The London Borough of Hounslow v The Mother & Ors

I come to the end of a final hearing in care proceedings and the duty falls on me to analyse the evidence, consider the children’s welfare needs and make decisions for what will be their future lives.

The applicant local authority argue the only option for these five children is to be removed from family care and for the eldest two to be placed into care with the youngest three placed for adoption. The children’s guardian agrees. The children’s mother and father disagree and say all the children should be with their mother (the parents live apart).

I have a wealth of evidence on which to form my views and from which to reach my decisions. I have a number of hearing bundles, additional documents filed during the hearing, the evidence of witnesses who appeared before me and the submissions made by the representatives. I bear all the above in mind when considering what outcome is best for each child.

The hearing proceeded on a hybrid basis with some of the professional witnesses attending remotely. The father attended remotely throughout as a result of previous conduct within the proceedings, including sending intimidating/threatening messages during the course of the IRH.

The children are V; X; W; Y and Z [all children aged under 10]. I understand these are the preferred forms of their names used by their parents. The Mother is [ ]; V’s father (Mr A) has played little role in his life and no role in these proceedings. The father of younger four children is [ ].

I have to consider each of the children individually. The decisions I make must give paramount consideration to their welfare. I will have regard to the extended welfare checklist in respect of the younger three children and thus consider their welfare throughout their lives.

My jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the applicant requires the crossing of a legal threshold. This threshold requires the applicant to prove the children either had suffered significant harm at commencement of the proceedings, or were likely to suffer such harm if an order were not made, as a consequence of the care being given to them not being what would be expected from a reasonable carer.

If this threshold is crossed (and that is not in dispute) then I can make the orders sought but I am not required to do so. The decision I ultimately make will reflect what is right for the children and will keep in mind that the standard of expected care for each child is good enough care not something higher, and certainly not perfection.

Here I am asked to consider a plan for adoption in respect of the younger children. All state intervention in family life must be assessed to be proportionate, reasonable, and necessary for it to be permissible but this level of intervention is particularly stark and requires a heightened level of justification caught by the concept that ‘nothing else will do.’

To assess this question requires a holistic weighing up of both the positives and negatives of each realistic option before identifying the appropriate outcome. Here the options are placement with the Mother, long term foster care only, or placement. If I conclude a placement order is required in opposition to the parents’ views then I can only make this order by dispensing with their consent. To do so I must be satisfied the child’s welfare requires me to do so.

I am asked to make various findings of fact against each parent. The applicant bears the responsibility for proving each allegation and will do so only if it establishes the allegation as being more likely than not. The parent subject to an allegation has no burden to disprove it.

The history of the proceedings is found within section B of the hearing bundle. It is not necessary for me to detail every step that has been taken. But it is important to note the children have remained within family care throughout the proceedings. It is also important to record the proceedings commenced at the end of May 2024 and are now approaching 17 months of age. The proceedings should have concluded about a year ago. This is highly unfortunate but does mean there has been significant time within the proceedings to understand the issues and seek to address the same.

I do not intend to provide a full background history to this case. I have read the professional evidence which provides a clear understanding of the family history. I have this in mind and would prefer to devote as much space in this judgment to the reasoning underpinning my decision so that the parents can fully understand why I have made the decisions I have.

That being said I note the following:

I will identify the key disputes placed before me and summarise my conclusions in regard to each.

There is no doubt it was. Within proceedings the parents had appeared to dispute significant abuse whilst agreeing elements of verbal abuse and disharmony. In early meetings with both Dr Marshall, the expert psychologist and the parenting assessment team The Mother denied the presence of abuse. Later in the proceedings The Mother accepted elements of abuse as alleged by the applicant. Then within a position document filed for the final hearing The Mother broadened her complaint of abuse to cover the full range of potential abusive patterns of behaviour. I considered it was too late to examine this within the final hearing in a fair fashion, and it would have been wholly contrary to the welfare interests of the children to further adjourn the proceedings, and so detailed examination was restricted to the matters formally pleaded. In the course of the final hearing The Father made significant admissions relating to verbal and physical abuse and controlling behaviour patterns. He agreed much of this took place before the children and would have been emotionally damaging for them. He agreed the matters formally pleaded but made no concessions as to the broader description of abuse set out in the position document.

There is no doubt this was a seriously abusive relationship which would have been significantly harmful for the children both emotionally and physically. The key allegation (which is admitted) is that The Mother in the course of an argument threw an empty plastic water bottle at The Father. He then left the room and she was crouching over X when he ran back in and kicked her in the head. All the children were present and X was in close proximity to The Mother when this happened. The Mother gave evidence that none of the children appear to have responded to this violent assault which is itself concerning for the guardian. To have witnessed this would have caused the children significant emotional harm. X was at risk of suffering physical harm in the course of this uncontrolled loss of temper on the part of The Father.

I accept the broader admissions made by The Father but I also accept the allegations before me are but part of a larger scale of abuse, if not the tip of an iceberg. This conclusion is justified for two clear reasons; (1) I consider it most unlikely The Father would have for the first and only time acted in a physically abusive manner in the extreme fashion described above. Anyone willing to act in this fashion towards their partner whilst crouching close to their child and in an extremely vulnerable position would likely have done so on other occasions. This is the broad allegation made by The Mother and I accept it on a broad rather than specific basis; (2) I also reflect on the evidence, see below, of the children’s behaviour patterns which strongly suggest having modelled violent conduct into their own patterns of play and conduct towards each other. The evidence tells me they love The Father. It is hardly surprising they have copied his behaviour. They are in part acting out the violence they witness before them at home.

