense of identity and understanding of their background and heritage. It means they will have less contact with each of their parents and it is also likely to impact upon their relationships with extended family members. Being in foster care also brings with it a degree of intrusion through LAC reviews and the ongoing involvement of professionals in the children’s lives, with the LA ultimately bearing responsibility for important welfare decisions for the children, although the mother would of course still remain very much involved too. Long-term foster care also brings with it the risk of placement breakdowns and the children having to move placements again, as they have already had to do on several occasions.

The positives of the children remaining in foster care, however, are that their basic, educational and emotional needs are likely to be met consistently, as they have been throughout the proceedings, and they have been kept safe from harm, which was not the case when the children lived with their mother. A long-term foster placement means the children are much less likely to be exposed to the risks and difficulties they were exposed to prior to these proceedings being commenced. The children have been together in foster care for the majority of these proceedings and although there will be a further move to a longer-term placement, the children will at least remain together. Although they will not be living with the family, those relationships can still be promoted through direct contact, which will take place regularly. In respect of A, remaining in foster care accords with her wishes, and has the benefit of A likely feeling that she has been listened to and that her voice has been heard.

On balance, I am therefore satisfied that the making of Care Orders and the placement of the children together in a long-term foster placement is in the best interests of their welfare and are necessary and proportionate orders to make. In short, I have concluded that the risks are still too high for the children to be placed in the care of their mother and that it would be premature to do so.

I endorse the LA’s final care plan in respect of contact. It is highly unlikely that A would agree to higher level of contact, given that she is already content to see her mother once a month. For B, I accept that he broadly enjoys contact, although there have been some concerns recently. That does, however, need to be balanced with his need to be able to settle into a longer-term placement and, importantly, to understand that a final decision has now been made for him to remain in foster care for the time being. Contact will, of course, be kept under review and there is no reason why it cannot be increased in the future for one or both of the children but, at this time, I am satisfied that monthly contact is the right starting point.

Having said all of that, I hope the mother will not see this as the end of the road. As the Guardian says, the LA should give consideration to future reunification and very helpfully, the LA have produced a ‘roadmap’ setting out very clearly what steps the mother needs to take in order for consideration to be given to the children being returned to her care. My view is that this is a very helpful document, and I would fully encourage the mother to work with the LA in accordance with the ‘roadmap’ and to build upon the progress she has already made during the course of these proceedings.