A concerning feature of this was that on the arrival of police one of the children reported what had happened (accurately) only to be told by his parents that he was lying. Quite how the child made sense of this or how this would later impact on his transparency with professionals must remain a matter of conjecture.

So I find this to be an abusive relationship. This was over a sustained basis. It was experienced by the children on occasion as direct spectators but also, I am sure indirectly living together in a relatively cramped accommodation. They were significantly harmed by this behaviour. It has coloured their own patterns of behaviour.

In the course of the evidence The Mother was asked to explain her rather late statement of abuse in her position document. It was questioned why she had left it so late? She explained this had arisen out of her growing understanding of domestic abuse following separation and having attended a domestic violence programme. I was asked to reflect on the challenges faced by victims of domestic abuse in recognising the abusive nature of their relationships before taking steps to self-protect.

I do keep this in mind. There is a broad understanding of the debilitating effect on a victim of abuse which extends to robbing them of any sense of personal agency. The often-isolating impact of abuse can additionally cause a victim to lack an understanding of what it is that they are facing and prevent the support they might otherwise receive and which might offer them an understanding of what they are experiencing. Finally abuse tends to be a gradual process of escalation which by its creeping nature blurs the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Over time that which might have been unacceptable at the outset of the relationship becomes normalised and accepted.

Yet in her evidence The Mother explicitly explained this delay on the basis that it was only with her growing understanding that she came to recognise the more nuanced features of abuse. This is not surprising as far as aspects of controlling behaviour are concerned but it is difficult to understand in the context of the explicit and obvious gross physical abuse detailed above. On any assessment there is little room to confuse the propriety of a physical assault of the character above.

I listened with care to both parents. My abiding sense was that the relationship had been abusive and neither parent had previously been willing to accept this notwithstanding they knew this to be the case. I judge this reflected a worry on the part of the parents as to what this would mean for their children’s placement and this explains why the admission from The Mother came so late in the day when she felt there was nothing to lose and perhaps something to gain from honesty around the subject. I appreciate a fear of losing her children might itself have been an aspect of the control in play but I do not accept she had no understanding of the impact this was having both on her and the children.

Nonetheless The Mother is now demonstrating transparency. I judge it helps that The Father is equally accepting his own unacceptable behaviour. In this regard I found his evidence genuine. But it does suggest The Mother will require considerable further work to develop full understanding and embed strategies to protect against future risks of the same. At this time she is at an early stage and I will need to consider the level of confidence I can place in her.

This naturally takes me to the next issue in the case. As noted this was an abusive relationship. In the early part of the proceedings the children remained at home in the care of both parents (between approximately May-Aug 2024). With hindsight and in the light of the admissions now made this left the children in a position of real risk. This risk was consequent on the parents’ lack of transparency. In August 2024, the Court made a non-molestation order against The Father which removed him from the home and sought to protect The Mother and the children. I am told this order was made without The Mother’s express support.

The applicant alleges the parents remained in contact after this date. This is agreed although the exact parameters of such contact are not. For my part it is quite clear this was the case. In setting out my conclusions I do not need to make an explicit finding as to when this stopped although I will make observations on this point.

The evidence for this comes from the admissions of the parents that they kept in contact through to at least October 2024. It is argued the same was not prohibited by the non-molestation order. This is correct however the point is somewhat dented by the clear evidence of the parents that they both believed this was in fact covered by the Order. As such The Father believed he was breaching the order and The Mother thought the same. Yet she took no steps to enforce the order or to inform her representatives as to this reality. Notwithstanding the obvious worries of the social work team they were not told contact was continuing. It is clear all the parties understood there was to be no contact whether this was prohibited or not.

We now know there was contact as a result of telephone records obtained pursuant to a disclosure order. In the light of this the parents were obliged to accept the same. It is far from clear they would have done so otherwise. Yet even after this communications continued on a telephone number not subject to the original order. I was not impressed by The Mother’s evidence that she had not mentioned this at stage 1 of the disclosure process as this was The Father’s responsibility. Plainly both parents knew what was being pursued and it was incumbent on both of them to be transparent. That they were not suggests an attempt to evade the impact of the order.

On 5 February 2025 The Father was arrested by the Metropolitan Police in in [ ]. The body worn footage of the arrest is available. On the arrival of the police The Father, The Mother and a number of the children can be seen in close company. The applicant argues this was not a coincidence and suggests a planned meeting. The Mother argues it was wholly accidental in a street which she regularly uses. I have viewed the footage and one can see the parents together at the point of arrival of the police at which point they separate and The Father attempts to cycle away before being apprehended. I am in little doubt the footage shows the parent engaged in some level of communication prior to being aware of the police. Reflecting on all the evidence this is clear evidence of further interaction and on balance I do not accept it was a coincidental and passing meeting. I am less confident whether this was planned or whether the parents took the opportunity to engage when they saw each other. But I accept this was further voluntary communication which is not consistent with their understanding of the injunction. I am not persuaded the meeting would have ended when it did but for the arrival of the police.

In the days after the arrest The Mother telephoned The Father (he did not answer). In the following month he called her (she did not answer). This is odd behaviour for parents who claim to have essentially been out of contact (but for this fleeting event) since October 2024. In my judgment it supports generalised ongoing communication. I also have some evidence of a suspected sighting of The Father at the nursery. The evidence of a worker seeing The Mother return with one child only for two to be in the house shortly afterwards gives rise to the inference someone else was present prior to her arrival. It is said on this occasion the maternal grandmother had alleged The Father was in the home. I also have a suggestion that The Father was outside the home when a social worker attended.

I am satisfied the parents remained in contact after the non-molestation order and did so beyond October 2024 into 2025. In doing so The Mother was sacrificing the protection the Court had sought to offer her under the non-molestation order. To do so was to encourage The Father. I am satisfied they are not currently in contact and I bear in mind an unpleasant communication from The Father to The Mother, passed via his sister. Of course, this does not negate future contact anymore than the previous physical assaults did. The key conclusion is that the parents have maintained contact through the proceedings in a dishonest fashion and in a manner that thereby placed the children at risk of significant harm. It is striking there is evidence of the children noting The Father had been at the home and later evidence of X becoming unwilling to engage and V appearing to discourage him from being open. The sense of the evidence is that the children have become collusive in this behaviour and have suffered emotionally as a consequence.

I am not finding a continuing intimate relationship during this period but I do find clear evidence of ongoing emotional vulnerability on the part of The Mother which led to continuing risk laden contact.

This has been a concern in the proceedings. To his credit The Father engaged with the final hearing in a calm and civil manner throughout. This suggests he has reflected on his behaviour and sought to make change or that he appreciates the negative impact it was having on his case and has chosen to act differently for his advantage. I hope it is the former. In the proceedings and in his engagement with the professionals who are tasked to help this family he has been abusive in his words and manner. This had led to the understandable consequence that workers have been unwilling to engage with him. This culminated in the IRH and messages sent by The Father which suggested he was outside the Court and that those inside could not be protected by the Court when they left. He has been racist in his language when engaging with professionals. It is no coincidence that there have been issues with one of the children using similar racist language at school. Again, this is likely to be learned behaviour.

The consequence is that The Father has made it harder for professionals to work with him and this is bound to have limited the potential for progress within the proceedings. The Father only has himself to blame for this. To his credit he acknowledges his personality defects in this regard and tells me he must change. Again, I hope he does. He impressed me as a fundamentally intelligent person who could make progress if he could manage his anger.

In contrast to The Father there has been a range of work undertaken with The Mother. The question in this case will be as to the extent of change evidenced by the same and the sustainability of the same. The Mother questions the extent of support offered and points to a perceived delay in provision of services. Ultimately, her position is that one is now seeing a level of change which gives sufficient confidence for the future when supported by additional resources. The applicant argues there is no sound foundation for such confidence.

In the course of the hearing, I was referenced explicitly and implicitly to a range of services and support said to be offered to The Mother and the family. I note these have included support intervention at home on two occasions. This was described as intensive work although The Mother has challenged that description. Referral was also made to a domestic abuse programme and the provision of a personal domestic violence support worker (IDVA). Further a referral was made to a drug support team (ARC). Alongside this I was asked to reflect on forms of support arising out of the child protection process and the provision of a family group conference. The Mother disputed these were supportive in form. Support was also provided via the protection of the non-molestation order.

The social worker accepted some recent evidence of positive change. The Mother had completed the freedom programme and re-engaged with drug support. There were some seeds of change at school/nursery and an improvement in attendance from a previously low level. However, this was viewed as being too little and too late and of questionable sustainability. The point was being made that there had been 18 months within proceedings to demonstrate a sea change in attitude and yet The Mother was still at the commencement stage. Further, there was a clear belief that some of what is seen has been generated by the proceedings and particularly this final hearing.

On behalf of The Mother, I was asked to reflect on the impact being a victim of domestic abuse might have on her ability to engage earlier in the proceedings. I accept this point in principal but it must be read subject to my observations set out within the sections considering this feature of the case.

I consider the evidence is clear. There can be no doubt The Mother has been offered real support to make change for the benefit of the children. I particularly note the support work offered and provided into the family home. The workers are experienced and having considered the evidence it is difficult to find fault with the approach taken. It involved identifying areas of concern and then setting a plan of action to address the same. This was a balance of guidance advice and teaching. But ultimately it was for The Mother to demonstrate she could reflect and make changes. Sadly, the view of the worker was that any change made had been minimal within the course of the proceedings. I also note the initial failure to properly engage with the drug support team and the equivocation on the part of The Mother around this issue. I have noted the contradiction between the support being offered re domestic abuse and the challenge The Mother appears to have had in accepting this support. The net effect is that professionals remain of the view that there is insufficient evidence available to support the view that changes will now be made within the children’s timescales.

In summary I find The Mother has been offered meaningful support. This should have permitted the opportunity to demonstrate real change. The delay in the proceedings has extended the opportunity for change. However, at this time the focus remains on what change might occur rather than what change has occurred.

The applicant raises significant concern as to how the children have presented both individually and when as a group. Their behaviour is characterised as being out of control and such as to place them each at risk of significant physical harm, both to themselves and to each other. The applicant suggests this reflects an absence of appropriate boundaries and routines. Particular reference was made to an occasion when the support worker observed X having an inconsolable melt-down whilst at home, and secondly to observations of child protection medical staff when observing the children’s interactions at a Child Protection Medical.

The Mother denies an inability to set boundaries whilst acknowledging aspects of the concerns identified on each occasion. She points to the fact that her mother was directly involved with the children at the medical at the relevant point in time and with regards to the occasion at home with X counters that he quickly calmed in the moments after the support worker stepped away to make a telephone call. At a more general level she contends one must have regard to each child’s specific needs and how these may impact upon their presentation. It is right to observe that at this point in time there is no diagnosis of relevance to this question but there are grounds for believing Y at least may have developmental issues associated with some form of neuro-divergence.

In considering this question I do give due regard to the points made by The Mother. Indeed, I proceed on the basis that some form of diagnosis may in due course arise in respect of Y (and perhaps more broadly). But this does not satisfactorily address the issue in full.

I also have regard to the experienced views of the support worker and the child protection doctor. Both impressed me as highly experienced practitioners dealing with families in challenging circumstances. Each can draw on a long history of assessment on which they can compare their experiences with these children. It is fair to say both were left shocked by what they saw.

The support worker was deeply disturbed by the manner in which X was engaging with his mother including his physical behaviour towards her and hurtful words. It was clear she was impacted by this presentation from a relatively young child. Such was her concern that she was unwilling to leave The Mother alone with X and felt compelled to seek outside support. It is of note X arrived on the scene (having returned with The Mother from school drop off) in the midst of the melt-down and so this was a situation not occasioned by the presence of the worker but out of interactions preceding the same. This incident was overwhelming for The Mother and at points V was wanting to call his grandmother for help. The support worker adds to her concerns through description of the general play and behaviours of the children as observed by her. The play is highly physical and uncontained with dysregulated emotions and the use of household items as weapons with which to threaten and hit each other. The language of play is often violent with reference to guns. There is evidence of W (who has been removed to her grandmother’s care during the proceedings) being targeted and bullied with special pleasure being taken in the destruction of her toys.

The doctor told me of the children running wild in the public area. A Wendy house placed there to comfort children attending for examination was physically lifted by two of the children and repeatedly thrown to the ground. As at home the children were highly dysregulated making proper examination all but impossible. Multiple staff had to join in controlling X. No effective engagement was noted within the sibling group.

These two occasions are but part of the account of behaviour which concerns the applicant. I have made clear I allow for possible childhood developmental challenges but in reality these challenges (if present) generate a need for greater stability, routine, and boundaries. The very real concern is that The Mother has completely lost control in this regard and in the absence of effective boundaries already vulnerable children are being significantly harmed at both an emotional and physical level.

I cannot but note the behaviours exhibited by X towards his mother. I do not believe this is a wholly isolated occasion. In my assessment such behaviours are again learnt and modelled from experience. If these children witness violence between their parents then it is hardly surprising they act this out between themselves. Further, the emotional anxiety of witnessing and making sense of such adult behaviours is bound to find its way out by way of a release valve if nothing else. The net effect is that the children are then seen effectively abusing each other as they have seen their parent abused.

These are not recently arising concerns. V has become unmanageable in mainstream education and is now in special provision. The trajectory for the younger children is deeply worrying. It is not an overstatement to point out that life opportunities are being seriously and negatively impacted by what they have experienced at home.

It appears to me turning this situation around will now be highly challenging and will require a high level of consistency and commitment to change. This will be harder for The Mother as she was the parent in situ when these patterns of behaviour arose and she may find the children take much longer to accept a change in approach on her behalf. It is clear to me that The Mother has failed to put in place the boundaries that these children require. Together with The Father she has constructed a family group of 5 young children. This was always bound to be a challenging situation made harder by the abuse I have detailed above. It will certainly be a very significant challenge for The Mother to turn this around.

There is accepted use of cannabis. I accept the use of same does not establish harm to the children. One does need to identify the causative link for this to be a threshold feature. In this case the causative link is proven. There is longitudinal evidence in the form of tests for each parent from June 2024; January 2025 and June 2025. For The Mother, the results were positive for cannabis throughout at a medium level in 2024 falling to a low level in 2025. For The Father, the results were high in 2024 falling to medium in 2025 and in the last month tested to low.

I heard evidence of the cost to the family of this usage. I am satisfied something like £600pm was being spent on cannabis in periods in 2024. This is said to have fallen in recent times, which appears likely given the test results. However, the family budget (see below) continues to leak a significant amount to this.

At times in her evidence The Mother appeared to accept a level of dependence whilst at other points she appears less accepting. What is clear is that during these proceedings, which are now approaching 18 months, neither parent has been able to stop their use.

Understanding such usage is difficult without clarity from the parents. At some level one can imagine a simple enjoyment or pleasure from the effect of the substance. However, I wonder whether use permits The Mother a degree of cushioning from the reality of managing all of the children. The difficulty with such a response is that it will leave her unavailable for the children at an emotional level and leave them to set their own rules and boundaries. As such I judge the drug usage has contributed to the significant harm identified in the preceding section. I also consider it has imposed a restraint on the family budget as set out in the section below with equivalent harmful effect. There is a causative link between use and significant harm to the children.

The children have required a number of Child Protection Medicals arising out of concerns as to their physical presentation. I accept that there have been many scratches and bruises which have not been subject to such assessment. The applicant focused on three particular injuries. This followed from the concerns expressed by the clinicians in regard to the same. I identify these as follows: (1) The slide fall; (2) The basket injury; (3) The chest scar.

Having considered each in turn I am satisfied these do not evidence either parent as having inflicted the injury on the child. Likewise in each case I am satisfied the same was not caused by one of the other children. In essence I accept the basic explanation given. I will explain why.

On 19 June 2024 X attended a planned medical. On presentation he was seen to have various marks to his face with significant reddening to his cheek, his lower nose, chin, and upper lip. It appeared this was caused by a blunt trauma. The doctor was naturally concerned.

During the appointment X spoke about falling from a slide that day. The parents told me they were in the park that morning with a number of the children. At some point The Father was with X and W separate and out of sight of The Mother. The Father reports X being on a climbing frame and falling from an upper platform to a lower platform before then falling through an open side to the ground. The ground was a conventional rubber surface whereas the platforms appear in the available photographs to be of a metal form.

The doctor questions this account telling me one does not expect this form of injury as when a person falls they will put out their hand to cushion the impact. Also, it makes no sense as to the distribution of marking.

I accept these propositions but one cannot rule out a young child falling and failing to put their hand out in time. If the child fell as described from one platform to the lower platform and did not cushion the fall then it is not surprising to see the associated mark to the base of the nose and chin and the injury inside the upper lip. They all appear consistent with the prominent parts of the lower face contacting a hard surface. The injury inside the mouth might then be caused by the same impact. If one traces a line between the point of the nose and the chin then each of these parts of the face are on this same line and thus subject to impact in the case of such a fall. This leaves the issue of the cheek mark. This is adequately explained by the child then falling through the open space to the side of the platform to the ground below. This fall would likely be, or certainly could be, such as to cause impact to the side of the child’s face. The marking in my assessment is not inconsistent with a fall onto such a surface.

I accept this account. It is supported by some additional factors. If the parents were in the park as claimed then it seems to me less likely this assault would have happened in open sight of others. Secondly, whilst there is good evidence of The Father being angry and abusive there is no clear evidence of him being abusive to the children. Third, the parents chose to attend the medical notwithstanding they must have known this would be a matter of concern. If this had been an inflicted injury I judge they might have been less willing to keep the appointment. Fourth, X reported a fall at the appointment. Fifth, recently in conversation with the guardian W commented on the fall and ‘dad not being able to catch him.’ This has the ring of truth rather than staging.

At a different medical on 15 July 2025 X was observed to have a series of scratches and marks to his upper left thigh. I have photographs. X was challenging during this assessment both with the clinician and his mother.

The doctor was concerned by the fact of the injuries and their respective placement and angles of direction. She struggled to understand how such marks could have occurred accidentally out of one incident. The Mother told her this occurred when X was standing on a plastic clothes type basket/container which then moved under him causing him to fall on it. In the fall the basket broke and presented a sharp edge which caused the injuries. I have a photograph of the basket. The doctor could still not rationalise how this might have led to this range of marks.

I accept the account as plausible and explanative of the injuries. In the context of all the evidence I can picture X acting in this manner as I can the basket moving and him falling on it causing it to break.

I can see the break has created an irregular and somewhat sharp edge. This irregularity can explain why X has marks on his leg at non-parallel angles to each other. Further in the process of his leg ‘breaking through’ the basket it is not difficult to see how injuries may have been caused to both the front and back of his thigh. In a sense at some point his leg is through the basket and has to be pulled out again. This does explain marks around the angle of the leg.

I consider this a plausible account. It is not lost on me that these irregular marks would have to be otherwise explained. It is not enough for the applicant to rely simply on the lack of an explanation as its foundation for proving the allegation. I do not find this proven.

The doctor saw and photographed a broadly linear keloid scar across the mid-section of the child’s chest. I am not surprised this concerned the doctor as the photograph is quite striking showing a long and raised scar. It begs the question as to what happened to cause this injury? The explanation was that this was a scratch caused when the child was playing in and around a thorn bush. This is rejected as an explanation because the mark is not a scratch. I understand why this view was taken. However, it is fatally undermined by the clear evidence of the social worker that she saw this injury earlier and it at first presented as a scratch before healing in the fashion seen. It is not for me to explain the process of healing but I suspect the scratch may have been lightly infected leading to the raised scar. But this does not change the essential truth of this mark originating in the form of a scratch. I accept this account. It plainly does not establish an allegation of significant harm as pleaded.

But this is not the end of the matter. As noted above these are children who have poor boundaries and play in a highly dysregulated manner. Even on the explanation accepted X was standing on a basket and an accident was just waiting to happen. The children’s play is highly physical and they appear to act with intent towards each other at times. It is likely they are injuring themselves and each other. So, whilst I do not find the injuries to be a function of infliction by either parent the extent and form of the injuries is a function of the lack of control and boundaries placed on the children. In making this point I have regard to the importance of children being able to explore the world and on occasion have falls and accidents. This is part of childhood development and has the potential to be a positive feature of growing up and establishing independence. However, without boundaries such behaviour can veer wildly outside of safe territory. In my assessment some but not all of the injuries seen reflect the concerning dysregulated and uncontrolled behaviour recorded elsewhere in this judgment. As such it is a form of significant harm caused by the lack of discipline and boundaries expected of a reasonable parent.

In many ways this point draws on features set out above. Professionals report the home to be in a poor and at times unacceptable state. The family worker points to a lack of respect by the children for the home environment. Food is littered all over the floor and the home environment is dirty. A carpet fitter removed a carpet in September 2025 which was found to be urine sodden. The family worker reported an absence of toothbrushes and toilet paper with faeces smeared on the wall. Significant effort was made to encourage The Mother to modify her approach. It is reported this has not had a material impact. The Mother challenges this assessment in any event and points to the cramped circumstances which house her large family and which are bound to impact on a range of factors under consideration in this judgment. The applicant points to the fact one of the children urinated on W’s bed when visiting his grandmother. This has nothing to do with the cramped home conditions.

In any judgment it is challenging to provide a detailed assessment of such points. One must stand back and take a realistic overview. In doing so one must give due respect to the permissibility of a range of styles of parenting. Some level of poor hygiene and mess has to be accepted. However, my assessment from the evidence, and particularly that of the family worker who gave a detailed account of her concerns, is that the home environment fell significantly below an acceptable level. I am confident this is a function of a range of other matters detailed in this judgment: (1) the abuse making The Mother less active and engaged; (2) the cannabis abuse having similar impact and significantly impacting the family budget; (3) the dysregulated behaviour of the children adding to this challenge. Yet I consider the state of the home in a way also feeds these issues. If the children had pride in their home environment then it is possible they might condition their conduct within the home. If they see the home in a state it is likely to feed into the chaos of their behaviour with debris becoming part of the overactive behaviour.

The parties agree threshold is crossed. I agree and approve the threshold subject to the following five points which remained to be determined at the outset of the hearing. My conclusions on these points are:

The heart of this analysis must reflect on the children’s strong need for stability and consistency of care supported by a clear routine and properly enforced boundaries. Whilst the children are likely to push back against any attempt to impose the same now there is no doubt change in this regard is fundamental if they are going to be taken off a track towards a highly problematic adolescence and future adulthood. In this regard I agree with the professional opinion. One can see in the case of V the challenges that are now being faced with respect to education and behaviour. This is impacting his peer relationships and will increasingly divide and isolate him. The justified fear is of a future impacted by the criminal justice system and mental health challenges. X aged only [in band 5-6] is presenting an enormously worrying level of concern. It is inescapable that these children’s needs have been impacted by their lived experience. We are now at the point where X is unmanageable and it appears likely to follow V’s path. I am in no doubt these children crave stability and predictable care. This need is not being met when their lived experience is of abuse, chaos in the home and parents impacted as to their availability by drug use. The family appear to have fallen into a state of affairs in which making change appears almost impossible from such a low point. The situation has become self-fulfilling and deeply damaging.

The key question in this case is the confidence the Court can have that The Mother can now make the changes needed, provide the routine and boundaries that are needed and do so immediately. The children’s timescales in this regard are short given the imbedded nature of these difficulties. Any delay for these children may mean change comes too late. Plainly without change things will simply become harder and the impact will become greater. Currently, The Mother is struggling to manage small children. It is easy to imagine the difficulty she will face when these children grow and their actions become even more physical.

The children have additional needs. W needs to feel safe in her relationship with her siblings. The children need to know when they tell the truth they are listened to and not told they are lying. They need to understand the behaviour patterns that are acceptable in the society they are part of and to begin to model these. Without this their own lives will be surrounded by conflict, risk and breakdown. Their relationships are likely to be abusive and the cycle will repeat itself.

Finally, I would point to their need to be able to enjoy appropriate, loving and respectful family relationships. They are a large sibling group yet their relationships appear to be surrounded by inter-sibling anger and conflict.

I must have regard to the children’s wishes and feelings. A sad feature of this case is that there is good evidence of warm contact between The Father and the children and of an equal bond between The Mother and the children. Whilst I have noted many negatives in this judgment I am left in no doubt that both parents love their children very much. But any assessment under this heading must have regard to the age and understanding of the children in expressing any views. Given their ages one has to be cautious in attaching too much weight to this feature.

Whether I am considering the plan for a care order or placement I must have regard to the impact these changes will mean for each child. In the case of the placement related children the impact is extended into consideration of the impact upon them of being severed from family life.

One of the features of this case is that the children have not been removed from the family home / family. I make this distinction as W has been living with her grandmother. It is accepted that will end and there are no other alternative family options. The timing of this change appears to be around Christmas at the latest although The Mother in submissions appeared to extend this to 6-months.

There will be a most significant impact and change for the children if I sanction their removal. It is likely none of them have been led to expect this and this will come as a significant shock. This will be exacerbated by the fact this will be explained as being a permanent change. I contrast this with removal at the outset of proceedings on an interim basis. Given their characteristics and the context set out above it is highly likely for many, if not all of the children, this will lead to a dysregulated response and some challenging behaviour. A further factor is the placement planning which leads to the separation of the older boys who are under a care order only. As a result, I have to factor into my assessment the impact of separation as it relates to their mother but also as relates to each other. I note the plan is different across the group and not all of the children have planning for separation from all siblings.

In assessing this I have regard to the Together and Apart assessment of the ISW (as I do to his substantive report). In considering this I am bound to reflect on his live evidence. The ISW’s written evidence supported a plan for the children remaining with The Mother. As such it was the applicant who intended to cross examine him most significantly. However, at the outset of the evidence he modified his position and told me that in the light of the updating evidence he now supported the plan of the applicant. Notwithstanding this the applicant still cross examined on the basis that the original report was overly superficial in its analysis. Whilst the ISW did not accept every point made he did fundamentally agree he had failed to have regard to a number of important considerations. This left the parents in the position of having to shore up the evidence. This was difficult in circumstances where the witness himself was accepting the deficits in his assessment.

Frankly, I accept the criticisms raised by the applicant (and guardian) as to a lack of depth of analysis in regard to a number of factors in the case. This was likely to always impact the weight I could place on the report and it does have impact on my approach to the related Together and Apart assessment.

One of the challenges in considering impact is assessing the quality of the sibling relationships. The evidence points to these relationships being often dysfunctional and harmful. I have already noted the particular impact on W but I has also had regard to the broad ranging characterisation of their play style and physicality between the children. The relationship between X and his siblings appears to be highly challenging. I of course note V is a half-sibling to the younger children. The weight of evidence casts doubt on the quality of current interactions between the children. It is unfortunate that in many ways the opportunity that arises from a large sibling group has not materialised with instead a central feature being strong rivalries and aggression.

In considering the impact of change I also have to attempt an assessment of the degree to which positives may flow from such a change. Plainly any positives arising on separation will lessen the negative impact of change on each child. I can see how W has benefitted from a period away from her brothers. The evidence is of her making progress in placement with her grandmother. Change for her is inevitable and I do not lose sight that this might be a return to the very environment from which she was removed to provide her with emotional security and safety.

The position with regards to the younger three children is of a change with a plan of adoption. This would, if enacted, have a severing effect under which they would legally cease to be members of their birth family. Quite separately they would likely experience a serious reduction in the amount of time they spend with their parents, wider family, and with those siblings with who they would not be placed. This will have a profound impact on still very young children who may not have a sense of the challenges that have caused this decision to be made. For them this will likely seem wholly inexplicable. W is proposed to be part of this group. She knows both her parents and will not simply forget these relationships. This will create additional challenges for her in particular as she seeks to make sense of how her life has changed. But I also bear in mind the impact this will have for the ‘left behind’ children.

The key point is that such severance will come at a cost, whatever the perceived benefit. No child welcomes being placed into a plan of adoption. It is such a fundamental change and effected at a point of limited age and understanding that the child is bound to have a constellation of worries concerns and distress. I very much understand that the last sentence understates the reality of how this will actually feel for the child. I must have regard to how this might play out and in a case in which I have placed a premium on ensuring stability how this might in fact be a destabilising feature at an emotional level.

I do have regard to the likelihood that prospective adopters will approach this from an informed and prepared position and that this may make help lessen the impact of the above. In being asked to consider post adoption contact I also have regard to the potential for this to soften the blow to a small degree.

I am being asked to make these decisions because of a fear that the children have suffered and might continue to suffer significant harm arising out of their lived experienced with their parents. In this judgment I have explained in detail the basis on which I accept these worries to be justified. I have concluded the children have been significantly harmed as a result of the care they have received. I have concluded this has been both physical and emotional and has shaped their behaviours and their childhoods. I have explained the impact this is having on them and how this may come to shape their future life expectations. But I have also found this has continued through the proceedings which have now endured for near on 18 months. At this point in time and without a fundamental change these children will continue to suffer such harm. In the case of W, she will be shortly re-introduced to it. This is a weighty consideration in my assessment.

Whether under the 1989 or 2002 Acts I am obliged to have regard to the capability of the parents to provide good enough care for each child. This will of course be central to my conclusions. To date this has not been the case. The care has been erratic and as explained within this judgment there have been significant deficits which have impacted on the children causing significant harm. In the extended checklist this requires me to have regard to the relationship each child has with his/her parents, the prospects of this relationship continuing, the wishes of each parent, and the ability and willingness of that parent to provide a secure home environment in which that child can develop and have its needs met. Whilst the hope would be for this to be immediately possible I do accept that a permissible outcome may be for such ability to arise in the future however any change must be within the child’s timescales and if the Court is speculating as to change then there must be solid evidence with associated confidence that the change will be effected. The Court should not simply proceed on an un-evidenced hope for change.

I will address this within my conclusions.

I have five children under consideration. I must consider their personal characteristics in reaching my decisions. Here that includes their various ages and their respective relationships with each other. In the case of W, I have regard to the differential care she has received. I have regard to V’s different status (he has no relationship with his biological father) and to X’s particularly challenging behaviour. I have regard to the younger two children: I reflect on how things might be different for them given their age and the comparatively limited time they have experienced problematic care. I also reflect on the likely additional challenges faced by Y.

This is a complex case made more challenging by the number of children and their differing care plans. If enacted they will see their lives changed in a highly distressing and disruptive manner. However, if they remain where they are and nothing, or nothing substantial changes, there will remain little optimism for their individual futures.

The essential question is as to whether The Mother can provide good enough parenting now or soon on a sustained basis. It seems plain this will be a highly challenging task and to date she has shown little on which to base faith in change.

Leaving the children in the care of The Mother has obvious positives in maintaining family life at its highest level. It would permit the children to maintain their full sibling relationships, respect their family life and meet their identity needs. In contrast adoption would sever the children from their family and from each other. Whilst contact might continue it would do so at a much reduced level and might not happen at all. In an adoptive setting the children would not have a direct reference point to understand their identity and what makes them who they are.

But leaving the children in the care of The Mother has the potential to be harmful if things don’t change. The harm in mind is significant and will impact on each child’s future life expectations. In contrast I can have confidence an adoptive placement will offer a likely stable placement with secure and appropriate boundaries. This would be an environment in which the children might emotionally settle and achieve to their full potential.

The situation is different for the older children. For them there is no offer of an alternative forever family. If I make the order sought they will face a future childhood in foster care. This has real downsides relating to potential instability and a lack of emotional permanence. Each of the children in question would be isolated and there is a risk they might look inwards to place blame for their situation. But they would be able to continue to enjoy contact with their parents and if change is made, they could in time have the opportunity to return home.

In the case of the younger children a long term future in foster care is unacceptable. Given their experiences to date they demand a home in which they have a central place. A home which has permanency and lasting bonds of love and commitment. To be trapped in a cycle of medicals and social work intervention with the very real risk of multiple placement moves is outside the welfare interests of each child.

There is a consensus of professional opinion in this case that the children cannot continue as they are and that to do so would be wholly unacceptable. The professionals who have worked with The Mother or assessed her do not consider there has been change and that future change is unlikely to be sustainable within the timescales of the children. The agreed position of all the experts is that there is nothing other than the plans set down for the children which will meet their welfare needs. I have not detailed the views of Mr Marshall (who conducted the global psychological assessment) or Dr McEvedy (who conducted a psychiatric assessment of The Father). These experts were not challenged and their opinion supports the position of the applicant.

I have considered this situation with care. Decision making is far from easy where the stakes are so high and the factual circumstances so complex. I am driven by the children’s need for a chance of stability and an opportunity to flourish in an emotionally contained environment. In considering the children I agree it is very difficult to properly calibrate what their baseline of behaviour will look like if removed given the current environment is having such an impact on their presentation. I agree with the Dr Sen that one cannot properly assess any of these children whilst their lived experience remains so volatile. This means the observations around Y and a likely diagnosis have to be trailed with a significant degree of uncertainty. He may well receive a diagnosis but his underlying presentation associated with the same may be far from the current one.

I have sadly reached the decision that The Mother has failed to show a likelihood of change within the children’s timescales. She has not demonstrated change within the extended period these proceedings have offered and instead the home environment has remained beset by ongoing issues and concerns. My conclusion is that the children will continue to suffer if I do not intervene and I need to make orders to protect them. I am concerned the older children have now embedded problematic behaviours but it will not be very long before the impact of this is embedded with all the children. This will have an obvious impact in shaping their future lives. Each of these children deserve an alternative to this future. At this time I cannot see The Mother offering this notwithstanding her love for each of the children. The Father has not put himself forward to provide this care and there are no other alternative options for the children.

I agree V and X should be placed into the care of the applicant. Their welfare requires this. It is a proportionate response to my findings as without it they will continue to suffer as described. There is no lower form of intervention that will address my concerns. I would hope The Mother makes change and can in due course offer a home to which they can return. Given the rivalry and the at times problematic relationship between the two children I approve the plan which will see them placed separately. Their relationship is not one that justifies a joint placement. I would be concerned that combination would create instability when I judge this should be a chance for each to receive individualised reparative care.

I agree the younger children should have a chance of a permanent safe and stable home with secure boundaries. A place in which they can be children and thrive safely. I consider given the opportunity these children may show a real change in behaviour. W indicates that progress can be made on removal. I judge this is the outcome which meets their welfare needs. I would want there to be a real effort to place the children together but I agree with the applicant’s care planning if this is not possible. I do not accept it is unrealistic to seek placement of W. I agree she is an older child and this will heighten the challenge of placement but the test for me is whether placement is the welfare outcome consistent with her welfare needs, not an assessment of the availability of placements. I judge placement is the outcome, indeed the only realistic option placed before me that will do so. I note the plan includes consideration of a placement for all three children together but that all options will be considered in the light of their differing needs. I agree the applicant needs to keep open a range of options and should not give up on a placement outcome simply because a place for all three children cannot be found together. There are reasons as to why Z may benefit from a separate placement to the other two children. Ultimately any displacement of the sibling group should be carefully considered together with continuing contact plans which might support this.

I do not accept the argument that The Mother would self-evidently be better able to care with the three younger children only. Whilst this is a superficially attractive argument it misses the point that The Mother was not coping when she had three children prior to the arrival of the younger two children. I have found it hard to fully understand why this is as I found The Mother an articulate witness. She did not impress me as particularly flat in her presentation or incapable of having insight or making change. Yet she has not. This is the reality I face 18-months into proceedings. This case has lasted three times longer than it should yet the best that can be said is there is now some evidence of improvement. I agree this is not enough and it is far too late. Whilst I accept the fact of 5 children has added to the sense of being overwhelmed which The Mother has clearly experienced, the evidence does not tell me that circumstances were functioning satisfactorily prior to the arrival of the last two or three children.

I approve the care plan and make care orders for all five children and in addition placement orders for W, Y and Z. I dispense with parent’s consent as the children’s welfare requires the making of the placement order.

I agree it is difficult to finely plot a contact plan given the level of uncertainty as to how the children will respond to these decisions and the ultimate placement plans. I would though approve the care planning in this regard and agree the following principles:

In conclusions I find the threshold crossed and make final care orders in relation to V and X. I make care and placement orders in respect of W, Y and Z. I dispense with the consent of the parents under section 52. I approve the care planning.

I have been asked to extend the ambit of the non-molestation order so as to cover contact between The Father and The Mother and to extend the order. I intend to do so based upon the findings I have made. I have regard to the communications, which are not disputed, which were sent to The Mother. I am concerned as to how The Father may respond following this decision. I intend the order to be extended for a further period of 2 years and to include the non-communication clause.

This judgment is being sent to the legal representatives. Implementing the orders may be problematic and will require the applicant to plan a strategy of removal. I am concerned as to how the parents may respond if they are aware of this planning in advance of next week and what this may mean for the children. As a result I embargo this judgment insofar as the parents are concerned. With this in mind:

If there are any concerns with the above timetable then I should be informed immediately.